Archive for August, 2014

The Grand Design


of the


20th Century



by Douglas Reed


 The Grand Design Cover NEW

Published: 1977


 Douglas Reed

[Image] Douglas Reed.





Douglas Launcelot Reed (11 March 189526 August 1976) was a British journalist, playwright, novelist and author of a number of books on politics. His book Insanity Fair (1938) was influential in analyzing the state of Europe and the rise of Adolf Hitler before the Second World War. By the time of his death, Reed had fallen victim to an organized campaign of character assassination reserved for those critical of Jewish supremacism; his best known work on the Jewish Question is The Controversy of Zion.



At the age of 13, Reed began working as an office boy, and at 19 a bank clerk. At the outbreak of the First World War he enlisted in the British Army. He transferred to the Royal Flying Corps, gaining a single kill in aerial combat and severely burning his face in a flying accident. (Insanity Fair, 1938) Around 1921 he began working as a telephonist and clerk for The Times. At the age of 30, he became a sub-editor. In 1927 he became assistant correspondent in Berlin, later transferring to Vienna as chief central European correspondent. He went on to report from a variety of major European cities including Warsaw, Moscow, Prague, Athens, Sofia, Bucharest and Budapest.


According to Reed, he resigned from his job by expostulant letter in protest at the appeasement of Hitler after the Munich Agreement of 1938 and the following outbreak of the Second World War, Reed retired to Durban, South Africa. In his Insanity Fair, Reed recounted that he was informed that he had to leave Germany quickly, and there was concern as to his whereabouts in diplomatic circles.


Richard Thurlow confirms that Reed was one of the first scholarly writers to state that Hitler did not persecute the Jews as per post-war propaganda.


In the 1960’s Reed was outspoken in his opposition to the decolonization of Africa, considering the Black Africans to be unable to govern themselves and needing prolonged colonial tutelage. In his “The Battle for Rhodesia” (1966) Reed explicitly compared decolonization to the above-mentioned appeasement of Hitler and outspokenly supported Ian Smith‘s unilateral declaration of independence, arguing that Smith’s Rhodesia had to be defended as “the last bulwark against the Third World War”, like Czechoslovakia had to be defended in 1938.



  • The Burning of the Reichstag (1934)
  • Insanity Fair: A European Cavalcade (Jonathan Cape, 1938)
  • Disgrace Abounding (do., 1939)
  • Fire and Bomb: A comparison between the burning of the Reichstag and the bomb explosion at Munich (do., 1940)
  • Nemesis? The Story of Otto Strasser (do,1940)
  • A Prophet at Home (do., 1941)
  • All Our Tomorrows (do., 1942)
  • Lest We Regret (do., 1943)
  • The Next Horizon;: Or, Yeomans’ Progress, novel (do., 1945)
  • The Siege of Southern Africa (Macmillan, Johannesburg, 1974), ISBN 0-86954-014-9
  • Behind the Scene (Part 2 of Far and Wide) (Dolphin Press, 1975; Noontide Press, 1976, ISBN 0-911038-41-8)
  • The Grand Design of the 20th Century (Dolphin Press, 1977)
  • Galanty Show, novel
  • Reasons of Health, novel
  • Rule of Three, novel
  • Prisoner of Ottawa
  • The Controversy of Zion (Veritas, 1985)

See also



The plan I think is the old one of world dominion in a new form. The money power and the revolutionary power have been set up and given sham but symbolic shapes, (Capitalism or Communism) and sharply defined citadels (America and Russia). Such is the spectacle publicly staged for the masses, but what if similar men with a common aim secretly rule in both camps and propose to achieve their ambition through the clash between those masses? I believe that any diligent student of our times will discover that this is the case.”





The appalling thing … is not the tumult but the design

Lord Acton (Essays on the French Revolution).







Part One — The Century of the Grand Design

Dialogue in Hell

Conspiracy of Silence

Plenty of Money

The Presidential Adviser

The Roosevelt Era

The Presidential “Fixer

The “No-Win” Wars

The World Government

Experiment Enlightened

Progressivism Convergence with Communism

The Watergate Affair

The Money Power


Part Two — The Anglo-Saxon Peoples


Churchill: Man of Paradoxes

This Worldwide Conspiracy

The New Imperialism

The Rhodes Scholarships

Institutes of International Affairs

From Far and Wide

America and Russia

The Plan for Africa

Back to Darkest Africa

The Conspiracy of Truth





The ways in which people try to explain what is happening in the world around them, whether in politics or economics, can be divided roughly into two classes. Or, as some would put it, there are two theories of contemporary history.


The one held by the majority of people hardly deserves to be called a theory, but if that word must be used, then let us call it “The Idiot Theory”. Why “The Idiot Theory”? Because it insists that no one is to blame for the way history unfolds; things just happen. Likewise, the actions and policies of politicians, when they produce results we don’t like, are simply the product of mistaken ideas, misunderstandings, lack of sufficient information. Or, as some Americans would say: “History unfolds as the cookie crumbles” — the precise way in which the proverbial cookie crumbles being beyond all human control.


The late President Roosevelt, possibly in an unguarded moment, made a simple statement of the rival theory when he remarked:


Whatever happens in politics, you may be sure there is someone who wanted it to happen and made it happen”.


He would have had much to answer for if that test had been applied to all that happened while he was President of the United States.


Douglas Reed was foremost among those who declared, with Roosevelt, that when things happen in the world of politics and economics, especially when they continue to happen with marvellous consistency, then they are being made to happen and are meant to happen.


His experience before World War II as the London Times’s Chief Foreign Correspondent in Europe, his familiarity with all the principal actors in the unfolding dramas and tragedies of those years, left him in no doubt that politicians, as a rule, are activated always by motives, and very often by motives which they take the greatest care to conceal.


The real task for the investigator, therefore, is to look for and find the motive.


Like so many before him and after him, Reed had merely rediscovered a piece of ancient wisdom which the Romans summarised in two words pregnant with meaning: Cui Bono? Or, as we would say when trying to unravel some political mystery: Who stands to benefit?


In this little book Douglas Reed presents in a highly compressed form the story which emerges when this simple test of cui bono? is applied to all that has happened in the world since before the beginning of the 20th Century, right up to the present day. It is a simple, well written story which helps us to understand that changes in the world which disturb most ordinary people, leaving them confused and worried about the future, have been deliberately brought about and are part of a conspiratorial jig-saw puzzle which he has described as “The Grand Design”.


Reed rendered a most valuable last service shortly before his death in August 1976 by reducing to some 13,000 words a history of our century which could be expanded into enough books to fill a large library.


Those wishing to emancipate themselves from that sickness of mind and heart engendered by what they are told by the mass media will be greatly helped by this brilliantly written summary which serves as an introduction to the masses of excellent literature available.


Indeed, there is not a page in Reed’s little book which could not be expanded into a large book. In many cases the necessary books are already available. The mention of the American traitor Alger Hiss, for example, reminds us that a long shelf would be needed to accommodate the books which have been written on this subject alone, the best of them being Witness, by Whittaker Chambers, the former Communist, whose evidence it was which sent Hiss to prison for three years.


Can the story of The Grand Design be still further compressed? We can but try! Conspiratorial activity has been going on from time immemorial, conducted by different groups with different ends in view.


Winston Churchill, writing with all the authority of a member of the British Cabinet, made it clear in 1922 that he regarded the Bolshevik Revolution, like the French Revolution over 100 years earlier, as part of what he called “a worldwide conspiracy”.


That, however, is only one half of the story of The Grand Design of which Douglas Reed writes.


The other half can be traced back to Cecil Rhodes, the South African multi-millionaire mining magnate, who had grandiose visions of a world government to be run mainly by people of his own Anglo-Saxon race, with some assistance from their cousins the Germans. This scheme he launched with his millions and it blossomed after his death into the Rhodes Scholarship Trust, the Royal Institute of International Affairs and similar organisations in America, the most important of these being the Council on Foreign Relations.


Cecil Rhodes, we may be sure, would turn in his grave if he could see what has happened to his own secret and semi-secret enterprise, with its huge funds and its highly intellectualised and inflated “idealism” supplied by John Ruskin, high priest of Britain’s so-called Pre-Raphaelite movement in art and literature. Rhodes would find that it has been taken over by that other lot of conspirators (mentioned by Churchill), whose “ideal” of world government is best exemplified by what has happened in the Soviet Union.


So today the conspiracy is like a highjacked airliner. Many of the passengers, still hypnotised by the Rhodes “vision” think they know where they are going, while the high-jackers, with 2,000 years of conspiratorial training and experience behind them, KNOW where they are going — and it is not the destination the passengers have in mind.


It needs only full exposure to thwart and destroy a criminal conspiracy which has many well- intentioned but misguided people in its thrall — and no one has contributed more to the process of exposure than Douglas Reed.



IVOR BENSON February, 1977.




Part One




… We are beginning an era that will make the achievements of the past look like two bits. No limit to our progress can be seen … by 1930 we shall be the richest and greatest Country in the world!

(The Razor’s Edge by Somerset Maughan)



Thus spoke one of Mr. Somerset Maugham’s heroines in the 1920’s and all agreed that he accurately captured the sanguine American mind. Today, fifty years later, the words sound like a joke. The 200th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence has been celebrated and the state of America is woefully different from that prognosis: indeed, George Washington, were he to return, would shrink appalled from the shape he would behold.


Inextricably held in the coils of an international conspiracy of which the last eight Presidents were the prisoners, his republic is becoming, de facto if not de jure, a satellite of the Soviet Union and will not see the year 2000 in anything resembling the shape he bequeathed to it. By “covert and insidious methods” (his phrase) the principles and admonitions of his Farewell Speech have been abandoned, and America, like a pirated ship, has lost all control of course and destination.


The conspiracy against nations has succeeded in hijacking the American inheritance of wealth and energy and diverting it to the purpose of destroying nations and setting up the world dictatorship.


Now that the 20th Century is three parts done, the track of the conspiracy can be charted and its promoters identified. Only the lunatic fringe and the perjured public men still deny that it exists. The initiates have long since made public their plan for a world where nationhood would be a punishable offence, a plan, in fact, for a world concentration camp. The great Plan now overshadows our every day and is the reason why we live in a present without a future.


The conspiracy has gained so much ground in this century that the attempt to bring off the final coup by the time the Christian clock strikes two thousand seems certain to be made. The instrument is ready: the Mafia-like mob in New York called the United Nations: it was created to destroy nations.


The conspiracy is so old that efforts to trace its ultimate source flounder in the sands of time: the fanciful might picture it originating with the devil in council. It has reappeared periodically through the ages and between times seemed to become dormant or defunct: but it was always there.





Five hundred years ago Machiavelli propounded the basic idea of world government: rule without any scruple of justice or humanity. Then the conspiracy hibernated for three centuries until the Bavarian Government in 1785 discovered the documents of Adam Weishaupt’s Illuminati, which showed that it was fully active and as evil as ever. Weishaupt’s disciples gave the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution its satanic character.


Then in the mid-nineteenth century Maurice Joly revived Machiavelli’s ideas in his Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu. In 1897 the most explicit exposition of the methods of the conspiracy appeared in Russia: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.


This title was probably chosen for purposes of obfuscation: too many non-Jewish names have appeared, down the centuries until today, in the story of this conspiracy for the Protocols to be considered the product of an exclusively Jewish cabal. The thing is evidently a compendium of earlier manuals of conspiratorial practice, but it is the clearest and most evil of them. To peruse the Protocols is to look into a dark pit filled with writhing, evil shapes: the work induces in most people feelings of nausea, of intimate communion with evil. All evil thought since time began is in these few pages.


By the methods there laid down America was infected when this century began: the disease spread there and then into the surrounding world, like a cancer. So effective are the age-old practices prescribed that the American Republic has been taken over, as it were, by sleight of hand or pickpocketry: the victim has remained unaware of his loss or of his own helot’s plight resulting from it.


The Protocols were translated into European languages in the 1920’s, and the effect was explosive. Their truth, attested by results already visible, was immediately seen.


The Times (then still a trustworthy newspaper) asked:


Which malevolent society made these schemes and is now triumphing over their realisation? … From where does the weird gift of prophecy spring that partly has come true and is partly to be realised? Have we fought these years to destroy the nefarious organization of the German Empire, merely to discover behind it a much more dangerous conspiracy because of its secrecy?


The Times was right: that was exactly the fact of the matter. But when, 25 years later, the outcome of yet another war even more clearly revealed the existence of “a much more dangerous conspiracyThe Times, with all the world’s newspapers, had nothing to say about it. By that time The Times, and all the others, themselves observed that “secrecy” which it thought so dangerous in the 1920’s.





When the Protocols were published “secrecy” (people might have thought) was finished. Far from it: the public debate about the Protocols was immediately quashed by a frantic clamour of “forgery” and “anti-semitism” from all parts of the world.


Following the precepts of the Weishaupt papers and the Protocols, the conspiracy proved that it was able to control the public debate, and from that day no public man has dared mention this, the most important document of our century and the recognisable blueprint of our universal catastrophe.


Secrecy” is no longer necessary when open debate is forbidden, and that has become the case.


A notable authority, Lord Sydenham, took a lonely stand against this conspiracy of silence, to which by the 1940’s all the world submitted. The source of the Protocols, he said, was an irrelevant matter: the vital thing was the vast store of evil knowledge they contained and the results already achieved. As to that, 0. Henry or Damon Runyon might have said, in the American vernacular, “You ain’t seen nuthin’ yet”.


Lord Sydenham died before he could see the much greater spread of the conspiracy and the suppression of all public mention of its manual, (in some countries, by actual official ban: in others, by tacit agreement among politicians, newspaper owners and editors). The content of the Protocols, as Lord Sydenham perceived, was the paramount thing, not the origin. Here some mind or minds knew everything that was to happen in the new century, and how it was all to be brought about. The same mind or minds knew how the Bolshevist revolution was brought about.


Even before that revolution America (all unknown to its people) became the creature and financier of it. The first open sign of this came in 1917, when America entered the First War. President Wilson then welcomed “the wonderful and heartening things” that were happening in Russia (the revolution) and the next day authorized credits amounting to 325,000,000 dollars for the provisional government there.





This was the start of something that has continued ever since. Without American money there would never have been Communism, or the abandonment of hundreds of millions of people behind the Berlin line to a concentration camp lethally enclosed by electrified wire, mines, machine-guns mounted on sentry-towers and searchlights that play all night.


While he was still in Europe Lenin wrote to Angelica Balabanoff, then secretary in Stockholm of the International:


Spend millions, tens of millions if necessary: there is plenty of money at our disposal”.


The flow of American wealth and treasure in every imaginable form went on through the fourteen Rooseveltian years, and those of Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson and Nixon and continues today. It began with a man who until his death remained unknown to the American masses and of whom few Americans since have heard. This man, behind the scene, enabled the conspiracy to reduce the Washingtonian Republic to the plight of hired man of the revolutionary conspiracy.


He is one of the great wreckers of the 20th Century, and in the destructive effect of his scheming the peer of Stalin. His name was Edward Mandell House, and he prefixed it with an unearned military title: “Colonel” House. The unusual middle name, “Mandell”, probably held some allusion recognisable to fellow-conspirators (who often identify themselves to each other by code-names, as the Freemason knows a brother by his handshake).


This obscure Mr. House, long before the conspiracy triumphed in Russia, was its creature in America. He shunned publicity, but engineered the choice of Woodrow Wilson for President in 1912. Mr. Wilson was the first of the marionette presidents who were required by their captors to do what they were told. President Wilson’s welcome to and financial support for the revolution in Russia were acts dictated to him, and so was his introduction of the graduated income tax according to Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto.


The historian owes gratitude to Mr. House (mankind owes him only tribulation) for the revealing picture he left of a conspiracy “managing” the frontal politicians from behind the scene. In 1912 a leftist American publisher issued a “novel” (Philip Dru, Administrator) authorship of which Mr. House disclaimed and then admitted. This described in fictional form a “conspiracy” (the author’s word) which succeeded in electing a puppet-president by means of “deception regarding his real opinions and intentions”.





A character in the book (evidently Mr. House himself) enlists the support of a group of wealthy men in choosing a candidate for the presidency, and invites a potential candidate to dine “in my rooms at the Mandell House”. The candidate (called “Rockland”) is instructed that he must never go against the advice of his sponsors. (Here is seen the start of the regime of “the advisers” who haunted the White House for the next sixty years and dictated the actions of successive presidents).


The best known of these “advisers” was Mr. Bernard Baruch, also recognisable in the tale as one of the stern “sponsors” of the new puppet-president. Mr. Baruch, who came to be popularly acclaimed as “the adviser to six Presidents”, was an obsessed advocate of despotic world government and to his “advice” may be traced the disastrous course of American foreign policy which to thoughtful Americans (as Mr. Gary Allen says):


for the past three decades has been a compounding mystery and concern. Administrations have come and gone like the Ides of March but spring never arrives


But Mr. Baruch went on forever, or nearly, and advised his six pupils to follow the path leading to despotic world government. The mob, led by the kept press, and ignorant of the kind of advice he was giving or of its effect on themselves, lustily applauded the veteran “adviser” through six presidencies.


Philip Dru is enthralling reading for the student of this century’s managed ordeal and of the conspiracy. “Rockland” (the president-select);


once or twice asserted himself and acted upon important matters without having first conferred with the ‘advisers’. For this indiscipline he was bitterly assailed by his sponsors’ newspapers and made no further attempt at independence … He felt that he was utterly helpless in these strong men’s hands, and so, indeed, he was”.


President Wilson presumably read the book and if he was capable of feeling humiliation, must have suffered severely. He pined into senility and at last was pushed out of the White House (or locked away inside it by his second wife, a determined woman who was for some time the de facto President).


Another fascinating glimpse of life behind the conspiratorial scene is given in this “novel”: namely, that “bugging” was already known to the plotters of 1908! Another man in the plot, a Senator, visits one of the big-banker group and tells the whole story of “Rockland’s” nomination and rigged- election campaign. He also describes “Rockland’s” “effort for freedom” and his recall to duty, “squirming under his defeat”. The “exultant conspirators laugh joyously” at this.


Their mirth is short-lived because they find that the conversation has been recorded by an eavesdropping machine concealed in the next room and given to a newspaper, which publishes it.


The attentive reader will note that, sixty years later, President Nixon was brought down by “tapes” recording his conversations, to which his enemies’ ears listened.


I append a footnote of my own to this strange story. Mr. Baruch went on his advisory way from president to president, but no doubt retained a healthy respect for “bugging” devices. This, I fancy, is the reason why he came to be known as “the park-bench statesman”. He could do no wrong and the suggestion of “folksiness” implicit in this description made him even more popular with the idiot mob.


The first puppet-president, Wilson, died, the stomach of America having revolted against his “League to Enforce Peace” (obviously, by war!) and its amended version, the League of Nations, the first trial world-government. The world owed a debt to the America of that period, still with its healthy love of country. Wilson was followed by three Presidents, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, who were non-Illuminist, as far as one now can tell, and then the Gadarean slide was resumed with the choice and election of Mr. Roosevelt, who hastened from the nomination convention to Mr. House in Massachusetts, from whom, evidently, he received the same instructions about his duty to his “sponsors” as “Rockland” (Wilson) received in Philip Dru.


Mr. House told his biographer in the 1950’s that he “was still very close to the centre of things, although few people suspect it.” He was (for the second time) “close to the movement that nominated a president” (Roosevelt), and this new president gave him a “free hand in advising the then Secretary of State”.


Such was the ominous sponsorship of a most ill-omened presidency.





Now followed the disastrous fourteen Roosevelt years. Briefed (as were “Rockland” and Wilson) by Mr. House, what Mr. Roosevelt was told to do became clear as soon as he entered the White House. He recognised the Soviet Union forthwith and resumed the financing of the Soviet which Wilson began. This continued throughout his fourteen years and parallel with it went infiltration of Soviet agents into the American Administration, at all levels.


Roosevelt, a crippled man, was evidently as putty in the hands of his “sponsors”: when a repentant Communist informed him that a Soviet agent held a high post in the government, he told his informant to “go jump in the lake — but only in much cruder language”. The man he protected was the traitor Hiss, who “managed” the Yalta Conference to abandon half of Europe to the Soviet plague and was a founding father of the United Nations, the second trial world government.


Under Mr. Roosevelt the conspiracy spread its cancerous capillaments ever deeper into the American body politic. Its mastery of the press and all means of public misinformation produced in the American masses that condition of bewildered inertia which the Protocols foresaw as ideal for the consummation of the great Plan. Two decades of this treatment anaesthetized the healthy instinct which led “the rubes on Main Street” to reject the Wilsonian League. Now the men behind the scene worked feverishly to have the world slave state come out of the approaching war against slavery.


Colonel” House died on the eve of the Second War. Mr. Baruch, his collaborator in the selection and disciplining of President Wilson, now became the chief manager of the Washingtonian Republic’s decline. Unlike the secretly scheming House, Mr. Baruch was publicly known and adulated by the lapdog Press as the permanent adviser of presidents and “park-bench statesman”. This name particularly endeared him to the mob, which thought to see in him “the man in the street” who from simple fellow-feeling sat among the common “folks” in Central Park. (I think I might be the only spectator who related his park-benchmanship to the “bugging” episode in Philip Dru, and understood why he took an obvious precaution against being taped).


Mr. Roosevelt, responding mindlessly to the articulated mechanism of the marionette, may yet have realised that he was being used for the aggrandisement of the Communist Empire and the ruination of his own country. This is implicit in “a strange statement” (Mr. Robert Sherwood, a Roosevelt biographer and White House intimate) which Roosevelt made when urged to quote in a wartime speech Mr. Churchill’s encomium:


The United States is now at the highest pinnacle of her power and fame”.


Roosevelt objected, saying:


We may be heading before very long for the pinnacle of our weakness”.


This looks like the open confession of purpose by a man of long servitude to the conspiracy who had come to make its destructive ambition his own. This revelation of truth, as always, went unheard by the public masses, but probably was bruited around with glee by the Communist conspirators who were rife in the Roosevelt Administration.


When Hitler’s attack in 1941 on Russia brought the Soviet Union into the Allied side, Mr. Baruch’s influence became even more powerful, and also his ability to direct the course of the war towards the consummation devoutly desired by him. He was ever insistent, in both wars, that the times demanded “one man” as an administrator, not a board. In the First War he was the “one man”, becoming head of an “Advisory Commission” to the Defence Council, of which an investigating committee of Congress said after that war (in 1919):


It served as the secret government of the United States … it devised the entire system of purchasing war supplies, planned a press censorship, designed a system of press control … and in a word designed practically every war measure which the Congress subsequently enacted, and all this behind closed doors, weeks and even months before the U.S. Congress declared war against Germany … There was not an act of the so-called war legislation afterwards enacted that had not before the actual declaration of war been discussed and settled upon by this Advisory Commission …


The 1914-1918 war ended before Mr. Baruch could show all that he had in store for the American people. In 1935 he stated “had the 1914-1918 war gone on another year our whole population could have emerged in cheap but serviceable uniforms”, shoe-sizes being the only permissible variation.


Mr. Baruch in these words revealed his vision of a future America: a faceless mindless mob allowed only to do allotted labour, provided with identity numbers and bread cards.


Mr. Baruch was not appointed to be the “one man” when the Roosevelt War Production Board was set up, but the man who was appointed was a creature of his, one Harry Hopkins, and even Mr. Baruch could not have disposed of America’s wealth more autocratically than he or more perfectly in accordance with the Plan.





I am not aware that this Mr. Hopkins ever received any particular appointment enabling him to act as an imperial despot. Presumably Mr. Roosevelt, who loved to picture himself as the common man, just said, “Go right ahead, Harry”.


Anyway, this Hopkins was the product of the conspiracy and could only by this qualification have become permanently resident in the White House. Even Mr. Churchill was taken in by this almost illiterate “fixer” who could have boasted (like Mr. House);


No important foreigner has come to America without talking to me … All the Ambassadors have reported to me frequently …


In past times, when the West was toiling upward to some state of civilization, men who came to high places in their countries brought with them some token of experience and qualification. Mr. Hopkins had no such background. Like Dr. Kissinger thirty years later, he was publicly unknown when he began to bestride the narrow world like a Colossus. He had hopped around in the East Side from the claque for Caruso and Geraldine Farrar to a stint with the Red Cross in 1917, returning then to charity appeal work in the slums. Acquaintances depict him:


an ulcerous type, intense, jittering with nerves, a chain-smoker and black coffee drinker”.


This man, says Mr. Sherwood, was “in all respects the inevitable Roosevelt favourite”, (a more damning disparagement of Mr. Roosevelt could hardly be imagined). He was a dying man from 1937 and under Roosevelt in the next eight years became the global replanner and dispenser of billions. The American Congress and people alike were by that time bamboozled by their president and the corrupted press into thinking that all was well, but an occasional voice was heard in Congress asking to know more about the uncontrolled, and unrecorded, transfer of treasure to Moscow. This annoyed the bountiful donor, who dealt with Congress as the conspirators dealt with “Rockland” in Mr. House’s novel.


The United States” (he said, in answer to a proposal that before further aid was given to Soviet Russia full information should be required about their military situation);


the United States is doing things which it would not do for other nations without full information from them. This decision to act without full information was made with some misgiving … but there is no reservation about the policy … it is constantly being brought up by various groups for rediscussion. I propose that no further consideration be given to these requests for rediscussion”.


Thus spoke Mr. Hopkins from East Side, and lo! it was so! (Whereat the conspirators no doubt “laughed joyously”).


The conspiracy had taken firm grip on the American Republic. When the Second War ended with the “peace” conference at Yalta, Stalin saw his own henchmen (including Hiss) on the other side of the table so that the parley ended with the abandonment by the Western allies of half Europe to the Communist conspiracy.


The Yalta Conference, historically considered, marked the end of the Washingtonian Republic and of the British Empire. The process of dissolution began there. Mr. Roosevelt and his “inevitable favourite”, Hopkins, both returned to America to die. These two men did more to destroy the West than any invader could have achieved.





Roosevelt was succeeded by the Vice-President, a Mr. Harry Truman from Missouri, who soon gave proof of following dutifully the Wilson-Roosevelt (and House-Baruch) course. Re-elected in 1948, he declared war on “the Communist aggressor” in Korea in 1950. For a moment the American people thought the debacle of the Second War was to be amended and the Communist invader trounced. Few, if any of them had read Philip Dru, or they would have known that their rulers always practised “deception regarding their real opinions and intentions”.


The American people responded loyally to the call to rescue at least one small country from the Communist plague, and their wartime allies, Britain, Australia, Canada, South Africa and the rest sent troops to join in the crusade.


It was all “deception”. When the successful American commander, MacArthur, wished hotly to pursue a beaten enemy across the Yalu, Mr. Truman sacked the general. Then Korea was partitioned, like Germany and Europe, and the Communists were left in possession of the northern half. This was the first of the “no-win” wars in which American troops were sent to fight against aircraft, artillery and armour supplied during the war by Mr. Hopkins to the Communists.


At this time Hiss had been exposed, the Canadian Government had published the full story of Communist agents and spies infiltrating into its administrative machine, and the story of British traitors was also beginning to become known. “Communism in government”, therefore, was a matter which even the American masses could understand and the cry for a cleaning of the stables was growing to a clamour. At this very juncture Mr. Truman (no doubt recalling Mr. Roosevelt’s “Go jump in the lake”) dismissed the public demand to “clear out the Communists”, as merely “drawing a red herring” across the debate, and the American tragedy (unless it is a comedy) continued.


Mr. Truman was succeeded in 1952 by General Eisenhower, the formerly unknown American army officer who was catapulted over numerous seniors into the supreme command of the Allied invasion of 1944. This general used his command power to reject the British General Montgomery’s plan to shorten the war by striking hard for Berlin after the successful invasion of Normandy. The effect of this obviously politically motivated action was to reserve Berlin, and therewith half Europe, to Communist annexation.





Historically, General Eisenhower must be seen as a conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy. He cannot have ignored the obvious effect of his action. He was indeed one of a growing number of men in high places who supported the aims of the conspiracy through their membership of an invisible-government-type body called the Council on Foreign Relations, which effectively operated as a secret world government organisation inside the American machinery of government (it was formed in 1921 after the failure of the first experiment in world-government, the League of Nations, and with growing strength pursued the ambition all through the inter-war years).


General Eisenhower began his presidency with the now common, almost obligatory obeisance to Mr. Baruch, whose biographer, evidently after consultation with the great Adviser, summarised the recommendations which Mr. Baruch would probably make to the new Administration.


General Eisenhower quickly and dutifully confirmed this prognosis, telling Los Angeles electors, as if to demonstrate his servitude, “I believe if Bernie Baruch were here tonight he would subscribe to every one of them” (he was referring to recommendations which, according to the biographer, “related entirely to preparatory mobilisation for war, controls, global strategy” and the rest of Mr. Baruch’s oft-repeated recipes for a “one man” controller, or dictator).


When the Second War ended Mr. Baruch was 75. His vigour was unabated and his imperial vision boundless. The two atom bombs, exploded in August 1945, prompted him to still greater ambitions. Like some ancient Hebrew prophet, he cried, “I offer you living or dying”. “Hasten”, he cried. “Hasten” (or, as the Broadway barker might have put it, “Hurry, hurry, hurry”). “Hasten, the bomb will not wait while we deliberate.” What was needed, obviously, was “one man”.


Mr. Baruch availed himself of the seeds of human panic sown by the two bombs to proffer himself;


for the most vital undertaking of his life, the devising of a workable plan for the international control of atomic energy, and for achieving its adoption by the Atomic Energy Commission of the United Nations” (his biographer).


President Truman duly appointed Mr. Baruch U.S. representative to the United Nations in March 1946. The “Baruch Plan” was then worked out “on a park bench” (where else?) together with a crony from 1919 Peace Conference days, one Mr. Ferdinand Eberstadt. In those days Messrs. House and Baruch had worked hard to push through a “League to Enforce Peace”, but a few responsible statesmen were still extant then and they talked it out.


Nevertheless, all through the between-war years of 1918-1939 the conspirators worked away at their pet proposal to set up a supernational high command with “teeth” to enforce its dictates, and now Mr. Baruch’s Plan of 1946 went as far as even the most zealous of them could wish.


He presented his Central Park Plan to the U.N. Atomic Energy Commission in June 1946. He began, in Hebrew-prophet vein, by saying: “We (sic) must elect world peace or world destruction.” Atomic energy must be used for peaceful purposes and its warlike use be precluded. To that end, “we” would have to provide for “immediate, swift and sure punishment of those who violate the agreements that are reached by nations”.


So the “League to Enforce Peace” idea was dished up again: merely, the word “penalisation” was substituted for “enforce”, but the same thing was meant: a supernational dictatorship with “teeth”.


Mr. Baruch’s crowning proposal was for a Nuremberg-type court, apparently of permanent nature, to be set up to inflict this “penalisation”. He explained that “individual responsibility and punishment” could be prescribed “on the principles applied at Nuremberg by the Soviets, the United Kingdom, France and the United States”.


Finally, Mr. Baruch proposed the creation of “an Authority” (one man?) to supervise all atomic energy activities potentially dangerous to world security. “Immediate and certain penalties”, continued Mr. Baruch, were to be fixed for illegal possession of an atom bomb or for “wilful interference with the activities of The Authority”.


Even the embattled conspirators in the Western governments and in the United Nations choked slightly on this heady stuff, and despite the compliant Mr. Truman’s announcement that the White House and State Department endorsed The Plan, it was talked out and shelved — to be brought out again after any third war.


Mr. Baruch then resigned and resumed his permanent Advisorship. He died in 1965 having greatly harmed his fellow men and his country. A numerous phalanx of powerful men, ensconced in the Council on Foreign Relations, carried on the House-Baruch world-government conspiracy. No escape from these toils offered the American Republic in the last quarter of this century.





From the start of his presidency, General Eisenhower revealed his continuance of the House-Baruch line. He looked on the Republican Party, which still contained a dwindling number of conservative-minded men, as his enemy, and thought of founding a new party which would offer the electorate “enlightened and progressive ideas” (as propounded by Marx and Lenin). He only abandoned this idea when Senator Robert Taft, the natural Republican leader, died, and when Senator Joseph McCarthy was “censured”. These events left Eisenhower in control of the Republican Party, for its sins.


At that time masses of Americans saw in McCarthy the only man who told the truth about Communist infiltration of government and America’s involvement in the world-government conspiracy.


General Eisenhower, himself tarred with this brush through his abandonment of half Europe to the Communist conspiracy, particularly hated Senator McCarthy. This became known and as at a given signal the kept press opened up a deafening chorus of “witch-hunt” against McCarthy. Any who have kept copies of this Senator’s speeches and pamphlets can check for themselves that he did not make unsubstantiated charges. He had no need to: what had become publicly known about the treachery of Hiss and the group around him was ample enough to support McCarthy’s arraignment of successive presidents.


But the strength of the conspiracy was shown by the way McCarthy, like others before and after him, was politically destroyed. The Senate “censured” McCarthy for “conduct unbecoming a Senator”, and Eisenhower warmly thanked the chairman of the censuring committee, one Watkins, for “doing a splendid job”.


When the Eisenhower presidency ended, in 1960, he had served the conspiracy well through suppressing public discussion of Soviet infiltration and espionage by his attack on McCarthy. His presidential years were rife with Soviet efforts, through a horde of spies in the United States, to gain full knowledge about the atom bomb and its method of production. These efforts succeeded, so that the Communists made their own bomb.


The eight Eisenhower years showed that subservience to the World Revolution continued to be the paramount rule of American governmental policy.


Under this paramount law, American generals if they encountered Communism anywhere in the globe, were forbidden to defeat it: the Soviet arsenals and armouries were kept bulging with armaments paid for with American loans and credits: these were used to kill many thousands of American and allied soldiers: and each successive American president became the patron and protector of Communism within the governmental ranks.





In 1960 Eisenhower was succeeded by John Kennedy, scion of an immensely wealthy Massachusetts family. He was assassinated before his first four-year term ended, but his previous career showed that there would not have been any change, had he lived to complete his term. The reason for his assassination has never become publicly known. His life was cut short before he could show what he could or would do, but all the signs are that he too would have followed the course set by his four predecessors.


A story was put about that he had “stood up to Moscow” by demanding, and obtaining the withdrawal from Cuba of Soviet missiles there, pointed America-ward, which were discovered by aerial photography. If this were true, he would have mortally offended the Revolution, and this would offer a feasible explanation for his murder.


The story was as manna in the desert to the American masses, thirsting for an affirmative answer to Senator Robert Taft’s question, “Do we really mean our Communist policy?


Unhappily, the story was never confirmed and in the context of American policy in this century seems improbable, so that the murder remains mysterious.


Another mysterious event of the short Kennedy presidency was the attack on Cuba by an ill- organised force of Cuban exiles, which ended in such an appalling fiasco that it might have been betrayed beforehand by someone in the State Department or Council on Foreign Relations.


The Vice-President, Mr. Lyndon Johnson, took the dead president’s place and occupied it until 1968 without diverging from the House-Baruch pattern.


American presidents, because of their subservience to the overriding dogma of world government, tended to become shadowy figures and Mr. Johnson was not more sharply focused than others before him. He may be said to have shown zeal in following the Baruch-House, Wilson-Roosevelt-Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy line.


About that time the “Insiders” of the Council on Foreign Relations let slip a phrase which indicated what that line was. Allusions to a “convergence with Communism” appeared here and there in the all-powerful, and all-subservient “media”, so that Americans could have gained some idea of what was coming to them.


In 1968 the bewildered mass of Americans thought the end of the long dark tunnel of their frustrated hopes was near, for Mr. Richard Nixon stood and was elected with a thumping majority.


He was the man whose name was connected with an event of 1949 in which Americans of traditional allegiance had seen one bright light during the bewildering years: the exposure and conviction of the traitor Hiss. True, Hiss was only convicted of “perjury” in denying that he was a Communist agent or had abstracted top-secret documents and transmitted them to Moscow: the influence of the conspirators was strong enough to protect him from the graver charge of “treason” and the greater penalty. Still, he had been forced into the light and had been convicted, and Congressman Richard Nixon had done it.


It seemed that deliverance had come, like a cleansing wind. Here, thought the electors, was a man who really “meant his Communist policy”. He had proved it, nineteen years ago, true: but that was not forgotten. It was so rare, in these times of presidential protection for spies and traitors, to find a man who believed as honest folk believed and suited his actions to his beliefs. There had only been one other such, McCarthy, and he had been “smeared” and was dead.


It was one more illusion, Mr. Nixon was no different from the other presidents. He too was made to toe the line. Electioneering, he promised a drastic rooting-out of Communists in government: little, or nothing was done.


Nixon surpassed even previous presidents in deficit-spending on “welfare state” notions. He made the familiar pilgrimage to Moscow and virtually wrote off the Soviet wartime Lend-Lease debt of $9,100,000,000, and offered a further $2,500,000,000 in credit for the purchase of American exports.


Fifty years after Wilson, America was still to be the banker of the Revolution.





Mr. Nixon was accompanied on his Moscow trip by the recently-discovered Dr. Kissinger, born in Germany, who in his rocket-like rise to international power and vast undertakings reminded me of that other “profoundly ominous man”, Harry Hopkins.


His first four presidential years showed that Mr. Nixon was doing all he could, by zeal in following the Roosevelt-Truman-Eisenhower line, to expunge from the memory of the conspirators his achievement in obtaining the conviction of Hiss. It was in vain: all through the twenty years between the “media” had maintained an unremitting tirade against him. He had mortally offended the conspiracy by that and they could not forgive him or let him forget.


The conspirators prepared to “get” him. They followed one of the precepts laid down in the Protocols for gaining control of politicians or agents likely to be useful. It is, to obtain knowledge (or manufacture knowledge) of some shady episode in a man’s past, some scandal which can be used to cow or blackmail him. Every Scotland Yard or FBI detective who has had to do with the tactics of Communist espionage can quote instances where this technique has been used.


Now President Nixon’s turn came to suffer this ordeal by forged evidence and mass intimidation. Had he read Philip Dru, or understood why Mr. Baruch preferred to do business “on a park bench”, he need never have fallen into the trap.


Early in his second term the American Secret Service installed a monitoring system in the White House which in its omniscient knowledge of what went on there probably excelled anything in the world. The sound of a human voice automatically set the tapes working. The President could not stir in the White House without his movements being recorded and followed by buzzers and flashing lights on the monitoring apparatus. Every word the President spoke was recorded, (as he thought for his private benefit).


The reason for this elaborate set-up became clear when the word “Watergate” became part of mob-parlance. The Watergate building contained the Democratic Party’s offices. The burglary was done with the utmost publicity short of placards proclaiming or loudspeakers announcing: “The Democratic offices are being burgled by the President’s order”. After the initial “discovery” one burglar returned to the scene of the crime and was found to carry a notebook with (guess what?) a White House telephone number in it.


The word “Watergate” then spread over the world. I was in various countries at the time and grew to loathe the spectacle of the booboisie telling each other all about “Watergate” as if they had consulted the oracle and now were privy to the most closely guarded secrets of doings and goings-on in high places.


Mr. Nixon, not having read Philip Dru, was taken aback by the sound and fury of the attack on him and at first, probably knowing nothing of the “burglary” but what the press told him, could not take the affair seriously, so that he refused assent when a Senate Committee, investigating the affair, called for tapes of his private conversations (unhappily for him, these were not “private”: they were overheard by those out to “get” the president).


The tapes! They had been spinning endlessly, recording every word of his innumerable conversations. The president thought them privileged, private. But someone had listened to these miles and miles of tapes, someone on the watch for the smallest slip or contradiction. The President appealed against the Senate Committee’s order to produce the tapes and the Supreme Court upheld the Senate Committee’s order. By this time it was obvious to all that the tapes contained something which might be used against the President, and that someone knew what it was. The exact portions of the tapes to be produced were specified. The President, obviously, had been surrounded by spies in his own White House.


The plot thickened to its appointed end. On June 23, 1972 the President’s voice had directed the Central Intelligence Agency to halt the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s enquiry into the “burglary”. On May 22, 1973 the President had made a public statement denying that any use had been made of the Central Intelligence Agency “for domestic political purposes”.


A gasp of horror went through the great country where two presidents had refused to remove the Soviet arch traitor from the State Department (in Mr. Truman’s case the Canadian Prime Minister, no less, had provided the ignored information) and had given him protection to do his worst for the United States: the same country where a third president had used all his influence to have the one consistent anti-Communist censured and made politically outcast.


Now the kept press and radio kept up their clamour that President Nixon was guilty of the heinous crime of “covering up” (the burglary) and of “obstructing the course of justice”. In the White House the cloaked men, the keepers of “the tapes”, gathered round the president and whispered “Resign, resign!


The cumulative strain was too much for Mr. Nixon, who already had twenty-five years of this unrelenting vituperation behind him. His physical collapse was visible in the pictures shown. By the methods described in the Protocols and in Mr. House’s “novel”, he was thrown out of office, the first American President ever to be so humiliated.


The conspiracy won its greatest victory. What American president would dare to step out of line, after this!





The Vice-President, Mr. Gerald Ford, succeeded to the White House. He was an appointed, not an elected vice-president, having been chosen by Mr. Nixon when his original vice-president, Mr. Spiro Agnew, fell by the wayside somewhere along the line.


In the light of preceding events ‘It was difficult to see Mr. Ford doing anything so unorthodox as rebelling against the forces which had proved too strong for all preceding presidents in this century. He, in turn, appointed Mr. Nelson Rockefeller as vice-president, who is on record as saying “When you think of what I had, what else was there to aspire to?” (but the White House). His appointment brought him (as Mr. Gary Allen commented) “within a heartbeat” of the White House.


Mr. Nelson Rockefeller is a member of an enormously wealthy family, or dynasty, whose interests are worldwide and deep-rooted. The “conspirators” of Mr. House’s Story of Tomorrow, (which has proved to be a photographic forecast of all that has happened in and to America in this century) were immensely wealthy men. The massive fortunes accumulated in America by a relatively small group of men in the last hundred years have been put to serve the purpose of the Revolution, and of the world dictatorship designed to come of it.


These great fortunes have usually left behind them great bequests ostensibly to be devoted to noble-sounding purposes, particularly “international peace”. Most of them have in fact served as hidey-holes for agents of the conspiracy: they are exempt from the “graduated income tax” introduced by Woodrow Wilson at his “sponsors’” behest.


The fact is demonstrable that the Communist revolution was from the start financed by money from America and that the great fortunes substantially contribute to the “invisible government” (the Council on Foreign Relations) which for decades now has been steering America towards “convergence with Communism”, and towards the ultimate world super-state. Thus Mr. Nelson Rockefeller’s appearance on the stage at this late (possibly penultimate) stage in the game is of particular interest.


The student of these affairs constantly finds himself confronted by other, less-advanced seekers to truth who snarl at him:


Why would rich men support Communism, eh? Explain that. It doesn’t make sense!


This writer always advises such innocents abroad to accept the incontrovertible fact that the thing is, and to work back from that point to the “Why?” He might take as starting point the testimony of an unassailable authority, Professor Carroll Quigley (Tragedy, And Hope, Macmillan, London, 1966). Professor Quigley, who has the advantage of himself being of the “Insiders” with inside experience of the conspiracy at work, says:


There does exist and has existed for a generation an international … network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act … This network … has no aversion to co-operating with the Communists … and frequently does so.


Another diligent explorer, Mr. Gary Allen (The C.F.R., Conspiracy To Rule The World, American Opinion, Belmont, Mass., 1969) says:


Why would international bankers and financiers be interested in promoting a Socialist World Government? Clearly, socialism is only the bait to obtain the support of the political underworld and to create the structure necessary to maintain dictatorial control. What this small group of financiers and cartel-oriented businessmen are interested in is monopolistic control over the world’s natural resources, trade, transportation and communications … something that despite their great wealth they could not achieve otherwise. Therefore the super-capitalists become super-socialists, realising that only a World Government under their control can give them the power necessary to achieve their goal. Only this could explain why these extremely wealthy men would be willing to support movements which seem to be aimed at their own destruction.






Part Two





I quoted at the start the word of Mr. Maugham’s American heroine about the boundless future of the United States: “… by 1930 we shall be the richest and greatest country in the world … no limit to our progress can be seen …


About the same time (the 1920’s) Mr. Noel Coward was composing a patriotic milestone drama about England, Cavalcade, which met the public yearning for reassurance about the future and made him, as he says, “extremely popular”. As the curtain fell, his heroine, glass in hand, drank;


to the hope that this country of ours, which we love so much will find dignity and greatness and peace again …


The positive expectations of Mr. Maugham’s “Isabel” and the wistful hopes of Mr. Coward’s “Jane” were alike doomed to disappointment.


England, in fact, was caught in the same world-government conspiracy that was destroying America, and its leaders promoted the aims of the conspiracy as effectively as Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt.


The plight of the American Republic, seventy years after the House-Baruch partners “captured” President Wilson and set him to work preparing the One Government Of All The World, was bound to have some effect on the other English-speaking country across the Atlantic, the one where I was born.





Mr. Winston Churchill once during the Second War said that England and America were going to get “somewhat mixed up” and added that he could not stop that process even if he wished: he welcomed it.


He was a man of occasional, strange paradoxes. A patriot of patriots, he never explained that strange statement, which to most Englishmen, and probably to most Americans, was inexplicable and unwelcome. He had no brief for so disputable an assertion. When he made it America was evidently, to any diligent observer, in the grip of a conspiracy which was dragging it towards “convergence with Communism” and the World Slave State. Mr. Churchill’s whole life-story seemed sure to make him shun any involvement with “world government” plans.


Oddly, like all American presidents of this century, he was a devotee of Mr. Bernard Baruch, whose world-government efforts went back to the first World War and the bid at the Versailles Peace Conference to set up a “League to Enforce Peace”; a first attempt to establish world government in the confusion following a world war, which was foiled by the able Secretary of State, Mr. Robert Lansing, who clearly saw the intention to foist war upon the world in the name of peace (Mr. Lansing was soon removed from office, the first of a long series of Americans who paid the price for opposing the conspiracy).


A significant incident in Mr. Churchill’s career was the receipt of a deathbed letter to him from President Roosevelt asking him “to see Bernie Baruch as soon as convenient …” Mr. Churchill answered that:


Bernie is one of my oldest friends and I am telegraphing to say how glad I am he is coming. He is a very wise man.


The two had “long and intimate talks”. During these Mr. Baruch presumably spoke of the atom bomb soon to be exploded (it would never have been dropped without the foreknowledge and approval of the great Adviser) and may have informed Mr. Churchill of his intention to propose the establishment (once the bomb had been exploded) of an authority with monopolistic rights in its use and control, and power to inflict quick and condign punishment on any who offended The Authority.


History does not record what Mr. Churchill thought about this, the greatest Baruch Plan: it would obviously have meant that;


dissolution of the British Empire over which I have not become the King’s first Minister in order to preside”.





The dissolution of that Empire followed before his death. His inner feeling about the world government, which was evidently meant to be set up in its wake, is unclear. In 1920, when the revolution in Russia and its authors were subjects of lively public discussion (this was before an occult censorship effectively stopped all free discussion of such matters) Mr. Churchill wrote an article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald which showed that he perfectly understood the nature and authors of the revolution and the methods of conspiracy. Being asked in 1953 for permission to reprint that article, he had his secretary refuse.


Certainly, Bernie (“a very wise man”) would not have approved of that article, for his favourite notion, the despotic world government with powers of enforcement, was the very child of that revolution. Mr. Churchill must certainly have been aware of the world government conspiracy because in various forms it preoccupied the minds of many leading men during his lifetime and he moved in their company.


In the later decades of the 19th century, when England and the Empire were at the zenith of their might and renown under the great Queen, the world government conspiracy (as the developing fluid of time now reveals) was already eating, cancer-like, at the entrails of the Commonwealth.


The conspirators were no cloak-and-dagger persons of the Cafés des Exilés type. They were public men of renown and great wealth, as in America.





The man whose name first appears in the story on the eastern side of the Atlantic, although his ideas obviously grew out of earlier conspiracies such as that of Weishaupt, was John Ruskin. He was of the type for which the modern vernacular has found the name, Do-Gooder, a tribe of which may be said that the evil they do lives long after them. He was deeply moved, in that period of the industrial revolution, by the contrast between great wealth in Victorian England, and the poverty of the lower orders, and became famous, in his day, for his impassioned championship of “the downtrodden masses”.


Ruskin’s life ended with a mental breakdown, as is sometimes the lot of beings who come to think themselves godlike. Ruskin’s “new imperialism” rested on the theory, which he imparted to his aristocratic students at Oxford, that their privileged lot in life could not be preserved unless the English lower classes were absorbed into it, and it extended to “the non-English masses throughout the world”.


Ruskin’s ideas made a great and fatal impression on the mind and life of Cecil Rhodes, the gold-and-diamond multi-millionaire from Kimberley. Rhodes’s name is commemorated in that of the little country, Rhodesia, which seventy years after his death is waging a lonely struggle against a world of enemies, leagued together in the world-government-conspiracy, on the path of which Rhodesia is a small but obdurate obstacle.


What Rhodes’s ambition was is a question befogged by the different opinions of his biographers, who assert variously that “the government of the world was his simple desire” or that he wanted to “paint the map of Africa red” (i.e. British).


The words of his first will should make the matter clear (but where, in conspiracy, which always deals in “deception regarding real intentions and opinions” is anything ever quite clear?) for he states the ambition of “extending British rule throughout the world … and founding so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote the interests of humanity”. World-government proponents always proclaim that eternal peace will come of their plans, and simultaneously contend (as Mr. Baruch ever contended) that war must be made on any who question their dominion, so that this verbal flourish need not be taken seriously.


What is clear is that out of Rhodes’s initial moves grew the world-government conspiracy that undermined all good government in England and America in the century that followed Rhodes’s death in 1902.


Rhodes’s wills set up the secret society which was to pursue his ambition through the century to come. The first (the secret society will) took the Society of Jesus as organisational model (Weishaupt similarly used the Jesuitical structure as model for his Illuminati).





Another will endowed the “Rhodes Scholarships” under which young men from the Empire, Germany and America were to be brought to Oxford for specialised training so that;


after thirty years there would be between two and three thousand men in the prime of life scattered all over the world, each one of whom would have impressed on his mind in the most susceptible period of his life the dream of the Founder, each one of whom, moreover, would have been specially, mathematically selected towards the Founder’s purpose …


What, then, was the Founder’s purpose? Was it “simply the government of the world” or “the extension of British rule throughout the world”? Rhodes’s planning took definite shape in 1891 when, with his collaborator and literary apostle, William Stead, he formed his secret society with himself as leader and Stead, Lord Esher and Sir John Milner (later British High Commissioner for South Africa) as members of an executive committee. A “Circle of Initiates” was to be formed with Mr. Balfour, Lord Rothschild, Sir Harry Johnston and other personages prominent on the South African scene. The outer circle (the pattern of circles-within-circles used by Weishaupt and the Communists) was to be an “association of Helpers” (in the Communist vocabulary such “helpers” are known as “friends” or “useful fools”.)


If Rhodes’s dream or purpose was in fact “to extend the British Empire to encompass the world” its dissolution within sixty years of his death in 1902 was this “imperial statesman’s” mocking epitaph. If his “simple desire” (a biographer, Mrs Millin) was “government of the world”, the conspiracy he set in motion was far advanced towards this aim after those sixty years.


He left behind him a “circle” of publicly renowned men who were (privately) devoted to that ambition. Outwardly they appeared to be rocklike pillars of Empire (as their counterparts in America seemed to be steadfast upholders of the Declaration of Independence).


Lord Milner became leader of the Round Table organisation begotten by Rhodes’s secret society of 1891. When I joined The Times in 1921 I became vaguely aware of the existence of a band of brothers known as “Lord Milner’s young men”. I little recked, then, of what they might be at, or could ever imagine that their work, fifty years later, would entwine itself, poison-ivy-like, around my life and lot. One of them, Mr. Geoffrey Dawson, became editor of The Times in my day.


Another initiate was Mr. Philip Kerr who held many offices in British South Africa and became, as Lord Lothian, British Ambassador at Washington. Another was Mr. Lionel Curtis, who took over leadership of the Round Table group when Lord Milner died. Something in the South African air seems to have produced this abundant crop of Round Table schemers at that period.


Some of these gentlemen took the loftiest view of the shape their future world government would assume. Lord Lothian held that “we should strive to build the Kingdom of Heaven on this earth” (and added that the leadership in that task “must fall first and foremost upon the English-speaking peoples”). At that phase in his scheming “Colonel” House across the Atlantic was also talking about rebuilding the world on a basis of the “solidarity of the Anglo-Saxon peoples”.


On both sides of the Atlantic the conspiracy was from the start one of wealthy men: in South Africa, Rhodes, Lord Rothschild (to whom Rhodes at one stage bequeathed his money), Sir Abe Bailey and Alfred Beit: in America, the great money-dynasties of Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie and others. One might naively wonder if these great men ever considered the human suffering their ambition would involve, particularly during the Second War, which brought the conspiracy a giant stride nearer its goal. Probably not: great men as a rule are completely cynical about any whom the Juggernaut crushes, provided that the Juggernaut continues towards the destination which they desire.





The great men involved in this often had differing views about the shape of the consummation desired by them. The languid and lisping Mr. Balfour, a typical fin de siecle figure, much in demand by the ladies for their Victorian patball parties, held that the world government should be a Jewish one. Mr. House, across the Atlantic, wrote of establishing “Socialism as dreamed by Karl Marx” as the golden rule of world government.


Before and after the First War the conspiracies of Rhodes and House began to converge. In the antechambers of World War One the schemers were already busy preparing to set up world government on the ruins. The attempt, at that first bid, was foiled by the American people, who spotted the thief in the woodpile, and discarded President Wilson.


The One World conspirators at once regrouped and reorganised their forces for the next bid, through another war. Mr. Lionel Curtis was charged to reshape the Round Table group and established throughout the “English-speaking” lands separate “front organisations” (to use the Communist phraseology) each pursuing the common ambition behind a facade of fine-sounding designations.


In England this became the Royal Institute of International Affairs, which absorbed the membership of the ci-devant Round Table group. In America Mr. House’s dictum about “deception regarding real opinions and intentions” was honoured in the name chosen for the new body which was incorporated in 1921: the Council on Foreign Relations.


In the next fifty years, until today, this became the invisible government of the United States, supplying the government with increasing numbers of its graduates and in fact directing American state policy towards that “convergence with Communism” which is the truth behind the official protestations of undeviating antagonism to Communism.


This CFR has become the protégé of the great banking dynasties and its membership now comprises fourteen hundred leading names in American banking, industry and communications.


This invisible government has provided the men to fill nearly all the top posts in the Administration during the past forty-five years. Hence the course of American foreign policy, which by rights is the domain of the Secretary of State. For many years every Secretary of State has been a CFR man, and when he was not, a CFR appointee was leapfrogged over him. Witness President Roosevelt’s Harry Hopkins in the Second War and Dr. Kissinger today: both these publicly unknown men bestrode the narrow world like a colossus and the groundlings paid the price.


The innocents abroad (and who is not “abroad” in this dark and haunted terrain of international conspiracy?) can always be heard plaintively asking, “Why?”, or alternatively, “How can wealthy men back those who seek to destroy them?


I am not in these great men’s minds but think the answer is contained in some words which I heard the late Lord Birkenhead use, once long ago. This was in the late ‘Twenties, when even to hint that peace might not be eternal was to earn the epithet, “Warmonger”. Lord Birkenhead, a realist said warningly, “There are still glittering prizes to be won” (by making war), and the next morning had the whole coyote-like press pack yelping “Warmonger” at him.


I see no other explanation for these dealers in death (for such their worldwide concentration camp would be) than this dazzling allure of the glittering prize. The One-Worlders aim at monopolistic control of the sources of wealth, of which they now control only “a piece”. Total control cannot be acquired by purchase and payment: only world government offers the ultimate seat of power. In Karl Marx’s paradise this absolute power would obtain: in that utopia the human being would be nothing, a zero.


An authority with long-term inside knowledge of the conspiracy, (Prof. Carrol Quigley, Tragedy & Hope, Macmillan 1966) says:


There has existed for a generation an international network which operates to some extent in the way that the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may indicate as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to co-operating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so.


In the two decades following its incorporation in Paris in 1921 the CFR went from strength to strength, and prepared, through its stranglehold on American foreign policy, to prepare the way for the next attempt to set up world government after another war. When it came, its agents were able to present the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour (of which warning had been given to and ignored by President Roosevelt) as a dastardly surprise (“a day which will live in infamy”).


While the war went on the CFR was busy, through an Advisory Committee on Post-War Foreign Policy completely staffed by its appointees, laying the basis for the World State designed to come of it. This group designed the United Nations as the keystone of the World Superstate, and at the founding conference at San Francisco in 1945 the man subsequently convicted as a Communist traitor (Alger Hiss), was Secretary General.





When the Second War ended I, and many other British writers, left the suffocating climate of post-war England, where the Socialists waited, like vultures on a bough, for the England where I grew up to breath its last.


I was already, in my little way, a victim of the great conspiracy. Before the Second War I published a book which gave warning of its imminent approach, and because it broke out promptly I was held up as a man of brilliant foresight and insight. My eminence lasted but an instant. When I saw, and wrote, that the war was being fought merely to build up Communism, I was howled down as a Fascist and soon found that I was on every publisher’s black list.


Thus I brought no illusions with me to South Africa where I arrived, like Othello, my occupation gone. For the next thirty years the spate of anonymous letters and newspaper attacks continued, that is, until today. Humble workaday scribe though I was, I found that the world-government conspirators could not, or would not forget me: no sparrow might fall from a roof, I gathered, but that their minions plausibly presented this as a foul, reactionary and counter-revolutionary deed.


Even I was not beneath their notice, I found from this unending vituperation. That was not the worst: I saw that the last chapter of my life, like the twenty years between the two wars, was to be spent in the shadow of another threatening war: and it, like the other two wars, was designed to be one more move towards world government.


After two years in South Africa I paid a visit to America and was there when the abominable Hiss was at last exposed and (reluctantly) convicted. I saw how numerous were his friends and patrons, how powerful they were to protect him and cover up his deeds. I saw that the man who denounced him was pilloried on every hand, reduced to poverty, kept in fear of his life (he soon died: the other still lives). I saw how the Widow Roosevelt, the “Madame de Farge” of the conspiracy, openly placed herself before him and even referred jeeringly, in court, to his accuser as “the defendant”.


I felt in my journalist’s bones that this America could not long survive in the shape hitherto familiar to the world: it was rotting at the core. I learned of things more directly menacing to South Africa, and to me and my young wife and her babes who lived there.


I learned that President Truman, having stepped from the vice-presidential into the presidential shoes on Roosevelt’s death, had grandiose plans for Africa, where he had never been, of which he knew nothing.


I saw the red light at once. Had Mr. Truman inherited the House-Baruch plan from Mr. Roosevelt? If so, life in South Africa was going to be precarious.


Mr. Truman soon showed that he had indeed inherited the fatal “sponsors”. I believe he was never outside America before he became president: he was a typical product of the American political machine, which, as manipulated by the House-Baruch group, produced presidents pre-tailored to a pattern of submissiveness.


Now Mr. Truman, or someone in his name, produced a programme of bountiful undertakings in the world, Point Four of which related to Africa, a place quite unknown to him. Under “Point Four” he proposed to build great roads and railways, ports and airports and the like more. Obviously he had neither the knowledge nor the experience to have hit on such notions unaided. Someone was speaking through him, Charlie McCarthy-like.


Simultaneously, the Communist leader in America (at that time, a Mr. Earl Browder) came out with a programme of gigantic undertakings in Africa which was in its essentials a duplicate of Mr. Truman’s Point Four.


Neither of these benefactors, America and the Soviet Union, had any presence or foothold in Africa. How, then did they propose to get there and do these wonderful things? At this point my blood ran cold, as the saying is: I saw what was coming and returned to Africa with visions of earlier thundercloud days in Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland heavy on my spirit.


I wrote a book about my discoveries in America (Far and Wide). I think it was the last one I was allowed to get published in England and it brought me even more obloquy than the preceding three or four. This book acquired a habit of vanishing from library shelves. Librarians, consulted by me, said they knew this was happening but could not catch the “book-burners”.





The parallelism of American and Soviet policy, under the invisible guiding hand of the CFR, was again shown by this announcement of the two great Plans. The two “World Powers” (with the enfeebled British one trotting behind them like a carriage dog) were united in the resolve to carry out Lenin’s dictum that the expulsion of the colonial powers from their territories was essential to the achievement of the world revolution. The Soviet power avowedly desired this: American presidents continued to preach opposition to Communism and to practise support of it. President Roosevelt protected the Communist traitors in his administration: President Truman sacked the American general who wanted to win the war against Communism in Korea.


The game went on, plain for all to see, but very few perceived its meaning.


Next, President Truman, evidently desiring to show zeal to his sponsors, sent a roving emissary to Africa, a Mr. Mennen “Soapy” Williams, who stumped the continent calling for South Africa to be “brought to its knees”.


Africa (this became obvious) was to be the new area of Communist expansion, aided and financed by America.


Following Mr. Truman’s lead, every aspiring politician and newspaper editor in the world joined in furious attack on the White governments in Southern Africa, and this continues as I write, nearly thirty years later.


This down-with-the-White-man campaign was immensely popular with politicians everywhere, who always rejoice to be able to divert attention from matters at home by pointing a finger at countries far away, and the further the better. Thus, politicos in places as distant from the scene as Australia and New Zealand, the enslaved countries behind the Berlin Wall, and the banana republics of Central America happily stayed in office year after year by this simple method of crying “Fie!” and sternly gazing in the direction of South Africa, thousands of miles away across the oceans.





Africa at that period was a continent of order under the colonial powers, Britain, France, Belgium and Portugal. Unnumbered centuries of infant mortality, lethal diseases, slave raiding and tribal wars had left it a depopulated continent until the white man came, who put a stop to all those things, so that in the 19th century it rapidly became an over-populated continent.


The orderly process, and the rule of law, were all to be changed when the conspiracy took Africa in hand. America and the Soviet Union set out hand in hand to destroy everything that had been gained, and to recreate Darkest Africa. American politicians fell into paroxysms of simulated moral indignation about the colonial powers and their treatment of the Black man (who soon would look back on the colonial era, when a man could call on the law even against his chief and the witch doctor, as the golden age).


In America all the politicians saw in the anti-White man campaign a vote-winning ticket. Macaulay might have said of America at that time, even more truly than of the England of his day, that “We know of no spectacle so ridiculous as the public in one of its periodical fits of morality”. For example, a Mr. Robert Kennedy (younger brother of the late President John Kennedy) came to Africa with his wife and was accorded the hospitality of Natal University for a violent diatribe against the South African Government. I watched this disreputable performance with the eyes of a man who had seen two generations of politicians whipping the mob towards its own destruction.


In America, too, Mrs. Roosevelt, gave much vent (publicly) to her feelings of indignation and compassion about the Black man, and helped (privately) to arrange for supplies of arms to the terrorists in Angola.


What was coming was clear: America, under any president at all, was to help Communism take over Africa.


For a decade this farce continued and then, lo presto and behold, the colonial powers revealed that they too were in the plot. There was no irresistible pressure on them to quit. They received their marching orders from somewhere and just upped and went. One day they were there and the next they were gone, reacting like marionettes to the hidden strings. Belgium went first, then France pulled out of Algeria, and then …


Ah, then! Was Britain to desert and dissolve the Empire, and to abandon alike the White people there and the Black ones who still in some places seen by me kept the picture of the great Queen in their kraals and trading stores?


Yes, even that. The man chosen to read the dictated death sentence was the British Prime Minister of the day, a Mr. Harold Macmillan. He spoke with the turn of voice and phrase which the frontal politicians of my unfortunate country are adept in using to gloss over an act of perfidy.


The wind of change”, Mr. Macmillan told the Cape Town Parliament, was blowing Britain out of Africa. The wind of change! In any anthology of political prevarication this rates a high place. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and no “wind” was blowing the Empire away. It was being broken up by decisions reached long before in secret conclave, and its demolition was done to clear the way for the world-government conspiracy.


Followed, in all the British territories, the pantomime of abdication: flags being lowered, plumed hats and gold-encrusted uniforms worn a last time, a Royal Personage handing over the deeds and so on. The only truth behind this woeful pageant was that the Black man was being handed back to slavery.





In the next ten years the Black man foretasted the future which had been arranged for him. “Independent” Black states emerged on all hands, and in all of them the politician with the most guns shouldered his way to the front and took over, to be thrust aside a little later by another of the same kind who had been supplied with weapons by someone or other. The tale of carnage and chaos will never be told: it followed the same pattern everywhere, and the world was indifferent to it anyway. Darkest Africa was back.


Of the White man’s era only South Africa remained (which immediately broke away from the Empire), and Rhodes’s Rhodesia, which saw that it was to be betrayed and proclaimed Independence on the Washingtonian model on November 11, 1965, and the eastern and western coastal territories of Mozambique and Angola, where the Portuguese had been since before the British Empire or the America Republic were thought of.


The Sixties and Seventies, therefore, were filled with the enraged clamour of the outer world (particularly America and England) against these remaining White-governed territories. In England the Socialists were in office and they had long awaited the moment of imperial demise, like vultures on a bough intent on the victim’s last breath. The Socialist leader, a Mr. Harold Wilson, habitually used the language of George III’s prime minister, Lord North, about the Rhodesians. They were “rebels”, he declared.


After canvassing the feeling of the British army about an attack on Rhodesia, and drawing blank, he announced at Blackpool (to the cheers of terrorists in the balcony) that he would give “unconditional support” in arms to the Communist bands which succeeded to power in the Portuguese territories neighbouring Rhodesia when the beleaguered Portuguese, after thirteen years of siege by the entire world, collapsed in 1973.


I was in Rhodesia, Angola and Mozambique during these years, and although my own part in the imbroglio was but that of one small leaf in a gale, I felt that I was hard done by, after my embittering years in Europe between the wars, in being caught up in yet another chapter of the great conspiracy’s expansionist thrusts.


I returned from Rhodesia, Mozambique and Angola to South Africa to await what yet might come. What came, in 1975, was the proof that Mr. Truman’s “Point Four” of 25 years earlier, was a simple restatement of the parallelism of American and Soviet policy, jointly leading to a Communist takeover in Africa.


Angola gave clear token of that. Soviet arms, originally financed by America, were supplied to one of the contending factions which fought for power when the Portuguese left, and the Soviet called in Cuban troops to ensure the victory of that faction.


The American President at that time was named Ford (the only difference between successive presidents was that of name: in subservience to the overriding world government conspiracy they were all alike) and he was seen, a shadowy figure on the television screen, making sounds of formal disapproval of the Soviet and Cuban incursions into Africa.


The real effect of these sotto voce remonstrances was nil: America led the world in tacitly accepting the deed and the appearance of Black Communist states on the eastern and western shores of Africa.


By this time it was obvious that no American president, with the example of President Nixon’s overthrow ever in his mind, would presume to affront the pupils of the House-Baruch school, embattled in the Council on Foreign Relations. Whichever contestant might win the 1976 presidential election, nothing would change: and that would hold good for any subsequent election.





Thus I awaited my closing years in South Africa. Already, many years before, one of the enormously wealthy “peace” endowments in America (the Carnegie one) had produced a battle plan, complete to the last ballistic detail, for an attack on South Africa by air, sea and land. This open involvement of America in the Communist conspiracy has hung over South Africa ever since it was published in 1965. From my personal eyrie, overlooking the turbulent scene, I saw in it the co-ordination of another holocaust, the essential third stage in the conspiracy to bring about the super-slave-state.


At the age I have reached, for a’that, my personal interest in the great melodrama is only to see to it, if I possibly can, that any tombstone of mine shall have the inscription, “He survived!” My ambitions are modest, and for more than that I do not hope. The conspiracy has progressed so far that it will not, possibly cannot stop now. Too many leading men are enchained to it for that.


While they are in power over us, we shall all continue to be Gadarea-bound, and the new age of darkness is nigh upon us. When that comes we shall all need to start again and work for another renaissance. Many good men and true are preparing now for that, and tomorrow’s day will be theirs.


The perjurers and their kept press will call it the counter-revolution. Its proper name will be The Conspiracy Of Truth.



Know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free

(John 8:32)




PDF of this post. Click to view or download (0.6MB). >> Douglas Reed – The Grand Design of the 20th Century (1977) Ver 2


 The Grand Design Cover NEW


Knowledge is Power in Our Struggle for Racial Survival

(Information that should be shared with as many of our people as possible — do your part to counter Jewish control of the mainstream media — pass it on and spread the word) … Val Koinen



Version History


Version 4: Feb 12, 2018 – Improved formatting.


Version 3: Jun 11, 2017 – Improved formatting.


Version 2: Feb 14, 2015 – Updated cover, improved formatting. Updated PDF of this post.


Version 1: Published Aug 27, 2014



Read Full Post »

Diversity = White Genocide


“Is it time for our sons to rise again?


I say YES!”


 Diversity = White Genocide - Continued








Needless to say, the class that has turned traitor on Whites is controlled by jews, being riddled with jews via marriage.


Here’s the transcript of this intense speech:






I’m an Englishman.


I’m from Bermondsey, South East London.


My father was called George.


He was also from Bermondsey.


His father, another Bermondsey man, was called George too.


And his father, my great grandfather, … was from the same place.


He was called Edward.


These three generations of my family, … were in the fish trade.


I’m the first member of my family not to work at the market at Billingsgate.


My great grandfather had eleven brothers and sisters.


They all married, except one.


They had forty three children.


Of these, thirty seven married, … and between them they had a further one hundred and fifty nine children.


One of those was my father.


I don’t know exactly how many of his generation married or exactly, … how many children they produced.


I’ve so far tracked over two hundred of them. Many still live in Bermondsey.


Some are still in the fish trade.


There are seven called George. And five called Victoria.


I stand here, … in front of you, … as a representative of all of them.


And I ask in their name the great question, put by our patron, … Mr Powell.


What did they know of England? Who only England know?


Or. What can my family who come from England, who lived in England, … who know only England, say of this, … our country?


Mr Powell once spoke of the destruction of ancient Athens, and the miraculous survival in that blackened ruins of that city, of the sacred olive tree. The symbol of Greece, their country.


And he also spoke of us, … the English, … at the heart of a vanquished empire. Seeming to find within ourselves, like one of our own, oak trees. The sap rising from our ancient roots.


And he said, perhaps after all, … We! Who have inhabited this island fortress for an unbroken thousand years. Brought up, as he said, with the sound of English birdsong. Under the English oak. In the English meadow. Beneath the red cross of St. George. It is us!


Who know most of England.


And I appreciated him for saying that.


Because it was if he spoke for my family, who understand well their own country.


Who understand even better their own capital, London Town, as we used to call her.


As we strolled in her parks. As we marveled at her palaces. As we did business in the city, went west for a dance, … to the boat on the river.


The pale ale, and eel pie, of old London.


The London of my family, for as many generations as I know.


The London that within fifteen years will be less than fifty per cent White.


London within fifteen years, a White person will be in the minority.


Am I a racist?




Do I have anything against people of other races?




Would I prevent them from coming into my home?






My gripe, and I speak on behalf of seven men called George, and five women called Victoria!

My gripe is quite SIMPLE!


My gripe, … is that we were NEVER ASKED!


My gripe is that we were TOLD!




And EVER DAY we are TOLD, AGAIN AND AGAIN, how we are to be!


And how our country IS TO BE!


We are told by THEM!


And we know who they are. They are English too.


They are the class that has always set themselves apart. They’re the class that has always taken whatever they wanted for themselves.


And now they are the class, that is GIVING England AWAY!


They have NEVER asked us!


And they NEVER will.


Do we allow them to sell our heritage? Or is time for us to speak!




To REFUSE them the right, to give away our HOLY, our BOUNTIFUL, our ONLY England that, that has nurtured us, naked, grown us as the oak!


Is it time for us that England know to come yet again and defend our country with our FIRE, our FISTS!


Is it time for our sons to rise again?


I say YES!


I say YES!!









PDF of this post. Click to view or download (0.2MB). >>Diversity = White Genocide


Knowledge is Power in Our Struggle for Racial Survival

(Information that should be shared with as many of our people as possible — do your part to counter Jewish control of the mainstream media — pass it on and spread the word) … Val Koinen


Version History


Version 2: Feb 5, 2018 — Improved formatting. Added new link to alternative video.


Version 1: Published Aug 17, 2014


Read Full Post »




Australian PM Caves in to Jewish


Lobby on Free Speech Laws



August 8, 2014 — 17 Comments


Brenton Sanderson




Australian PM Caves in to Jewish Lobby 063

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott


In the face of a coordinated and sustained campaign initiated and led by Jewish activists, the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has abandoned his 2013 election promise to water down or remove Section 18C of Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act which makes it unlawful to act in a manner likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone on the basis of race. Abbott said he had made a “leadership decision” to walk away from his pledge despite having promised to remove this outrageous restriction on the free speech after the law was used successfully against conservative columnist Andrew Bolt in 2011.


Australian PM Caves in to Jewish Lobby 048

[Add. Image] Andrew Bolt


It is a measure of the power wielded by organized Jewry in Australia that the Prime Minister would rather damage his political credibility by breaking a clear election promise than suffer the consequences of defying the single most powerful group in Australian society. Abbott, who made the announcement while outlining an extension of anti-terrorism laws, attempted to justify his broken promise by claiming:

I don’t want to do anything that puts our national unity at risk at this time and so those proposals are now off the table.






[Add. images] Never joke about jews!


Abbott’s apparent desire to not further alienate Australia’s problematic Islamic community by repealing Section 18C (at a time when the government is set to strengthen laws against terrorism) is an obvious political smokescreen. The veteran Jewish journalist, Michael Gawenda, writing in the Business Spectator, identified the real reason behind the Prime Minister walking away from his election commitment:


While Abbott said that the decision to ditch the plan to rid the Racial Discrimination Act of section 18C was taken because of “complications” in dealing with Islamic communities in the context of the proposed tough new terrorism laws, it seems likely that more was involved in this decision. The conflict in Gaza and the coverage and reaction to this appalling, heartbreaking conflagration, in my opinion, made it virtually certain that any move to change or abolish section 18C would extract too high a political price.


The repeal of section 18C was vigorously opposed by the leadership of virtually every ethnic community in the country. But it would be fair to say — without wishing to give succor to those who reckon the Jews are too powerful — that Jewish community leaders have played a crucial role in organizing the opposition to any potential change to the RDA.  It is the opposition of the Jewish communal leaders that had been of major concern to [Attorney General] Brandis and, to a significant extent, Tony Abbott.


Australian PM Caves in to Jewish Lobby 049

[Add. Image] Jewish journalist Michael Gawenda


Gawenda notes that the Jewish community’s overwhelming support for Section 18C (which was itself originally the legislative result of submissions by organized Jewry to the National Inquiry into Racist Violence and the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody in 1995) is linked to the broader Jewish commitment to “multiculturalism” in Australia.


The main reason that Brandis and Abbott were most concerned about the opposition of the Jewish communal leadership to any changes to section 18C is because the Jewish community is generally seen as a role model for successful multiculturalism. It is for these reasons that the Jewish communal leadership has played such an outsized role in the campaign against the watering down or elimination of section 18C. If the Jewish community is a prime example of successful multiculturalism, then its support for the retention of 18C, its highly effective campaign against any change to the RDA on the basis that any change would seriously undermine multiculturalism and free the racists to say whatever they please, represented serious political pain for Brandis and Abbott.


Gawenda is disingenuous in claiming that the source of the Jewish community’s power in this debate resides in its being a “role model for successful multiculturalism” rather than in its status as a group with the kind of financial, political and media clout to instill genuine fear in those who oppose its interests. As in the United States, Jewish money exerts a dominating influence over Australian politics, which guarantees that most politicians are willing to put the Australian Defense Forces (and Australian taxpayers) to the service of an ethno-nationalist state in which Australia has no economic or strategic interest. The Jewish academic and activist Dan Goldberg acknowledges that:

The annual report of the Australian Electoral Commission always includes Jewish names and Jewish-owned companies donating large sums to both sides of politics.[i]


Australian PM Caves in to Jewish Lobby 051

[Add. Image] Jewish academic and activist Dan Goldberg


The sway held by organized Jewry over Australia’s political leaders was highlighted earlier this year when the former Foreign Minister Bob Carr hit out at the “pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne,” saying it wielded “extraordinary influence” on Australia’s foreign policy during his time in former Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s cabinet. Asked how the lobby achieved this influence he said:

I think party donations and a program of giving trips to MPs and journalists to Israel. But that’s not to condemn them. I mean, other interest groups do the same thing. But it needs to be highlighted because I think it reached a very unhealthy level.


Carr’s observations were later corroborated by the former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser who said Carr was “absolutely correct” in his view that the Jewish lobby wielded too much power.


Australian PM Caves in to Jewish Lobby 059

[Add. image] “THE last three years of Parliament have been chaotic and eventful, but Julia Gillard’s personal commitment to Israel and the Jewish community has been unequivocal” Farewell to a firm friend — The Australian Jewish News


Gawenda asserts that, unlike the vast majority of Australian Jews, he was originally in favor of the proposal to water down Section 18C of the Act until recent events gave him pause for thought: in particular the widespread criticism of Israel and its supporters for their attempts to justify the appalling massacre of Palestinian civilians in Gaza:


But here’s the thing. I believe that in recent days, in the light of what has been published about Jews and the conflict in Gaza, the clearly anti-Semitic cartoon in the Sydney Morning Herald, for instance — for which the SMH has issued an apology in an editorial that I found unsatisfactory — not to mention the astounding amount of outright racist filth to be found on social media, it may no longer be the case that we can trust editors and executive producers when it comes to ensuring that what amounts to vilification is not given any room in mainstream commentary and analysis.


So, for Gawenda, the recent (and entirely legitimate) criticism of the actions of the ethno-nationalist state of Israel and its Zionist cheerleaders in the West only serves to confirm that Jewish leaders were right to oppose any changes to Section 18C. The criticism of the Israeli government and those who would defend its barbarity in Gaza simply confirms for Gawenda that Australians cannot be trusted with unfettered free speech. Incidentally, the supposedly “anti-Semitic” cartoon in the Sydney Morning Herald to which he refers is less an anti-Semitic caricature and more an accurate representation of actual events — of Israeli citizens sitting outside to watch and cheer the bombing of the helpless Palestinian civilians as entertainment.


Australian PM Caves in to Jewish Lobby 064

The “anti-Semitic” Sydney Morning Herald cartoon


Australian PM Caves in to Jewish Lobby 066

An “anti-Semitic” photograph?


Likewise, for the Australian Jewish academic and activist Danny Ben-Moshe, the slaughter in Gaza;

has led to the crossing of new anti-Semitic thresholds with the potential to take us down a dangerous path. It is a path not laid with guns and bullets, but with loose and manipulative language.


Australian PM Caves in to Jewish Lobby 052

[Add. image] Jewish academic and activist Danny Ben-Moshe


According to Gawenda, it was the sudden outbreak of truth-telling about Israel and the dishonesty of its apologists that reinvigorated the campaign by Australian Jewish leaders to oppose any changes to Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act:


It is this that made Jewish community leaders more determined than ever to oppose any change to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. And in the main, Jews in Australia support the communal leadership on this issue. No one can doubt that there has been an alarming rise in anti-Semitism in Europe, something that is hardly reported in most of the Australian media. Jews feel under threat — in some cases physical threat — in France and Belgium and Germany and even in England. Not to mention Hungary, where an openly anti-Semitic party has garnered significant support. Thousands of French Jews have left France for Israel and other places. The numbers leaving every month are growing.


Though there has not been a similar rise in virulent anti-Semitism in Australia, Jews in Australia nevertheless have good reason to believe that if the virus of anti-Semitism is spreading in Europe, it might one day reach these shores. In this environment, Tony Abbott decided that the plan to change section 18C, a solemn promise he had made to Bolt and to his supporters at the Institute of Public Affairs had to be abandoned. Will there be a better political time to resurrect these proposed changes? Almost certainly not.


Australian PM Caves in to Jewish Lobby 057

[Add. image] Muslims pray in the street outside Lakemba mosque in Sydney during the festival of Eid. The festival of Eid al-Fitr traditionally occurs with the first sighting of the new moon and brings to a close the end of a month of fasting from sunrise to sunset.


Note the standard pathologization of anti-Jewish sentiment as a “virus” that has nothing whatever to do with Jewish behavior. On the other hand, the reflexive Jewish hostility toward Europeans (which has led to the demographic transformation of Western nations over the last few decades) is apparently not a virus, but stems, rather, from some highly developed sense of fairness and universal brotherhood that is inherent in all Jews. Of course, what Gawenda won’t acknowledge is that the only reason Jews are increasingly subject to anti-Semitic attacks in countries like France and England is because of mass non-White (particularly Muslim) immigration and multiculturalism — both of which are the malignant outgrowths of Jewish ethnic activism.



[Add. image] Andrew Bolt after the Federal Court’s ruling, Sep 2011. “Justice (((Mordecai Bromberg))) found Bolt and the Herald & Weekly Times, publisher of the Herald Sun, breached the Racial Discrimination Act by publishing two columns that questioned a ‘trend’ of light-skinned people choosing to identify themselves as Aboriginal.


A disappointed Andrew Bolt observed that Jewish leaders would ultimately regret opposing changes to the Act, noting that:

The Jewish leaders now should look very, very deeply into their souls at what they have helped wrought and ask themselves, are you seriously safer now as a result?


Bolt’s reasoning is that under Section 18C Australian Jews will in future be precluded from criticizing the beliefs and actions of a growing and increasingly militant Australian Islamic community which will be increasingly hostile to Israel and the interests of Australian Jews.


Australian PM Caves in to Jewish Lobby 055

[Add. image] Muslim women march down Macquarie Street, Sydney, in the annual Ashura Procession to promote unity and spread the message of peace and harmony.


As with Gawenda, Bolt fails to mention that the only reason there are any Muslims in Australia at all (with all their myriad problems and social dysfunctions) is because Jewish activism succeeded in ending the White Australia policy and establishing multiculturalism as the basis for social policy in Australia. As the Jewish academic Dan Goldberg proudly acknowledges:

In addition to their activism on Aboriginal issues, Jews were instrumental in leading the crusade against the White Australia policy, a series of laws from 1901 to 1973 that restricted non-White immigration to Australia.


Australian PM Caves in to Jewish Lobby 061

[Add. image] The White Australia Policy


It is clear that the Jewish fear and loathing of White Australia trumps any concern about the anti-Semitic tendencies among non-White immigrants that are being imported into the nation.



[Add. image] An advertisement from Australia House, in London, encouraging low cost emigration for Britons to Australia.


The Jewish writer Peta Jones-Pellach is not alone in expressing the view that Australian Jews should always back the Muslim minority in any conflict with White Australia, arguing that:

We recognize that our ongoing harmonious acceptance into the Australian community depends on forging bonds with the increasing numbers of non-Jewish Australians who might be our theological opponents or even our enemies.[ii]


Australian PM Caves in to Jewish Lobby 053

[Add. image] Jewish writer Peta Jones-Pellach


The supposed benefits to Australian Jewry that multiculturalism has bestowed – most notably the diminished threat of the emergence of a mass movement of anti-Semitism from White Australians — is seen as having far outweighed any negative effects of large scale Islamic immigration such as the fact that:

Some Australian Jews fear that migrants arriving from Muslim countries will contribute to anti-Semitic currents in Australia, inflame extremist groups and pose a threat to the relative peace they currently enjoy.[iii]


Australian PM Caves in to Jewish Lobby 056

[Add. image] The couple of hundred young Muslims that streamed into Sydney city on the weekend amid violent clashes with police riot squad members offered a visually spectacular contrast to the nominal picture postcard view of Sydney.


The rise of Islamic anti-Semitism in the West reveals a paradoxical element of the overwhelming Jewish support for multiculturalism; an element which resulted in the emergence and growth of neoconservatism. Kevin MacDonald notes that:

Although multiculturalist ideology was invented by Jewish intellectuals to rationalize the continuation of separatism and minority-group ethnocentrism in a modern Western state, several of the recent instantiations of multiculturalism may eventually produce a monster with negative consequences for Judaism.[iv]


Australian Jewish activists like Dan Goldberg recognize the danger, and he notes that:

Herein lies an underlying tension that exists in the psyche of Australian Jews in the new millennium: on the one hand understanding the fundamental wrong in tarring all Muslims with the same extremist brush; on the other hand feeling great unease in showing support for Muslims, some of whose brothers are waging jihad against Israel and the Jews. … Many Australian Jews are therefore caught between these tides, ostensibly supportive of minority rights but cognizant of the fact that among the Muslim community are radical elements who seek our destruction.[v]


Australian PM Caves in to Jewish Lobby 060

[Add. image] Six charged after Sydney protests sparked by anti-Islamic film.


Sep 16, 2012 9:56AM

Despite these concerns, most Australian Jews see themselves as the longer-term beneficiaries of policies explicitly designed to dilute the power of the traditional European-derived Australian majority. Australian Jewry has therefore sought to make alliances with various immigrant groups in opposition to the White majority, including Muslims. Attempts to form a political coalition with Australian Muslims date from the earliest days of Australian multiculturalism. Australian Jews sought Muslim support for the enactment of the racial discrimination legislation recommended by the Lippmann-chaired Committee on Community Relations in the mid-1970s. In the years since, Jews have repeatedly sought the support of the Muslim community in lobbying for various multicultural policies, including those relating to;

access to government services, recourse for victims of discrimination, and protection from harassment.


Jewish activism organizations such as the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council was quick to enlist Australia’s Muslim leaders in their campaign to oppose any changed to Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.


Australian PM Caves in to Jewish Lobby 058

[Add. image] Jeremy Jones, the Director of Community Affairs for the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council.


According to Jeremy Jones, the director of international and community affairs of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council:


the relationship between Australian Jews and Muslims has developed positively over the past decade.


Nevertheless, he believes that:

maintaining the momentum will require leadership and determination, but there are good grounds for optimism given the network of relations and shared fruitful experiences in contemporary multicultural Australia.




[Add. image] Executive Director Dr. Colin Rubenstein of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), is an organisation headquartered in Melbourne, Australia. It is active in lobbying the Australian government on issues of concern to Australian Jews and advocating on behalf of Israel.


Clearly, Australian Jewry believes that, despite the threat to Jews represented by the strong anti-Jewish sentiment in growing sections of the Australian Islamic community, the relationship is basically manageable in the longer-term.


Having won the battle over Section 18C, it is certain that activist Jews will push for even tougher restrictions on freedom of speech in Australia, and indeed throughout the West. The attempt to confine public discourse to within parameters that do not threaten Jewish interests has been a central preoccupation of Jewish activists for many decades. American Jewish activist organizations like the ADL [Anti-Defamation League] and the SPLC [Southern Poverty Law Center] certainly do not view the American constitution as an insuperable barrier to the imposition of laws like Section 18C in the United States.







[i] Goldberg, D. (2006) ‘After 9/11: The Psyche of Australian Jews,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. 151


[ii] Peta Jones Pellach, “Interfaith Dialogue and the State of Israel,” In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski (Melbourne, Black Inc., 2006), 139.


[iii] Marcus Einfeld, “We Too Have Been Strangers: Jews and the Refugee Struggle,” In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski (Melbourne: Black Inc., 2006), 311 & 314.


[iv] MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements, (Westport, CT: Praeger, Revised Paperback edition, 2001), 313.


[v] Goldberg “After 9/11: The Psyche of Australian Jews,” 145 & 146







to “Australian PM Caves in to Jewish Lobby on Free Speech Laws

NOTE: Later comments are at the top.



August 12, 2014 – 12:56 am

I do not buy into this notion that our ills are the result of how White politicians exercise power. The truth is that the real power lays in Jewish hands. People wonder why a White gentile politician will toe the Jewish line when it is against the interests of his own people…There is no great mystery here. White politicians toe the Jewish line because you don’t get to the big leagues in American politics (or apparently most other western nations) unless you have been thoroughly vetted by Jewish elites to ensure that you are a “team player”.

We can blame the white politicians, but how many of you can honestly say that if you were given the opportunity to be President, Senator, Congressman or even a cable news anchor/reporter, that you would throw away your career (or in some cases your life) and the futures of your children by openly opposing Jewish power?

A lot of us like to think that we would, and there are many who I believe would given the opportunity, but in this system those folks will never get the opportunity.

What these White politicians are doing is being politicians. Blaming them for caving to Jewish interests is like blaming a wheel for being round. They are acting rationally within the system in which they find themselves. Those who cannot act rationally within the context of this system, do not get promoted to those levels. Many of these same White politicians would adopt far different positions if they were operating within the context of a real sovereign nation state. But they are not operating within such a context. They are operating within a Zionist occupied government in which the Jews control the monetary, financial, media and political systems.

American politicians do not find success by adopting policies which represent the interests of the electorate, they do so by adopting policies which represent the interests of the Jewish elite who rule over us. Why does every politician who wants to be a serious contender for the White House campaign in a foreign state (Israel)? Why in a presidential debate do we hear candidates attempting to outdo each other in their quest to be the most devoted to Israel? The answer is clear….it is because they understand that to advance they need to first convince the Jewish elite that their loyalties lay first and foremost with Jewish power. The actual voting by American Gentiles is of no real consequence when it comes to choosing American presidents. We have some small influence over which Jewish approved agent we can elect…but we are never given the choice to elect anyone who is not already vetted and approved as kosher.

Our salvation is not to be found by seeking racially loyal candidates. In fact, our salvation cannot come from the current political system at all and to seek it there is a foolish waste of energy and resources.

It is the very system itself that must be overthrown. Not just the political system, but the monetary and financial systems. The media must be restored to American ownership with the large multi-media giants being broken up. The system of corporate governance must be overthrown…The original idea behind corporate entities is that they would exist only for a limited time, for a limited purpose and only so long as they served the public good. The founders of this nation would have been outraged at the idea that corporations should exist merely as a convenient vehicle to seek profits while shirking liability.

Most people do not really understand just how dramatic the changes are going to need to be if we are to regain control of our own nation state. Virtually the entire system has to be scrapped and redesigned. The kind of upheaval this will create is truly frightening for most people, but it is the only way. We cannot free ourselves of Jewish power and influence while retaining the very systems of control used by Jews to rule over us. I believe that while this upheaval will indeed be traumatic, the trauma will be short lived and the panic will subside when people realize that they are not being led into uncharted territory, but back to something much closer to the kind of system that our great grandfathers would have been familiar with.


Melissa L

August 10, 2014 – 10:17 am

@ Scribe

I tend to agree. We need to get the overall masses of whites on our side by appealing to their sense of right and wrong. Show them how they as a racial group are being shafted through massive 3rd world immigration etc. Show them their own white traitors who are involved — whites will take action against their own before they will others (non-whites and Jews).



August 10, 2014 – 9:40 am


The “Islamic” community has NO business in any Western country! Wade into that truth. The sand-dwelling throat-cutters are an enemy of the White race. They are poison for our people.

Re the Jewish question, while it is true that Jews have invented the various forms of excrement known as Leftism/Marxism, the truth is that this destructive ideology works perfectly in its evil designs no matter who practices it — Jew or non-Jew. The evilry unleashed throughout the West however has come directly from our own people who practice it. Our people were in control. Our people held the reins of power. Our people have unleashed it upon the masses.

Don’t ever forget that the ultimate power rests not with the tiny fraction of elites but rather with the mobilised masses. That means the White masses in the West who can be brought to bear in many ways upon the traitors in our own race where the ultimate blame resides! The Jews are a fractional minority and can be brushed aside like a housefly buzzing around your head. We must deal with the vile trash in our own race to make any progress. Abbott can and should be run out of office by the masses of Whites who vote and control his political fate. We’ll see if that happens….



August 10, 2014 – 8:31 am

Yes, Fredrick has stumbled upon the truth. We ALL know that most (not all) Jews do in fact have a nation-destroying effect. Not because they all are devout followers of the Talmud. WRONG. Most are devout atheists with a special hatred of Christianity which includes its moral teachings as well. Okay, we got that but here is where many of you seem to go off track:

As always, we have a white man in control. It is the white man at the wheel of power. He can either appease the tiny Jewish population or go against his own people who massively outnumber them and what does he do? Shafts his OWN people! HE has the far greater blame! But, let’s just blame the Jews. Thats easier because they ain’t us.


Guillaume Durocher

August 10, 2014 – 5:08 am

Looks like YouTube has shut down Jared Taylor’s video on the war on whites. Can we hope for a Streisand effect?


Tilley Travathan

August 10, 2014 – 2:23 am

Is Tony Abbott Jewish? So presidents, kings, and PMs all have their minds controlled by Jews. That it? Pathetic.


Ted Barnes

August 10, 2014 – 1:28 am

Very very disturbing.

Things are really heating up.

IMHO, this is a stupid move on the part of the tribe. They are fueling hostility now and provoking the white mob. The slaughter of innocents in Gaza has shown the world what these people look like with their fangs exposed.

My God, I couldn’t believe those tough Aussies gave up their guns, but to cave on free speech…..whew. We’re headed for a global police state and no doubt lots of blood.


Fredrick Toben

August 9, 2014 – 6:04 am

*My maxim now applies: ‘Don’t only blame the Jews, also blame those that bend to Jewish pressure’.

Journalist Mike Carlton didn’t bend and resigned from his job at The Sydney Morning Herald for responding to a blogger by calling him a “Jewish bigot”, which is now an antisemitic slur! http://www.countercurrents.org/polya080814.htm

Of course, throughout the media noise on Section 18C no-one dared to mention the fact that this section was specifically designed by Australia’s organised Jewry to stop public discussion on matters Holocaust.

This section enabled Australia’s Jews legally to silence those who questioned the orthodox Holocaust narrative because such an airing was just too painful to bear.

In the Andrew Bolt case Justice Mordecai Bromberg added an extra sting, which Mrs Olga Scully and I never experienced – stating Bolt lied in the offending articles.

Mrs Scully and I never got to the point of having our Holocaust material evaluated for truth content – it was just deemed to be offensive, insulting, etc.

The defence in Section 18D didn’t grip either because if you wrote material that offended or insulted an individual, then automatically it can be concluded that you were not doing it “in good faith”, but were out to upset the Jews. How dare you question a Jew about the official Holocaust narrative!

It’s all good stuff now and Australia is at the watershed of rejecting English Common Law principles and embracing European civil law or the Anglo-Australian establishment will hit back and declare a legal war on such an encroachment and pull out all stops to retain Common Law primacy.

Time will tell.



August 9, 2014 – 1:27 am

Lasst week I posted something about this on amren. We all know who opposes any comment about non Whites and non Christians but engages in hate and endless disparagement of Whites and Christians.


Franklin Ryckaert

August 9, 2014 – 12:03 am

So the Jews, supposedly the most intelligent people of the world, have decided to repel the theorethical danger of a mild form of anti-Semitism of one group (Whites) by promoting another group (Muslims) whose anti-Semitism is sure and fanatical. Call that a “survival strategy”!



August 8, 2014 – 3:22 pm

It’s a shame to see free speech so restricted in Australia. Australia is definitely not a free country. And will Australian Jews be held accountable for what they say and write or be excused? In general I don’t think they’re sorry they subverted White Australia even if it means an increase of anti-Semitism from Muslim new comers. It’s just that the use of force will eventually be needed against dissent and in a large way. I believe they’re already thinking in these terms. They didn’t need much force with White dissent but they’ll need it with Muslims.



August 8, 2014 – 2:12 pm

It is at the point now that everyone is a terrorist that has an opinion. Just do nothing and let the government do what the politicians want that have been bought by interest groups to put money in their pockets. We are the sheep.


Poupon Marks

August 8, 2014 – 2:12 pm

How sickening, disheartening, and disappointing. Made all the worse because I am sure some Conservative Jews were with the PM on this one, but are cowed into silence.



August 8, 2014 – 1:30 pm

I hope the Australian Islamic community doesn’t forgive and forget what the Jews have done in the middle east and any cooperation with them in Australia be for expedience. If so, the Jews with their hubris and Greed will have painted themselves into a corner. One can only hope.



August 8, 2014 – 12:00 pm

On September 7, 2013, when Tony Abbott’s Conservative-Liberal opposition party won the Australian parliament election, the country’s powerful Jewish Lobby took the credit for Abbott’s victory over Kevin Rudd’s governing Labour Party.

Dan Goldberg provided a clue to Tony Abbott’s victory at Israeli daily Haaretz.

“The near consensus in favor of Tony Abbott to replace Kevin Rudd as the nation’s next PM comes as the Liberal Party reportedly plans to upgrade relations with Jerusalem, make visa applications easier for Israelis, ban more terror groups and stop financial support to any organization that supports the boycott Israel campaign,” said Goldberg.




August 8, 2014 – 11:52 am

Beyond despicable. We have truly scraped the bottom of the piggy trotter barrel. With these seemingly docile words, the Abbott has confined us in a cage of silence. What an unbearable pattern of sleaze and grease these jews have exhibited time and time again. A chastity belt would be more comfortable than this.





PDF Notes

* Total words = 5,251

* Total pages = 34

*Total images = 22

* All images, captions and text in [brackets] are NOT part of original article.




PDF of this post. Click to view or download (4.0 MB). >> 





Version History


Version 2: Dec 3, 2016 — Fixed typos. Improved formatting. Added cover and more pics. Updated PDF for (Ver 2) download.


Version 1: Published Aug 12, 2014

Read Full Post »


Video:  AZK – Sylvia Stolz


Lawyer Who Was Jailed for Presenting


Evidence in the Zundel Trial (full)


 Sylvia Stolz 030

Video published on Jan 18, 2013

CLICK TO VIEW >>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoJY5cBxmdw


(English Subs) Sylvia Stolz, a German lawyer who was jailed for presenting evidence in the defence of her client in the criminal court trial in Germany of so-called holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, tells her story at the AZK (Anti-Zensor-Koalition) Conference in Switzerland, in November 2012. In 2008, she was banned from speaking during the trial, barred from presenting evidence, and criminally charged with contempt of court, and with inciting contempt, and charged under the same section of the German Criminal Code as her client, and subsequently imprisoned for 3 years. She is also barred from practising law. After giving this presentation in Switzerland, she is now again facing criminal charges, as is the host and organizer of the AZK, Mr. Ivo Sasek.


NOTE: For a translation of the short interview at the very end, please go here (contains C.C.Engl. Subs) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gJvE_


Source of the following transcript: http://www.toben.biz/2013/05/sylvia-lionheart-stolz-2/


Transcript of Speech


Sylvia “LionHeart” Stolz



Holocaust®, Issue Banned Speech, banned evidence and banned legal defence. The reality of “Free Speech”.


Ivo Sasek (AZK)


 Sylvia Stolz 031

[Image] Ivo Sasek at the AZK Conference, Nov, 2012


Our last speaker of the day will be lecturing on banned speech, banned evidence and even a ban on legal defence in court. On top of everything else, being banned from defending yourself in court constitutes a particularly disturbing problem. This speaker is a fully qualified lawyer and throughout her lecture I find it of particular importance, that we don’t let our judgement be influenced by what our eyes and ears have already been shown or told.


She really made the headlines a few years ago, as a defense attorney. So let me briefly explain with whom we are dealing with. This defense attorney has the courage of the lion. She is stronger than a man, and I have never met a woman with such a profile. She bravely stood up and took it upon herself to defend Ernst Zündel in the famous case against him, for so-called “holocaust denial” She was the trial lawyer of Ernst Zündel.


 Sylvia Stolz 032

[Image] Ernst Zundel sits in a court in Germany in 2005 at the beginning of a trial where he was accused of incitement.


During the legal proceedings she provided evidence to the court, which could raise doubts regarding the official account of history. This caused furor in the courtroom. And she was prohibited from speaking any further. This speech-ban was ordered as she was presenting the arguments of the defendant. She was not allowed to argue the case, and barred from listing more evidence.


She ignored the speech-ban and continued to submit evidence. And was then threatened on pain of penalties if she persisted. As it became too much for the authorities, she was arrested right there in the courtroom during her defence of the so-called “holocaust denierErnst Zündel. But not even this could silence her, as she continued to speak the case of her defendant while being forcefully removed from the courtroom. For this she was imprisoned for almost three and a half years, in spite of her having no previous convictions.


Arrested in the courtroom and directly into prison. On top of this, she had to face 5 years of “berufsverbot” through cancellation of her license to work as an attorney, and was removed from the Association for German Lawyers. They threw her out, but we would like to carry her into our midst. I urge you to help her along. We are talking about a legend here. Making headlines across Europe.


Welcome Sylvia Stolz. If they won’t let you speak there, we will let you speak here. We trust you to know the limitations. I am sure you do.



Sylvia Stolz’s Speech


Thank you for the warm welcome. Ladies and Gentlemen, dear friends. I’ll say it again, thank you for the warm welcome.


Sylvia Stolz 037


I would like to begin my presentation with one sentence, with which I also intend to end it. I believe that in this sentence, the very essence of being human is unfolded.


To think what is true, to sense what is beautiful and to want what is good, hereby the spirit finds the purpose of a life in reason.


This is a quote from Johann Gottfried von Herder, To think what is true, to sense what is beautiful and to want what is good”. Regardless of your religion, your world-view or philosophical orientation this sentence encapsulates the essence of human life, in my opinion. The alpha and omega.


One of the important topics we will be discussing, is “Freedom of Speech”. One hears from many places, that people who have certain opinions get into trouble. And this is not confined to political discourse. I am sure you know of quite a few areas, without me listing them. But to give an example, say, the issue of vaccines. There are doctors out there, who have been banned from practicing, because they warned against vaccination. This is just one example out of many within medicine. Or journalists who are ostracized because they have a differing view of the events of 9/11, 2001 and report on this. Such journalists are also bound to get in trouble. However, these people are not punished by criminal law, but find themselves punished in their respective occupations.


These examples should suffice to show, that the highly praised “Freedom of Speech” in reality isn’t all, that it is made out to be. And now to the issue of banned evidence, banned legal defence within the area of “holocaust denial”. Much could be said about this, one hour is far from sufficient. My job here is to omit that, for which there is no time. But there are certain points, which I think are essential to emphasize.


First of all, it must be said, that the principle of the “defined penal code” has not been fulfilled. It has been downright violated. This principle dictates, that the accused, must be allowed to know, what he did wrong. And what he should have done otherwise If someone takes a bicycle, that does not belong to him, then this of course constitutes “theft”, as we all know. In cases of libel, where a person says something negative, causing reputational damage, then the question of the court is, whether or not, what was said is true or false. And if true, it does not constitute “libel”, because in theory one is allowed to speak the truth. In the case of “holocaust denial” the first problem we are faced with is that the holocaust isn’t defined anywhere. That is the problem of a “defined penal code” An authoritative definition cannot be found anywhere. I’ll get back to this later.


Let’s turn to to the legal passages. First of all the ones within German Law. In paragraph 130 section 3 according to which so-called “holocaust deniers” are fined or imprisoned up to 5 years for each singular offence. In this paragraph there is no mention of the holocaust itself. It is not defined in the law as such. Instead it refers to paragraph 6 section 1 of international law. And here we find a definition of “genocide”. And whoever denies that such a “genocide” has occurred, commits an offence, provided that additional criteria are met, such as “disturbance of the public order”. But what I would like to emphasize is the definition of “genocide” in paragraph 6. It is very brief. I’ll give an excerpt. It is defined as “genocide” when “ONE member” of an ethnic, religious or other group is “killed with the intention of causing the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group”. This means that if just one member of say, a religious group is killed, and the perpetrator intended to kill a part of or the whole group. Then it constitutes “genocide”, according to this definition.


Let us now turn to the question of how it should be defined in order to clear. Normally in cases of murder, a verdict contains the established facts of the police investigation, such as where and when , which weapon was involved, the name of the perpetrators and so on. All this is included in the judgment, after being demonstrated by the prosecution that, say “this was the murder weapon” because it carries the fingerprints of the perpetrator and so on. These things must be stated in the judgment. In cases of “holocaust denial”, we are dealing with a criminal denial of murder, and then of course we would expect to find the details of that murder spelled out too. Otherwise we have no idea, what the accused actually denied. This is the problem, there is no clarity when it comes to what was denied specifically. There should be at least one case against a holocaust denier in which the specifics of the related crime have been demonstrated and specified. I know of no such verdict.


There are no details concerning the crime-scenes, the method of killing, the number of victims, the time-frame of the killings, the perpetrators, the corpses. We have no physical trace of a killing. The testimonies are not specified, neither are the documents or similar kinds of evidence. The intention to destroy all or part of jewry under national-socialist rule has not been demonstrated anywhere. There are no documents showing any prior decisions, plans or orders. When it comes to the trial of holocaust deniers, we do not find these things specified. Neither do we find any references to other verdicts, in which all these things could have been stated. This is the problem. As long as the court will not commit to certain specified crime-scenes on which these mass-killings are supposed to have happened As long as the court will not commit to at least one specified piece of evidence As long as this remains the case, these mass-killings simply cannot be demonstrated. And even less so the “denial” of said mass-killings.


Now some people might say, “What about the Nuremberg-trial? It’s probably in there somewhere, the details?” This is not the case. Let me read you the relevant passage of the Nuremberg verdict, where gas-chambers are mentioned. Here it says and I quote:


A certain number of the concentration camps were equipped with gas chambers for the wholesale destruction of the inmates, and with furnaces for the burning of the bodies. Some of them were in fact used for the extermination of Jews as part of the ‘final solution’ of the Jewish problem. Most of the non-Jewish inmates were used for labor, although the conditions under which they worked made labor and death almost synonymous terms. Those inmates who became ill and were unable to work were either destroyed in the gas chambers or sent to special infirmaries, where they were given entirely inadequate medical treatment, worse food if possible than the working inmates, and left to die.


That is all it says about gas-chambers in the Nuremberg verdicts.


Nuremberg - Harwood 007

[Image] The International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg 1945/6


It is all stated in general terms such as “a certain number of concentration camps”. It is not mentioned where the gas-chambers were. This means that a defense attorney is left with no place to begin. It is also important to emphasize that the rules of evidence where nullified in the Nuremberg trials. Very important parts of them at least. It says here, in the London statutes which were written specifically for this military tribunal. Here in Article 19 it says:


The Tribunal shall not be bound by rules of evidence”.


That is a sentence which is worth pondering. That a military tribunal, from its inception is given a free hand when it comes to rules of evidence. And furthermore in article 21:


The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge, but shall take judicial notice thereof.”


Interesting, right? It shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge, but what are “facts of common knowledge”. It is usually the job of the courts to establish the facts, not presume the facts.


 Sylvia Stolz 038

[Image] Robert H. Jackson, chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg, during his closing address to the Tribunal at Nuremberg 1946


It all becomes somewhat clearer in the words of the American chief prosecutor Robert H. Jackson. He stated in the Nuremberg protocols vol. 19 p. 440:


As a military tribunal, this Tribunal is a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations.”


I’ll repeat, the Nuremberg tribunal is “a continuation of the war-effort of the Allied nations” Does a nation engaged in a war-effort need rules of evidence, as it seeks to burden its opponent with guilt?


I would now like to read you a passage from another verdict, in which one might assume to find the details of the holocaust specified. This is from the so-called “Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials”. Here it says in the final verdict, and I quote:


The court lacked almost all the means of evidence of a normal murder trial and necessary for gaining a truthful image of the events at the time of the murder. There were no bodies of the victims, no autopsy reports, no expert reports on the cause and time of death, there was no evidence as to the criminals, the murder weapons, etc. Verification of the witness testimonies was only possible in rare cases


And further below:


The court was therefore in the clarification of the crimes of the accused almost solely dependent upon witness testimonies. Additionally, there were barely any of the witnesses, who could be described as neutral observers of the occurrences of the Auschwitz concentration camp”.


From this verdict we are forced to conclude … or simply take in what is written to see that:


the court was in the clarification of the crimes of the accused almost solely dependent upon witness testimonies”.


Sylvia Stolz 039

[Image] The Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials (1963 – 1967) was a series of trials charging 22 defendants under German law for their roles as low-level officials at the Auschwitz camp complex.


This is the starting point of a trial for holocaust denial, and it is also the end-point of a trial for holocaust denial, because nothing ever changes. One never gets to know, neither as defence attorney nor as prosecutor what actually has been established as fact. One cannot know from the prior verdicts, old of new. Surely there is a lot in the media and much can be read in books about it, but obviously, we need to hear what has been determined by the courts. We want to know.


At this point I would like to add a very telling statement by 34 French historians. In 1979 these 34 historians issued a statement in response to the technical evidence presented by revisionist historian Robert Faurisson who sought to disprove the existence of gas-chambers. These 34 historians all hold to the official account of the holocaust and put forward the following as a counter-argument to Robert Faurissons line of reasoning. I quote:


It must not be asked how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was technically possible because it happened. That is the required point of departure of any historical inquiry on this subject. It is incumbent upon us to simply state this truth: there is not, there cannot be, any debate about the existence of the gas chambers.”, end quote.


This also belongs to the point of departure of a trial for holocaust denial, because this is how the judges, the prosecutors etc. are behaving. Through their actions they are clearly letting you know, that you are not allowed to ask. This has had immense consequences.


I am in no way the first lawyer to be punished for “holocaust denial”. Not by a long shot. I might be the first lawyer to be imprisoned for it though. But for years lawyers have been accused of holocaust denial, because they submitted evidence regarding details of the holocaust. When submitting evidence, one necessarily have to phrase it as statements of facts. Otherwise it will not constitute evidence, and will be dismissed. That means you have to claim as fact, that which you want to demonstrate to the court. Otherwise it is not valid, and can be dismissed on formal grounds.


But when submitting evidence on behalf of a holocaust denier, asking the court to establish that “so-and-so is the case, by expert testimony or in accordance with earlier reports”, etc. Then the evidence is not admitted by the court, and the lawyer is then accused and sentenced for holocaust denial. The general public know very little of this, because the lawyer in question seldom wishes to attract any attention. They simply pay the fine, and tell themselves that they will stay out of trouble in the future. There are a great many cases like this.


But I thought to myself, why should this remain unknown to the public. The way the accused are being treated, the way justice is miscarried. To punish lawyers simply for doing their job. I felt it was important to me, that the public get to feel this too I will now turn to the Bavarian court for prosecution of attorneys, who was to decide whether or not I should lose my license. Here again i submitted evidence regarding the presupposed “obviousness” of the holocaust.


The evidence again was not admitted, and the reason given was, that the court in light of the available books and pictures hold no doubt as to the “obviousness” of the holocaust. I as well as my lawyer then requested that the court point out, which books and which pictures gave them certainty with regard to the “obviousness” of the holocaust. These requests were dismissed because: “the holocaust and the national-socialist violent crimes against the jews were ‘obvious’”. So, we did not receive an answer as to which material, formed the basis for the certainty of the court. All we got was a very general reference to “newspapers, radio and television, lexicons and history books”. End quote.


In other words, if you want to know why you are being punished, then you should go and look it up in the newspapers. It will not appear in the judgment. Go look it up in the “Bild-zeitung” (german tabloid). This is of course an important point they have, about “the newspapers”. What does the newspapers say?


A French historian Jacques Beynac ,was quoted in Le Nouveau Quotidien de Lausanne, a Swiss newspaper in September 1996. He said:


When it comes to the existence of nazi gas-chambers, all one can do is, to point out the absence of documents, of physical traces and similar types of material evidence”. According to him, “all one can do is, to point out the absence of documents, physical traces and similar types of material evidence


This is the opinion of a French historian, who by the way supports the official account of the holocaust. Does this not show that the “obviousness” could and should be questioned in court?


Another historian, Ernst Nolte wrote in his book “The Causal Nexus”:


The witness testimonies are for the most part based on hear-say and assumptions. The few eye-witness testimonies we have, are in partial contradiction with one another, and raises questions regarding overall credibility


The historian Hans Mommsen was quoted in the “Süddeutsche Zeitung”, saying “The holocaust was not ordered by Hitler”. Again statements showing that questions regarding the “obviousness” of the holocaust are valid.


The last statement I would like to read to you is from Fritjof Meyer. In the journal “Osteuropa” he had an article entitled “ The number of Auschwitz Victims. New insights from newfound archival documents” He wrote the the following with regard to the crime-scene. He is editor at “Der Spiegel” by the way… In may of 2002 this journal came out in which he states that the genocide did not happen within in the concentration camp Auschwitz. Instead the genocide happened: “In the two farmhouses outside of the camp, probably”… so the genocide did not happen inside the camp, but “probably” in two farmhouses outside of the camp?


Again this shows, that evidence concerning the “obviousness” of the holocaust should be allowed in court Now, let us see where the supreme court stand with regard to the criminalisation of holocaust denial. Because the law here prohibits a specific kind of speech it is regarded as a “special statute” within the law. This special statute is acknowledged as “unconstitutional”, by the supreme court, because it goes against the constitutionally guaranteed “freedom of speech”. This was determined by the supreme court in a rather recent decision from 2009. The official acknowledgment of paragraph 130 as a “special statute” is a small step forward. If they would just take the consequence and repeal the law criminalising holocaust denial due to its unconstitutionality… However, I will not spare you their reasons for not doing so. The justifications given by the supreme court for upholding the special statute.


In the so-called Wunsiedel-decision of the supreme court of 2009, the court declared that Germany is by way of exception allowed to keep special statutes such as paragraph 130. That is the statute criminalising one particular kind of speech, with the inherent criminalisation of evidence and legal defense… Germany is by exception allowed to keep this special statute because of “the unique historical identity of the Federal Republic of Germany shaped through contrast to national-socialism” In other words, they are allowed to keep the exceptions to free speech, because it is the “Federal Republic of Germany”?


This is very well put. It brings out the arbitrariness rather well. The second justification is not stated as clearly and is found elsewhere in this supreme court decision. Here they speak of “unique” crimes and seem to suggest that, because we are dealing with this “unique” crime, then by way of exception demonstration of evidence is both superfluous and criminal. Giving evidence is both superfluous and criminal, when dealing with a “unique” crime. Does this seem logical to you?


At the end of the day, these are the two pillars upon which the criminalisation of holocaust denial rests. It is the justification within legal-theory, so to speak.


The unique historical identity of the Federal Republic of Germany” and the “unique crime” itself, are the reasons given for not allowing the demonstration of evidence.


Revisions and constitutional complaints are regularly dismissed as “obviously unjustified” Which again entails, that their decisions need no justification. When something is “obviously unjustified” it of course needs no justification… How neat, that is.


Again the answer is not given with regard to questions such as, “What are we allowed to say, then?” There is no answer. I heard the following statement by judge Meinerzhagen myself in court, during the trial of Ernst Zündel. But if I had simply told you, you would probably not believe me. And it is of course not stated in the transcripts. However the “Berliner Tageszeitung” (Berlin Daily) the socalled “TAZ” had the honor of reporting this statement by Judge Meinerzhagen. I now quote the Berlin daily newspaper “TAZ” from 9th of February 2007 reporting on the trial against Ernst Zündel:


Towards the end, and much to the surprise of the anti-fascist groupings present, the court dismissed all the submitted evidence. For the short and simple reason, that it is ‘completely irrelevant whether the holocaust really did happen or did not happen. It is illegal to deny it in Germany , and that is all that counts in court.”. Close quote from TAZ.


I will now return to the sentence with which I began this lecture, “To think what is true, to sense what is beautiful and to want what is good”. This implies the ability to identify and label lies the ability to identify and label the inhumane the the ability to identity and label injustice It also implies character traits, which is of particular importance in our age. The knowledge of our immortality, of steadfastness and incorruptibility. With such character we might be able to shape a world for the many children who were up here earlier today. A world in which we are allowed to speak the truth without punishment.


Thank you.


Ivo Sasek:  Thank you. Sylvia Stolz


Sylvia Stolz 041


Sylvia Stolz 043




Transcript of short interview given after the AZK speech


Sylvia Stolz 036




 CLICK TO VIEW >>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gJvE_1HQPg


I would like to add something to my presentation, one thing which I could not mention for time reasons. I mentioned that everybody who does something reasonable, beneficial, something healing, … runs the risk of being called a “Nazi”. And if you want to avoid being called a “Nazis”, you MUST ignore the crucial topics and thus you become ineffectual.


However this is not the only reason why I don’t mind being called a “Nazis”. If you know what is behind it, if you dealt with the subject, it’s not an insult. If someone calls me a “Nazis” I don’t consider it as an affront.


There is the story of a late, senior lawyer, he was in a bakery and while he was queuing he overheard talks of “Nazis”, in the usual way, ill of course, and finally he said: “Did you ever actually encounter a ‘Nazi’? Look at me!


I think this is the right attitude to deal with this matter.





Sylvia Stolz’s


Last Words in Court



[Image] Heroic German lawyer Sylvia Stolz (with heroic German lawyer Jürgen Rieger), who was disbarred and served three years in prison for debunking the Holocaust and vigorously defending Ernst Zundel.


German Patriot Defence Lawyer Sylvia Stolz was sentenced to 3 and-a-half years in prison and disbarred for 5 years.


Below Sylvia’s comments to the court.


She says the Court is perverting and repressing the truth with the cudgel of “Holocaust,” making a mockery of justice. Her trial has made clear the criminal absurdity of prosecuting “Holocaust Denial.” How can one deny something that never existed? She says these entire proceedings began as a show trial in a kangaroo court and never progressed beyond that point. The main proceedings were projected with smoke and mirrors and the official fairy tale of “Holocaust” was enforced by undisguised force. She observes that the political intent of the Court is the ultimate eradication of the German Nation and its replacement by a mongrelized and deculturated population of mindless consumers.


Sylvia says she is confident that she has succeeded in exposing this Court to the whole world as an agent that is hostile to the German Nation. By openly and flagrantly violating the law, this Court flees before the truth. Incessantly, like turning a prayer wheel, it has rejected her every evidentiary motion with the cynical pretext of “abuse of court procedure.” ….. She has hope and faith that the German Nation will someday bring this treacherous Court to justice.


Sylvia describes how the Defense was forced to accept the contents of the indictment, and this caused the Court’s desired verdict to be the inevitable consequence. In the absence of material evidence, the Court relied on its infantile rulings that “Abuse of Procedure = Criminal Act.” Thanks to this judicial sleight of hand, there was no assumption of innocence and the Court did not have to prove guilt.


Sylvia asks: to what is Grossmann referring when he mentions “domestic and foreign” court verdicts? Could he be referring to the Nuremberg show trials? The Allied Military Tribunal was nothing but a postwar Talmudic Inquisition conducted by Germany’s enemies. It featured witnesses with “built-in credibility” and Jewish testimony that could never be questioned or authenticated.


She asks: what would people like Grossmann do without the official obligatory fairy tale of “Holocaust?” Her trial has again demonstrated that world political powers are players in the “Holocaust” game (or “Holocaust Industry” as Prof. Norman Finkelstein calls it, he should know, since both of his parents were interned at Auschwitz during the War.) This explains why objective historical research is still suppressed, sixty-three years after the end of the War. As an example of ongoing intellectual repression in Germany Sylvia refers to the “Hermann Case” in which a popular commentator was fired for referring to such positive aspects of National Socialism as its family policy and the construction of Autobahns.


Sylvia demonstrates that the Court’s procedural system is very, very simple. It consists of disallowing all evidentiary motions as “abuse of Court procedure,” which is a criminal act. She says that the District Attorney’s closing tirade was beneath all legal criticism, nothing but purest slander and abuse…..Then Sylvia shows how powerful interests profit greatly by inculcating a negative self-image into German society, with their incessant propaganda and brainwashing. If Germans were as evil as Grossmann depicts them, they would long ago have skinned him alive.


She points out that under the present Talmudic Inquisition, anyone who calls attention to the destructive nature of Judaism can be punished. Glenz tells the Court Reporter to write that remark down as well. Sylvia observes that today, no one is allowed to say anything the least bit derogatory about Jews, and yet the necessary first step toward changing and improving conditions in Germany is recognizing the cause of our malaise. She says that Horst Mahler’s writings provide the proof for this, and she will stand by this assertion. Glenz orders the Reporter: “Put that in too!


Sylvia continues and remarks that Germany now stands under the yoke of world Judaism. Glenz threatens: “We are going to cut off your final address if…” But Sylvia ignores him and says that following World War II, the real criminals took over the world. Glenz growls “I’m warning you!” but Sylvia again urges the public to consider the causes of Germany’s plight and continue gathering and considering the material evidence. She tells the Court that National Socialism is not dead, regardless of how much Grossmann and his ilk wish it were dead. She says that National Socialism represents what is good and enduring in the German spirit. Idealism and patriotism are rigidly suppressed at this time but they cannot be suppressed forever.


Turning toward Grossmann and the Court, she asks:


Is he German? Or is he perhaps related to that Moshe Grossmann who for four years following the end of World War II continued torturing and murdering German slaves in the East, as the Jewish author John Sack reports in his book An Eye for an Eye?


Then she turns to the Bench and asks:


What about you — are you Germans? ‘German’ stands for honor and steadfastness! Think of Deutsche Treue! Nobody can call what is going on in this court as ‘honorable.’ In this court, the only ‘justice’ is inspired by the Talmud!


Sylvia expresses her faith that history will take its inevitable course and “the truth will win out.” She says that since the trial began she has been prepared for her preordained conviction — she told them at the beginning that she knew her verdict was handed down, even before her indictment. To the Bench she says:


And you, my high-and-mighty judges, will never again experience inner peace… Your depiction of National Socialism as a criminal system will see to that. You are willing accomplices to the brainwashing and degradation of the German people…. Adolf Hitler accurately recognized the Jewish problem, the malevolent power of the Jews in certain respects… Yes, I share the values of National Socialism!


Sylvia replies,


If my actions bring a little more light into this dark hour for Germany, then I will gladly go to prison! It does not bother me that I am officially ridiculed and insulted by this despicable court and atrocious government … My high and mighty judges, you are convicting yourselves, not me.







PDF of this post. Click to view or download (2.4 MB). >> Sylvia “LionHeart” Stolz



Version History


Version 2: Dec 2, 2018 — Improved formatting.


Version 1: Published Aug 10, 2014

Read Full Post »

Gaza Everywhere — Amren


Deleted Comments



Gaza Everywhere Cover Image 1

Gaza Everywhere Cover Image 2


The recent article by Brett Stevens sparked a lively exchange of comments both at Amren and at Daily Stormer. Of the total number of comments about 30% have been deleted by the mods in the final Comments Closed version.

The following two PDFS show what comment gets deleted and what stays.

NOTE: This is not necessarily a criticism of of Amren, but rather for those interested to see Amren’s comment policy in action, for better or worse.


UPDATE: For an informative discussion on Jared Taylor’s (the owner of American Renaissance website) “hands off” approach regarding jews, please see this over at VNN: Jared Taylor is Anti-White Thread


BTW, what got me to post this stuff was a comment left at Amren:


” • Reply • 

LACountyRedneck • 6 hours ago 

I hope none of this gets deleted. These comments have been a great education for myself and others. “


And yes, it was … deleted!



All Comments (Including Deleted) – Version 3


Total Published & Deleted Comments = 711

Total Published Comments = 475

Total Deleted Comments = 236


Comments in RED have been DELETED in Comments Closed Version

Comments in BLUE have been been ADDED from Comments Closed Version (They were not present at the time the comments were copied)

UPDATE: 23 comments by Black Swan were all marked as SPAM and do not appear in the COMMENTS CLOSED version at AMREN’s website.

I’ve added them to the end of the PDF document (below).




Comments Closed Version

[Note: This is outdated – see above]


Comments that have been deleted have this message: “This comment was deleted.”

NOTE: Not all deleted comments have the above message (for whatever reason).

PDF file (0.4 MB)>>  Gaza Everywhere COMMENTS CLOSED American Renaissance




Gaza Everywhere

Brett Stevens, American Renaissance, August 4, 2014



The Third World is at our gates.

Israel withdrew its troops from Gaza last night, but the problems that brought them there remain. Two populations find themselves locked in a conflict with no end. Many people think this is a clash between different religions, but the roots lie deeper.

Many Western liberals see a group of poor people confronting relatively wealthy people, and using the logic of the French Revolution, assume that the rich oppress the poor. They accuse the victims of genocide during the Second World War of committing genocide when they defend themselves from poorer, browner Third-World people.

That view ignores historical fact. Both groups have had a chance to develop within the same territory. Israelis followed the European model and created a society of learning, technology, arts and culture. Palestinians remain a Third World people, and now that they have been displaced by Zionism, have added religious fanaticism to their traditional social organization. Across the Muslim world, religion tends to be more extreme and to guide collective action, whereas in the First World it is largely a personal moral imperative.

Some argue that societies are made of laws and that anyone may come, learn the laws, and become equally valuable citizens. History teaches otherwise. Third World populations bring with them not only their own habits and folkways, but ingrained tendencies and limitations that clash with the standards of the First World.

If the Third World lacks what the First World has, why haven’t Third-Worlders simply copied the successful methods of the First World? Why have they continued to act in ways that produce Third World conditions? It is because genetic differences constrain their choices.

Please go the Amren’s website to read the rest:










Click to download PDF file containing all comments (1.7 MB)

>> Gaza Everywhere ALL COMMENTS American Renaissance Ver 4


Gaza Everywhere  ALL COMMENTS  American Renaissance Ver 4 - Cover

Version History


Version 4: Apr 25, 2015 – Formatting, added cover images. Added this Ver Hist.


Ver 3: Oct13, 2014 — 711 comments.


Ver 2: Aug 8, 2014 — 702 comments.

Added comments by Black Swan that were marked as SPAM and tidied up the errant returns in the comment text in the PDF.


Ver 1: Aug 7, 2014 — 679 comments

Read Full Post »

Nuremberg - Harwood 001






Other War Crimes Trials:


a New Look


[Part 2]



Richard Harwood






Introduction ……………………………………….. 1


Facts & Figures …………………………………… 1


The Scene is Set …………………………………. 3


The Occupation …………………………………… 5


De-Nazification …………………………………… 7

The Role of the OSS ……………………………. 9


Belsen ………………………………………………….. 11


The International Military Tribunal … 11

 Jackson’s Speech ………………………………. 18

 Psychology of Defendants …………………. 19

 The Defendants ………………………………… 19

 The Witnesses …………………………………… 29

 The Sentences …………………………………… 34

 The Executions ………………………………….. 34

 The Imprisonments ……………………………. 34


The American Military Tribunal ……….. 35

 AMT4 …………………………………………………. 36

 AMT6 …………………………………………………. 37

 AMT7 …………………………………………………. 39

 AMT9 …………………………………………………. 40

 AMT10 ………………………………………………… 41

 The Prosecution …………………………………. 44


Trial of Manstein …………………………………. 45


Dachau Trials ………………………………………. 48


Trial of Eichmann ……………………………….. 51

 Eichmann the Zionist …………………………. 54


Recent German Trials ………………………… 55


Italian Trials ……………………………………….. 56


Criticism of the Trials …………….………….. 57

 The Charges ………………………………………. 57

 The Court ………………………………………….. 58

 The Defendants …………………………………. 58

 The Hidden Aspect …………………………….. 59



A The Katyn Massacre ……………………….. 59

B Bombing of Civilians ……………………….. 61

C The ‘Repatriations………………………….. 64

D Palestine …………………………………………… 66

Bibliography …………………………………………. 69



Cover photo shows the funeral pyre set up in a Dresden street of some of the 135,000 civilian victims of Allied bombing of that German city.

© 1978

All Rights Reserved

Printed & published by Historical Review Press, Chapel Ascote, Ladbroke, Southam, – Warks., England




1. These notes and Version History (see below) do not appear in the original book. They are here to explain what is not original to the book and what is additional material. For example the layout is not original, the book is formatted with two columns, while this version has a standard “one column” format.


2. This version contains footnotes (the original did not) and additional images, indicated by [Add. Image] that did not appear in the original book.


3. Page numbers in square brackets, e.g.  [Page 3] refer to the original book. If a page number falls within a sentence in the original it has been moved here to  the end or beginning of the sentence, or paragraph.


4. The English spelling “Nuremberg” is used throughout the text here, while the original book uses the German spelling.


5.  …. ]


Version History

Ver 2: Aug 6, 2014 – Added additional images and footnotes to Setting the Scene.

Ver 1: Aug 3, 2014 – Added additional images and footnotes to Introduction and Facts & Figures.






The execution in 1976 of British and American mercenaries in Angola for ‘war crimes’ has brought back to public attention this peculiar and disturbing subject. [1]
During the Angolan trial, the judges intervened at several points to restrain the defence counsel from putting its case too well. The court could not tolerate any evidence which might help the accused criminals, they said.


The British press whined hypocritically about this travesty of justice. Yet the simple-minded Angolans were only doing as their European mentors had taught them: the Angolan trial was virtually a carbon-copy of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremburg in 1946. All the ingredients were there: the pretence of justice, the restrictions on the defence, the presumption of guilt before the trial had even started, the supervision of an international tribunal, the hysterical accusations of prosecution witnesses etc., etc. It is easy for the press to complain about the standards of ‘justice’ in a backward and far-off land in darkest Africa. But it is not so easy for them to criticise a series of trials for which we were responsible, at least in part, and which have gone down in history and subsequent protocol agreements, as legal precedent.


We are subject to no such restrictions. In this short volume, we hope to examine as thoroughly and objectively as possible the vexed subject of the trials at Nuremburg, and in so doing make some contribution to a rational understanding of this aspect of recent history which has, along with other events, been grotesquely twisted by the enemies of truth. One such example is the allegation that six million Jews were gassed as part of an official extermination programme on the part of the German government of the Hitler era and which formed one of the major charges against the Nazi leaders at Nuremburg.


 Nuremberg - Harwood 008

[Add. Image] Aerial view of Nuremberg “Palace of Justice” in Winter 1945-46


Nuremberg - Harwood 009

[Add. Image] 1945-46 The Court House – “Palace of Justice”.


Nuremberg - Harwood 011

[Add. Image] On guard at the “Palace of Justice”.



[1] See PART 1







In the United States,  the chorus of demands for the trial of the Nazi leaders developed mostly out of the hate mongering campaign operated by various official and semiofficial propaganda agencies. At the beginning of the war, the American people regarded the ordinary Germans as quite pleasant people who had been railroaded into the war by that tyrant Hitler. Such a corporate view would not tolerate Washington’s plans for a mass-murder of German civilians through day and night bombing raids. Nor would they accept the degradation and humiliation of the Germans after the Nazis’ defeat.


Early on in the war, the main protagonist of frenzied, anti-German hatred was Sir (later Lord) Robert Vansittart, [1] the British diplomatist. In a series of radio broadcasts of fantastic fury in 1941, Vansittart wove a paranoid picture of “German evil and viciousness” which stretched back two thousand years. He compared Germany to the shrike or butcher-bird, which preys on its weaker neighbours. President Roosevelt, whilst officially disassociating himself from Vansittart’s way-out hate-mongering, was sufficiently impressed with his approach that he sent tapes of Vansittart’s British radio hate speeches to William B. Donovan, [2] Co-ordinator of Information, and later chief of the OSS (the fore-runner of the CIA), to be used as American radio propaganda.


Vansittart’s hymn of hate against Germany was soon taken up and echoed on the other side of the Atlantic too. A writer by the name of Theodore N. Kaufman [3], in Germany Must Perish (Argyle Press, Newark, 1941) insisted that the Nazis were “merely mirrors reflecting the centuries-old inbred lust of the German nation for conquest and mass murder.” It was the “German people” who were “ responsible” for the war and hence “must be made to pay.” To rid the world of these “war-lusted souls” Kaufman advocated the “eugenic sterilisation” of 48 million Germans. By such a policy he estimated that “Germanism” could be extinguished in two generations. Meanwhile, German PoWs could,  after sterilisation, be placed in “labour battalions” while the Reich itself could be partitioned among its deserving neighbours. Kaufmann even illustrated his tract with a hand-drawn map, showing France stretching as far as Erfurt, Holland trebling its size to reach almost to the gates of Berlin, and Poland and Czechia (?) dividing what is now East Germany equally between them. All this was the more remarkable in that Kaufmann’s rant was written and published before the USA entered the war!


Nuremberg - Harwood 024

[Add. Image] Kaufmann’s map of a post war dismembered Germany


As the war progressed, the hate campaign was stepped up too, and the first official demands for bloody revenge started to be made. Early in 1943, the former US ambassador to Germany,  James W. Gerard, [4]urged that when the Allies conquered Germany they hang 10,000 Prussians as a starter. Joseph E. Davies [5], a confidant of Roosevelt’s and a former ambassador to the USSR,  said that the Germans should be treated like insane asylum inmates for two or three generations and, as if to justify his hate, confidently predicted that the Germans would begin using poison gas and bacteriological warfare very shortly. A New Jersey radio station ran a competition to select the best replacement word for ‘kindergarten’, because it was borrowed from the German language. A prominent judge and a newspaper publisher agreed to act as adjudicators.


But the greatest hate-generation source of all was the Writers’ War Board [6], a quasi-governmental agency set up early in the war by Roosevelt’s adviser Morgenthau [7]. Morgenthau selected as WWB director Rex Stout [8], an author of third-rate detective stories and other pot-boilers. Stout in turn hand-picked other writers of sensationalist, popular fiction to contribute their talents to the Board. Members received no compensation for their efforts, but the government paid for overheads such as secretarial staff and office expenses. The Board worked closely with the Office of War Information, the propaganda off-shoot of the OSS.


Two weeks after the Allies’ Casablanca conference, the Board swung into action with an article written by Stout in the New York Times Sunday Magazine, rather appropriately entitled “We Shall Hate or We Shall Fail”. [9] Stout asserted that four generations of German leaders had been guided by the “adoration of force as the only arbiter, and skulduggery as the supreme technique in human affairs.” Hatred of the Germans, he wrote, was necessary “to establish the world on a basis of peace.” Obviously the American public was not yet ready for such paranoia, for the editor of the Times was deluged with letters in opposition to Stout. Several church groups made official protests.


[Page 3]


Stout’s campaign was rabidly supported by Clifton Fadiman, [10] who at that time was the book review editor of the New Yorker weekly magazine. Fadiman, who was Stout’s right-hand man on the WWB, used his magazine position to promote more anti-German hatred. Fadiman noted that there was “only one way to make a German understand and that’s to kill them, and even then I think they don’t understand.” (original grammar).


The WWB also “advised” radio stations and even arranged programmes and wrote speeches. One of the Board’s most prominent front-men, Quentin Reynolds [11] the war correspondent and Collier’s magazine columnist, announced on the popular radio programme “America’s Town Meeting of the Air[12] that hatred was a “healthy” emotion, and that the mental disease of Germany could not be cured — “you must kill.” On another edition of the same programme, on 30 September 1943, the British hate-monger Lord Vansittart was the principal guest, along with Richard M. Brickner, the author of a book Is Germany Incurable? [13] which the WWB was promoting. Bruckner, introduced as a “noted psychiatrist”, proposed the incarceration in institutions and labour battalions of large numbers of “paranoid-tending” Germans. They would be treated as “typhoid carriers”; their children would be taken away from them and placed in foster homes. Later in the war, the programme presented Louis Nizer, [14] the author of yet another book on What to Do with Germany, [15]  who proposed that death penalties should be demanded not only of about 5,000 high Nazi officials,  but also of 150,000 subordinates and civil servants. Every German officer above the rank of colonel, along with members of the Reichstag, and many others, would be tried. Hundreds of thousands of Germans would be given jail sentences ranging up to life, which they would serve in labour battalions. But this alone would not cure the German “lust for war”, he asserted. All heavy industry must be removed from Germany in order to prevent any ideas about a new war. On the same radio programme, Samuel Grafton, a syndicated columnist, also urged the permanent exiling or imprisonment without trial of at least 10,000 “members of the leading Nazi circles”.


Both “America’s Town Meeting of the Air” and its sister programme “America’s Forum of the Air” were heavily influenced by the WWB. Stout not only selected many of the speakers on programmes relating to Germany but was also able to influence the choice of subjects and titles. Some of this influence was wielded indirectly through a WWB offshoot, the Society for the Prevention of World War III, [16]  which preached even greater vindictiveness than its parent body. The Society was also controlled by Stout, and was financed privately by Robert Woods Bliss, [17] a former US ambassador to the Argentine; funds being channelled through the leftist Brookings Institute in Washington. Oddly, the Society’s main target in America was the Council for a Democratic Germany,  a group of anti-Nazi German refugees who hoped to restore democracy and reconstruct Germany as soon as possible. Stout made sure that the Council got little publicity, and publicly condemned efforts to “salvage Germany ”.


But the most amazing example of the WWB’s power was its ability to actually re-write history, in exactly the same way that Winston Smith used the “Memory Hole” at the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984. In order to promote the idea of German war guilt, it was necessary to overturn the historical verdict on World War I. Most historians conducting research into the origins of the first war had by that time concluded that exclusive blame could not be allocated to Germany or any participant. Their collective findings were reflected in the 1930 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, where an 8,000-word article on War Guilt elaborated on this view. First the WWB softened up public opinion for the project re-writing, with an article by Stout in the NYT Book Review. Stout complained, at some length, that those who “excused” the Germans of First World War guilt were “fatally deceiving their countrymen”. That the Times should give such prominent space to the dismissal of the collective conclusions of most, serious, historians, by a writer of cheap detective novels, is an indication of the power the WWB wielded. But there was more to come. The revisionist view of history first voiced by Stout was echoed and reechoed by innumerable government officials,  newspaper editors and media men: Germany had again become solely guilty of starting World War I; after all, they had started five wars in 80 years, hadn’t they? In its 1944 edition, the Encyclopaedia Britannica cut out the 8,000-word article, and substituted a brief note saying there was not sufficient space for adequate treatment of the subject of War Guilt. History had been re-written.


Although the WWB was officially restrained from making political attacks, the Board was still able to “draw attention to” certain points in its mail-outs. The Board regularly monitored the radio comments of independent broadcasters, and attempted to silence anyone who was too soft on Germany by putting pressure on the programmes’ sponsors. Commentators such as Fulton Lewis Jr. who were attacked in material mailed out by the Board, and who protested to the Office of War Information, were told that the Board was not a governmental agency and hence not under its control.


One of the best-known broadcasters who took the WWB’s hate- Germany line was Walter Winchell [18] (real name Isadore Lipschitz). Winchell’s views on Germany were expressed to millions of listeners in terms of “a rattlesnake never deserves another chance”.


July 1944 saw the appearance of an influential book Time For Decision, by the then recently-retired Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles. [19] Welles wrote that even at this late stage in the war, the Germans were already making plans for a third world war. The book was awarded a prominent review in the New York Times, the reviewer commenting that the obvious solution to this danger would be for Germany to be deprived of all its heavy industry, since “no one need fear an agricultural, small-crafts economy”. Naturally, the book also received heavy WWB promotion.


Films too were grist to the WWB mill. Hate films proliferated depicting shining American heroes pitted against brutal Nazis. When The North Star [20] showed German army doctors bleeding children to death to top up their blood-banks, Time magazine hailed the picture as the “most successful attempt to show a sickening German atrocity in credible terms.” Hollywood did not forget box office receipts either, and many of the hate films were heavily flavoured with sex, much of it of the sadomasochistic variety.


Academics and educators joined in the baying for German blood. Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, president of the (Communist-infiltrated) Carnegie Endowment for “International Peace” and former president of Columbia University, said that when the war ended Germans could not be regarded as anything but convicted criminals. In a statement circulated by the WWB, he asserted that for a generation Germans could not be accepted as equal citizens of the post-war world. Several educationalists proposed that all Axis schoolteachers who had willingly stayed at their posts throughout the war should be discharged and “forever barred from teaching again”. But the most preposterous suggestion of all — from any source — came from an eminent anthropologist, Dr. Ernest A. Hooton of Harvard University. He proposed to dilute the German stock (and thereby “adulterate the Nazi strain”) by a process of outbreeding, i.e. miscegenation. This would be accomplished by sending Czechs, Austrians and others into Germany,  where they would settle and interbreed with the German people. Men of the German army would be kept out of their native land while the “outbreeding” was going on, probably by being put into forced labour in formerly occupied countries. (Astute readers will of course realise that this plan was eventually to involve ethnic groups much more exotic than the “Czechs” and “Austrians” and it was not only the Germans who would be made to suffer this dreadful fate, as the residents of towns and cities throughout Britain are only too aware.)


By January 1945, WWB material was being sent to 3,500 writers, 1,150 army information services, 2,600 industrial newspapers and 270 comic strip editors. Syndicated editorials were sent to 1,600 daily newspapers. Radio scripts went to 750 local radio stations.


The all-out effort to induce hate had worked. As the war ended, a packed meeting at Carnegie Hall (arranged by Stout’s Society) welcomed the demand by St Louis Post Despatch editor Joseph Pulitzer [21] that punishing the guilty would require the execution of approximately a million and a half Germans. The guilty, “with no differentiation as to their degree of guilt” should be shot.






[1] Robert Gilbert Vansittart, 1st Baron Vansittart GCB, GCMG, PC, MVO (25 June 1881 – 14 February 1957), known as Sir Robert Vansittart between 1929 and 1941, was a senior British diplomat in the period before and during the Second World War. He was Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister from 1928 to 1930 and Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office from 1930 to 1938 and later served as Chief Diplomatic Adviser to the British Government. He is best remembered for his opposition to Appeasement and his hardline stance towards Germany during and after the Second World War.


Nuremberg - Harwood 019


Nuremberg - Harwood 020

Strong opposition to Germany


Vansittart was also involved in intelligence work. He was opposed to the appeasement of German aggression. In 1940, Vansittart sued the American historian Harry Elmer Barnes for libel for an article Barnes had written in 1939 accusing Vansittart of plotting aggression against Germany in 1939. During the war, Vansittart became a prominent advocate of an extremely hard line with Germany. His earlier worries about Germany were reformulated into an argument that Germany was intrinsically militaristic and aggressive. In Black Record: Germans Past and Present (1941), Vansittart portrayed German history from the time of ancient Rome as a continuous record of aggression. Nazism was just the latest manifestation. Therefore, after Germany was defeated, it must be stripped of all military capacity, including its heavy industries.





[2] William Joseph (“Wild Bill”) Donovan (January 1, 1883 – February 8, 1959) of Irish descent, was a United States soldier, lawyer, intelligence officer and diplomat. Donovan is best remembered as the wartime head of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), a precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency, during World War II. He is also known as the “Father of American Intelligence” and the “Father of Central Intelligence”.


Nuremberg - Harwood 021


After the war ended, Donovan reverted to his lifelong role as a lawyer to perform one last duty: he served as special assistant to chief prosecutor Telford Taylor at several trials following the main Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal in Germany.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Donovan



[3] Theodore Newman Kaufman (Sometimes known as Theodore Nathan Kaufman, born 1910 in Manhattan, died October 1980 in East Orange, New Jersey) was a Jew who published “Germany Must Perish!” in 1941, which called for the genocide of Germans.


Nuremberg - Harwood 022


Nuremberg - Harwood 023


In 1939, Kaufmann was chairman of a shadowy group called the “American Federation for Peace”. He was reportedly friends with Roosevelt speech writer Sam Rosenman. The German press of the time misinterpreted this to mean Kaufman was an FDR adviser himself, which was not true.


Germany Must Perish


In late 1940, he began writing “Germany Must Perish”, the booklet he is most known for. It was published in early 1941, and inspired anger in Germany.


The open call for genocide in the tract is neither metaphorical not subtle, as he makes very clear:


Since the fang’s poison and its deadly power rests not in the body but in the war psyche of the Germans, one can ensure the prosperity and security of mankind only by finally extinguishing this soul and the rotten body that houses it, removing it finally from the world. There is no other choice: Germany must perish!

Not only must there be no more German wars in fact, there must not even remain the slightest possibility of one ever again occurring. A final halt to German aggression, not a temporary cessation, must be the goal of the present struggle… [Germany] must be prepared to pay a Total Penalty. And there is one, and only one, such Total Penalty: Germany must perish forever! In fact  —  not in fancy.” ( — From “Germany Must Perish”, by T.N. Kaufman)

On 26. September 1941 Kaufman said in an interview he gave to The Canadian Jewish Chronicle:[6]


I believe, that the Jews have a mission in life. They must see to it that the nations of the world get together in one vast federation. ‘Union Now’ is the beginning of this. Slowly but surely the world will develop into a paradise. We will have perpetual peace. And the Jews will do the most to bring about this confederation, because they have the most to gain. But how can you get peace if Germany exists? The only way to win an eternal peace is to make the punishment of waging war more horrible than war itself. Human beings are penalized for murder, aren’t they? Well, Germany starts all the wars of magnitude. Let us sterilize all Germans and wars of world domination will come to an end!


Quote from Germany Must Perish:


GERMANY MUST PERISH! By word of science, as the best means of ridding the human race of its misfits: the degenerate, the insane, the hereditary criminal. Sterilization is not to be confused with castration. It is a safe and simple Operation, quite harmless and painless, neither mutilating nor unsexing the patient. Its effects are most often less distressing than vaccination and no more serious than a tooth extraction. Too, the Operation is extremely rapid requiring no more than ten minutes to complete. The patient may resume his work immediately afterwards.

Even in the case of the female the Operation, though taking longer to perform, is as safe and simple.

Performed thousands of times, no records indicate cases of complication or death. When one realizes that such health measures as vaccination and serum treatments are considered as direct benefits to the community, certainly sterilization of the German people cannot but be considered a great health measure promoted by humanity to immunize itself forever against the virus of Germanism. The population of Germany, excluding conquered and annexed territories, is about 70,000,000, almost equally divided between male and female. To achieve the purpose of German extinction it would be necessary to only …

Source:  http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Theodore_N._Kaufman



[4] James Watson Gerard (August 25, 1867 – September 6, 1951) was a United States lawyer and diplomat.

Under President Woodrow Wilson, he served as the American Ambassador to Germany[2] from 1913 to 1917.


Nuremberg - Harwood 025

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Gerard



[5] Joseph Edward Davies (November 29, 1876 – May 9, 1958) was an American lawyer and diplomat. He was appointed by President Wilson to be Commissioner of Corporations in 1912, and First Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission in 1915. He was the second Ambassador to represent the United States in the Soviet Union and U.S. Ambassador to Belgium and Luxembourg. From 1939 to 1941 Davies was Special assistant to Secretary of State Hull, in charge of War Emergency Problems and Policies. From 1942 through 1946 he was Chairman of President Roosevelt’s War Relief Control Board. Ambassador Davies was Special Advisor of President Harry Truman and Secretary of State James F. Byrnes with rank of Ambassador at the Potsdam Conference in 1945.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Davies


Nuremberg - Harwood 026

 Nuremberg - Harwood 027

[Add. Image] Davies (L) and (T) Davies with Stalin, May 1943


Within eight months of taking office, Roosevelt took steps to recognize the government of the Soviet Union – something refused by every prior president since the communist revolution.  While ordering the FBI to give the closest scrutiny to “comical” (according to Nisbet) German-American Bund in New York, Roosevelt ignored the myriad communists within his own administration.


Roosevelt was often warned:


Three ambassadors, William Bullitt, Admiral Standley, and Averill Harriman tried to warn him; so did such Russian experts as George Kennan, Loy Henderson, and Charles Bohlen.  To no avail. (P. 12)


…on one point, these men were agreed: The Soviet Union was not a fit ally for the United States and was America’s most dangerous enemy in the postwar world. (P. 13)


Roosevelt didn’t like the counsel of experts; instead he turned to “amateurs,” as Nisbet describes them:


Harry Hopkins, Joseph Davies, Admiral Leahy, General Marshall, [and] his Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins…. (P. 13)


Davies was named Ambassador to the Soviet Union in 1937.  Within weeks of his arrival, the entire professional diplomatic staff considered a group resignation in protest of Davies’ “invincible ignorance of Soviet history and Soviet barbarism.


Within months of Davies’ arrival, he ordered the breakup of the Russian division and the scattering of its most complete library on Soviet history and life in the Soviet Union. (P. 16)


Upon Davies’ return to the United States, he published his book “Mission to Moscow,” impolitely referred to by some as “Submission to Moscow.”  The book was immediately made into a movie for the American audience. (P. 16)


Mission to Moscow is a book by the former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union Joseph E. Davies and a film based on it directed by Michael Curtiz in 1943. The 1941 book sold 700,000 copies.

The movie chronicles the experiences of the naive second American ambassador to the Soviet Union and was made in response to a request by Franklin D. Roosevelt. According to its own producer the film was “an expedient lie for political purposes”. It was later scrutinized by the House Committee on Un-American Activities.


Do you think Roosevelt didn’t realize he had a know-nothing ambassador to Moscow?

Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/bionic-mosquito/fdrs-bff/





Two days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr., proposed organizing the nation’s writers as civilians “under arms” to promote the war effort. A month later, a group of prominent American authors formed the Writers’ War Board, a private association partially supported by government subsidy. The board coordinated more than 2,000 writers in diverse activities including slogans, poster contests, syndicated articles, poems, radio plays, dramatic skits, government publications, books, advertisements, and war propaganda.

Source: http://www.ushmm.org/exhibition/book-burning/war.php


In T’was a Famous Victory by Benjamin Colby (1974) – Chapter 11.


“Propaganda of the Writers War Board for a Carthaginian peace pervaded the entire field of communications. Its influence reached into editorial offices high and low, into the radio networks and into the movies. The board was a supplier and clearinghouse of hard-peace propaganda for editors, writers and broadcasters, arranging radio programs, providing speakers and ghost-writing magazine articles signed by prominent persons. It organized claques for hard-peace articles and books which it approved, while impugning the motives of writers who challenged its thesis and working assiduously to disparage their product. Organizations and individuals who proposed postwar reconstruction of Germany were attacked viciously. At the same time it sought constantly to promote trust in the aims of Soviet Russia. A large advisory council of well-known writers was set up as window dressing, but these knew little of what the actual operating group was doing.”

See: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/Twas%20A%20Famous%20Victory_full.pdf


Nuremberg - Harwood 029


[7] Henry Morgenthau, Jr. (May 11, 1891 – February 6, 1967) was the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Morgenthau was born into a prominent Jewish family in New York City, the son of Henry Morgenthau Sr., a real estate mogul and diplomat, and Josephine Sykes.


Nuremberg - Harwood 031

Nuremberg - Harwood 030


In 1944, Morgenthau proposed the Morgenthau Plan for postwar Germany, calling for Germany to be dismembered, partitioned into separate independent states, stripped of all heavy industry and forced to return to a pre-Industrial Revolution agrarian economy. The Morgenthau plan is thought by a few to have been devised by Morgenthau’s deputy, Harry Dexter White, who was later accused of being a Soviet agent. At the Second Quebec Conference on September 16, 1944, Roosevelt and Morgenthau persuaded the initially very reluctant British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to agree to the Morganthau plan, likely using a $6 billion Lend Lease agreement to do so. Churchill chose however to narrow the scope of Morgenthau’s proposal by drafting a new version of the memorandum, which ended up being the version signed by the two leaders. The gist of the signed memorandum was:


This programme for eliminating the war-making industries in the Ruhr and in the Saar is looking forward to converting Germany into a country primarily agricultural and pastoral in its character.


Source: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgenthau,_Jr.



[8] Rex Todhunter Stout (December 1, 1886 – October 27, 1975) was an American writer noted for his detective fiction. Stout is best known as the creator of the larger-than-life fictional detective Nero Wolfe, described by reviewer Will Cuppy as “that Falstaff” of detectives.




Nuremberg - Harwood 032


During World War II, he worked with the advocacy group Friends of Democracy, chaired the Writers’ War Board (a propaganda organization), and supported the embryonic United Nations. He lobbied for Franklin D. Roosevelt to accept a fourth term as President. He developed an extreme anti-German attitude and wrote a provocative essay, “We Shall Hate, or We Shall Fail”, which generated a flood of protests after its January 1943 publication in The New York Times. The attitude is expressed by Nero Wolfe in the 1942 novella “Not Quite Dead Enough”.


During the later part of the war and the post-war period he also led the Society for the Prevention of World War III which lobbied for a harsh peace for Germany. When the war ended, Stout became active in the United World Federalists.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_Stout



[9]  Source: http://www.nerowolfe.org/pdf/stout/activism/war-time/1943_01_NYTimes_We_shall_hate_or_we_shall_fail.pdf


Nuremberg - Harwood 033


[10] Clifton Paul “Kip” Fadiman (May 15, 1904 – June 20, 1999) was an American intellectual, author, editor, radio and television personality. Author of the book “Books are Weapons in the War of Ideas” (1942)


Nuremberg - Harwood 034


In early 1942 American book publishing executives were meeting to figure out how they could contribute to the war effort on an industry level resulting in book publishers, libraries, and book sellers coming together to form the Council on Books in Wartime (CBW). From its beginning, the CBW’s efforts worked with the coordination and support of the US government’s Office of War Information.


Fadiman’s book title was also used in the logo for the CBW.


Nuremberg - Harwood 036

[Image] The Council on Books in Wartime logo designed by Alanson Hewes.



[11]  Quentin James Reynolds (April 11, 1902 – March 17, 1965) was a journalist and World War II war correspondent.


As associate editor at Collier’s Weekly from 1933 to 1945, Reynolds averaged twenty articles a year. He also published twenty-five books, including The Wounded Don’t Cry, London Diary, Dress Rehearsal, and Courtroom, a biography of lawyer Samuel Leibowitz. He also published an autobiography, By Quentin Reynolds.


Nuremberg - Harwood 036b


[12] America’s Town Meeting of the Air was a public affairs discussion broadcast on radio from 1935 to 1956, mainly on the NBC Blue Network and its successor, ABC Radio. One of radio’s first talk shows, it began as a six-week experiment, and NBC itself didn’t expect much from it.


Broadcast live from New York City’s Town Hall, America’s Town Meeting of the Air debuted on Thursday May 30, 1935, and only 18 of NBC’s affiliates carried it. (“George V. Denny,” 1959) The topic for that first show was “Which Way America: Fascism, Communism, Socialism or Democracy?” (Overstreet, 15) The moderator was George V. Denny Jr., executive director of the League for Political Education, which produced the program. Denny moderated the program from 1935 to 1952 and had a major role in choosing weekly topics. Denny and the League wanted to create a program that would replicate the Town Meetings that were held in the early days of the United States. (“Boston Symphony,” 1936)


But during World War II, Denny repeatedly encountered what he had most sought to avoid: angry audience members who didn’t want to listen to other viewpoints and who wanted to criticize, rather than debate. Worse still, some audience members expressed isolationist and anti-Semitic views. Denny struggled to maintain the show’s openness and objectivity, but it became increasingly difficult to do so.







Nuremberg - Harwood 037


[13] Richard m. Brickner, M.D’s book “Is Germany Incurable?


Nuremberg - Harwood 038



Nuremberg - Harwood 039


[14] Louis Nizer (February 6, 1902 in London – November 10, 1994 in New York City) was a noted Jewish trial lawyer and senior partner of the law firm Phillips Nizer Benjamin Krim & Ballon in the United States. He published the Germanophobic hate booklet “What to Do with Germany?” (1944). He represented many celebrities in a variety of cases, among them Quentin Reynolds in his successful libel suit against columnist Westbrook Pegler, and the broadcaster John Henry Faulk against AWARE, a national organization that had labeled him a communist.


After the assassination of John F. Kennedy, he authored the foreword to the Warren Commission report that investigated JFK’s murder and the conspiracy theories that still surround it.


Nuremberg - Harwood 040


[15] What to Do with Germany?” (1944) by Louis Nizer


Nuremberg - Harwood 041


Download: https://archive.org/details/whattodowithgerm00nizerich



[16] The Society for the Prevention of World War III was an organization set up in the U.S. in 1944 during World War II that advocated a harsh peace for Germany in order to completely remove Germany as a future military threat.


The Organization was a spin-off of the Writers’ War Board, with both headed by (anti-German) novelist Rex Stout and the organization’s monthly publication mainly republishing material produced by the War Board.


It succeeded in hardening attitudes towards Germany both in the media and in the government, but by 1948 it had failed in its overall mission, with JCS 1067 rescinded and the Marshall Plan helping Germany, along with the rest of Europe, back on its feet.


Prominent members


Rex Stout (In charge, also leading the Writers’ War Board, government funded and with very close ties to the Roosevelt administration); William L. Shirer (Member of board of directors); William H. Hale (Member of board of directors); Mark Van Doren; Clifton Fadiman; Christopher La Farge; Douglas Freeman; Walter Johnson; Emil Ludwig; Lewis Mumford; Allan Nevins; Louis Nizer; Quentin Reynolds; Walter Wanger; James P. Warburg; Darryl Zanuck.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_the_Prevention_of_World_War_III


Nuremberg - Harwood 042



[17] Robert Woods Bliss (5 August, 1875 – 19 April 1962) was an American diplomat, art collector, philanthropist, and one of the cofounders of the Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection in Washington, D.C.


Nuremberg - Harwood 043

War service


Bliss returned to the State Department following the entry of the U.S. into World War II, as a consultant (1942–1943), special assistant to U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull (1944), and consultant to Secretary of State Edward Stettinius (1944–1945). Robert Bliss was instrumental in arranging for a series of important diplomatic meetings to take place at Dumbarton Oaks (see below) in the late summer and early fall of 1944. Known as the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, these meetings hosted delegations from China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The delegates deliberated over proposals for the establishment of an organization to maintain peace and security in the world, and their outcome was the United Nations Charter that was adopted in San Francisco in 1945. Bliss retired a second time from government work in November 1945.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Woods_Bliss



[18] Walter Winchell (April 7, 1897 – February 20, 1972) was an American newspaper and radio gossip commentator.


Nuremberg - Harwood 044


Winchell, who was Jewish, was one of the first commentators in America to attack Adolf Hitler and American pro-fascist and pro-Nazi organizations such as the German-American Bund. He was a staunch supporter of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal throughout the Depression era, and frequently served as the Roosevelt Administration’s mouthpiece in favor of interventionism as the European war crisis loomed in the late 1930s. Early on he denounced American isolationists as favoring appeasement of Hitler, and was explicit in his attacks on such prominent isolationists as Charles Lindbergh, whom he dubbed “The Lone Ostrich”, and Gerald L. K. Smith, who he denounced as “Gerald Lucifer KKKodfish Smith”.


The most controversial part of Winchell’s career were his attempts, especially after World War II, to destroy the careers of personal or political enemies. A favorite tactic was to accuse them of being communists or of sexual impropriety.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Winchell



[19] Benjamin Sumner Welles (October 14, 1892 – September 24, 1961) was an American government official and diplomat in the Foreign Service. He was a major foreign policy adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt and served as Under Secretary of State from 1937 to 1943, during FDR’s presidency.


Nuremberg - Harwood 046


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumner_Welles


Nuremberg - Harwood 045



[20] The North Star (also known as Armored Attack in the US) is a 1943 war film produced by Samuel Goldwyn Productions and distributed by RKO Radio Pictures.


The film is about the resistance of Ukrainian villagers, through guerrilla tactics, against the German invaders of Ukraine. The film was an unabashedly pro-Soviet propaganda film at the height of the war.


In June 1941 Ukrainian villagers are living in peace. As the schools break up for vacation, a group of friends decide to travel to Kiev for a holiday. To their horror they find themselves attacked by German aircraft, part of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. Eventually their village itself is occupied by the Nazis. Meanwhile men and women take to the hills to form partisan militias.


Nuremberg - Harwood 047


The full brutality of the Nazis is revealed when a German doctor (Erich von Stroheim) uses the village children as a source of blood for transfusions into wounded German soldiers. Some children lose so much blood that they die. A famous Russian doctor (Walter Huston) discovers this and informs the partisans, who prepare to strike back. They launch a cavalry assault on the village to rescue the children.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_North_Star_(1943_film)



[21] Joseph Pulitzer II (1885-1955) proprietor of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, son of the Hungarian-American-Jewish newspaper proprietor Joseph Pulitzer (1847-1911). Pulizter II’s mother, Kate Williamson Davis (1858-1927), was an Episcopalian. 1


Nuremberg - Harwood 048

Pulitzer II was among the delegation of journalists invited in the Spring of 1945 by General Eisenhower to tour the captured Nazi camps in Germany and witness the horrors of the Nazis themselves. Following his return to the States he spoke at the Society for the Prevention of World War III rally at Manhattan’s Carnegie Hall on May 22, 1945. His comments were reported in The New York Times the following day:

After urging that the groups that he held responsible for the horrors (“General Staff, Gestapo, SS and Industrialists”) that he had witnessed should receive fair but speedy trials, and any who were found to be innocent should be acquitted, Mr. Pulizter declared that the rest “should be put out of this world with Army bullets through their heads.

It is difficult to get any accurate figures on the numbers involved,” Mr. Pulizter said. “The War Department for some reason has been reluctant to release information on the subject. But I estimate that somewhere between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 is a reasonable figure. Possibly 1,500,000 may be the final total.” 2


Pultizer II’s biographer Daniel W. Pfaff reveals that this wasn’t the first occasion that Pulizter had called for the mass slaughter of Germans. Pfaff writes that in an August 17, 1944 letter to the editor of the editorial page of his newspaper the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Ralph Coghlan:


he had said he was convinced that it would be necessary to execute large numbers of Germans “and then put the German people on parole and keep them on parole for at least one or probably two generations.” 3

In an December 26, 1944 letter Pultizer urged his editor Coghlan to take:


the strongest, toughest, most remorseless attitude towards all Germans until the day arrives when they have had their German bestiality educated and whipped out of them. Economic opportunity for Germans in our own self-interest after the war, yes; but gentle, sentimental consideration in the meantime, no.” 4


1. Daniel W. Pfaff, Joseph Pulitzer II and the Post-Dispatch: A Newspaperman’s Life, US PA: Pennsylvania State University, 1991, p.16.

2.Urges Executions of 1,500,000 Nazis,The New York Times, May 23, 1945. online archive ; facsimile.

3. Joseph Pulitzer II and the European War,” by Daniel W. Pfaff, American Journalism Vol. VI (issue no. III), 1989, p.156 ; Pfaff, A Newspaperman’s Life, opt cit., p.266.

4. Pfaff, AJ v.VI, op cit. pp.155-156 ; Pfaff, A Newspaperman’s Life, opt cit., p.266.

Source: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1000474/






PDF of this post. Click to view or download (4.2 MB). >>Nuremberg and Other War Crimes a New Look – Part 2


Version History


Version 1: Published Aug 6, 2014

Read Full Post »

Nuremberg - Harwood 001






Other War Crimes Trials:


a New Look


[Part 1]



Richard Harwood






Introduction ……………………………………….. 1


Facts & Figures …………………………………… 1


The Scene is Set …………………………………. 3


The Occupation …………………………………… 5


De-Nazification …………………………………… 7

The Role of the OSS ……………………………. 9


Belsen ………………………………………………….. 11


The International Military Tribunal … 11

 Jackson’s Speech ………………………………. 18

 Psychology of Defendants …………………. 19

 The Defendants ………………………………… 19

 The Witnesses …………………………………… 29

 The Sentences …………………………………… 34

 The Executions ………………………………….. 34

 The Imprisonments ……………………………. 34


The American Military Tribunal ……….. 35

 AMT4 …………………………………………………. 36

 AMT6 …………………………………………………. 37

 AMT7 …………………………………………………. 39

 AMT9 …………………………………………………. 40

 AMT10 ………………………………………………… 41

 The Prosecution …………………………………. 44


Trial of Manstein …………………………………. 45


Dachau Trials ………………………………………. 48


Trial of Eichmann ……………………………….. 51

 Eichmann the Zionist …………………………. 54


Recent German Trials ………………………… 55


Italian Trials ……………………………………….. 56


Criticism of the Trials …………….………….. 57

 The Charges ………………………………………. 57

 The Court ………………………………………….. 58

 The Defendants …………………………………. 58

 The Hidden Aspect …………………………….. 59



A The Katyn Massacre ……………………….. 59

B Bombing of Civilians ……………………….. 61

C The ‘Repatriations………………………….. 64

D Palestine …………………………………………… 66

Bibliography …………………………………………. 69



Cover photo shows the funeral pyre set up in a Dresden street of some of the 135,000 civilian victims of Allied bombing of that German city.

© 1978

All Rights Reserved

Printed & published by Historical Review Press, Chapel Ascote, Ladbroke, Southam, – Warks., England





1. These notes and Version History (see below) do not appear in the original book. They are here to explain what is not original to the book and what is additional material. For example the layout is not original, the book is formatted with two columns, while this version has a standard “one column” format.


2.This version contains footnotes (the original did not) and additional images, indicated by [Add. Image] that did not appear in the original book.


3. …. ]


Version History

Ver 1: Aug 3, 2014 – Added additional images and footnotes to Introduction and Facts & Figures.






The execution in 1976 of British and American mercenaries in Angola for ‘war crimes’ has brought back to public attention this peculiar and disturbing subject. [1]
During the Angolan trial, the judges intervened at several points to restrain the defence counsel from putting its case too well. The court could not tolerate any evidence which might help the accused criminals, they said.


The British press whined hypocritically about this travesty of justice. Yet the simple-minded Angolans were only doing as their European mentors had taught them: the Angolan trial was virtually a carbon-copy of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremburg in 1946. All the ingredients were there: the pretence of justice, the restrictions on the defence, the presumption of guilt before the trial had even started, the supervision of an international tribunal, the hysterical accusations of prosecution witnesses etc., etc. It is easy for the press to complain about the standards of ‘justice’ in a backward and far-off land in darkest Africa. But it is not so easy for them to criticise a series of trials for which we were responsible, at least in part, and which have gone down in history and subsequent protocol agreements, as legal precedent.


We are subject to no such restrictions. In this short volume, we hope to examine as thoroughly and objectively as possible the vexed subject of the trials at Nuremburg, and in so doing make some contribution to a rational understanding of this aspect of recent history which has, along with other events, been grotesquely twisted by the enemies of truth. One such example is the allegation that six million Jews were gassed as part of an official extermination programme on the part of the German government of the Hitler era and which formed one of the major charges against the Nazi leaders at Nuremburg.


 Nuremberg - Harwood 008

[Add. Image] Aerial view of Nuremberg “Palace of Justice” in Winter 1945-46


Nuremberg - Harwood 009

[Add. Image] 1945-46 The Court House – “Palace of Justice”.


Nuremberg - Harwood 011

[Add. Image] On guard at the “Palace of Justice”.



[1] In January 1976, a group of 100 mercenaries crossed over from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (then Zaire) to Angola in order to support The National Front for the Liberation of Angola (FNLA) in their struggle against the Government of Angola.


Nuremberg - Harwood 013


Angola had achieved independence from Portugal in 1975 and at the time was being governed by the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA). The MPLA was, not assured of governing Angola, as it was competing with the FNLA and National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) in what became known as the Angolan Civil War. The MPLA Government was substantially supported by the Soviet Union and received considerable support from them in the form of weapons, training as well as direct military assistance from the thousands of Cuban troops stationed in Angola. One of the reasons for this was that the MPLA was a left wing political organisation, while FNLA and UNITA, were anti-Communist.


This meant that during the height of the Cold War, the West supported the FNLA and UNITA. The goal of the mercenaries was the overthrow of a Communist supported government in Angola. Upon their arrival, the mercenaries set about conducting numerous raids and acts of sabotage against the Angolan people and the Government in Angola. The mercenary troupe and their FNLA allies were no match in material or training to the Soviet and Cuban soldiers and they were eventually cornered and 13 of the mercenaries, 10 British and three Americans were captured. After a trial, in Luanda, Angola, sentencing commenced on the 28 June 1976.


Three British mercenaries and an American were sentenced to death, with the remaining captured mercenaries were sentenced to between 16 and 30 years in jail. Those sentenced to death were Andrew McKenzie, John Barker, Costas Georgiou, and Daniel Gearhert. The sentence was carried out the very next day. George Banks, the man who recruited them in the United Kingdom, expressed no regret for his part in the events.
Source: http://v1.sahistory.org.za/pages/chronology/thisday/1976-06-28.htm






The peak period for Nazi war crimes trials was the three years immediately after the war, although trials are still going on to this day.


Various nations dealt first of all with their own citizens, in a series of treason trials. Anton Mussert [1] was executed by the Dutch. Vidkun Quisling [2] was executed by the Norwegian government. William Joyce (“Lord Haw-Haw”) [3] was tried for treason by the British government, who were able to ‘prove’ that Joyce was British,  and therefore capable of committing treason, because he had at one stage forged a British passport. In fact, Joyce was born in America of Irish parents, and became a German citizen in 1939. He too was executed, but it was not until August 1976 that his remains were shipped back to Ireland for burial in the family grave at Galway — a rather belated recognition of the fact that Joyce was indeed an Irishman, after all. As a citizen of a neutral country there was no way Joyce could have committed treason against a foreign, belligerent country; Britain.


The Americans put on trial the famous poet, Ezra Pound, but a jury found him to be insane. The French executed thousands of ‘traitors’ during the anarchic days after the Liberation. Few of these received proper trials. We shall never know how many Russians were put to death by the Soviet Union, but a general outline of these atrocities is gradually coming to light today, thanks to the writings of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn and others.


Holland tried and executed Rauter. Czechoslovakia dealt similarly with K. H. Frank, Ludin and Wisliceny. Poland executed Biihler, Greiser, Stroop and Hoss. Yugoslavia officially executed Kasche and Lohr. But these ‘showtrials’ were only the tip of the iceberg. We shall never know how many were really put to death behind the Iron Curtain.


In Germany itself, 1,000 cases had been tried, involving about 3,500 German defendants, by March 1948.


21 of the leading Nazis were tried by an International Tribunal at Nuremburg. All the other trials were unilateral, i.e. they were run by one nation only, although on occasion there was representation by a second nation at the trial. At the Peleus trial, for example, there were Greek naval officers sitting on the British military tribunal because the SS Peleus had been a Greek ship.


The Americans managed to grab for themselves the prestige and satisfaction of trying the 199 ‘second string’ Nazi leaders in twelve subsequent trials, also held at Nuremburg. 38 were acquitted (but later faced de-nazification tribunals), 36 were given death sentences (18 of which were carried out), 23 were sentenced to life imprisonment, and 102 were given shorter sentences. Summaries of the trials were published in 1949 as a 15 volume set, although there is also a more complete 117 volume edition which is just a bound collection of the duplicated court transcripts. The documentary evidence at the American Military Tribunal


(AMT) is now lodged at the American Documentation Centre at Alexandria, Virginia, just outside Washington, DC. Most of it is on microfilm, and members of the public can order reproductions therefrom. One of the members of the War Documentation Project, whose task it was to index the mountain of captured Nazi war records at Alexandria, was Raul Hilberg, [4] the famous ‘holocaust expert’. Hilberg was himself a refugee from Nazi Germany who fled to America, subsequently becoming a political scientist at the University of Vermont. His famous book, The Destruction of the European Jews is supposed to be the definitive work on the holocaust, but it has subsequently been shown to be highly dubious, thanks mainly to the work of Paul Rassinier.


The Americans also ran trials at Dachau, where 420 death sentences were handed down. The Dachau trials represented an all-time low in Western concepts of justice. Brutality, torture and cruelty were the order of the day. On trial were some of the staff of Mauthausen, Dachau, Flossenburg and Buchenwald concentration camps, as well as some German soldiers accused of murdering Americans captured at Malmady during the Ardennes counteroffensive.


In the British zone of occupation, 356 war crime trials were held involving more than 1,000 defendants. In charge of administering the trials was Sir Henry MacGeagh, who was head of the UK office of the United Nations War Crimes Commission. His legal advisor was Lord Russell of Liverpool, who died in 1975. The British military trials were held at Liineberg, Hamburg and in Italy. At Liineberg, Josef Kramer, Irme Grise and 43 others from the staffs of Belsen and Auschwitz were tried. Thirty of the accused were found guilty and eleven were sentenced to death by hanging. In the Zyklon B case, Bruno T’esch and two others were tried for supplying Zyklon B pesticide to the concentration camps administration. Tesch and one other were hanged. In the Natzweiler trial, Alphons Klein and five others were charged with killing four British women parachute commandos by injection. One of the accused was hanged and the rest received terms of imprisonment.


Nuremberg - Harwood 003

[Image] French War Crimes trials at Rastatt 


In the Peleus trial at Hamburg, the captain and four members of the crew of German U-boat 852 were charged with murdering the survivors of the cargo ship SS Peleus, which they had just sunk. Three were sentenced to death by firing squad, and the other two were sentenced to prison. The British also tried several German generals in Italy; at Rimini and Venice. General von Falkenhorst was tried for the murder of British commandos in Norway. The British trials were published, with many useful appendices, in a series by Wm. Hodge & Co. in 1948/9, under the editorship of Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, the Deputy British Chief Prosecutor at the original IMT trial. Manstein’s 1949 trial is described by his defence counsel, Reginald Paget in Manstein (Collins, 1951).


The French trials were held at Rastatt, and included that of Saar industrial magnate Hermann Rochling, whom the French had also tried in absentia after World War I. In 1953, they also attempted to try 21 SS men for the 1944 massacre at Oradour, when an entire village with its population were destroyed. When it turned out that 14 of the men were French men themselves, from Alsace, the trial became a political hot-potato. The Alsace government claimed that Alsatians were being victimised. In the middle of the trial, the law against ‘collective guilt’ was repealed, rendering the trial little more than an academic exercise. When the trial finished, two death sentences and various terms of imprisonment were handed down, but within days the government had granted the men amnesty. In disgust, the council of Oradour handed back the medals which had been awarded to the town.
By 1963, the total of war crime sentences was as follows:



Court . . . . . . . . . Total Sentences . . . . . . Death Sentences


IMT  . . . . . . . . . . . 21 (+1)*   . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 (+1)*

USA   . . . . . . . . . . . 1,814   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450

UK   . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,085   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

France   . . . . . . . . . 2,107   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

USSR   . . . . . . . . . . c. 10,000   . . . . . . . . . . . . ?

West Germany   . . . 12,846   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?


*Note: Bormann was tried and sentenced to death in absentia.


Most of the death sentences were carried out, although some were reduced to terms of imprisonment. The chronological list of trials in the West is as follows (few details are available for Communist trials behind the Iron Curtain):



Year . . . . . Court . . . . . . . Venue . . . . . . . Defendants


1945/6 . . . .IMT  . . . . . . . . . Nuremburg  . . . 21 Nazi leaders

1946/9  . . . USA  . . . . . . . . . .Nuremburg  . . . 12 subsequent trials (AMT)

1945/6  . . . UK  . . . . . . . . . . . Luneberg  . . . . Belsen, Auschwitz staff

1946  . . . . . UK  . . . . . . . . . .  Hamburg  . . . . Peleus trial

1946  . . . . . UK  . . . . . . . . . .  Italy  . . . . . . . . German generals

1946  . . . . . USA  . . . . . . . . .  Dachau  . . . . . .Mauthausen, Dachau, Flossenburg,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Buchenwald staffs & Malmedy SS

1949  . . . . . UK  . . . . . . . . . .  Hamburg  . . . . von Manstein

1950  . . . . . W. Germany . . .  Augsburg

1951  . . . . . W. Germany . . . . Ravensburg

1951   . . . . . France  . . . . . . . .Paris  . . . . . . . German generals

1953   . . . . . France   . . . . . . .Paris  . . . . . . . . Oradour soldiers

1956  . . . . . W. Germany  . . . Dortmund

1957  . . . . . W. Germany  . . . Kempten

1958  . . . . . W. Germany  . . . Cologne

1958  . . . . . W. Germany  . . . Ansbach

1959  . . . . . W. Germany  . . . Augsburg

1959  . . . . . W. Germany  . . . Cobourg

1959  . . . . . W. Germany  . . . Landshut

1959  . . . . . W. Germany  . . . Kempten

1959  . . . . . W. Germany   . . . Munich

1959  . . . . . W. Germany  . . . Ansbach

1960  . . . . . W. Germany  . . . Fulda

1960  . . . . . W. Germany  . . . Kempten

1960  . . . . . W. Germany  . . . Ansbach

1960  . . . . . W. Germany  . . . Limburg

1960  . . . . . W. Germany  . . . Stuttgart

1960  . . . . . W. Germany   . . . Munich

1961  . . . . . Israel  . . . . . . . . Jerusalem  . . . .  Eicmann

1961  . . . . . W. Germany  . . . Berlin

1961  . . . . . W. Germany  . . . Hamburg

1961  . . . . . W. Germany  . . . Duisburg

1962  . . . . . W. Germany  . . . BadenBaden

1962  . . . . . W. Germany  . . . Wiesbaden

1963  . . . . . W. Germany  . . . Frankfurt  . . . . Auschwitz staff

1967  . . . . . W. Germany  . . . Cologne

1976  . . . . . W. Germany  . . . Hamburg

1976  . . . . . Holland  . . .  . . . Roermond  . . . SS camp guard

1976  . . . . . W. Germany  . . . Dusseldorf  . . . Majdanek guards



The bodies of the eleven Germans sentenced to death by the IMT were cremated at Dachau and the ashes sifted into the River Isar. The hundreds of others executed by the subsequent military tribunals are buried in prison graves at various places. There are 247 graves at Hamelin, 758 at Landsberg, and 14 at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.





[1] Anton Adriaan Mussert (11 May 1894, Werkendam, North Brabant – 7 May 1946) was one of the founders of the National Socialist Movement in the Netherlands (NSB) and its formal leader. As such, he was the most prominent national socialist in the Netherlands before and during World War II. During the war, he was able to keep this position, due to the support he received from the Germans. After the war, he was convicted and executed for high treason.


Nuremberg - Harwood 012



[2] Vidkun Quisling, (July 18, 1887 – October 24, 1945) was a Norwegian army officer and nationalist politician. He was Minister President in Norway from February 1942 to the end of World War II.


Quisling was the son of a Church of Norway pastor and genealogist Jon Lauritz Qvisling from Fyresdal, and both of his parents belonged to some of the oldest and most distinguished families of Telemark.


 Nuremberg - Harwood 014


His early life was mixed and successful; he became the country’s best ever war academy cadet upon graduation in 1911, and achieved the rank of major in the Norwegian army. He worked with Fridtjof Nansen in the Soviet Union during the famine of the 1920s. For his services in looking after British interests after diplomatic relations were broken with the Bolshevik government, Great Britain awarded him the C.B.E. He later served as defense minister in the Agrarian governments 1931-1933.


The Nasjonal Samling party


On May 17, 1933, Norwegian Constitution Day, Quisling and lawyer Johan Bernhard Hjort formed Nasjonal Samling (“National Unity”), a Norwegian nationalist political party. Nasjonal Samling had an anti-democratic, leadership-based political structure, and Quisling was to be the party’s Fører (Norwegian: “leader”, equivalent of the German “Führer”). He was sometimes referred to as “the Hitler of Norway”.


The party went on to have modest successes; in the election of 1933, four months after the party was formed, it garnered 27,850 votes (approximately 2%), following support from the Norwegian Farmers’ Aid Association, with which Quisling had connections from his time as a member of the Agrarian government. However, as the party line changed from a religiously rooted one to a more pro-National Socialist and anti-Semitic policy from 1935 onward. Party membership fell to an estimated 2,000 members before the German invasion, but under the German occupation by 1945 some 45,000 Norwegians were members of the party.


German invasion of Norway
On the 9th April 1940, one day before the planned British invasion, Germany invaded Norway, Operation Weserübung by air and sea.
The German plan was to capture King Haakon VII and the Nygaardsvold government, after which Quisling would be recognized as Prime Minister. On April 9, however, without waiting for recognition, Quisling announced in a radio broadcast that he had become the new Premier. Word came that King Haakon refused to recognize Quisling as leader of the government.


Later that same month he tried again to organize a government under Josef Terboven, who had been installed as Reichskommissar, reporting directly to Hitler. The relationship between Quisling and Terboven was tense, however, and Quisling was unable to find any prominent Norwegians who were willing to serve as ministers in his Cabinet. Terboven, presumably seeing an advantage in having a Norwegian in an apparent position of power, declared the monarchy to be abolished and named Quisling to the post of Minister President in 1942, a position the self-appointed Fører assumed on February 1.


Arrest and trial

Quisling stayed in power until he was arrested on May 9, 1945. He lived in a mansion on Bygdøy in Oslo that he called “Gimle”, after the place in Norse mythology where survivors of Ragnarok were to live.


In the course of the victor’s trials following the war, Quisling, along with two other Nasjonal Samling leaders, Albert Viljam Hagelin and Ragnar Skancke, was convicted of high treason and executed by firing squad at Akershus Fortress. The charges were based on his support of the German invasion in April 1940, his revocation of the mobilisation order, his encouragement of Norwegians to serve in the Norwegian SS division, and his assistance in the deportation of Jews.
Subsequently, these sentences have been controversial, as capital punishment was reintroduced by the government in exile at the end of the war, specifically in anticipation of the post-war trials.


Maria Vasilijevna, Quisling’s Russian widow, lived in Oslo until her death in 1980. They had no children.



Vidkun Quisling was neither a traitor, nor a carrierist. He was a Norwegian patriot, whose aim was, to keep Norway free from bolshevistic or liberal occupation. Today, in English language descriptions and dictionaries they use his name, often written lower case, as a symbol of a traitor, which is a coarse history falsification.
This usage began with Zionist shill Winston Churchill.


Source: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Vidkun_Quisling



[3] William Joyce

Born: 24 April 1906, Brooklyn, New York City, United States

Died: 3 January 1946 (aged 39) Wandsworth Prison, London, England

Nationality: British (and Irish), American

Occupation: politician, writer, radio personality

Party: British Union of Fascists (1932-1937), National Socialist League (1937-1939)


William Brooke Joyce (April 24, 1906 – January 3, 1946), sometimes known by the name Lord Haw-Haw, was a politician, author and radio broadcaster, who was involved with the British Union of Fascists and later the National Socialist League. He was executed for treason by the Jewish occupied British government for defending his race during the Second World War. Joyce stated that Winston Churchill, was a servant:


not of the British public, or of the British Empire, but of international Jewish finance. This charge must be preferred against a man who has so signally violated British tradition in the course of this war.


Nuremberg - Harwood 015


Joyce was born at 1906 Herkimer Street in Brooklyn, New York City, to an English Protestant mother and an Irish Catholic father who had taken United States citizenship. A few years after his birth, the family returned to Galway, Ireland. He attended the Jesuit St Ignatius College (Galway) from 1915 to 1921. Unusually for Irish Roman Catholics, both William Joyce and his father were strongly Unionist. William Joyce later said that he aided the Black and Tans and became a target of the Irish Republican Army because of this.


Following a failed assassination attempt in 1921 (which only failed due to the 16-year old Joyce taking a different route home from school) he left for England where he would briefly attend King’s College School, Wimbledon for a foreign exchange, followed two years later by his family. William Joyce applied to Birkbeck College of the University of London and to enter the Officer Training Corps. At Birkbeck, Joyce developed an interest in fascism, and he joined the British Fascisti of Rotha Lintorn-Orman. In 1924, while stewarding a Conservative Party meeting, Joyce was attacked and received a deep razor slash that ran across his right cheek. It left a permanent scar which ran from the earlobe to the corner of the mouth. Joyce was convinced that his attackers were “Jewish communists”. It was an incident that had a marked bearing on his outlook.


British Union of Fascists

In 1932, Joyce joined the British Union of Fascists (BUF) under Sir Oswald Mosley, and swiftly became a leading speaker, praised for his power of oratory. The journalist and novelist Cecil Roberts described a speech given by Joyce:


Thin, pale, intense, he had not been speaking many minutes before we were electrified by this man … so terrifying in its dynamic force, so vituperative, so vitriolic.


In 1934, Joyce was promoted to the BUF’s director of propaganda and later appointed deputy leader. As well as being a gifted speaker, Joyce also gained the reputation of a savage brawler. Joyce’s violent rhetoric and willingness to physically confront anti-fascist elements head-on played no small part in further marginalizing the BUF. After the bloody debacle of the June 1934 Olympia rally, Joyce spearheaded the BUF’s policy shift from campaigning for economic revival through Corporatism to antisemitism. He was instrumental in changing the full name of the BUF to “British Union of Fascists and National Socialists” in 1936, and stood as a party candidate in the 1937 elections to London County Council. In 1936 Joyce lived for a year in Whitstable, where he owned a radio and electrical shop.


However, Joyce was sacked from his paid position when Mosley drastically reduced the BUF staff shortly after the elections, and Joyce went on to form a breakaway organisation, the National Socialist League. Unlike Joyce, Mosley was never a committed antisemite, preferring to exploit antisemitic sentiment only for political gain. After 1937, the party turned its focus away from antisemitism and towards activism opposing a war with National Socialist Germany. Although Joyce had been deputy leader of the BUF from 1933 and an effective fighter and orator, Mosley snubbed him in his autobiography and later denounced him as a traitor because of his wartime activities.


Lord Haw-Haw

In late August 1939, shortly before war was declared, Joyce and his wife Margaret fled to Germany. Joyce had been tipped off by an MI5 officer that the British authorities intended to detain him under Defence Regulation 18B. Joyce became a naturalised German in 1940.


In Berlin, Joyce could not find employment until a chance meeting with fellow Mosleyite sympathiser Dorothy Eckersley got him an audition at the Rundfunkhaus (radio centre). Despite having a heavy cold and almost losing his voice, he was recruited immediately for radio announcements and script writing at German radio’s English service.


The name “Lord Haw-Haw of Zeesen” was coined by the pseudonymous Daily Express radio critic Jonah Barrington in 1939, but this referred initially to Wolf Mitler, (or possibly Norman Baillie-Stewart). When Joyce became the best-known propaganda broadcaster, the nickname was transferred to him. Joyce’s broadcasts initially came from studios in Berlin, later transferring (due to heavy Allied bombing) to Luxembourg and finally to Apen near Hamburg, and were relayed over a network of German controlled radio stations that included Hamburg, Bremen, Luxembourg, Hilversum, Calais, Oslo and Zeesen. Joyce also broadcast on and wrote scripts for the German Büro Concordia organisation which ran several black propaganda stations (many of which pretended to broadcast illegally from within Britain).


Although listening to his broadcasts was officially discouraged (but not actually illegal), they became very popular with the British public. The German broadcasts always began with the announcer’s words “Germany calling, Germany calling, Germany calling” (because of a nasal drawl this sounded like: “Jairmany calling, Jairmany calling, Jairmany calling”). These broadcasts urged the British people to surrender, and were well known for their jeering, sarcastic and menacing tone.
Joyce recorded his final broadcast on April 30, 1945, during the Battle of Berlin. In an exhausted, possibly intoxicated voice, he chided Britain’s role in Germany’s imminent defeat and warned that the war would leave Britain poor and barren. (There are conflicting accounts as to whether this last programme was actually transmitted, even though a tape was found in the Radio Hamburg studios.) He signed off with a final defiant “Heil Hitler”.


Besides broadcasting, Joyce’s duties included distributing propaganda among British prisoners of war, whom he tried to recruit into the British Free Corps. He wrote a book, Twilight Over England, which was promoted by the German Ministry of Propaganda, a work that unfavourably compared the evils of Jewish-dominated capitalist Britain with the successes of National Socialist Germany. Adolf Hitler awarded Joyce the War Merit Cross (First and Second Class) for his broadcasts, although they never met in person.


Capture and trial

At the end of the war, Joyce was captured by British forces at Flensburg near the Germany-Denmark border. A Jewish soldier claimed to recognize his voice and during conversation with soldiers shot and wounded him. After which Joyce was arrested and taken back to Britain.


He was charged with high treason:

* William Joyce, on the 18th of September, 1939, and on other days between that day and the 29th of May, 1945, being a person owing allegiance to our Lord the King, and while a war was being carried on by the German Realm against our King, did traitorously adhere to the King’s enemies in Germany, by broadcasting propaganda.


* William Joyce, on the 26th of September, 1940, being a person who owed allegiance as in the other count, adhered to the King’s enemies by purporting to become naturalized as a subject of Germany.


* William Joyce, on the 18th of September, 1939, and on other days between that day and the 2nd of July, 1940, being a person owing allegiance to our Lord the King, and while a war was being carried on by the German Realm against our King, did traitorously adhere to the King’s enemies in Germany, by broadcasting propaganda.


A faux par given that the King of Britain was allied with international Jewry against his own race.



He went to his death unrepentant and defiant.


In death as in life, I defy the Jews who caused this last war, and I defy the power of darkness which they represent. I warn the British people against the crushing imperialism of the Soviet Union. May Britain be great once again and the hour of the greatest danger in the West may the standard be raised from the dust, crowned with the words — you have conquered nevertheless. I am proud to die for my ideals and I am sorry for the sons of Britain who have died without knowing why.


Joyce was executed on January 3, 1946, at Wandsworth Prison, aged 39. He was the second-to-last person to be hanged for a crime other than murder in the United Kingdom. (The last was Theodore Schurch who was executed for treachery the following day at Pentonville. In both cases the hangman was Albert Pierrepoint.)


Joyce’s family

The Crown considered trying his wife Margaret as well. It is not entirely clear why no trial took place. A straightforward explanation is that her nationality status was much more complex and a conviction thought unlikely. Some also consider a deal for clemency was made on her behalf, perhaps recorded in a secret memo. Margaret Joyce died in Soho in 1972.


William Joyce had two daughters by his first wife, Hazel, one of whom, Heather Iandolo, has spoken publicly of her father. Joyce was reinterred in 1976 at the New Cemetery in Bohermore, County Galway, Ireland.



National Socialism Now (1937)

Twilight Over England


To conclude this personal note, I, William Joyce, will merely say that I left England because I would not fight for Jewry against the Führer and National Socialism, and because I believe most ardently, as I do today, that victory and a perpetuation of the old system would be an incomparably greater evil for England than defeat coupled with a possibility of building something new, something really national, something truly socialist.


It is well to realize that Jewish finance is as bent on the enslavement of the British people as of the German. The military power of England, the spurious jingoism engendered by the Jewish need for military defenders and the sacrifices of the British military forces all play their part today. But in the event of British victory all this synthesized nationalism will be destroyed in a few months. The supreme fact of world politics today is that the Jews want no nationalism but their very own.”


I hope and believe that when the flames of war have been traversed, the ordinary people of England will know their soul again and will seek in National Socialism to advance along the way of human progress with their brothers of German blood. That this hope and this belief shall not prove vain there are two guarantees; the greatness of Adolf Hitler and the greater glory of Almighty God.”


Source: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/William_Joyce



[4] Raul Hilberg (June 2, 1926 – August 4, 2007) was one of the main historians of the 6 million story. He was totally discredited at the 1985 Ernst Zündel trial (where Hilberg sought to send publisher Ernst Zündel to prison for printing the booklet Did Six Million Really Die?) by the revisionist Robert Faurisson and the lawyer Doug Christie as a paper-historian and liar.


Nuremberg - Harwood 016


Raul Hilberg’s main work is the book The Destruction of the European Jews. In this work, Hilberg falsely claimed that large numbers of Jews were gassed in homicidal gas chambers during WWII in National Socialist Germany. In the 1960 edition this book, Hilberg wrote about a Hitler-command to kill the Jews (he gave no sources for this allegation). Later, however, Hilberg stated that the alleged killing of the Jews was not planned in advance or organized centrally (i.e. that there was no Hitler-command), but that the alleged killing of the Jews was achieved by “an incredible mind reading” by German bureaucrats. Faurisson answered this, in his article “The victories of revisionism”, by writing: “If it is ‘incredible’ or unbelievable, why then should it be believed? Must one believe the unbelievable?”.

Source: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Raul_Hilberg





PDF of this post. Click to view or download (2.2 MB). >>Nuremberg and Other War Crimes a New Look – Part 1


Version History


Version 1: Published Aug 3, 2014

Read Full Post »