What They Said…..Inc Cameron….The English Never Learn!

Jack Straw…Has the guy forgotten what happened in Judean Bolshavik Russia? before he calls the English violent and aggresive maybe he ought to recall a few of the millions slaughtered in the most evil ways, just because they were Christians…..Millions Jack!!!!
Nice guy ….his manners are non existant after all which country took him in?- typical way of thanking us, this Fabian Commie takes, takes and takes some more, all the while plotting the destruction of ENGLAND!

UK riots and the Criminality of Jack Straw | Veterans Today Aug 16, 2011 … Brothers in war crimes: Jack Straw, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. …. one of his
great-grandfathers was a German Jewish immigrant. … A Fabian also on his
admission- more a Stalinist…….his son “Will” ready to take his place! …

Labour’s attack on Nick Griffin shows hypocrisy of globalist agenda … Justice Secretary Jack Straw of the Labour Party took on BNP leader Nick Griffin
in … Talmudic Jews, Freemasons, and the Fabian Society are currently the most …



We have been conquered, my people. But I know you, for I see you in myself. And that’s what makes me smile. For, like me, we are fighters. We are belligerent scrappers and storm-raisers. When we go to war, we fight to win. There is nothing more fearsome in this world than an Englishman at war. We are indefatigable. We are fury incarnate and the gates of hell shall not prevail before us.
Let us name but a few of the traitors who must hang when we institute Courts of National Reconciliation and Justice: Tony Blair (war criminal and profiteer), Gordon Brown (paedophile and the master of EU enforcement), David Cameron (Fabian Socialist and a hater of the English People), Jack Straw (Zionist traitor and racist), Harriet Harman (the most perverse “culture change” agent, who, incidentally, lived just across the road from me on Southwood Avenue in Highgate back in ’86), Lord Robertson (implicated in the staged Dunblane slaying of innocent schoolchildren and a well-known paedophile, also a former NATO chief), John Reid (one of Scotland’s most famous Mafia bosses who held the position of Home Secretary), Nick Clegg (a spineless Europhile and born liar who despises everything English), George Osborne (a chinless aristocrat without the slightest idea of how to tie his own shoe-laces, let alone put a knot in the British economy).


The coppers I knew when working in London were stressed beyond what most civilians would consider normal working practices. We’ve all seen images of front-line police troopers brutalising protesters, but that’s only what the media wishes you to see. Back in Bow Street, or whichever HQ they work from, those lads are shagged out, mentally and emotionally. They are on your side. When investigating, in my capacity as a journalist, the day-to-day life of an ordinary copper, I have seen grown policeman break down in tears at the sheer injustice of what they have to deal with.

I care not for class. My grandfather was a coal miner who died of the black lung and I care passionately for the working-class native and indigenous people of my nation, England. But I was raised in a middle-class environment and came to love many patricians one could ascribe to those emanating from the aristocracy. In the end, regardless of class, we’re all patriotic Englishmen.
Within the next ten years, we the English people, chosen from all others as the Light of the World, will re-take our nation, rebuild our manufacturing base, issue our own Credit Union-based currency, secede from the European Union, dissolve the United Kingdom, withdraw from the United Nations and the rapacious, blood-money grabbing scam of NATO and live proudly as a free and prosperous people, trading with all nations free of Zionist lobbying, able to feed ourselves from the arable produce of our fertile soils and eat abundantly of all that our seas offer as our non-delineated right.

Whether a Scouser, a Geordie, a Lankie, a Yorkie, a Brummie, or one of those insufferable Southerners, I tell you this: You must love one another. Let all divisions between you become as nought and open yourselves to what God intended you to be. For where there is no rancour and a concord between a people wedded to a love of liberty, there shall
reign peace and freedom.
And England shall be a free and independent nation again.
Ref: The Unoccupied Heart

Michael James, an English republican patriot, is a blacklisted former
freelance journalist resident in Zionist-occupied Germany since 1992 with
additional long-haul stays in East Africa, Poland and Switzerland. He
advocates a Leaderless Resistance to destroy the Soviet European Union and prays for a free and independent England, shorn of all alliances with the
EU, UK, NATO, the UN, WTO, IMF, Israel and any other treacherous
international cabal or entity.




6 responses to “What They Said…..Inc Cameron….The English Never Learn!

  1. http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=37741

    UK riots and the Criminality of Jack Straw | Veterans Today Aug 16, 2011 … Brothers in war crimes: Jack Straw, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. …. one of his
    great-grandfathers was a German Jewish immigrant. … A Fabian also on his
    admission- more a Stalinist…….his son “Will” ready to take his place! …


    Labour’s attack on Nick Griffin shows hypocrisy of globalist agenda … Justice Secretary Jack Straw of the Labour Party took on BNP leader Nick Griffin
    in … Talmudic Jews, Freemasons, and the Fabian Society are currently the most …


    link removed from 2009 which wrote of fabian ministers pouring more money into schools where the children were not white…..helping them before helping white kids……Tory MP had written an open letter to ministers…how white kids suffered by bad education and money shortages for books etc…..but not so—other kids…only title left- must have worried them incase their pathetic voters saw it……………………


    But, if Jack Straw is right and we need more prisons, he should be one of the first inmates, alongside Tony Blair, who he served so loyally throughout the 13 years of New Labour government.

    Jack Straw was foreign secretary during the run up to the Iraq war in 2002-3. He was, the Iraq Inquiry tells us, the only member of Tony Blair’s cabinet to be fully informed of the prime minister’s discussions, negotiations and plans.

    Straw knew that when George Bush and Tony Blair met at Bush’s Texas ranch in April 2002, they “signed in blood” a secret deal to invade Iraq, whatever the views of the United Nations or the people of the United States and Britain.

    Just prior to that meeting, Straw told Blair in a secret memo that “legally there are two potential elephant traps“. Firstly, that “regime change per se is no justification for military action”. And secondly, that “the weight of legal advice here is that a fresh mandate [from the United Nations] may well be required”.

    And it was Straw who was central in the attempt to bounce the United Nations into that second resolution to give a fig-leaf of legality to a war of unjustified aggression. He was rarely off our screens in 2002 telling us how Iraq was not giving access to the UN weapons inspectors, knowing that this simply was not true, as Hans Blix the chief UN inspector has pointed out, noting Straw’s “incorrect answers” — better known as lies — to the Iraq Inquiry.

    And Straw knew it was a lie when on 11 February 2003, a few days before the biggest anti-war demonstration in British history, he said: “We have to strain every sinew, even at this late stage, to avoid war.”

    Straw had already told Blair in his March 2002 memo that the US was going to war regardless, and later he was left in no doubt by the US secretary of state Colin Powell in March 2003, who told him, “We are going to war whatever Saddam does.”

    The only sinew Straw was straining was to find a way to justify a war which was going to happen regardless of legality or whether most countries and most people in the world opposed it.

    This is why he rejected the advice of his senior legal advisor at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), Sir Michael Wood, who told him in a memo that invading Iraq “would amount to the crime of aggression” and would be illegal under international law. It was the only time in Wood’s career, before or since, that his legal advice had not been accepted by a minister. Straw rejected advice that Iraq invasion was ‘unlawful’

    And this is why Straw was dismissive of Sir Michael’s deputy FCO, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, who stated in her letter of resignation in March 2003, ” I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second [UN] Security Council resolution.”

    Yet, despite all this evidence to the contrary, Jack Straw told the Iraq Inquiry that he would never “have been a party” to a war of regime change, which he said would be “improper and self-evidently unlawful”.

    Straw is clearly a congenital liar whose ability to speak untruths is limitless. But he knew what would be the consequences of the war on Iraq, legal or not, because he described them in February 2003:

    People will get killed and injured. That is the brutal and inevitable reality of war. Some of those killed will be innocent civilians; even those killed who are not innocent have souls, and wives, husbands, children who will suffer.

    Straw knew he had it in his power stop this illegal war. In a written statement to the Iraq Inquiry in January 2010, he said he was “fully aware” that, as foreign secretary, his support for military action would be “critical” if the UK join the invasion of Iraq. “If I had refused that, the UK’s participation in the military action would not have been possible. there would almost certainly have been no majority in cabinet or in the Commons.”

    This is tantamount to a confession that he colluded in mass murder. Not only would Britain have been unable to march “shoulder to shoulder” into the illegal war, but the inevitable resignation of Tony Blair and the fall of his government would have put enormous political pressure on the United States for at the least a postponement of its war plans.

    The blood on Straw’s hands is no less than that of Tony Blair, for a war in which over one million Iraqis died, four million were made homeless and the country so devastated that today there is acute rationing of electricity, many areas have no access to clean water and a health service that was once the most developed in the region is in tatters.

    So next time we hear David Cameron talk about “criminality pure and simple” and he tells “the lawless minority… you will pay for what you have done” we need to know if his definition of “criminality” extends beyond the crime of stealing a £3.50 bottle of water or receiving a pair of stolen running shorts.

    Does it include what the the Nürnberg Tribunal, set up after World War II, following the trials of leading Nazis, called the supreme international crime:

    To initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

    The Tribunal said individuals should be held accountable for “crimes against peace”, defined as the “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression”, which leaves little doubt about incrimination in the mass slaughter and devastation inflicted on Iraq by Jack Straw and his fellow conspirators — from Tony Blair, George Bush, and Colin Powell, to Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumseld .

    Jack Straw’s enthusiasm for jailing people predates his call on David Cameron to build more prisons to lock up rioters. The Blair years were marked by a doubling of the prison population to over 80,000, giving Britain the dubious accolade of locking up more of its citizens than any other European country. When Jack Straw became home secretary, he was ever hungry for more prison places.

    It tell us much about the quality of justice in this country that the person in charge of building new prisons was someone who should have been incarcerated in one of the cells.



    Labour’s attack on Nick Griffin shows hypocrisy of globalist agenda
    Add a comment Robert Stark, LA Nonpartisan Examiner
    October 31, 2009 – Like this? Subscribe to get instant updates.
    25 comments.0 SharePrintEmail
    0SharePrintEmail.Justice Secretary Jack Straw of the Labour Party took on BNP leader Nick Griffin in a televised debate called Question Time that was watched by millions. Straw said he was “delighted to make the argument for people against the BNP.” Straw attacked Griffin as a racist, xenophobe, and a neo-nazi. Straw said that any party that bases itself on race is wrong and beyond the pale and falsely accused Griffin of being a holocaust denier. The Labour party has gone out of its way to vilify the BNP as a racist and fascist party.

    During the debate Straw said “There isn’t a constitutional obligation to appear on Question Time. That gives the BNP a legitimacy they do not deserve. These people believe in the things that the fascists believed in the Second World War, they believe in what the National Front believe in. They believe in the purity of the Aryan race. It is a foul and despicable party.”

    While Griffin has views that some may find objectionable, unlike Straw he has never caused the direct loss of innocent life through his policies. Jack Straw is a major leader of the Labour Party and was foreign secretary under Tony Blair. He oversaw Britain’s role in the war in Afghanistan, and the pre-emptive war in Iraq. Conbined the estimated loss of civilian life in these wars is up to one million. Even though Nick Griffin is anti-Muslim in the sense that he does not want Muslims immigrating to England, Straw is directly responsible for the deaths of Muslim civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Straw is also as strong supporter of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state but seems to hold a different standard in regards to British Nationalism.

    Nick Griffin had an excellent response to the claims that he is a racist and fascist exposing who the real offenders are. He said, “Genocide, as codified by international law, of the United Nations convention, doesn’t just mean machine gunning or gassing people, wiping out populations. It also means arranging things so that the young people of any given population find it hard, some way or another, have a disadvantage to meet and to fall in love and have children. And there’s various ways, everything from taxes through to relentless multiracial propaganda, in which that war is waged against our people right now, day in and day out. And there’s another way. It’s depriving the young people of a population of a knowledge of their own heritage and their own culture and their own identity. And the United Nations says that is genocide, and that is precisely what is being done to us today.”

    Recently Labour was exposed as secretly plotting to change the demographics of Britain through mass immigration without the consent of the electorate, because it would benefit their party’s agenda. The relevation surfaced last week in an article by Andrew Neather, a former speech writer and adviser for Tony Blair and Jack Straw. He was present at private Labour Party meetings where the plans were discussed. He said “mass immigration was the way that the government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.” Neather wrote a speech in 2000 for than immigration minister Barbara Roche calling for greater immigration, despite the fact that Labour promised its working class base it would not increase immigration. Jack Straw denied the allegations against his party.

    There is a big difference between the nationalism advocated by the BNP and the imperialist policies of Labour. Neocons and neoliberals such as Labour believes that western nations can assimilate massive third world immigration yet at the same time colonize nations like Iraq and turn them into western style democracies. That globalist agenda is not just destroying western nations through large scale third world immigration but their imperialist foreign policy is destroying the middle east through wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Palestinian territories. The economic exploitation by international bankers and mutli-national corporations who these politicians support have destroyed the economies and natural resources of third world nations.

    The combination of meddling in Muslims nations and allowing massive immigration from those nations is a recipe for disaster and that is what led to the terror attacks in London. The BNP’s is right that western nations should stop meddling in other nations affairs and end massive immigration. Even though this takes place in the UK, this is relevant to Americans since most of our major politicians follow the same ideology coined as “invade the world invite the world”.


    Continue reading on Examiner.com Labour’s attack on Nick Griffin shows hypocrisy of globalist agenda – Los Angeles Nonpartisan | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/nonpartisan-in-los-angeles/labour-s-attack-on-nick-griffin-shows-hypocrisy-of-globalist-agenda#ixzz1fmnskJIa

  5. During the debate Straw said “There isn’t a constitutional obligation to appear on Question Time. That gives the BNP a legitimacy they do not deserve. These people believe in the things that the fascists believed in the Second World War, they believe in what the National Front believe in. They believe in the purity of the Aryan race. It is a foul and despicable party.” AGAIN I SAY DIRECT FROM THE TALMUD….. READ IT HERE… http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/Controversybook/TheStartoftheAffair.htm THE START OF THE AFFAIR The true start of this affair occurred on a day in 458 BC which this narrative will reach in its sixth chapter. On that day the petty Palestinian tribe of Judah (earlier disowned by the Israelites) produced a racial creed, the disruptive effect of which on subsequent human affairs may have exceeded that of explosives or epidemics. This was the day on which the theory of the master-race was set up as “the Law”. At the time Judah was a small tribe among the subject-peoples of the Persian king, and what today is known as “the West” could not even be imagined. Now the Christian era is nearly two thousand years old and “Western civilization”, which grew out of it, is threatened with disintegration. The creed born in Judah 2,500 years ago, in the author’s opinion, has chiefly brought this about. The process, from original cause to present effect, can be fairly clearly traced because the period is, in the main, one of verifiable history. The creed which a fanatical sect produced that day has shown a great power over the minds of men throughout these twenty-five centuries; hence its destructive achievement. Why it was born at that particular moment, or ever, is something that none can explain. This is among the greatest mysteries of our world, unless the theory that every action produces an equal and opposite reaction is valid in the area of religious thought; so that the impulse which at that remote time set many men searching for a universal, loving God produced this fierce counter-idea of an exclusive, vengeful deity. Judah-ism was retrogressive even in 458 BC, when men in the known world were beginning to turn their eyes away from idols and tribal gods and to 1ook for a God of all men, of justice and of neighbourliness. Confucius and Buddha had already pointed in that direction and the idea of one-God was known among the neighbouring peoples of Judah. Today the claim is often made that the religious man, Christian, Muslim or other, must pay respect to Judaism, whatever its errors, on one incontestable ground: it was the first universal religion, so that in a sense all universal religions descend from it. Every Jewish child is taught this. In truth, the idea of the one-God of all men was known long before the tribe of Judah even took shape, and Judaism was above all else the denial of that idea. The Egyptian Book of the Dead (manuscripts of which were found in the tombs of kings of 2,600 BC, over two thousand years before the Judaist “Law” was completed) contains the passage: “Thou art the one, the God from the very beginnings of time, the heir of immortality, self-produced and self-born; thou didst create the earth and make man”. Conversely, the Scripture produced in Judah of the Levites asked, “Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the Gods?” (Exodus). The sect which attached itself to and mastered the tribe of Judah took this rising concept of one-God of all-peoples and embodied it in its Scripture only to 2 destroy it, and to set up the creed based on its denial. It is denied subtly, but with scorn, and as the creed is based on the theory of the master-race this denial is necessary and inevitable. A master-race, if there be one, must itself be God. The creed which was given force of daily law in Judah in 458 BC was then and still is unique in the world. It rested on the assertion, attributed to the tribal deity (Jehovah), that “the Israelites” (in fact, the Judahites) were his “chosen people” who, if they did all his “statutes and judgments”, would be set over all other peoples and be established in a “promised land”. Out of this theory, whether by forethought or unforeseen necessity, grew the pendent theories of “captivity” and “destruction”. If Jehovah were to be worshipped, as he demanded, at a certain place in a specified land, all his worshippers had to live there. Obviously all of them could not live there, but if they lived elsewhere, whether by constraint or their own choice, they automatically became “captives” of “the stranger”, whom they had to “root out”, “pull down” and “destroy”. Given this basic tenet of the creed, it made no difference whether the “captors” were conquerors or friendly hosts; their ordained lot was to be destruction or enslavement. Before they were destroyed or enslaved, they were, for a time, to be “captors” of the Judahites, not in their own right, but because the Judahites, having failed in “observance”, deserved punishment. In this way, Jehovah revealed himself as the one-God of all-peoples: though he “knew” only the “chosen people”, he would employ the heathen to punish them for their “transgressions”, before meting out the foreordained destruction to these heathen. The Judahites had this inheritance thrust on them. It was not even theirs, for the “covenant”, according to these Scriptures, had been made between Jehovah and “the children of Israel”, and by 458 BC the Israelites, spurning the non-Israelitish Judahites, had long since been absorbed by other mankind, taking with them the vision of a universal, loving God of all men. The Israelites, from all the evidence, never knew this racial creed which was to come down through the centuries as the Jewish religion, or Judaism. It stands, for all time, as the product of Judah of the Levites. What happened before 458 BC is largely lore, legend and mythology, as distinct from the period following, the main events of which are known. Before 458 BC, for instance, there were in the main only “oral traditions”; the documentary period begins in the two centuries leading up to 458 BC, when Judah had been disavowed by the Israelites. At this stage, when the word-of-mouth tradition became written Scripture, the perversion occurred. The surviving words of the earlier Israelites show that their tradition was a widening one of neighbourliness under a universal God. This was changed into its opposite by the itinerant priests who segregated the Judahites and established the worship of Jehovah as the god of racialism, hatred and revenge. In the earlier tradition Moses was a great tribal leader who heard the voice of 3 one-God speak from a burning bush and came down from a mountain bearing this one-God’s moral commandments to the people. The time when this tradition took shape was one when the idea of religion was first moving in the minds of men and when all the peoples were borrowing from each other’s traditions and thought. Whence the idea of one-God may have come has already been shown, although the earlier Egyptians themselves may have received it from others. The figure of Moses himself, and his Law, both were taken from material already existing. The story of Moses’s discovery in the bulrushes was plainly borrowed from the much earlier legend (with which it is identical) of a king of Babylonia, Sargon the Elder, who lived between one and two thousand years before him; the Commandments much resemble earlier law codes of the Egyptians, Babylonians and Assyrians. The ancient Israelites built on current ideas, and by this means apparently were well on the way to a universal religion when they were swallowed up by mankind. Then Judah put the process into reverse, so that the effect is that of a film run backward. The masters of Judah, the Levites, as they drew up their Law also took what they could use from the inheritance of other peoples and worked it into the stuff they were moulding. They began with the one just God of all men, whose voice had been briefly heard from the burning bush (in the oral tradition) and in the course of five books of their written Law turned him into the racial, bargaining Jehovah who promised territory, treasure, blood and power over others in return for a ritual of sacrifice, to be performed at a precise place in a specified land. Thus they founded the permanent counter-movement to all universal religions and identified the name Judah with the doctrine of self-segregation from mankind, racial hatred, murder in the name of religion, and revenge. The perversion thus accomplished may be traced in the Old Testament, where Moses first appears as the bearer of the moral commandments and good neighbour, and ends as a racial mass-murderer, the moral commandments having been converted into their opposites between Exodus and Numbers. In the course of this same transmutation the God who begins by commanding the people not to kill or to covet their neighbours’ goods or wives, finishes by ordering a tribal massacre of a neighbouring people, only the virgins to be saved alive! Thus the achievement of the itinerant priests who mastered the tribe of Judah, so long ago, was to turn one small, captive people away from the rising idea of a God of all men, to reinstate a bloodthirsty tribal deity and racial law, and to send the followers of this creed on their way through the centuries with a destructive mission. The creed, or revelation of God as thus presented, was based on a version of history, every event of which had to conform with, and to confirm the teaching. Page 4 This version of history went back to the Creation, the exact moment of which was known; as the priests also claimed to possess the future, this was a complete story and theory of the universe from start to finish. The end was to be the triumphant consummation in Jerusalem, when world dominion was to be established on the ruins of the heathen and their kingdoms. The theme of mass-captivity, ending in a Jehovan vengeance (“all the firstborn of Egypt”), appears when this version of history reaches the Egyptian phase, leading up to the mass-exodus and mass-conquest of the promised land. This episode was necessary if the Judahites were to be organized as a permanent disruptive force among nations and for that reason, evidently, was invented; the Judaist scholars agree that nothing resembling the narrative in Exodus actually occurred. Whether Moses even lived is in dispute. “They tell you”, said the late Rabbi Emil Hirsch, “that Moses never lived. I acquiesce. If they tell me that the story that came from Egypt is mythology, I shall not protest; it is mythology. They tell me that the book of Isaiah, as we have it today, is composed of writings of at least three and perhaps four different periods; I knew it before they ever told me; before they knew it, it was my conviction”. Whether Moses lived or not, he cannot have led any mass-exodus from Egypt into Canaan (Palestine). No sharply-defined Israelitish tribes existed (says Rabbi Elmer Berger) at any time when anyone called Moses may have led some small groups out of Egyptian slavery. The Habiru (Hebrews) then were already established in Canaan, having reached it long before from Babylonia on the far side: Their name, Habiru, denoted no racial or tribal identity; it meant “nomads”. Long before any small band led by Moses can have arrived they had overrun large Canaanite areas, and the governor of Jerusalem reported to Pharaoh in Egypt, “The King no longer has any territory, the Habiru have devastated all the King’s territory”. A most zealous Zionist historian, Dr. Josef Kastein, is equally specific about this. He will often be quoted during this narrative because his book, like this one, covers the entire span of the controversy of Zion (save for the last twenty-two years; it was published in 1933). He says, “Countless other Semitic and Hebrew tribes were already settled in the promised land which, Moses told his followers, was theirs by ancient right of inheritance; what matter that actual conditions in Canaan had long since effaced this right and rendered it illusory”. Dr. Kastein, a fervent Zionist, holds that the Law laid down in the Old Testament must be fulfilled to the letter, but does not pretend to take the version of history seriously, on which this Law is based. In this he differs from Christian polemicists of the “every word is true” school. He holds that the Old Testament was in fact a political programme, drafted to meet the conditions of a time, and frequently revised to meet changing conditions. Historically, therefore, the Egyptian captivity, the slaying of “all the firstborn Page 5 of Egypt”, the exodus toward and conquest of the promised land are myths. The story was invented, but the lesson, of vengeance on the heathen, was implanted in men’s minds and the deep effect continues into our time. It was evidently invented to turn the Judahites away from the earlier tradition of the God who, from the burning bush, laid down a simple law of moral behaviour and neighbourliness; by the insertion of imaginary, allegorical incident, presented as historical truth, this tradition was converted into its opposite and the “Law” of exclusion, hatred and vengeance established. With this as their religion and inheritance, attested by the historical narrative appended to it, a little band of human beings were sent on their way into the future. By the time of that achievement of 458 BC, many centuries after any possible period when Moses may have lived, much had happened in Canaan. The nomadic Habiru, supplanting the native Canaanites by penetration, intermarriage, settlement or conquest, had thrown off a tribe called the Ben Yisrael, or Children of Israel, which had split into a number of tribes, very loosely confederated and often at war with each other. The main body of these tribes, the Israelites, held the north of Canaan. In the south, isolated and surrounded by native Canaanitish peoples, a tribe called Judah took shape. This was the tribe from which the racial creed and such words as “Judaism”, “Jewish” and “Jew” in the course of centuries emerged. From the moment when it first appears as an entity this tribe of Judah has a strange look. It was always cut off, and never got on well with its neighbours. Its origins are mysterious. It seems from the beginning, with its ominous name, somehow to have been set apart, rather than to have been “chosen”. The Levitical Scriptures include it among the tribes of Israel, and as the others mingled themselves with mankind this would leave it the last claimant to the rewards promised by Jehovah to “the chosen people”. However, even this claim seems to be false, for the Jewish Encyclopaedia impartially says that Judah was “in all likelihood a non-Israelitish tribe”. This tribe with the curious air was the one which set out into the future saddled with the doctrine drawn up by the Levites, namely, that it was Jehovah’s “chosen people” and, when it had done “all my statutes and judgments”, would inherit a promised land and dominion over all peoples. Among these “statutes and judgments” as the Levites finally edited them appeared, repeatedly, the commands, “utterly destroy”, “pull down”, “root out”. Judah was destined to produce a nation dedicated to destruction. READ THE WHOLE BOOK… This period was marked by a series of acts which evidently were deliberately devised to give it a nature of mockery especially humiliating to the Christian West; it was as if captives were made to perform clownish tricks for the amusement of their captors. This was shown at Nuremberg when the Soviet judge was selected to read the part of the judgment which condemned the Germans for taking men and women away from their homes and sending them to distant camps where they worked as slave labour. The British, American and French members of the court listened while Western justice, their inheritance and trust, was mocked. At that time, under the Yalta agreement, Germans, Poles and many more were being taken from their homes and sent to slave-camps; behind the Soviet judge 396 loomed the shadow of the Moscow cellars where men were shot without trial and of the vast Siberian prisonland where, for thirty years then, millions of uncharged and untried human beings wasted in slavery. So much for the peaks of the vengeance. In the foothills unnumbered smaller deeds were committed which make up the darkest pages in the recent story of the West. It was a reversal to barbarism; where lay the inspiration of it? What directing hand made the Western leaders abet the revolution from the East in a vengeance of the kind practised by savage, primitive tribes? This vengeance was not “the Lord’s” in the Christian interpretation. Whose vengeance was it? Certain symbolic deeds were evidently meant to establish the authorship, or nature, of the vengeance. These crowning acts of symbolism were the reproductions, after nearly thirty years, of the similar acts committed during the revolution in Russia: the Talmudic boast left on the wall of the Romanoffs’ death chamber and the canonization of Judas Iscariot. After the Second World War the Nazi leaders were hanged on the Jewish Day of Judgment in 1946, so that their execution was presented to Jewry in the shape of Mordecai’s vengeance on Haman and his sons. Then in the Bavarian village of Oberammergau, where the world-famous Passion Play had been performed for three centuries, the players of the chief parts were put on trial for “Nazi activities” before a Communist court. Those who appeared as Jesus and the apostles were all declared guilty; the one performer acquitted was he who took the part of Judas. These things do not happen by accident, and the vengeance on Germany, like the earlier one on Russia, was in this way given the imprint of a Talmudic vengeance (that is, a vengeance on Christendom, the Talmud being the specifically anti-Christian continuation of the pre-Christian Torah). The vengeful writ ran on both sides of the line which by that time was supposed to be an “Iron Curtain” dividing “the free world” from the enslaved Asiatic one; in this matter of vengeance there was no iron curtain. Nuremberg was in the Western zone; Oberammergau in the Soviet one. By the choice of the Jewish Day of Judgment for the hanging of the Nazi leaders and German commanders the Western leaders gave the conclusion of the Second War this aspect of a vengeance exacted specifically in the name of “the Jews”. The shape which the trial took showed the purpose of the immense propaganda of falsification conducted during the war, which I have earlier described. “Crimes against Jews” were singled out as a separate count, as if Jews were different from other human beings (and when the judgment was delivered a hundred million human beings in Eastern Europe had been handed over to the general persecution of all men, from which Jews in their proportion suffered in Germany). This particular indictment was made “the crux of the case” against the defendants (Captain Liddell Hart’s words) and was based on the assertion that “six million Jews” had been killed (as time went by the word “perished” was substituted for “killed”). An impartial court would at the outset have thrown out 397 WHAT DID THE FASCISTS DO JACK- THAT THE JEWISH COMMUNIST DIDN’T DO? The reason, hidden from them, became clear with the hangings on the Jewish Day of Judgment, for this symbolic act set the pattern for the entire conduct of the occupation, on both sides of the line, in its early years, and even for the future conduct of Western foreign policy far outside the bounds of Europe. The Talmudic vengeance was the start of a new era in the history of the West, during which all national considerations were to be subordinated to the cause of Jewish nationhood, as represented by the Talmudists from Russia. I have a description, from a person who was present, of the manner in which the Nuremberg judgment came to be delivered on September 30 and October l, 1946 (between the Jewish New Year, September 26, and the Jewish Day of Atonement, October 5), and was executed immediately after midnight in the morning of October 16, Hoshana Rabba, the day when the Jewish god, after an interval during which he considers his verdict on every single human being, and may still pardon sinners, delivers his final judgment. This description says, “. . . all thought the judgment would be delivered sooner than it was, and a number of trifling circumstances delayed it, till the date was fixed somewhere round September 15 . . . Then X, one of the member judges, objected to the literary form of part of the judgment. . . it was roughly ca1culated how long it would take to recast it and to recopy the recasting; and the date was fixed by this”. I have deleted the name of the member judge. As a result of this delay for literary improvement the judgment fell midway through the holiest ten days of the Jewish Year and was executed on the day of Jehovah’s vengeance. I had foretold some such denouement, in a book published during the war, after Mr. Anthony Eden, on 17 December 1942 in the House of Commons, had made a “Declaration” about the Jews, in which he implicitly limited to the Jews the threat that “Those responsible for these crimes shall not escape retribution”. Mr. Roosevelt, in America, had made a declaration of similar implication. The Nuremberg trial formed the model for many lesser “war crimes” trials; these have been discussed, from the legal and moral point of view, in the books of Mr. Montgomery Belgion, Mr. F.J.P. Veale and the late Captain Russell Grenfell. A little of the truth about them filtered out in the course of years. In 1949 an American Administration of Justice Review Board, appointed after numerous protests, reported on some of the American military court trials at Dachau, where 297 death sentences had been approved. The report spoke of “mock trials” to which the defendants had been brought hooded, with ropes round their necks, and “tried” before mock-altars with crucifixes and candles; they were subjected to brutal treatment in the effort to extort confessions which then could be produced before the real trial (the prisoners were led to believe that the mock-trial was the genuine one). The biggest of these trials was the “Malmedy trial” of 1945-1946, at which 402 forty-three prisoners were sentenced to death. This trial related to the killing of American prisoners by SS. troops near Malmedy in 1944, and bitter feeling against any proved guilty was to be expected from American prosecutors. However, the tormentors of these prisoners were not Americans, as those who remember the admirable bearing of American troops in Germany after the First World War might expect. They were Jews from Austria who had entered the United States just before the Second War and, under Mr. Roosevelt’s regime, had quickly been taken into the American army and American uniform. A genuine American who was present at these mock-trials (a veteran court reporter) stated that he left the service of the War Crimes Branch in disgust after witnessing the “brutal sadism” practised by one of the inquisitors. Then the chief American prosecutor in this trial, a colonel, admitted to a Senate subcommittee that he had known about the mock-trials; he thought they were proper if the trial court itself was informed of the method used to obtain the defendants’ confessions, and said the prisoners should have known that the black-mass trial was a false one because they were not assigned defence counsel. A Judicial Commission was sent to investigate and reported in 1949 that the confessions “admittedly” had been obtained by “the use of mock trials in which one or more persons attired as American officers pretended to preside as judges and others attired in American uniforms pretended to be the prosecutor and defender of the accused”. In consequence some of the death sentences were commuted. The chairman of this commission, Justice Gordon Simpson of Texas, told the Senate Subcommittee that the trial procedures followed were “not American” (they certainly were not British) and had been agreed “at the London Four-Power Conference that fixed the terms of the war crimes trials”, so that responsibility, once more, goes back to the politicians of London and Washington and the groups which exercised pressure on them. Justice Simpson also testified that the American Army “could not find enough qualified Americans” for these war crimes trials, in which the good name of the West was involved, “and therefore had to draw on some of the German refugees”. This aspect of the trials was further illuminated by an event of January 1953, when two men were arrested by the American military authorities in occupied Vienna on charges of conspiring with a secretary of the Soviet Embassy in Washington to transmit secret American military documents to the Soviet state. They were both Viennese-born Jews who had reached America in 1938 and 1940, at the ages of 16 and 26. In any previous war they would have been kept under observation as “enemy aliens”; under Mr. Roosevelt they had received American army commissions as “friendly aliens”. In 1945 they were made “members of the American prosecution team at the war crimes trials”. When they were arrested as Communist agents and spies a high official of the American Military Government in Vienna said, “This ties in with information showing that too many of the Americans employed at Nuremberg were either Communists or were 403 being used by Communists”. He added that “the American prosecution staff at Nuremberg went off in hundreds of directions when the trials were over, many into the American State Department or the United Nations”. At this time the further disclosure was made that in 1949 Mr. John J. McCloy (an American High Commissioner particularly feared by the Germans during the war-crimes trials period) had been given legal briefs “showing that serious errors in translation from German and other languages into English were introduced into evidence; these errors, in some cases, were made by persons whose Communist ties have since been proved by loyalty checks”. This material has never been made public, but if it should ever be used in an impartial investigation of the trials grave embarrassment for the Western leaders would be caused. At the war’s end Communists were everywhere in control of the Nazi concentration camps (as will be shown later in this chapter); in the manner above described they became prosecutors and judges of the very crimes which they had committed! On both sides of the line vengeance was wreaked in the same spirit. Mongolian soldiers from the East, as they entered Germany, were incited by the recorded voice of Ilya Ehrenburg, from Moscow, to fall in particular on pregnant women; what else could the rabid injunction mean, not to spare “even unborn Fascists”. An American woman living in Berlin, Mrs. Frances Faviell, described her horror when she read the diary kept by her housekeeper, Lotte, and its description of “the raping of Lotte and thousands of women, even old women of 65, by the filthy Mongol troops, not once but time after time, women with their children clinging to their skirts. . .” The diary recorded “every date and detail, written by the light of Lotte’s torch, the murders of those who had tried to protect the old women, the apology of the Russian officer who had found the bodies . . . his explanation to Lotte that the troops had been given forty-eight hours Plunderfreiheit . . . It was one of the most horrible documents I had ever read and I felt icy cold as I put it down”. Plunderfreiheit; loot-liberty! This was the human result of the political arrangement made, to the drinking of forty-five toasts, at Yalta. On the Western side of the line the same vengeance continued. In August 1947 a British M.P., Mr. Nigel Birch, found nearly four thousand Germans still in one concentration camp, held indefinitely without charge or trial. He reported that the first question put to them, if they ultimately came to trial, was always the same: “Did you know the Jews were being persecuted?” The story continued in that vein: no other persecution mattered (and at that time legions of human beings had been driven back to the Soviet terror which they tried to escape). The British and American Governments left the Germans in no doubt as to the nature of the vengeance they were exacting. One of the first acts of the Allied High Commissioners was to enact a law “against anti-semitism”. Thus they extended into the West the law which identified the nature of the first Bolshevist administration in Russia, the “law against anti-semitism” introduced on July 27, 404 1918. Under this British-American edict Germans were being imprisoned and their property confiscated ten years later, in 1955; and in 1956 a Jew from Austria, by that time domiciled in England and a naturalized British subject, brought action against a German under a Western German law (inherited from the Allied High Commissioners) which made it an offence “to utter anti-semitic remarks or be unduly prejudiced against Jews”. These laws prevent public discussion, but cannot suppress thought. Their object, plainly, was to suppress all public enquiry about the nature of the regime, west of the “Iron Curtain” as east of it. The effect was to give carte blanche to Plunderfreiheit in the Anglo-American zone, too. For instance, the Anglo-American law against anti-semitism explicitly made a criminal offence of public discussion of the following affair, which I quote in the words of the Jewish Herald of Johannesburg: “Philip Auerbach was a man of extraordinarily strong character, courageous in the extreme, burning with Jewish pride and lit up with a sense of hate of German Nazism . . . He was ruthless and merciless in the days when the American forces were still haters of Germany and were still ready to do his bidding, to co-operate with him in relieving the Germans of their loot, giving him a virtual carte-blanche for signing documents, for searching, causing arrests and striking terror . . . In those days when Philip Auerbach appeared at the head of immense Jewish demonstrations in Germany after the war, the high-ranking American officers usually accompanied him, thereby indicating his authority. With the Jewish flag at the head of these demonstrations, Auerbach would take the salute, the band playing Hatikvah and the tens of thousands of D.P.’s joining in what was a constant political offensive for opening the gates of Palestine before the restoration of the state . . . No one will ever be able to estimate the value in money of assets of all kinds, equipment, clothing, furniture, motor-cars and every variety of commodity which Auerbach helped out of Germany. . . He wielded a power in Germany only second to that of the military authorities”. The man described was a private person, and was able to use the armed forces of America for his looting. His crimes were so flagrant that in time Jewish organizations dissociated themselves from him (he robbed Jews and Gentiles impartially), though on grounds of expediency more than morals. Seven years later (1952), when West German political support for “the free world” was becoming important again, he was arrested on charges “embracing interminable lists of goods which had been carried out of Germany by forged documents, possibly involving also Jewish officers in the American Army and Jewish welfare organizations”. In 1952 the West German government was being forced to pay “reparations” to the new Zionist state and a full public disc1osure of Auerbach’s looting activities, conducted with American Army support, would have been embarrassing. Therefore the above-quoted charge was dropped, “no doubt 405 because of repercussions of a political character”, as the Jewish Herald remarked. Had it been maintained even a bogus case for the payment of German tribute to Zionists from Russia in Palestine would have been hard to make plausible. Consequently Auerbach was tried (with a rabbi) merely on minor counts of embezzling some $700,000 of funds, blackmail, accepting bribes and forging returns. He received thirty months imprisonment and later committed suicide. The American and British press published brief, unintelligible reports of this affair, with the insinuation that it denoted the revival of “anti-semitism” in Germany. This was the echo of the tone taken in the Jewish press, which after Auerbach’s suicide asked “On whose head this blood?”, and the like; the suggestion that any conviction of any Jewish defendant on any charge, whether guilty or innocent, was a sign of “anti-semitism” was by then general. The Jewish Herald, for instance, considered the charges morally iniquitous because they related to a period when “normal regulations were disregarded by everyone, above all by Jews, who justifiably ignored German considerations of right and wrong”. The principles ignored were not German but universal in Christian communities, or had been theretofore. The only protest against these falsifications, seen by me, came from a Jewish correspondent of the New York Daily News, who by chance had suffered from Auerbach’s crimes; had it come from a German victim, or an American or British eyewitness, I believe no Western newspaper would have printed it. The Western masses knew nothing of these happenings in British-American-occupied Germany at the time, and might not have objected violently if they had known, for at that period they were still under the influence of wartime propaganda, particularly in the matter of the Nazi concentration camps. They seemed to me completely to have forgotten that the concentration camp was originally a Communist idea, copied by Hitler, and that the further the Red armies were allowed into Europe the more certain its perpetuation became. Their feelings were inflamed by the horrifying news-reel pictures, shown to them on a million screens as the Allied armies entered Germany, of piles of emaciated corpses stacked like firewood in these camps. I was a member of those audiences and heard the comments around me with misgiving. Wartime propaganda is the most insidious poison known to man, and I believe these picturegoers of 1945, deprived of truthful information for years, had lost all ability, perhaps all desire to judge what they saw. I think most of them thought the human remains they saw were those of Jews, for this was the suggestion hammered into their minds by the press day by day. They constantly read of “Nazi gas chambers for Jews. . . Nazi crematoria for Jews”, and few of them in later years troubled to read the stories of inmates and find out who these victims truly were. One instance: a German woman who spent five years in Ravensbruck camp (Frau Margaret Bubers Newmann) says the first victims were the sick or afflicted, or those incapable of work, and the next ones were “the 406 inferior races”, among whom the Poles were placed first, and the Czechs, Balts, Hungarians and others next. Thus the piles of dead received as little true compassion as the living who were driven back by the Western Allies into the concentration-camp area, and today it may be only a matter of historical interest, pertaining to such a book as this, to show that the “Nazi” concentration camps, at the time when the Anglo-American armies entered Germany, were predominantly under Communist control, that Jews were among the tormentors, and that anti-Communism was a surer qualification for the death-chamber than anti-Hitlerism! Ten years ago this statement (which I substantiate below) would have been sunk by mere weight of derision, if it could have been published at all. Today enough has been revealed about the Illuminist Communist method of infiltrating every class, party, church, organization and institution for some people at least to await the proof with open mind; or so I suppose. Lenin’s dictum was that all wars must in their course be turned into revolutionary wars, which means that the members of the conspiracy must fight for the success of the revolution, not for their country’s victory. The capture of the concentration camps was more helpful to this strategy than anything else could have been, because the camps were full of people who, if they survived, would have fought Communism, as they fought Hitlerism, to the death. The world has never understood this aspect of the resistance to Hitler, because it never understood Hitler himself. Those who have persisted with this book may see the deep significance of his words to Hermann Rauschning: “I got illumination and ideas from the Freemasons that I could never have obtained from other sources” (almost exactly Adam Weishaupt’s words) “. . . I have learnt a great deal from Marxism . . . The whole of National Socialism is based on it”. The Communists, in their capture of the concentration camps, were aided by the policy of unconditional support of the revolution which the Western leaders pursued; it gave them power and prestige among the captives which they used for their own ends. I was appalled when a young British officer, parachuted into Yugoslavia, described to me the drops of containers filled with golden sovereigns (which a British subject may not legally possess) to Tito.* The same thing happened in Greece. Major W. Stanley Moss, dropped into Greek Macedonia as a British commando-leader and liaison officer, found the Communists usurping control of the guerillas by means of the golden rain that dropped on them and says, “When the Great Day came” (victory in Europe) “the world was amazed at the wealth of gold which the Communists found at their disposal. None of the money came from Russia; it was presented to the Communists by the Allies. For years money had been poured into the country for the maintenance of guerilla forces and the general pursuance of the war, but the Communists had used only a small proportion of it in the fight against the Germans. We knew long before the * See footnote on page 407 407 event of the turn the future would take. . . and yet we were unable to do anything to prevent it”. (Major Moss makes one factual mis-statement; “the world” was never “amazed at the wealth of gold” which the Allies had dropped on the Communists, because the world was never informed of it). The picture was the same in every occupied country. Wing-Commander Yeo-Thomas, sent secretly into France to study the methods and organization of the French resistance movement, vainly warned London: “The avowed aim of the Communist Party was the mass uprising of Frenchmen on D-Day. . . to dominate all others after liberation. Meanwhile B.B.C. broadcasters jeered at Frenchmen who feared the ‘Communist bogey’.” The consequences of this were described by Mr. Sisley Huddleston in 1952; during the “liberation” of France the Communists killed in cold blood more than a hundred thousand anti-Communists. In these circumstances it was inevitable that the Communists should come to power in the “Nazi” concentration camps too, so that the Western masses, when they saw the pictures of these camps being “liberated” in fact beheld something which their armies were to make permanent in Europe east of the Elbe line. The truth came out in 1948 but if one in a million of the people who saw those pictures knows of it I shall be surprised. In that year the revolutionary chieftain in Yugoslavia, the pseudonymous “Marshal Tito”, was at odds with the rulers in the Kremlin. This was dangerous for a Communist and he may have thought to protect himself, better than by armed bodyguards, by making public something of what he knew, calculating that Moscow might then leave him alone rather than provoke further revelations. The trial he staged was reported in Yugoslavia and ignored in the West. He had thirteen of his Communist intimates shot (senior governmental and party officials) for taking part in the mass-murder of captives at the most infamous camp of all, Dachau. Truth outs in the strangest ways, though in our age of press-control it does not out very far. In this case the releasing instrument was an elderly Austrian general, Wilhelm Spielfried, who emerged alive from Dachau. He wanted the world to know what had transpired there, and in the confusion attending the breakup of the camp (on the arrival of Western troops) he extracted from the commandant’s office a Gestapo card-index recording the people done to death, and the manner, signed by the Gestapo agent responsible in each case. Among these agents were * Mr. Winston Churchill’s efforts to reduce the area of Soviet incursion into Europe, after the fighting, by an invasion from the South which would have given the Western Allies command at least of Austria and Czechoslovakia and very probably of Hungary and the whole of Germany, were weakened by his insistence on setting up Communism in Yugoslavia. That action, for which his Memoirs give no sufficient explanation, also weakens his post-war argument, recalling his vain attempts to gain American support for the blow from the South and maintaining that the outcome of the war would have been different and better had he been heard. His emissary to the Communist leader, Tito, has recorded his own misgiving in this matter and Mr. Churchill’s instruction to him: “The less you and I worry about the form of government they set up the better”. The effect of Mr. Churchill’s actions was to “set up” the Communist form of government and to abandon the anti-Communist leader and British ally, General Mihailovitch, who was later executed by Tito. 408 several of “Marshal Tito’s” leading collaborators. In time General Spielfried gained publication for this small section of his material; the remainder still awaits a publisher bold enough to print it. “Tito” (one Joseph Brosz) had himself been a Kremlin agent from 1934 on. By putting his nearest collaborators on public trial (at Ljubljana on April 20, 1948) he poised the sword of further disclosures over the Kremlin domes. The accused men included Oskar Juranitsch (Secretary General in Tito’s Foreign Ministry); Branko Dil (Inspector General of Yugoslav Economy); Stane Oswald (a senior official, with ministerial rank, in the Ministry of Industry); Janko Pufler (head of Tito’s State Chemical Trust); Milan Stepischnik (head of Tito’s State Metallurgical Institute); Karl Barle (an official with ministerial rank); Professors Boris Kreintz and Miro Koschir of the University of Ljubljana; and other Communist notables. All were former members of the International Brigade in Spain, and agents of the MVD (Soviet secret police). All made the customary confessions; the defence they advanced is of prior interest. They justified themselves simply by claiming that they had never killed or injured a Communist: “I never endangered one of ours; I never did anything to a party-comrade”. They said they invariably chose for death anyone who could be classified as a Conservative, Liberal, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Jew or Gipsy, provided that the victim was not a Communist. This collaboration in the concentration camps between Hitler’s Gestapo and its prototype, Stalin’s MVD,* came about in the following way. “Anti-Fascist Committees” were formed in the camps. If Hitler and his Gestapo had been genuine in their professions, these committees would obviously have furnished the first victims of the gas-chambers. Instead, they were accepted as representing the camp inmates and were given privileged status, then agreeing to take part in the killings. This was the perfect way of ensuring that anti-Communists should be few in post-war Germany. In this manner the piles of corpses grew, which the outer world later beheld on screens in darkened rooms. This pictorial journalism fulfilled to the letter Mr. G.K. Chesterton’s dictum of many years earlier: “Journalism is a false picture of the world, thrown upon a lighted screen in a darkened room so that the real world is not seen”. * In this matter, too, the Western masses were hopelessly misled by years of propaganda, presenting “the Nazis” and “our Soviet allies” as opposites, whereas a close affinity always existed. Mr. Karl Stern, a Jew from Germany who migrated to North America and became a convert to Roman Catholicism, records his own misunderstanding of this, during German days when he was on the staff of a psychiatric institute: “A couple of Nazi doctors held forth on the so-called ‘Theory of Permanent Revolution’ of Trotzky. This theory was new to me. . . but that it should be propounded by these people was something entirely new and quite astonishing. . . I said, ‘Gentlemen, I understand that you draw a good deal of your theory on political strategy from Trotzky. Does it not strike you as extraordinary that you, Nazis, quote Trotzky, a Bolshevist and a Jew, as if he were your evangelist?’ They laughed and looked at me as one would look at a political yokel, which I was. . . They belonged to a then quite powerful wing in the Nazi party which was in favour of an alliance of Communist Russia and Nazi Germany against what they called Western Capitalism . . . When one was not listening very carefully, one was never quite sure whether they were talking Nazism or Bolshevism, and in the end it did not matter much.” 409 The Communist Juranitsch, the chief accused, said, “Yes, I killed hundreds and thousands of people, and took part in the ‘scientific experiments’; that was my task in Dachau”. Dil explained that his work had been to experiment with “blood-stilling preparations; he had shot the subjects pointblank in the chest for the purpose. Pufler described the injection of selected inmates with malaria bacilli for the purposes of observation, stating that “they died like flies, and we reported to the doctor or SS. officer the results”. These confessions were not false. They were corroborated and could not be denied, for the reports made were the ones abstracted by General Spielfried from the commandant’s office. Pufler explained how these Communist trusties of the Gestapo hid their collaboration from other inmates; when they themselves reappeared from the laboratories and crematoria they told some invented story of a trick or mirac1e to explain their escape; as none of the victims ever returned, they could not be challenged. These men ended against a wall, but not for their crimes. They were discarded like pawns by their master in his game against the Kremlin. They had strictly obeyed the master-tenet of the revolution (“all wars are revolutionary wars”) by using the opportunity given to them to destroy political opponents, and not “the enemy”. They did, in another form, what the rulers in Moscow did when they massacred the 15,000 Polish officers in Katyn Forest; they attacked the nation-states and laid the foundations for the all-obliterating revolution. The revelations of the Ljubljana trial have received corroboration, in various points, from many books of survivors from the concentration camps. Mr. Odo Nansen, son of the famous Norwegian explorer, wrote of his experience in the Sachsenhausen camp, eighteen months before the war ended: It’s extraordinary how the Communists have managed things here; they have all the power in camp next to the SS., and they attract all the other Communists, from other countries, and place them in key positions. . . . Many of the Norwegian prisoners here have turned Communist. Besides all the immediate advantages it offers, most likely they expect Russia to be the big noise after the war, and then I suppose they think it may be handy to have one’s colour right. Last night I was talking to our Blockaeltester, a Communist. When he and his mates came into power, there would be not merely retaliation but even more brutality and greater cruelty than the SS. uses to us. I could make no headway with my humanism against that icy block of hate and vengefulness, that hardboiled, hidebound focussing on a new dictatorship” Wing Commander Yeo-Thomas, who was parachuted into France to help the French resistance, was captured and taken to Buchenwald. He was told on arrival by a British officer already there: “Don’t let on that you are officers, and if any of you held any executive position in peacetime keep it to yourselves; The internal administration of the camp is in the hands of Communists . . . Buchenwald is the worst camp in Germany; your chances of survival are practically nil”. Wing Commander Yeo- Thomas says, “The three chief internal 410 administrators of the camp, called Lageraeltester, were Communists”. Under the supervision of these men, “prisoners were inoculated with typhus and other germs and their reactions, almost always ending in death, under the various vaccines, studied”. Only three of this officer’s group of thirty-seven captives survived, the others being hanged on hooks in the crematorium wall and slowly strangled to death. The three survivors “had to fear their fellow-prisoners almost as much as they had formerly feared the Germans; for the Communists, if they learned that officers had managed to cheat the gallows, would certainly denounce them”. Communists ran these camps, tortured and murdered the victims. If there was any difference between them and the Gestapo jailers it was only that they were more villainous, because they denounced and killed men who were supposed to be their comrades in battle against a common foe. As the Eastern Jews, in particular, play so large a part in Communism, Jews logically appear among the persons implicated in these deeds. That is not in itself surprising at all, for Jews, like all other men, are good and bad, cruel or humane; but it was kept hidden from the public masses, who received a picture of torture-camps inhabited almost entirely by Jews, tormented by depraved “Nazi” captors. In fact, the Jews formed a small proportion of the entire camp-population; the tormentors in the last three years of the war were largely Communists, whose motives have been shown; and among these tormentors were Jews. My fi1es include a number of reports from Jewish newspapers of “trials” of Jews denounced by former Jewish inmates of the Auschwitz, Vlanow, Muhldorf and other camps. I have given the word “trials” in inverted commas in this case, for a good reason. These “trials”, with one exception, were held before rabbinical courts, in Western countries and before magistrates’ courts in Tel Aviv. They were treated as Jewish affairs, of no concern to other mankind, and if any sentences were passed they were not recorded in any journal seen by me, though the deeds charged resembled those of the Ljubljana trial. The implication was plainly that, if any such deeds were committed, they had to be judged under the Jewish law, if at all, and that Gentile law had no writ. (This indeed appears nowadays to be the governing assumption since Zionism recreated the “Jewish nation” and it is reflected in a report published in the Zionist Record during 1950, which stated that the function of the “chief Public Relations Office of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry” was to “screen from public view the misdemeanours of individual Jews who commit some minor or major indiscretion”. The screening here mentioned goes on at all times and in all countries of the West). At Tel Aviv a Jewish doctor and two Jewish women were accused by Jewish witnesses of administering lethal injections to prisoners at Auschwitz, mutilating sexual organs, carrying out “scientific experiments”, sending victims to the death chambers. In another case at Tel Aviv in 1951 a Jewish doctor (then employed in 411 the Tel Aviv municipal hospital) was accused by several Jewish witnesses of brutal acts committed at Vlanow camp, where he had acted as “assistant to the German camp commandant”. A Jewish woman witness said he had beaten her unconscious and when she recovered she found her three sons, aged 12, 15 and 18, shot dead; a fortnight earlier, she said, she had seen the accused give order to the Ukrainian camp police to take away thirty prisoners, including her husband, who were then shot. The bare heads of these two cases were reported but, as I say, if any result was published it escaped my research, In New York a Jewish board of three members (the composition laid down by the Levitical Law) heard charges by a Jew against a synagogue official whom he accused of killing an inmate at Muhldorf, where he was a block warden. The report stated that the board would send its findings “to the Jewish community” in the accused’s town “without recommendations or sanctions”, which meant that, if he were a “war criminal”, he would be left to his congregation to deal with. In all these cases it was implicit that only charges of maltreating other Jews came under consideration, and that if the persons accused had committed similar acts against non-Jewish captives these would not have formed part of the case. Of a different kind but the same basic nature was a case heard before an Israeli district court in 1954-1955. A Jew from Hungary distributed a pamphlet alleging that one Dr. Israel Kastner, a high Israeli Government official and a leading candidate (at the 1955 election) of the government majority-party, in Hungary during the war had collaborated with the Nazis, prepared the ground for the murder of Jews, saved a Nazi war criminal from punishment, and so on. Dr. Kastner brought suit for criminal libel against his accuser, and the Israeli judge after nine months handed down a judgment stating that the charges had been substantiated. This judgment said that Dr. Kastner was a collaborator “in the fullest sense of the word” and had “sold his soul to the devil”, and the Israeli Premier at that time, Mr. Moshe Sharett, commented, “A man is justified in taking any action, even in selling his soul to the devil, in order to save Jews” (the accusation was that he betrayed Jews to the Nazis). The Government then announced that it would appeal the judgment, through its Attorney General, and I could never 1earn what transpired, if anything. Thus, while much was heard of “war criminals” and their trials, these Jewish “war criminals” appeared only before Jewish tribunals and if they were punished, the world was not told. I know of only one case (others may have escaped my notice) where such Jews were included in a “war criminals trial”. The Jewish Telegraph Agency (May 8, 1946) reported, “The verdict in the trial of 23 guards at the Breendouck concentration camp at Antwerp, one of the lesser-known Nazi hells, was announced here yesterday. Among the guards are 3 Jews, Walter Obler, Leo Schmandt and Sally Lewin. Obler and Lewin have been sentenced to death and Schmandt to 15 years imprisonment”. Mr, Joseph Leftwich, in his discussion of “anti-Semitism” with Mr. A.K. 412 Chesterton, asked of this tria1, “What does it prove? That the human beast is found everywhere, and that Jews are no more immune than any other human group”. That is correct but beside the point of this argument, which is that the mass-mind, during the Second War, was given the false picture of a solely Jewish persecution conducted by non-Jews and that events in the world in this century are consistently so misrepresented, to the general misfortune. The chapter of Hitler’s Jewish helpers was not a small one. Lord Templewood, British Ambassador to Spain during the war, says, “For month after month General Franco” (himself of Jewish origin) “allowed the Spanish press to act as the loudest possible speaker for German propaganda. None of the well established papers were permitted any liberty of action. Each alike had to re-echo his master’s voice. In this case the master was a very sinister Eastern Jew, Lazare by name . . . In Vienna he faithfully served Hitler as a fanatical propagandist in support of the Anschluss. Since then he had become an important figure in the Nazi world . . . From the German Embassy, where he had more authority than the Ambassador himself, he daily directed not only the general course of the Spanish press, but even the actual words of the news and articles. His subordinates had their desks in the Spanish offices and not a word reached the Spanish public that had not been subject to his sinister approval. By a cunning mixture of brutal dictation and unabashed corruption, he succeeded in making the Spanish papers even more venomous than the papers actually published in Germany”. I knew this Lazare, a conspirator of the suave, smiling and debonair type, and through him first became aware of the Jewish element among Hitler’s higher initiates. When I met Lazare, in 1937, he was “Press Secretary” of the Austrian Legation in the Rumanian capital, Bucharest. Austria, then my headquarters, was living in daily fear of the Nazi invasion which came in 1938, and its official representatives abroad were by all presumed to be staunch Austrians and stout anti-Nazis; in the case of Jews this appeared to be doubly sure. I was struck first by the fact that impoverished little Austria could even afford the luxury of a “Press Secretary” in a Balkan capital and next by Lazare’s lavish style of life and entertainment. I assumed that, like many men on this fringe of diplomatic life (“press secretaryships” in the Balkans were somewhat dubious) he was “doing well on the side”, which in Bucharest was not unusual. YOU’RE LUCKY JACK THAT IT WAS GRIFFIN AND NOT ME SAT THERE- I’D HAVE SLUNG SHIT RIGHT BACK- SHIT YOU’D RATHER THE DUMBED DOWN ENGLISH DON’T KNOW….. In the sense of that definition, the revolution, in my judgment, continued through the thirty years that followed 1917 to be Jewish. The Jewish nature of the first Bolshevist governments and of their deeds was earlier shown. The same characteristics appeared in the two short-lived offshoot governments which the Bolshevists set up in 1919, in Bavaria and Hungary. In both cases the terrorists were, in the main, imported into these countries in the guise of returning “prisoners of war”, and had been trained as Communist agitators in Russia. In Germany the Communist movement then was headed by the “Spartacus League” (“Spartacus” was Adam Weishaupt’s code-name), the leaders of which were nearly all Jews: Rosa Luxembourg, Leo Jogiches (from Poland), Paul Lévi, Eugene Levine (from Russia), and Karl Liebknecht. Thus the Bolshevist Government of Bavaria (which counted one Adolf Hitler among its soldiers) logically proved to be headed by Jews: Kurt Eisner, Ernst Toller and Eugene Levine. In Hungary the chief terrorist leaders were all Jews trained in Russia: Matyas Rakosi, Bela Kun, Erno Geroe and Tibor Szamuely. The ostentatiously anti-Christian acts of this regime again showed its underlying purpose. Of this government the historian of the Communist International, Herr F. Borkenau, says, “Most of the Bolshevik and left Socialist leaders and a considerable percentage of their executive staff had been Jews. . . anti-semitism was therefore the natural form of reaction against Bolshevism”. In this typical passage the reader may see that “reaction against Bolshevism” is classified as “anti-semitism”; clearly the epithet could only be escaped by not “reacting against Bolshevism”. The following ten years were inactive ones and the matter can next be tested in Spain, where the revolution made its bid in 1931. It was directed by emissaries from Moscow, many of them Jews, and this accounted for the disillusionment of many ardent republicans, Spanish and foreign; for instance, many of the clergy and Catholic laity voted for the republic, then finding that the reforming impulse, once more, was perverted into an attack on the Christian faith, as such. Churches, monasteries and any building carrying the Cross were destroyed, priests and nuns murdered; the specific mark of identification again appeared, seen in similar acts in Bavaria, Hungary, Russia, France and England. Fatherhood of the attack on Christianity in Spain was formally proclaimed by the official organ of the Komintern: “the flames ascending from the burning churches and monasteries of Spain have shown the true character of the Spanish revolution”; the pedigree was traced through one more generation. Ecclesiastical property was confiscated, but the Spanish masses were not enriched thereby; the 417 gold reserve of the Bank of Spain (about 700 million dollars) was transferred to Moscow by the last Republican premier, one Juan Negrin (as related by General Walter Krivitsky). The revulsion of those Spaniards who had hoped to set up a constitutional republic, and found themselves under an alien, anti-Christian tyranny, was inflamed by the murder of the monarchist leader, Calva Sotelo, in 1936, and in the sequence Spain “spewed out” the revolution (as every country has done where the Red Army, with its “political commissars”, could not enter to establish it). Leading Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews in America alike, implicitly or explicitly, attributed Jewish authorship to the revolution in Spain. Mr. Justice Brandeis, at the time when efforts were being made to reach an accommodation with Hitler in the question of the Jews, strongly opposed them and imperiously told Rabbi Stephen Wise: “Let Germany share the fate of Spain”. Mr. Bernard J. Brown wrote, “. . . the Jews were as responsible for the establishment of a republic in Spain and the overthrow of the authority of the church in that country as in any other country where freedom reigns”. During these two decades (that is, the period between the First and Second Wars) Jewish heads became ever fewer among the row that dotted the Kremlin wall on great occasions (when, alone, the imprisoned Russian masses saw their rulers; even the tumultuous cheers came from disks played through loudspeakers). Jews appeared, too, in the dock at great show trials, or disappeared from the political scene without explanation. No substantial diminution in Jewish control or direction of the revolution seems to have occurred during that period, to judge by the following figures: In 1920 official Bo1shevik statements showed that 545 members of the chief ruling bodies included 447 Jews. In 1933 the American Jewish journal Opinion stated that Jews occupied almost all important ambassadorial posts and that in White Russia 61 percent of all officials were Jews; it also stated that the Jewish percentage of the population (then given as 158,400,000) was “less than 2 percent”. If this was true it meant that Russia at that time contained less than 3,000,000 Jews. In 1933 the Jewish Chronicle stated that one-third of the Jews in Russia had become officials. If this was the case, they plainly formed the new governing class. At that time the nature of the teaching had not been modified at all. The Commissar for Public Instruction, Lunatscharsky, was one of the few Russians in high office but he spoke like a Talmudist: “We hate Christianity and Christians; even the best of them must be looked upon as our worst neighbours. They preach the love of our neighbours and mercy, which is contrary to our principles. Down with the love of our neighbour; what we want is hatred. We must learn how to hate and it is only then that we shall conquer the world”. This is but one specimen of an entire literature of that period, and the only original source for such ideas, known to me, is the Talmud, which itself is the continuation of an ancient, savage, pre- 418 Christian idea, and contains such precepts as “You are human beings but the nations of the earth are not human beings but beasts”. Presumably Lunatscharsky qualified by such orations for his choice as Ambassador to Spain during the revolutionary attempt there. In 1935 I went to Moscow for the London Times, accompanying Mr. Anthony Eden. He was the first British Minister to visit the revolutionary capital. The Times had previously refused to send a correspondent, so that I was its first representative to appear there after Mr. Robert Wilton, whose story I earlier told. The fifteen-year vacuum had been filled by a correspondent residing in Riga, Latvia, Mr. R.O.G. Urch, who was the object of constant defamation behind the scenes. I knew of this but, being callow in these affairs, did not then understand its significance. I was at once struck by something I had never met in any other country. My first report said that Mr. Eden drove from the station through streets lined with “drab and silent crowds” and a Jewish censor demanded excision of these words. At first I thought this merely fatuous (I asked if he wished me to say that the throng was composed of top-hatted bourgeois) but in following days I saw more and in my book of 1938 wrote: “The censorship department, and that means the whole machine for controlling the game and muzzling the foreign press, was entirely staffed by Jews, and this was a thing that puzzled me more than anything else in Moscow. There seemed not to be a single non-Jewish official in the whole outfit. . . I was told

    Judahites were to be organized as a permanent disruptive force among nations and for that reason, evidently, was invented; the Judaist scholars agree that nothing resembling the narrative in Exodus actually occurred.

    Whether Moses even lived is in dispute. “They tell you”, said the late Rabbi Emil Hirsch, “that Moses never lived. I acquiesce. If they tell me that the story that came from Egypt is mythology, I shall not protest; it is mythology. They tell me that the book of Isaiah, as we have it today, is composed of writings of at least three and perhaps four different periods; I knew it before they ever told me; before they knew it, it was my conviction”.

    Whether Moses lived or not, he cannot have led any mass-exodus from Egypt into Canaan (Palestine). No sharply-defined Israelitish tribes existed (says Rabbi Elmer Berger) at any time when anyone called Moses may have led some small groups out of Egyptian slavery. The Habiru (Hebrews) then were already established in Canaan, having reached it long before from Babylonia on the far side: Their name, Habiru, denoted no racial or tribal identity; it meant “nomads”. Long before any small band led by Moses can have arrived they had overrun large Canaanite areas, and the governor of Jerusalem reported to Pharaoh in Egypt, “The King no longer has any territory, the Habiru have devastated all the King’s territory”.

    A most zealous Zionist historian, Dr. Josef Kastein, is equally specific about this. He will often be quoted during this narrative because his book, like this one, covers the entire span of the controversy of Zion (save for the last twenty-two years; it was published in 1933). He says, “Countless other Semitic and Hebrew tribes were already settled in the promised land which, Moses told his followers, was theirs by ancient right of inheritance; what matter that actual conditions in Canaan had long since effaced this right and rendered it illusory”.

    Dr. Kastein, a fervent Zionist, holds that the Law laid down in the Old Testament must be fulfilled to the letter, but does not pretend to take the version of history seriously, on which this Law is based. In this he differs from Christian polemicists of the “every word is true” school. He holds that the Old Testament was in fact a political programme, drafted to meet the conditions of a time, and frequently revised to meet changing conditions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s