What NAFTA Foretells For New Proposed Trade Deal


, , , ,

NAFTAIn the twenty years since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect, millions of Mexicans have been pushed by NAFTA to make the dangerous journey across the border into the United States, many without legal authorization. The U.S. government has responded by turning the border into a militarized zone, jailing hundreds of thousands of people, giving them free education, jobs, and or deporting record numbers back across the border.

Militarization of the border began in 1994 with Operation Gatekeeper, which erected fencing, walls, and other barriers between San Diego, CA and Tijuana, Mexico, forcing migrants into dangerous desert terrain.stop corporate rule

This was not supposed to happen

According to NAFTA’s backers, the agreement was supposed to promote prosperity in both countries and actually reduce the pressure to migrate.

President Bill Clinton asserted NAFTA would give Mexicans “more disposable income to buy more American products and there will be less illegal immigration because more Mexicans will be able to support their children by staying home.”

Mexico’s former President, Carlos Salinas, offered a similar opinion: NAFTA would enable Mexico to “export jobs, not people,” he said in a 1991 White House news conference alongside President George H. W. Bush.

William A. Ormes wrote in Foreign Affairs that NAFTA would “narrow the gap between U.S. and Mexican wage rates, reducing the incentive to immigrate.”

So what happened? As a precondition for NAFTA, the U.S. demanded drops in Mexican price supports for small farmers. The agreement itself reduced Mexican tariffs on American products. These changes meant that millions of Mexico’s small farmers – many of them from indigenous communities – could not compete with the highly subsidized corn grown by U.S. agribusiness that flooded the local Mexican market.

Dislodged from the places where their families had lived for generations, many people did in fact seek employment in export-oriented factories and farms. But there were too few jobs to go around, and those jobs that were created did not generate the “disposable income” President Clinton had promised.

A 2008 report on “NAFTA’s Promise and Reality” from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace concluded that while half a million manufacturing jobs were created in Mexico from 1994 to 2002, nearly three times as many farm jobs were destroyed.

NAFTA FAILEDAs for Mexican wages, they went down, not up, during the same period. “Despite predictions to the contrary, Mexican wages have not converged with U.S. wages,” Carnegie observed.

Unable to earn a living at home or elsewhere in their own country, Mexicans did what people have done for ages; they packed their bags and headed for places where they thought they could find employment.

The experts shaping NAFTA knew that the deal would disrupt the Mexican agricultural sector. That’s why Operation Gatekeeper was implemented the same year as NAFTA. It’s impossible to integrate national economies without disrupting local ones – something that should give pause to those proposing new trade agreements today. The realities of NAFTA should not be replicated.

As the American Friends Service Committee outlines in A New Path Toward Humane Immigration Policy, the U.S. should advance economic policies that reduce forced migration and emphasize sustainable development. Instead of policies like NAFTA that elevate rights of transnational corporations above those of people, we need alternative forms of economic integration that are consistent with international human rights laws, cultural and labor rights, and environmental protections.

Modern-day free trade agreements are basically arrangements that take rights away from citizens and bestow expansive benefits to multi-national corporations.

Workers on both sides of the border have one thing in common: they need the ability to organize for higher wages and decent working conditions. Without the opportunity for workers to benefit from the rewards agreements like NAFTA generate for corporations, “free trade” becomes just another driver of the widening gap between the ultra-rich and everyone else.

With the Obama administration pushing hard to create a new arrangement linking the economies of eleven Pacific rim countries, and another that ties the U.S. economy to that of the European Union, it’s time for a new path.


NAFTA Archives | NH Labor News

Unfair Trade Policies Lead To More American Jobs Lost

AFL-CIO Report “NAFTA at 20” Sums Up Trade Deals’ Impact

New Survey Show Voters Don’t Want To Take The ‘Fast Track’ On The TPP

NAFTA’s Broken Promises: US Trade Agreements Feed Crimes Against People and Congress Continues To Pass Them

Losing Our Sovereignty

Election 2012: U.S. Polling Shows Strong Opposition to …

Obama is playing with fire on trade – San Diego Union-Tribune

Voters Opposed Politicians Who Support NAFTA-Trade Deals

Is Country-of-Origin Labeling a Food Safety Issue?

Oversee This: The U.S. and Mexico’s North American Development Bank

Voters Opposed Politicians Who Support NAFTA-Trade Deals



effects of NAFTA on US tradePoliticians need to know that the public “gets it.” So-called “trade” deals that were sold with a promise to increase jobs and prosperity have instead sent jobs out of the country and forced wages down.

Ask people what they think of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and you’ll learn that people are beginning to understand how it negatively effects US. NAFTA is a catch-all phrase for these deals, like opening up trade with China in 2000, the recent Korea deal and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). All of these deals were and are designed to give the owners of giant corporations more power over the ability of We the People to demand fair pay, safe and reasonable working conditions and a clean environment.

People absolutely hate “NAFTA-style” trade deals. People are voting based on this — when given the chance. For example, the Senate Majority PAC is running an ad targeting Mitch McConnell for his support of “free trade” agreements that send jobs out of the country and force down the wages of the jobs that are still here.

A radio ad from “Bluegrass Rural” also goes after McConnell for supporting these trade deals. Here’s the script:

In 1993 Mitch McConnell voted for NAFTA. But from 2004 to 2011 Kentucky lost more than 67,000 manufacturing jobs.

In 2000 McConnell voted for Most Favored Nation status for China. But between 2001 and 2011 Kentucky had 35,700 net jobs displaced by trade with China, a country that artificially devalues their currency to gain an unfair advantage over US farmers and manufacturers. McConnell voted for a trade deal with Korea in 2011 promising more exports of Kentucky bourbon and farm products. But instead we’re importing more Kias and Hyundais and our state is on pace to lose more than 76,000 jobs. And McConnell rubs salt in workers’ wounds when he votes to cut or eliminate trade adjustment assistance so those whose jobs have gone overseas can’t get reemployment help.”

Senator of China2

Mitch McConnell: Shadow Senator for Communist China

Dems Should have Campaigned On Trade And Jobs! I pointed out that the polling overwhelmingly shows that the public is starting “gets it” that these “trade” agreements have been used to send jobs out of the country and force wages down.

The Populist Majority website populistmajority.org has several polls that show a path to election victory that uses trade and manufacturing:

  • 65% consider outsourcing, rather than a potential shortage of skilled workers, as the reason for a lack of new manufacturing jobs.
  • 73% favor offering companies a tax break for every job they bring from overseas to the US.
  • (Republicans filibustered this in July.)
  • 72% believe the Trans-Pacific Partnership will help large corporations, while 64% think it will hurt America’s small businesses.
  • 79% support enforcing trade agreements.
  • 79% cracking down on unfairly subsidized imports.
  • 77% support tax incentives for manufacturer investments. (Republicans filibustered this in July.)
  • 84% support a concerted plan to make sure that economic, tax, education and trade policies in this country work together to help support manufacturing.
    • 60% say the US needs to “get tough” with countries like China in order to halt unfair trade practices, including currency manipulation, which will keep undermining our economy.
    • 71% support increasing government investment to build and repair roads, bridges, high-speed rail, smart electric grid technology and other infrastructure needs.

    A 2012 poll found absolutely overwhelming opposition to these trade agreements

    A May 2012 Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found that U.S. respondents who believe that the United States should “renegotiate” or “leave” NAFTA outnumbered by nearly 4-to-1 those that say the country should “continue to be a member” (53 vs. 15 percent). Support for the “leave” or “renegotiate” positions dominated among Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike. Just 1 in 3 U.S. respondents thought that NAFTA benefited the overall U.S. economy, and only 1 in 4 saw the pact as having benefited U.S. workers.

    Savvy political insiders have a word for poll results like this: they are called “clues.

    Politicians need to get a clue: people hate NAFTA — meaning all of these deals designed to give the biggest corporations power over governments — and they should vote out people who vote to let these deals pass.




North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

NAFTA’s Economic Impact – Council on Foreign Relations

U.S. Economy Lost Nearly 700,000 Jobs Because Of NAFTA

Kentucky State AFL-CIO – Voters will oppose politicians who …

South Korea’s Fateful Decision on the Trans-Pacific

Mitch McConnell Creates Jobs… Overseas

Mitch McConnell – China – ThePoliticalGuide.com

Project Vote Smart – The Voter’s Self Defense System

Common Core has Sacrificed Special Education


, , , , , , , ,

old paper or parchmentYou can’t put your guard down. Rest assured the wheels of ugly education reform continue to churn. Here is a recent Seattle Times headline,Special education is ineffective and too expensive, report says.”

Why? Well, students with special needs, 54 percent to be exact, aren’t managing to get their diplomas on time. They also aren’t going on to college as much as their non-disabled peers. They fail to always reach their No Child Left Behind (NCLB) goals on their Individualized Education Program (IEP). Students with emotional disabilities, I’m guessing with no real Special education (SpEd) services, are getting suspended 2 to 3 times more often than the students without disabilities. Second language students aren’t being served well, and parents have become concerned that their students won’t be employable.

I would argue that the reforms that have taken place since the reauthorizations that formed Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), along with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Race to the Top (RTTT), have not been in the best interest of students with special needs across the country. The harsh budget cuts haven’t helped either.

But instead of fixing the problems, and without reassessing the terrible reforms that have been foisted on schools and students with disabilities for the last 20 years or more, this is what the rubber stamped Blue Ribbon Commission Report from the Governor’s office, came up with:

The evidence is clear that disabilities do not cause disparate outcomes, but that the system itself perpetuates limitations in expectations and false belief systems about who children with disabilities can be and how much they can achieve in their lifetime.

“System,” of course, implies teachers. Hey, you teachers quit sitting around painting your nails and raise those expectations! And while you are at it—embrace Common Core! Why doesn’t the news say what they all really mean?

And this is how the Seattle Times puts it:

But the vast majority of children in special education do not have disabilities that prevent them from tackling the same rigorous academic subjects as general education students if they get the proper support, so those low numbers reflect shortcomings in the system, not the students.

And where does this all come from? What revolutionary research study have we missed? Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, and the U.S. Department of Education!

arne-duncan-poll1You see, with higher expectations, proper support and plenty of rigor, most if not all of the students with disabilities can achieve excellent results. And that is where the Common Core comes in: Rigor for all. No exceptions, no excuses.








Common Core Curriculum

Special education is ineffective and too expensive, report says

Seattle: Special Education

Seattle’s Demolition of Special Education: Making Way for …

Report Details Problems with Special Education

COMMON CORE | Education Without Representation

What Is an IEP? | Individualized Education Program

What Is IDEA? | Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

No Child Left Behind – ED.gov – US Department of Education

Race to the Top Fund – US Department of Education

Government Education: The Worst Mistake Ever Made In …

The Good, The Bad, The Ugly – Democrats for Education

The Art Of Education For Life | lisa’s leaks

Communitarian Education Agenda | lisa’s leaks

AFT: Obama Must Force Arne Duncan to ‘Improve’ or …

Peter Greene on Arne Duncan on Testing: There He Goes …


The Kaufman and Morgenthau Plans to Exterminate the Germans prior to, during and after WW II


, , , , , ,

Theodore KaufmanAmericans who did not actually live through the Second World War cannot imagine the pervasive atmosphere of hatred against Germans which the Jews managed to generate with their war propaganda. It began in 1933 — more than eight years before Pearl Harbor — with the aim of preparing the American people emotionally to wage war against Germany; it gained venom during the war years, inciting Americans to spare nothing in their effort to kill Germans; and it continued after the war, urging that no mercy be shown to the conquered.

Indeed, it continues to this day, in the never-ending stream of new “Holocaust” films and television features, as well as in the reruns of old war films. Nearly four decades after the end of the war the average American — especially one who spends much time before a television receiver — still has a mental image of Germans as arrogant, cruel, treacherous, and brutal — in a weak, contemptible sort of way, of course. While the Japanese have been rehabilitated in the controlled media, the Germans have not — because the latter, unlike the former, dared to raise their hands against the Jews.
During and immediately before the war, the anti-German propaganda was much more intense, vicious, and direct than it is now, however. A good example is a book by Theodore N. Kaufman, Germany Must Perish, which was widely distributed in the United States in the early 1940′s.[2] It set the tone by urging that the United States not only go to war against Germany but adopt the national goal of exterminating the entire German people, down to the last man, woman, and child. It was published when Germany and the United States were still at peace, although to the author that is a mere technicality, and he writes as though the two nations were already locked in a death struggle. He begins:

Today’s war is not a war against Adolf Hitler.
Nor is it a war against the Nazis.
It is a war of peoples against peoples; of civilized peoples envisioning Light, against uncivilizable barbarians who cherish Darkness….
It is a struggle between the German nation and humanity….
This war is being waged by the German People. It is they who are responsible. It is they who must be made to pay for the war….
This time Germany has forced a TOTAL WAR upon the world.As a result, she 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!

anti-German propagandaKaufman then goes on to rationalize his argument and to convince readers that he is both a reasonable and a compassionate man. He even allows that there may be a few decent Germans among the wicked majority. But, he cautions, the German bloodlust comes “from the very depths of the German national soul,” and so even if we spare only innocent Germans from the current generation, they will inevitably give birth to a new generation of wicked Germans, who will unleash another murderous war on the world, and millions of innocent non-Germans will perish. Is it not those millions who deserve our sympathy, rather than a few Germans?
Theodore Kaufman’s book spelled out Jewish plans for the destruction of the German people before the Second World War.
Kaufman gives his readers a few chapters of spurious German history sprinkled with doctored quotes from Friedrich Nietzsche and Heinrich von Treitschke to demonstrate the hopeless depravity of the Germans down through the ages and to prove that a single thought has always preoccupied the German mind: “to rule the world, or, failing that, to annihilate it! And so long as the German nation exists it intends, in one form or another, now or later, to bring about just such a catastrophe.”
He concludes, with feigned reluctance, that the only way to make the world safe is to kill all of the Germans. He states this conclusion, in different words, 30 or 40 times throughout the book, just so the densest goyische reader will get the message: “… [T]he goal of world-dominion must be removed from the reach of the German and the only way to accomplish that is to remove the German from the world!” “They are but beasts; they must be dealt with as such.” “There remains then but one mode of ridding the world forever of Germanism — and that is to stem the source from which issue those war-lusted souls, by preventing the people of Germany from ever again reproducing their kind.” And so on.
Every few pages, between bouts of shrieking for the American goyim to go forth and slaughter the German goyim, this hate-crazed Jew stops jumping up and down and goes into a hand-wringing act, becoming for a moment a tender-hearted Jew whose basic goodness and humanitarianism rebel at the necessity of genocide. But only for a moment. It is a crude and transparent act, but not much cruder or more transparent than the television propaganda of the present.
Kaufman winds up his book with a few calculations. He figures that all the German soldiers who have not been killed in the fighting before their government surrenders unconditionally can be sterilized in less than a month by a team of 20,000 surgeons, each of whom will perform an average of 25 sterilizations per day. The civilian population can then be dealt with in a more leisurely manner, over a period of several months.
After everyone, male and female, has been sterilized, the publication of all printed materials in the German language will be forbidden; the Germans will then be divided up into slave-labor battalions and marched off to work for the democratic and communist victors, where they will be compelled to learn and use the language of their new masters; German land will be portioned out to the various Allies (Kaufman even provides a map to show who will get what); and, with a “normal death rate of 2 per cent per annum, German life will diminish at the rate of 1,500,000 yearly. Accordingly in the span of two generations that which cost millions of lives and centuries of useless effort, namely, the elimination of Germanism and its carriers, will have been an accomplished fact.”
And what about those Americans who do not share his enthusiasm for launching a genocidal crusade against the Germans? There were a number of such people in 1941, among them aviation hero Charles Lindbergh, who was traveling around the country and speaking on behalf of the America First Committee, doing his best to counter the poisonous propaganda of Kaufman and the other Jews.
Kaufman denounces these people as “spineless jellyfish” and “fifth columnists, who must, in war time, be summarily dispatched.”[3]
Kaufman’s bloodthirsty ravings have been worth quoting, because they are so explicit in their murderousness. Most Jewish propagandists were not as mathematically detailed in their call for the extermination of the Germans, but their writing dripped with exactly the same Semitic hatred. Ben Hecht was a Hollywood scriptwriter, one of the most successful of his tribe[4]. He had much more than the customary Jewish cleverness with words; he could even be subtle. But in 1944 Hecht wrote a book[5] about Germans, in which he said:

…[A] cancer flourishes in the body of the world and in its mind and soul and … the cancerous thing is Germany, Germanism, and Germans….

I am not interested in the Germans as musicians or scientists because you do not have to be a German to be either. To be a murderer, bold and gleeful, you have to be a German … I read in the fatness of their necks the mark of the murderer. I read in their watery eyes, their faded skins, their legs without feet, and their thick jaws, the fulfillment of a crime and the promise of another….

The German hates democracy because he does not like himself. He has only one political ideal. It is based on his fat neck, his watery eyes, and his faded skin…. He dreads initiative as if it were a pox and he blubbers like a lost child if called on to depend for himself. “Submission, conformity, whether public or private, are German virtues,” wrote Nietzsche. This backwardness, this underdevelopment of ego, make the Germans enemies, not only of the Jew, but of the form of life which Jewish egoism has helped create — democracy. Democracy is to the German a truly evil thing since it robs him of his profession as a servant….

He is a pure murderer. The thought of killing defenseless people brings a glow into his fat German neck….

It is by murder that the German reduces the world fleetingly to his own measure, appeases his lack of ego, makes his bid as an artist (a strong man) asserts his crudity over the finesse of human manners to which he is an unhappy stranger. Murder is his only escape from his damnable subservience. It is the only deed open to slaves. It is the only strength possible to the docile and frightened mind….

Unlike all other murderers, they are proud of their crimes. There are no eyes of others to stare them out of countenance. Around them are only German eyes, the eyes of German thinkers, philosophers, businessmen, leaders, scientists. The understanding of murder, the belief in murder, the need for murder are all in these eyes. Wherever the little German burgher looks as he wipes his hands of murder he sees only murderers like himself — a city, a country, a tribe, a nation, a history of murderers. He does not have to repudiate his crime. He does not have to shudder at its abnormality. He is normal….

The Germans outraged me because they are murderers, foul and wanton, and because they are fools such as gibber at a roadside, with spittle running from their mouths. They outraged me because they raised their little pig eyes to their betters and sought to grunt and claw their way to the mastery of men…

That this most clumsy and backward of all human tribes — this leaden-hearted German — should dare to pronounce judgment on his superiors, dare to outlaw from the world the name of Jew — a name that dwarfs him as the tree does the weed at its foot — is an outrageous thing…. It is an evil thing for the world that there remains in it a tribe that has only one dream — to cut the wings of others.

Ultrazionist Hollywood script-writer Ben Hecht
And so on, for 276 hate-filled, self-righteous pages — except that between his spells of commentary on the Germans’ fat necks, watery eyes, and penchant for murdering their betters, Hecht uses his script-writer’s imagination to work up various “Holocaust” scenarios. Here is an example:

The German governor of Warsaw was decorated and promoted to a general for thinking up the idea of the lime kiln freight cars. Each freight car was equipped with enough lime to eat up 200 Jews. By the time the freight cars arrived at the burial ditches, twenty thousand Jews were dead in them. In addition to being inexpensive and killing Jews, lime possessed another property than endeared it to the Germans discussing these matters at their desks. Lime hurt Jews more than bullets or even fire. It ate their faces off and removed their bellies slowly.[6]

Seven pages later Hecht reports that 7,000 Jews were murdered by Germans by being made to lie down on a road so that they could be “run over by heavy motor lorries (this money-saving device was thought up by a German general in Romania).”
Like Kaufman, Hecht expresses his conviction that the only way for the world to be safe is for there to be no Germans in it. The dust jacket of his book has a little jingle on it which he wrote, urging his goyische readers to “Buy War Bonds,” so that just such a German-free world can be brought about by means of TNT and phosphorus.
Realistically, books like Germany Must Perish, A Guide for the Bedevilled, and dozens of others in a similar vein probably played a relatively minor direct role in generating a genocidal fervor among ordinary Americans before and during the war. The average B-17 or B-24 pilot carpet-bombing residential areas in German cities, the P-47 or P-51 pilot strafing civilian refugee columns along German roads probably hadn’t read any of them. Instead he absorbed most of his Jewish hate propaganda through more popular media: motion pictures, radio broadcasts, and magazines.

prompt1But the books set the pattern and provided the rationale. Kaufman’s mass-sterilization scheme was widely quoted by more influential writers. The grotesque caricature of Germans developed in Hecht’s book was the model he and other Hollywood scriptwriters used in concocting their poisonous films. The “lime kiln freight cars” idea — and a thousand other “Holocaust” inventions — were picked up by the magazine writers and integrated into a whole mythology of German wickedness.

Gradually the threads from the 1930′s were drawn together during the 1940′s and woven into a fabric of hatred which was used to stifle the thinking of a people. It was only through this Jewish fabric that the average American was permitted to view the world during the 1940′s.

And it was the grossly distorted vision thus produced which had American civilians singing along with the clever Jewish radio jingles about “hitting the Heinies” and “kicking the Krauts” at the beginning of the war and which made it seem quite all right for American GI’s to murder German POWs at the end. It was the public mind-set created by this fabric which emboldened Henry Morgenthau Jr. (1891-1967), President Franklin Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Treasury from 1934 to 1945 and one of his principal wartime advisers, to convert Kaufman’s genocidal hate-screed into an official U.S. government policy calling for the liquidation of the German nation.

Like Kaufman, Morgenthau called for dismembering Germany and forcing the German people into slave-labor battalions. He also demanded an end to all German-language publications and the closing of all German schools.

Instead of using forcible sterilization to eliminate the Germans as Kaufman urged, however, Morgenthau planned to accomplish the same thing through starvation. All Germany’s industries were to be dismantled completely; her mines — including coal mines — were to be sealed permanently; and her people were to be herded into an area about half the size of prewar Germany — essentially a large concentration camp — and isolated from the world. And then they were to be left to starve.

Morgenthau stipulated that the Allied armies of occupation were to give them no assistance whatever: “The Allied Military Government shall not assume responsibility for such economic problems as price controls, rationing, unemployment, production, reconstruction, distribution, consumption, housing or transportation, or take any measures designed to maintain or strengthen the German economy, except those which are essential to military operations. The responsibility for sustaining the German economy and people rests with the German people with such facilities as may be available under the circumstances.”[7]

Stripped of her mines, her factories, and nearly half of her farmland, and denied the food imports which had been a necessity even before the war, those “facilities” would be sufficient for Germany to maintain a population of perhaps 30 million persons at a bare subsistence level — which implied that 50 million must starve to death.

Morgenthau presented this policy — which came to be known as the “Morgenthau Plan” — at the 1944 Quebec Conference (September 11-16) between Roosevelt and Churchill. Even Churchill, one of the most irresponsible political leaders of modern times, was appalled by what he called “this cruel, un-Christian” plan.

History has no record of little Jew’s response to having his scheme denounced as “un-Christian,” but it does note that the British prime minister was eventually persuaded to drop his objections when Morgenthau offered him a bribe in the form of a $6.5-billion loan from the U.S. Treasury.

Secretary of State Cordell Hull (1871-1955) and Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson (1867-1950), both of whom were intensely anti-German, also objected vehemently to the Morgenthau Plan. Stimson told Roosevelt that the Morgenthau Plan would reduce not only Germany but all of Europe to chaos. “It would be a crime against civilization itself,” he said.

Morgenthau was able to out-maneuver Stimson, however, by using Jews in the War Department as his secret agents. One of them in particular, Colonel David Marcus, kept Morgenthau informed of Stimson’s plans.

Another, Colonel Bernard Bernstein, on the SHAEF staff, intercepted the draft copy of the War Department directive (JCS 1067) to Elsenhower which specified the policies to be followed by the Allied occupation forces in Germany and sent a copy to Morgenthau. The latter immediately complained to Roosevelt that the Army was planning to be too soft on Germany. Eventually Morgenthau was able to force a revision of JCS 1067, so that the final version incorporated major features of his plan.

Franklin Roosevelt and Henry Morgenthau yucking it up in 1940

Hull was furious when he discovered that Morgenthau had persuaded Roosevelt to adopt the plan. In his memoirs Hull wrote of little Jew’s arrogant meddling generally and his eagerness to advance Jewish interests at the expense of American interests:

… Despite the fact that … [Morgenthau] was not at all fully or accurately informed on a number of questions of foreign policy with which he undertook to interfere, we found from his earliest days in the Government that he seldom lost an opportunity to take long steps across the line of State Department jurisdiction. Emotionally upset by Hitler’s rise and his persecution of the Jews, he often sought to induce the President to anticipate the State Department or act contrary to our better judgment. We sometimes found him conducting negotiations with foreign Governments which were the function of the State Department. His work in drawing up a catastrophic plan for the postwar treatment of Germany, and inducing the President to accept it without consulting with the State Department, was an outstanding instance of this interference.[8]

Later in his memoirs Hull described Morgenthau’s scheme as “a plan of blind vengeance.”[9] He went on to write of his personal reaction to it:

This whole development at Quebec, I believe, angered me as much as anything that had happened during my career as Secretary of State. If the Morgenthau plan leaked out, as it inevitably would — and shortly did — it might well mean a bitter-end German resistance that could cause the loss of thousands of American lives.[10]

American lives, of course, meant nothing to Morgenthau and his fellow Jews, nor were they concerned about the postwar reconstruction of Europe. Their primary concern was to maintain their control over Roosevelt and not let him be swayed by Hull and the other State Department “fascists” (as Morgenthau referred in his diaries to everyone who opposed his plan for Germany). In this they were were entirely successful.

Roosevelt had been worried in September and October 1944, during his campaign for a fourth term in the White House, that the American public might react unfavorably to the Morgenthau Plan and that his re-election might be endangered thereby. Because of this he had remained somewhat equivocal in his attitude. The controlled media, however, kept public opinion firmly in line, and after the election Roosevelt gave his full backing to the scheme. Morgenthau noted gleefully in his diary entry for March 20, 1945, that during a meeting with Roosevelt that day the President’s son-in-law, Major John Boettiger, who was also present, had objected to the Morgenthau Plan, saying. “You don’t want the Germans to starve,” and Roosevelt had answered, “Why not?”
Roosevelt died just three weeks later, and the new President, Harry Truman, who did not have quite as strong a stomach for Jews as his predecessor, put a quick end to Morgenthau’s meddling in non-Treasury matters. He dropped Morgenthau from his cabinet altogether in July 1945. Nevertheless, the Morgenthau Plan was not repudiated by the U.S. government until 1947, and meanwhile the Jews continued to push for its full implementation.
Few Americans were bold enough to buck the climate of hatred against Germany which the Jews had spent 12 years generating. What finally halted the punitive demolition of German factories, cutting down of German forests, flooding and sealing of German mines, and other moves intended to prevent permanently any German economic recovery was no awakening of White racial consciousness or rejection of Jewish hate propaganda, but American fear of Soviet expansion.[11]
The Germans were not the only victims of the Jews’ Second World War hate campaign, although they suffered the most from it. The Jews used the war to kill off their enemies wherever they could, and the moral climate of the war aided this purpose in two ways: first, it justified the most unspeakable crimes, so long as they were committed against “fascists,” German or otherwise; and it established the Jews as a special class of victims, who had already suffered so much, poor dears, that whatever they did henceforth was to be forgiven by the Gentiles.

Corpses of German SS elite troops murdered after their surrender to the U.S. Army, a few of the more than 300 German prisoners murdered at Dachau on April 29, 1945, by units of the U.S. Seventh Army. (See also National Vanguard No. 85, p. 12.) The Jews’ hatred of the SS, which was recruited from the most idealistic and racially healthy segments of the German population, was especially intense, and this hatred was reflected in propaganda which portrayed SS men as sadistic child-killers. This hate propaganda resulted in the murder of thousands of SS prisoners during and after the war.

In France American forces began displacing the German Army in the late summer of 1944. Wherever the Americans took over, horrible massacres of French civilians were carried out by the “Resistance” — massacres with which American troops were under orders from Washington not to interfere, and in which the news media displayed an amazing lack of interest. An English journalist who spent the war in France and was an eyewitness to many of the events he later described, wrote:[12]

There has never been, in the history of France, a bloodier period than that which followed the Liberation of 1944-1945. The massacres of 1944 were no less savage than the massacres of the Jacquerie, of St. Bartholomew, of the Revolutionary Terror, of the Commune; and they were certainly more numerous and on a wider scale….

It is estimated that 20,000 persons lost their lives under the reign of Terror; that 18,000 fell in the frightful butchery that followed the war and insurrection of 1870-1871. The American services put the figures of “summary executions” in France in the first months of the Liberation at 80,000. A former French minister [Adrien Tixier] later placed the figure at 105,000.

The armed gangs which committed these murders consisted not only of Jews, of course, but also of Gentiles: Communists, Gaullist reactionaries, and common criminals. But the propaganda which motivated them and which had been broadcast from French Algeria since its capitulation to the Allies in November 1942 was Jewish in inspiration. The policy of giving the murder gangs free rein was also Jewish, and it came directly from Washington. For as long as France was under the control of Allied troops, General Elsenhower was responsible for the maintenance of law and order there. But the only law under Eisenhower, from the time the German Wehrmacht withdrew until a new French government was established, was the law of Jewish vengeance.

And in Germany GI’s laughed as they watched starving German children rummage for scraps of food in the garbage behind U.S. Army mess halls — garbage which sometimes was laced with soap powder as a “joke.” The GI’s could purchase sexual favors from the mothers of those children for a chocolate bar or a can of condensed milk.

Morgenthau’s policies, rigorously enforced by Eisenhower, resulted in a German civilian population so malnourished that 92 out of every 100 German babies born in the summer of 1945 died within 10 days.
Jewish “commandos” in U.S. Army uniforms went on murder rampages in Berlin and other occupied cities. Equipped with captured lists of the home addresses of SS officers, National Socialist political leaders, writers, artists, and others who had participated in alerting pre-war Germany to the Jewish menace or in breaking the Jewish grip on German life went out night after night, unhindered by the military occupation authorities, to torture, rape, kill, and loot.

Even so, the barbarities which the hate-conditioned Americans perpetrated — or permitted others to perpetrate without interference — were almost civilized beside the atrocities committed on the Germans by America’s Soviet allies. More than two million German civilians were killed after the war, in 1945 and 1946, during the expulsion of the German population from the parts of Germany which Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill had agreed would be taken from her and given to other countries.[13]

THE WORST AND THE BEST of the men who served the Jews as hired killers during the Second World War: Dwight David Eisenhower (right), the supreme commander of the Jewish forces (for that is what, in reality, the Western Allies were), was of German immigrant stock, but he had no imagination, limited intelligence, and a politician’s hypocrisy and lack of ideology, which made him an especially suitable instrument for the Jews’ purpose. He was willing to adopt without question any policy handed down to him from above, no matter how base or heinous, and he could maintain an air of affable self-righteousness while executing it. These qualities led to his being promoted over the heads of hundreds of more scrupulous officers; when the United States entered the war, he was only a colonel, and he had held that rank for only nine months. (The same qualities served the same masters after the war as well: It was Eisenhower who, as President, created the so-called “Warren Court” and launched the “civil rights” revolution by appointing Earl Warren to the Supreme Court and enforcing his decisions; who led America to deliberate defeat in Korea; and who, in effect brought Fidel Castro to power in Cuba by withdrawing U.S. Support from Batista.) While Eisenhower was essentially a politician, George Smith Patton Jr. (left) was a fighter. He unthinkingly accepted the Jews’ view of the war, and he did more than any other general among the Western Allies to defeat Germany’s armies. After the fighting was over and he was ordered to implement the Morgenthau Plan, however, he finally began to understand for whom the war had been fought and why, and he balked at serving the Jews further. Eisenhower then relieved Patton of his command.

Eventually, of course, the exigencies of international power politics — in particular, of the developing “Cold War” — thwarted those whose aim was the annihilation of the German people. But the Jews had nevertheless made great gains for themselves by the war — and the greatest of these was not the killing off of their enemies in Europe; it was what they had done to America.

By the end of the war [The Jews'] control of American 
public opinion was virtually total.

In mobilizing America to crush Hitler for them, the Jews had been forced to marshal their own resources as never before. By the end of the war their control of American public opinion was virtually total. Through their news and entertainment media, the Jews could set fashion trends and change attitudes; they could introduce fads and shift mores; they could bring forth a great burst of public indignation against a new piece of legislation or a court ruling or a governmental policy, or they could squelch incipient opposition to it; they could make an idea or a man seem either noble or perfidious; they could fan the flames of war hysteria and jingoism, or they could promote pacifism; they could change embarrassing historical facts into “myths” and inconvenient documents into “forgeries”; or they could proclaim the most infamous lie as “truth” and get most of the people to swallow it whole.

The Jews had used this power to make Americans their accomplices in the greatest crime of which history has any record. And once they became accomplices, Americans thenceforth were obliged either to justify their collaboration with the Jews or to admit to murder.

Thus, while the Jews had had to work very hard to get Americans into the mood to commit genocide on their German kinsmen in the first place, after the war it was relatively easy to keep the same Americans convinced that their cause had been a good one. Not only were the Jews’ means of persuasion stronger, but Americans were readier than ever to be persuaded; they wanted to believe in the perfidy of the people they had killed and in the iniquity of the ideals and beliefs those people had held.

German girl in her teens, leaving a refugee train from the east in September 1945, has just been gang-raped by DP’s (displaced persons). Still in shock, she is being escorted from the Berlin train station by two adults — but no move has been made to arrest the rapists. Allied occupation forces permitted DP’s, many of them Jews, to roam freely in Germany and commit any depredations they wished against German civilians.

Americans were morally disarmed when Jews began pushing forward their programs of racial “equality,” feminism, homosexual “rights,” unrestricted immigration, and the rest of the postwar programs designed to break down what was left of Americans’ racial consciousness and sense of racial pride — all programs which Hitler clearly would have opposed, and which, therefore, no right-thinking American could.

And for the same reason it was easy for the Jews to sell the American people on their version of the “Holocaust”: the more blameless the Jews were and the more atrociously they had been victimized by the wicked Germans, the more justified the Americans had been in killing the Germans — and in sacrificing so many of their own lives doing it.

Americans have been so ready to swallow the “Holocaust” story, in fact, that even today nearly every American schoolchild can parrot back the answer “six million,” when asked how many Jews allegedly perished in the Second World War; but not one citizen in 100 knows how many Americans — their own fathers and grandfathers — died from saving the rest of the Jews from Hitler.

1 – This is the fourth article in a five-part series on the subject. The first part, beginning with biblical times, appeared in the December 1982 issue of National Vanguard.
2 – Germany Must Perish, Theodore N. Kaufman, Argyle Press (Newark, NJ), 1941.
3 – It is unfortunate that Kaufman’s suggestion that anti-war activists be “summarily dispatched” was not acted on during the Vietnam war, when Jewish “fifth columnists” were organizing anti-American demonstrations on every American college campus!
    The difference in the Jewish attitudes toward dissenters in the two wars is revealing: During the Second World War every Jew was a “patriot,” and anyone who did not want to kill Germans was subjected to such scorn by the controlled media that he was in danger of being killed himself, by a media-incited lynch mob. During the Vietnam war, where Jewish interests were not at stake, even those elements in the media which did not take an active stand against the war were overflowing with concern for the civil rights of those who did.
4 – Ben Hecht (1893-1964) wrote the scripts for 53 motion pictures between 1927 and 1964, including the books on which 23 of the films were based. He directed eight pictures and produced nine. Among his better-known films were Wuthering Heights (1939), Spellbound (1945), and Notorious (1946). He won Academy Awards for writing Underworld (1927) and The Scoundrel (1935).
5 – A Guide for the Bedeviled, Ben Hecht, Charles Scribner’s Sons (New York), 1944.
6 – Ibid., p. 142.
7 – Germany Is Our Problem: A Plan for Germany. Henry Morgenthau Jr., Harper & Brothers (New York), 1945, p. vii.
8 – The Memoirs of Cordell Hull, Macmillan Co. (New York), 1948, pp. 207-208.
9 – Ibid., p. 1606.
10 – Ibid., p. 1614
11 – One American who did challenge Jewish policies in postwar Germany was George S. Patton, who, after establishing a wartime reputation as the “fightingest” general in the U.S. Army, had become military governor of the larger portion of the U.S. occupation zone of Germany. Patton was appalled by the policies he was expected to apply against the Germans, and he spoke out repeatedly against the Morgenthau Plan.

His diaries, published in 1974 (The Patton Papers, Houghton Mifflin Co.), reveal his feelings. In September 1945, for example, when ordered to evict German families from their homes and turn the buildings over to Jews, Patton commented in his diary: “Evidently the virus started by Morgenthau and Baruch of a Semitic revenge against all Germans is still working.” The same month he wrote to his wife: “I am frankly opposed to this war-criminal stuff. It is not cricket and is Semitic. I am also opposed to sending POW’s to work as slaves in foreign lands, where many will be starved to death.” In another letter to his wife he wrote: “If what we are doing [to the Germans] is ‘Liberty, then give me death.’ I can’t see how Americans can sink so low. It is Semitic, and I am sure of it.”
The controlled media began attacking Patton as “pro-Nazi” and set up a howl for his replacement by someone who would enforce the policies of the Morgenthau Plan. The U.S. commander-in-chief, General Dwight Eisenhower, already had political ambitions and he obliged the Jews by firing Patton.
12 – France: The Tragic Years, 1939-1947, Sisley Huddleston, Devin-Adair (New York), 1955, pp. 296, 299.
13 – The atrocities committed in territories not under American control might be considered irrelevant to the primary subject of this series — the history of the growth of Jewish influence on American policy — except that they were made possible by the overall American war policy. Because most of them occurred behind what later came to be known as “the Iron Curtain,” Western journalists and historians may offer the excuse that information about them has been restricted. Nevertheless, the information has long been available. There is, for example, the two-volume work by Juergen Thorwald, Es Begann an der Weichsel and Das Ende an der Elbe (a condensed English edition, published in 1951 by Pantheon Books, is titled Flight in the Winter), which describes in sickening detail the horrible fate of the German refugees fleeing the Red Army in 1945. Many of the gruesome atrocities committed on those who failed to flee are detailed in Johannes Kaps’s Tragedy of Silesia, 1945-46 (Christ Unterwegs, Munich, 1952).


Zionism Between the World Wars


, ,

1920-mandate_for_palestineAs the 1920s dawned, everything seemed rosy for the Jews. At the same time that Jewish immigrants were pouring into Palestine to begin building a new world Jewish headquarters there, they were consolidating their grip on the two largest White nations in the world, the United States and Russia.

Then things began going wrong for them. In Russia, after Lenin’s death in 1924, the foremost Jewish Bolshevik, Leon Trotsky (Lev Davidovich Bronstein), lost a power struggle against a faction which, although mostly Jewish also, was headed by a non-Jew, Joseph Stalin (Iosif Vissarionvich Dzhugashvili). At the end of the decade Jews still filled nearly every top post in the Soviet power structure, but the viciousness and thoroughness with which Stalin had waged his fight against Trotsky and the latter’s followers had frightened many of the more far-sighted Jews, and they were filled with uneasy forebodings about their future in the Soviet Union.

In the next decade those forebodings were realized, as Stalin launched a massive purge of the Bolshevik power structure, sending whole armies of Jewish commissars to their deaths in prison cellars and slave-labor camps. The fact that many of the prison wardens and camp commissars in the 1930s were still Jewish was only a slight comfort, because a new generation of Gentile commissars was clearly on the rise, and the days of Jewish power in the Soviet Union were numbered.

Russia-Art-5Growing Jewish power in the United States also brought a reaction in the 1920s which made many Jews uneasy. Automaker Henry Ford was not the only influential Gentile who was busily alerting his fellow Americans to the Jewish danger. The major book-publishing firms, unlike the newspapers, were still free of Jewish control, and dozens of writers were producing books, for popular and semi-popular readerships, which attempted to awaken a sense of racial consciousness and racial solidarity among the White masses and the White leadership elite alike.[1]

It was in Palestine, though, that the Jews’ schemes seemed most in danger by the end of the decade. They had, for one thing, overestimated the power of the British government to protect Jewish immigrants from the wrath of the Palestinians who were being dispossessed. There were repeated outbreaks of violence between Jews and Palestinians during the 1920s, beginning with disturbances in March and April 1920 which took 13 Jewish lives.

On July 1, 1920, the British government ended its military rule in the mandated territory and set up a civilian administration there, headed by a High Commissioner for Palestine. He was Herbert Samuel, a member of a wealthy Jewish banking family and an outspoken Zionist.

Ten months later, during a communist May Day demonstration organized by recent Jewish immigrants from Russia, the Jews suffered their first major setback in Palestine. Moslem Palestinians, enraged by the Jews’ attempts to disseminate communist propaganda among them, killed 47 Jews, many of them Bolshevik demonstrators.

Samuel’s police in turn killed 48 Palestinians. No amount of repressive police action was able to pacify the Palestinians or make the Jews feel completely safe after that, however, and Jewish immigration statistics reflected this. After an initial influx of Zionist immigrants had raised the Jewish proportion in the population of Palestine from 8.1 per cent in 1918 to 16.6 per cent by 1926, the balance remained virtually static through the end of the decade.

In 1927 the number of Jews actually declined: the 2,713 immigrants were fewer than half of the 5,071 Jews who packed up and left Palestine. By 1930 the Jews still made up less than a sixth of the population. It was clear that the Zionist scheme for converting Palestine into a Jewish state was in serious trouble.

The Zionists had never contemplated that all of the world’s Jews, or even a majority of them, would move to Palestine, of course. Who would milk and fleece the goyim if that happened? The scheme was to maintain and even expand all of the existing Jewish colonies among the Gentile nations, in order that the Jews might continue to exercise their influence and collect their tribute there. But they also wanted an all-Jewish headquarters state, where there would be no prying Gentile eyes and to which all the Jews of the world could look for leadership.

nazi-zionist-israel-flag-2The problem was that life was too good among the Gentiles. Why should Shlomo or David leave his plush sinecure in the Soviet bureaucracy and take up life on a Palestinian kibbutz, where he actually would be expected to work with his hands? Why should Israel and Sarah sell their nice, safe pawnshop in Brooklyn and face infuriated Palestinian mobs in Jaffa or Jerusalem?

During the first few years after the First World War the Zionist zealots who actually wanted to live in Palestine were joined by large numbers of Jews who had been displaced by the war and were willing to accept any haven. Later the only immigrants were the zealots, and there just weren’t enough of them. If the Zionists wanted a Jewish Palestine, they were going to have to find a way to shake many more Jews loose from their soft lives in Europe, America, and elsewhere and persuade them that they would be safer and more prosperous in Palestine than where they were. Perhaps another war would do the trick.

Another development during the 1920s which helped to turn the thinking of Zionist leaders toward the benefits which Jews might be able to reap from another major war among the goyim was the rise of Revisionism. In April 1925 Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880-1940), a Soviet Zionist, founded the Revisionist Party. His aim was to persuade his fellow Jews to break with the policies of gradualism and compromise to which he felt the Zionist establishment had succumbed and which had led to stagnation in the takeover of Palestine; he wanted a return to the militant, uncompromising, political Zionism of Herzl.

Jabotinsky was furious with those Jews who were so concerned with world opinion that they paid lip service to the statements in the Balfour Declaration and in the subsequent League of Nations Mandate for Palestine which called for the protection of the rights of the Palestinian people. Had not the Jews’ god told them that the earth and all in it were created solely for the sake of the Jewish people? Had not he ordered them to exterminate without mercy everyone who stood between them and their rightful dominion over the earth? Why, then, should they not arm themselves and begin killing Palestinians immediately? That was the way to solve the Arab problem![2]

Bloodthirsty as he was, Jabotinsky was also a cunning strategist, and he was just as willing to sacrifice Jews to his ultimate goal of Jewish rule as he was to kill the enemies of the Jews. When he was unable to make his views prevail among the Zionist majority in 1925, he set about deliberately exacerbating the hostility between Jewish immigrants and Arabs in Palestine. His efforts came to fruition in August 1929, in a series of race riots which resulted in the deaths of 133 Jews and 116 Palestinians, the bloodiest confrontation yet.

The bloodshed may not have been good for Jewish immigration immediately, but it did wonders for Jewish consciousness and militance. Jabotinsky and his followers organized and trained groups of armed Jewish thugs, whose role was as much provocation of the Palestinians as it was defense of the Jews. From these groups came the dreaded Irgun, specializing in assassinations and terrorist bombings from 1931 until September 1948. In 1943 the leadership of the Irgun fell to a young Zionist lawyer from Poland, Menachem Begin, under whose guidance the organization committed atrocities of such shocking sadism and bloodthirstiness that even many of his fellow Jews were embarrassed.

Jabotinsky was Begin’s spiritual father. He was a man of wider vision than Begin, however, and the scope of his activities extended far beyond Palestine. He recognized that two things were essential to Zionist success: The flow of Jewish immigrants to Palestine must be greatly increased, and the Jews of the diaspora must maintain their race consciousness and their solidarity, lest they lose the political influence they were able to wield over Gentile governments despite their small numbers. Both of these things required that the Jews of the diaspora not be permitted to be too comfortable. They must be kept on edge, militantly self-conscious and separated from their Gentile hosts by a barrier of fear and hatred.

Thus, as early as 1919-1921 he was in contact with the great Ukrainian patriot Simon Petlyura, who was organizing an anti-Bolshevik resistance in the Ukraine — and killing all the Jews he could get his hands on. Later Jabotinsky was a great admirer of Benito Mussolini and his Fascist movement.

Jabotinsky thought a man like Petlyura ultimately better for the Jews than Trotsky, because the former helped them maintain their Jewish consciousness and separateness — even if at the expense of a few Jewish lives — whereas Bolshevik policies would lead to assimilation and loss of Jewish identity. While Mussolini’s Fascists aroused a sense of ethnic consciousness in their fellow Italians — and a great feeling of unease in the Jews of Italy — Jabotinsky’s agents capitalized on this unease by organizing Italy’s young Jews into armed self-defense groups, part of his Betar movement. Throughout the 1930s the Revisionists resorted to assassinations and other provocations to fuel the growing anti-Jewish feeling in Europe, all the while urging the increasingly worried masses of Jews to organize for their own protection — and to go to Palestine.

From 1933 on, however, it was the establishment Zionists much more than the Revisionists who led the campaign for a new world war. Even without any prompting from Jabotinsky they were thoroughly frightened of what was taking place in Europe, especially in Germany, where Adolf Hitler, their sworn enemy, had become chancellor on January 30, 1933.[3]

Thirty-three days later their own man took office as president of the United States. Franklin Roosevelt differed in many ways from Woodrow Wilson. Although both seemed to have been born with large doses of lawyerly guile and glibness in their makeups, Wilson was essentially a weak, foolish, vain, and impractical man who was utterly dependent on his Jewish advisers throughout his career, while Roosevelt was strong, self-confident rather than vain, and utterly “street wise” in the sort of political maneuvering which eventually took him to the White House.

Roosevelt made much use of Jewish advisers — indeed, he was surrounded by even more of them that Wilson had been — but it was a matter of choice, not necessity. Wilson would have been helpless in the political arena without his Jews. Roosevelt probably could have managed well enough without them, but he was a man of great ambition and no principles, and he knew the power they wielded.

By 1933 that power was much greater than it had been when Wilson became President. For two more decades the Jews had been working on their takeover of Main Street, U.S.A., while they consolidated their earlier beachhead on Wall Street. Most significant of all, however, was their growing control of the news and entertainment media in America.

David Sarnoff, a Jewish immigrant from Russia, had become president of the Radio Corporation of America in January 1930. He was also chairman of the board of directors of its subsidiary, the National Broadcasting Company. Another Jew, William S. Paley, had been the president of the competing Columbia Broadcasting System since 1928. And just a few weeks after Roosevelt was inaugurated, Bernard Baruch’s old partner on the War Industries Board, Eugene Meyer (who was also appointed head of the War Finance Corporation by President Wilson), purchased the Washington Post at a bankruptcy auction in the District of Columbia for a trifling $825,000.

Motion pictures were becoming an influential medium of persuasion, especially after the introduction of sound in 1926, and Hollywood was already solidly Jewish by 1933: there were the Warner brothers (Albert, Harry, Jack, and Sam) of Warner Brothers, Harry Cohn of Columbia Pictures, Adolph Zukor of Paramount Pictures, Samuel Goldwyn (born Goldfish) and Louis B. Mayer of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, William Fox (born Fuchs) of Twentieth Century Fox, and many, many others, from chairmen of the boards on down to the directors and scriptwriters.

And so it went — in business, in finance, in the media, and increasingly in politics too. The Jews were already powerful in the Democratic Party in Wilson’s time, mostly behind the scenes. By 1933 they were coming out front, at least in those areas of their strongest influence: in that year Jews took over the governorships of two of the nation’s most populous states, New York (Herbert H. Lehman) and Illinois (Henry Horner).

What made this infiltration of America’s power centers possible for such a small minority — and made it enormously more effective after it had occurred — was Jewish organization and Jewish solidarity.

Many other groups of immigrants to America — Irishmen, Germans, Poles, Italians — felt a certain sense of solidarity with their own kind during the first few years after their arrival, especially those who settled in large cities among other immigrants of the same nativity, and they formed numerous ethnic organizations, mostly churches and cultural associations, but also political clubs. Even today in the large cities of the Northeast one finds such organizations. In nearly all cases, however, they exercise only a local influence.

More important, they lack any unifying principle. A Gaelic Society in South Boston or a Pulaski Club in a Polish neighborhood of Philadelphia may contribute to a sense of ethnic solidarity in the community, but neither has any millennial purpose; neither attempts to nourish ancient ambitions to despoil non-Irish or non-Polish citizens or to gain hegemony over them; neither preaches the “chosenness” of its members, rubs salt into the memory of imagined wrongs, and plots vengeance on the world; neither demands an exclusive loyalty or inspires a zeal to advance the interests of fellow Irishmen or fellow Poles at all costs. Belonging to such a group may or may not be of some benefit to one’s business or political ambitions, but the benefit, if any, is seldom decisive.

With the Jews it is altogether different. They are by far the most highly organized of ethnic groups. Every Jewish neighborhood in America has not only a synagogue, but also a staggering array of Jewish business, cultural, recreational, fraternal, youth, women’s, philanthropic, and political organizations.

Furthermore, each of these local Jewish groups is part of an international network, with hardly an individual Jew anywhere not tied into it, regardless of his particular circumstances, sympathies, and interests. If an earthquake in India leaves six Jewish families there homeless today, a relief fund for those six families will be on the agendas of thousands of local chapters of Jewish philanthropic societies all over America tomorrow; if a prominent Jewish racketeer is arrested by the police in Chicago, 16 different Jewish legal defense organizations in New York will know about it before he is even fingerprinted and photographed in the Chicago precinct station; if a tipsy Congressman is overheard making a less-than-adulatory remark about Jews at a Washington cocktail party, the Jewish War Veterans, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress, and 44 other national Jewish organizations will have angry letters denouncing him on the editorial pages of every major newspaper in the country the next morning, while the members of all 11 synagogues in his congressional district will be knocking on doors to collect signatures on a recall petition.

And, unlike nearly all non-Jewish organizations, every Jewish organization is wholly, enthusiastically, aggressively, self-righteously — often hysterically — ethnocentric. Beside this Jewish racism, those of the Mafia, the Black Muslims, and the Ku Klux Klan seem anemic. For the Jews are both more exclusive and more ruthless than the Sicilians in advancing their own kind, infinitely cleverer than the Blacks, and simultaneously more brazen and more subtle than most White racists.

Of all the causes which may be advanced to explain the unique Jewish solidarity, perhaps the most basic is the Jewish religion. Although it has, unfortunately, spawned religions which make claims to universality, Judaism itself is an entirely particularistic tribal religion, the central idea of which is an exclusive covenant between a materialistic, predatory people and their tribal god. It is short on theology and very long on tribal legend, chest-thumping self-glorification, and rules for racial survival in a hostile, race-mixing world. It is strictly a them-vs.-us religion, which draws the sharpest possible line between the Jews and everyone else.[4]

Another aspect of the Jews’ xenophobic attitude, which is held even by non-religious Jews, is a uniquely intense preoccupation with alleged past injuries done them by other peoples: Egyptians, Philistines, Persians, Romans . . . ; it is a very long list. Many other peoples nurse historic grievances — Armenians and Greeks against Turks, Blacks against Arabs and Whites, Koreans against Japanese, Irishmen against Englishmen, Southerners against Yankees — but only the Jews cherish their “persecution” to such an extent that it has been elevated to one of the determining features of their world view. They virtually define themselves in terms of their enemies, past and present. What would the Jews be today if they did not have the “Holocaust” of a generation ago to wail about? One can hardly imagine it.

In addition, there almost certainly must be genetic factors involved in such a deeply ingrained and persistent sense of tribal solidarity. Whatever its causes, it has always given the Jews a unique strength and made them a unique danger to other peoples.

Zionism added a new dimension to the danger, because it fired the imagination of the Jews, stimulated whatever latent idealism and spirit of sacrifice remained in an almost wholly materialistic race, and provided a common goal toward which they could direct their considerable energies. Although the Jewish colonization of Palestine was not going according to schedule in 1933, the Zionist idea was still very much alive among Jews in America; making them a more unified — and, therefore, more potent — political force than ever before.

Even then it was something which few dared to mention in public, but no knowledgeable politician remained unaware of the Jews’ power to help or hinder his career. Had the American people been blessed with a man of principle and responsibility, a patriot with a sense of racial consciousness and destiny, as a leader at that time, then, strong as the Jews were, he could have broken their power.

The Germans gained such a leader in 1933. But the Americans, mired in the democratic system for which Woodrow Wilson had made the world safe, got Franklin Roosevelt. Thus was the stage set for the Zionists’ realization of their dream.


1. Henry Ford spent millions of dollars during the First World War in a vain effort to keep America from becoming involved. During this effort he became aware of the Jews’ role in fomenting the war. After it was over he purchased a newspaper, the Dearborn Independent, and over the next few years published hundreds of documented articles exposing the Jews’ destructive activities. Many of these articles were later reprinted in four bound volumes titled The International Jew, which were widely distributed during the 1920s.

Lothrop Stoddard’s books on race and politics, especially The Rising Tide of Color(1920) and Revolt against Civilization (1922), also sold in the hundreds of thousands of copies.

Another writer whose books (The Passing of the Great Race, published in 1916, was his best) were very influential during the 1920s was Madison Grant, then the chairman of the New York Zoological Society.

2. “But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.”

“But thou shalt utterly destroy them — namely, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites — as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee . . .” (Deuteronomy 20:16-17.)

3. In his personal political testament Adolf Hitler described his decision to devote his life to the fight to liberate his people from the Jews and Jewish influences. The decision was made in November 1918, when Hitler was lying in a German military hospital, blinded by a British poison-gas attack. There the 29-year-old corporal, who had spent four years fighting in the trenches and had received Germany’s highest decoration for bravery, heard of the mutinies and strikes organized throughout Germany by the Bolsheviks, crippling the German government and paralyzing the war effort.

Then news of the Kaiser’s abdication and the German surrender reached him. In Hitler’s own words:

“The more I tried to achieve clarity on the monstrous event in this hour, the more the shame of indignation and disgrace burned my brow. What was all the pain in my eyes compared to his misery?

“There followed terrible days and even worse nights — I knew that all was lost. Only fools, liars, and criminals could hope in the mercy of the enemy. In these nights hatred grew in me, hatred for those responsible for this deed.

“In the days that followed, my own fate became known to me….

“Kaiser Wilhelm II was the first German emperor to hold out a conciliatory hand to the leaders of Marxism, without suspecting that scoundrels have no honor. While they still held the imperial hand in theirs, their other hand was reaching for the dagger.

“There is no making pacts with Jews; there can only be the hard: either-or.

“I, for my part, decided to go into politics.” (Mein Kampf, v. I, ch. 7.)

A little over 14 years later Hitler became Germany’s chancellor.

4. See “What Is a Jew,” National Vanguard, no. 90, pp. 3-7.












Balfour Declaration to the Roosevelt Era.

Counter-Currents Publishing


Israel’s Five Trillion Dollar Secret | lisa’s leaks

Zionist Israel is a Crime Against Humanity | lisa’s leaks

History of Jewish Media Control | lisa’s leaks




, , , , , , ,

nazismDenazification (German: Entnazifizierung) was an Allied initiative to rid German and Austrian society, culture, press, economy, judiciary, and politics of any remnants of the National Socialist (Nazi) ideology. It was carried out specifically by removing those involved from positions of influence and by disbanding or rendering impotent the organizations associated with it. The program of denazification was launched after the end of the Second World War and was solidified by the Potsdam Agreement.

The term denazification was first coined as a legal term in 1943 in the Pentagon, intended to be applied in a narrow sense with reference to the post-war German legal system. Soon afterward, it took on the more general meaning.

Denazification in Germany was attempted through a series of directives issued by the Allied Control Council, seated in Berlin, beginning in January 1946. “Denazification directives” identified specific people and groups and outlined judicial procedures and guidelines for handling them. Though all the occupying forces had agreed on the initiative, the methods used for denazification and the intensity with which they were applied differed between the occupation zones.

1946DenazLaundry350Denazification also refers to the removal of the physical symbols of the Nazi regime. For example, in 1957 the West German government re-issued World War II Iron Cross medals without the swastika in the center.

About 8.5 million Germans, or 10% of the population, had been members of the Nazi Party. Nazi-related organizations also had huge memberships, such as the German Labour Front (25 million), the National Socialists People’s Welfare organization (17 million), the League of German Women, Hitler Youth, the Doctors’ League, and others. It was through the Party and these organizations that the Nazi state was run, involving as many as 45 million Germans in total. In addition, Nazism found significant support among industrialists, who produced weapons or used slave labour, and large landowners, especially the Junkers in Prussia. Denazification after the surrender of Germany was thus an enormous undertaking, fraught with many difficulties.

The first difficulty was the enormous number of Germans who might have to be first investigated, then penalized if found to have supported the Nazi state to an unacceptable degree. In the early months of denazification there was a great will, especially among the Americans, to be utterly thorough, to investigate everyone and hold every supporter of Nazism to account; however, it turned out that the numbers simply made that goal impractical. It soon became evident, too, that pursuing denazification too scrupulously would make it impossible to create a functioning, democratic society in Germany, one that would be able to support itself economically and not become a burden on the victorious nations. Enforcing the strictest sanctions against lesser offenders would prevent too many talented people from participating in the reconstruction process.

The Morgenthau Plan


Morgenthau Plan of 1944 from the plan to exterminate Germans that was advocated by Theodore N. Kaufman’s 1941 book The Morgenthau Plan ‘Germany Must Perish!’

Kaufman’s ‘Germany Must Perish!’ was sent to major officials and journalists in 1941 with a highly successfully marketing campaign that caused reviews in major periodicals of the book to appear coupled with the fact that Goebbels made it a centrepiece of the Third Reich anti-jewish propaganda effort. It would not be unreasonable to assert that the three parties who had a central hand in conceiving and advocating the Morgenthau Plan; i.e. Henry Morgenthau, Harry Dexter White and Soviet Intelligence (with their leader in the USA being Rudy Baker [nee Rudolph Blum]), had read or were very aware of Kaufman’s book.

The book’s proposed campaign of revenge and extermination by the sterilization of the Germans played nicely into the feelings that were elicited in all three parties given the atrocity propaganda that was a staple of Allied and Soviet propaganda and the fact that all three of the parties concerned were Jewish.

Operation Paperclip

operation-paperclip-300x235The denazification process included the Secret Intelligence Program That Brought 16 hundred Nazi Scientists to America. German rocket scientist, doctors, including some of Adolf Hitler’s closest collaborators, including men responsible for murder, slavery, and human experimentation were taken out of Germany to work on projects in the victor’s own country or simply seized in order to prevent the other side from taking them. The U.S. sent 785 scientists and engineers from Germany to America, some of whom formed the backbone of the U.S. space program.

Nuremberg trials

Nuremberg-trial-001In the case of the top-ranking Nazi party leaders, such as Göring, Hess, von Ribbentrop, Streicher, and Speer, the initial plan was to simply arrest them and shoot them,  but that course of action was replaced by putting them on trial for war crimes at the Nuremberg Trials in order to publicize their crimes while demonstrating that the trials and the sentences were just, especially to the German people. However, the legal foundations of the trials were sometimes questioned, and the German people were not entirely convinced that the trials were anything more than “victors’ justice.

A swastika at the Nazi party rally grounds being demolished with explosives, as part of the denazification initiative.

Denazification also took place with US taking over German media and 37 German newspapers, 6 radio stations, 314 theatres, 642 cinemas, 101 magazines, 237 book publishers and 7384 book dealers and printers made sure there were NO criticism of the Allied occupation or its forces. Over 30,000 book titles ranging from school textbooks to poetry were banned and anyone in possession of even one was punished. The banned books were confiscated and destroyed.  Even artwork related to Nazism were prohibited.

Holocaust Denial

KKK_holocaust_a_zionist_hoaxThe Holocaust Denial was considered a crime and banned in most countries of Europe. In 2001, the EU criminalized Holocaust denial.
The constitution of German was completed on May 8, 1949 and ratified on 23 May greatly influenced by the denazification process. Germans were to be all held responsible in what was officially termed “collective responsibility” for the actions of the Nazi regime. “Collective guilt” was another term applied to all Germans. This was the psychological warfare imposed upon the Germans by the Allied troops and its policy was never questioned. Posters in German were put up “You are guilty of this” or “These atrocities : Your Guilt”. Photos of dead humans carried heading “Who is guilty?” or “This town is guilty! You are Guilty”. Germans were forces forced to see rotting corpses and made to further feel guilty on a quest to make ALL Germans feel “collectively responsible” and “collectively guilty” for the crimes of the Nazis.

Namering_exhumed_bodies_of_SS_murdered_slave_workers_ww2-183Germany as a nation suffered tremendously – its denazification program ensured that ideology of Nazism was buried before the country was handed back to Germany. The Germans were not entitled to decry foreign occupation or object to foreign military presence and that foreign presence remained for 13 years.



Reconstruction of Germany

Henry Morgenthau

The Kaufman and Morgenthau Plans to Exterminate the …

Background to Treason – Racial Nationalist Library

Euthanasia Program

The Dance of Deception: The US Holocaust Museum Caught Covering up Genocide


, , , , , ,

UN ConventionQuestion: What do Holocaust survivor and author Elie Wiesel, neo-con darling and former Department of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff and Mormon US Senator Orrin Hatch have in common?

Answer: They all three sit on the Board of the US Holocaust Museum, which is now actively violating its mandate to prevent genocide and is engaged in an across the board effort to ignore signs that a segment of the US population is now at risk.

Committee on Conscience

President Jimmy Carter shakes the hand of Vladka Meed during a ceremony in the White House Rose Garden during which Elie Wiesel presented the report of the US Holocaust Commission.

The Holocaust Museum came into being in 1993. President Jimmy Carter had established the President’s Commission on the Holocaust in 1978 and the subsequent report, published in 1979, laid the foundation for the establishment of the Museum and its Committee on Conscience. The Committee on Conscience describes its mandate as follows:

“The Committee on Conscience mandate is to alert the national conscience, influence policy makers, and stimulate worldwide action to confront and work to halt acts of genocide or related crimes against humanity. In carrying out this mandate, the Committee uses a wide range of actions, including public programs and activities, temporary exhibitions, and public or private communications with policy makers. It seeks, whenever possible, to work with other governmental and nongovernmental organizations.

The 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was signed by the United States in 1988, defines genocide as any of a number of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group:

·             Killing members of the group;

·             Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

·             Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

·             Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

·             Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Crimes against humanity include a wide range of acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.”

The Museum was first contacted by a woman named Barbara Stone, who stated concerns about a situation that had eventuated in both her and her mother’s lives, relevant to an act that could be considered contained in the above mandate.

Barbara Stone is on house arrest in Florida for taking her mother out to lunch. Yep, you read that right.

Her mother, Helen, is under a hotly contested adult guardianship which has already received local press. Barbara has been charged with “custody interference,” which is considered a crime in the state of Florida and carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

Wait a minute, you say. You thought this article was about the peculiar relationship between Israel and the United States? What possible relevance could the plight of Barbara Stone, who is a real estate lawyer and, parenthetically, Jewish, have to do with events taking place thousands of miles away in the Middle East?

In Part One of this series, we explored both current and historical collaboration between the Jewish leadership and elements who were attacking Jews. Here in Part Two, we are scrutinizing the actions of a contemporary Jewish agency–the United States Holocaust Museum–in what appear to be evidence of collaboration in a Holocaust-type event.

The lines of connection here are shadowy but substantial. For Barbara Stone’s mother, and now through ramification, Barbara herself, are victims of what appears to be a “kinder and gentler” form of domestic genocide.

Adult guardianship constitutes a legal loophole through which an individual can be stripped of all his  Constitutional rights and all access to his assets. The abuses taking place in these adult guardianships have prompted the formation of a number of grassroots groups dedicated to addressing what is apparently a country- wide program which is resulting not only in asset depletion but also untimely death.

Guardian AbuseRobin C. Westmiller, who was the original founder of the National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse,  has called adult guardianship a “holocaust on the elderly.”  Illinois attorney Ken Ditkowsky,  who was suspended from the practice of law for his efforts to contact the Department of Justice and request an open and honest investigation of the abuses going on in adult guardianship’s, has termed these guardianship’s to be, in fact, elder cleansing.

Writes Ditkowsky:

“The concept of elder cleansing is intended to have several elements, to wit:

1.       The railroading of a senior citizen or disabled person into a guardianship.

2.       When the guardian is appointed (either with or without appropriate jurisdiction) the separation of the ward (senior or disabled person) from his/her family and prior life.

3.       The systematic deprivation of the senior citizen or disabled person of his/her liberty rights

4.       The systematic separation of the senior citizen from whatever wealth the he/she might have control over and the vesting of the same in the guardian.

5.       After the estate and all Federal and State benefits are exhausted the disabled person is assisted in an involuntary suicide.

That is, the person will be euthanized against his or her will, usually through medical murder. That could be executed in a number of manners. Numerous cases have been documented wherein the alleged incapacitated person is denied routine, life saving medical care, such as antibiotics for an infection. Other cases have been documented wherein a non- terminally ill individual is placed into hospice and overdosed on painkillers.

The adult guardianship program has been so well established throughout the United States and so successful in the five steps outlined above by Ken Ditkowsky that a number of commentators have likened it to the T-4 Program in Hitler’s Germany.

T-4 was the very first extermination program launched by the Nazi government and was dedicated to killing–not Jews, not gypsies or homosexuals–but ethnic Germans who were elderly or incapacitated.  It is estimated that over 250,000 people were murdered in the T-4 program.

Barbara Stone has been repeatedly denied due process through the Miami Dade court system. Judge Michael A. Genden ignored her emergency petition for her mother to have an independent medical examination and an independent attorney to represent her and also to have a court monitor appointed so that the mother’s care could be adequately reported to the court. Violating the judicial canons which mandate that a judge must rule on a petition, Genden has never heard this petition.

Soon after the petition was filed, Helen Stone was rushed to the hospital with a number of life threatening conditions, including dehydration, malnutrition, broken vertebrae, suspected pneumonia and more.  Barbara was told that her mother was in rehab and recovering well–instead, Barbara found her mother drugged up on painkillers and on a feeding tube.

Which is when Barbara allegedly took her mother to lunch.

In a hearing just this past, Genden ordered those accompanying Stone to the courthouse, including a lawyer- friend and a physician-friend, to be removed from his courtroom, thus ensuring no witnesses would be present  to attest to any further misconduct by those prosecuting Barbara Stone. The fact that the State of Florida affirms the necessity of open courtrooms did not faze Judge Genden.

Questions have been tendered to Judge Genden concerning some of his financial transactions, as he reported them to the State of Florida Commission on Ethics, in his yearly mandated financial disclosure statements. Genden has declined to reply to these questions.

Parenthetically, the financial disclosure forms for some members of the State Attorney’s office who are involved in the prosecution of Barbara Stone also raised some questions. The State Attorney’s office is refusing to reply to these concerns, as well.

The shock waves surrounding her situation compelled Barbara Stone, who is electronically monitored now by an ankle bracelet, to reach out to a number of groups, some of which have been organized surrounding the issue of adult guardianship, and others which are to defend against Constitutional and human rights violations.

Stone believes, as do a growing number of individuals impacted by these guardianships, that the attack on the elderly and disabled through these guardianships constitutes a dedicated genocide and appealed to the Holocaust Museum to fulfill its mandate and take action.

When Stone received a dismissive reply from Sara Bloomfield, US Holocaust Museum director, a contact was then made to Bloomfield and to media officer Raymund Flandez. This email is reproduced in full:

Mr. Flandez,

In our previous communication you expressed to me the perception that Ms. Bloomfield, who heads up the Holocaust Museum in DC, had adequately dealt with Barbara Stone’s concerns. Indeed, I have reviewed the email exchange and want to be perfectly clear in what I see the issues to be.

Ms. Bloomfield states that the ongoing crisis in abusive guardianships is not part of the mandate of the Museum, due to the Museums’ mandate to prevent genocide. The fact is that these guardianships are becoming known to be lethal enterprises. For explicit, documented and verified reports I can refer you to a number of publications, including the book, EXILE.

Several commentators have brought up the comparison to T-4 in Hitler’s Germany. No, our parents are not being gassed to death. The instruments of their murder are “kinder and gentler,” involving morphine overdoses, withholding of life saving antibiotics and the like. The intentionality in these circumstances remains the same, though the tools may differ.

So I need to ask a couple of questions here. Does the Museum consider T-4 to have been genocide? Does the leadership at the Museum have adequate documentation on the lethality attached to these adult guardianship’s, and the failure of our legal system, at every juncture—police, courts, district attorneys, attorney generals, FBI, etc. etc.–to adhere to statutory and Constitutional law in processing the thousands of legal complaints coming in from family and friends of those being held against their will?

KZ Mauthausen, Sowjetische KriegsgefangeneWhen the Museum staff failed to reply, further contacts were made with some of the big wheels  who sit on the Museum Board, including Senators Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, Orrin Hatch and Committee of Conscience Chair Michael Chertoff

No reply.

This reporter then contacted the offices of the US Congressmen who sit on the Museum’s board—Henry Waxman, Steve Israel, Patrick Meehan and Michael Grimm.

No reply.

In the original document commissioned by President Carter, the Commission discussed the attitudes which enabled the atrocities now known as The Holocaust.

“The most vital lesson to be drawn from the Holocaust is that Auschwitz was possible because the enemy….succeeded in dividing, in separating, in splitting human society, nation against nation, Christian against Jew, young against old. And not enough people cared. In Germany and other occupied countries, most spectators chose not to interfere with the killers; in other lands, too, many persons chose to remain neutral. As a result, the killers killed, the victims died…

“Still, the killers could not be sure. In the beginning, they made one move and waited.  Only when there was no reaction did they make another move and still another…As always, they did not stop with Jews alone.”

Chillingly, the Commission report predicted further efforts to exterminate populations:

“In a world of increasing over population, the inclination to duplicate the Nazi option and once again exterminate millions of people remains a hideous threat.”

On the internet, conspiracy sites are flourishing, issuing dire warnings of future depopulation efforts. The fact is that we do not need to look to the future. These efforts are already taking place.

Elie Wiesel, who chaired this Commission, made his own statement in the appendix to the Commission’s report. Movingly, Wiesel, who was a child during the Holocaust, described his experiences and offered the following:

“…we have learned certain lessons. We have learned not to be neutral in times of crisis, for neutrality always helps the aggressor, never the victim. We have learned that silence is never the answer. We have learned that the opposite of love is not hatred, but indifference.”

Elie Wiesel also received a copy of the email to the Holocaust Museum. His assistant reported that he would not make himself available to be interviewed on the subject of the Museum’s indifference towards the plight of those under adult guardianship.

Further scrutiny of the Museum Board raises more concern. It must be noted that Michael Chertoff, former head of the Department of Homeland Security under President Bush and co-author of the USA PATRIOT Act, chairs the Committee on Conscience.

It has been suggested that Chertoff, who was appointed by President Obama to this position, might be a problematic influence at the Museum. Chertoff’s efforts via the USA PATRIOT Act changed the face of America into a top- heavy surveillance society. This much is known. What needs further exploration is the history of the Chertoff family vis a vis eugenics.

The PATRIOT Act, which was waiting in the wings prior to the attacks of September 11 and was rammed through Congress like a red hot bullet, was Michael Chertoff’s baby.  The inclusion of Section 817 –the Expansion of the Biological Weapons Statute—in the USA PATRIOT Act, provided the codification of a vehicle for a potential massive extermination- level event, via a home grown pandemic. The fact that the US government gave itself immunity from violating its own biological weapons statute—and this is what the change of legislation provided by Section 817 accomplished—paves the way for a pandemic sans culpability, in the form of a biological weapons attack.

Who except for the perpetrators would know the difference?

The plausible deniability inherent in any pandemic- type event was buttressed by the institutionalization of the immunity provided in 817, should a hidden hand be suspected.

At the time of this writing, concerns about a potential pandemic in the form of MERS, Ebola, Avian flu or other agents are now flooding the media.

The involvement of Michael Chertoff’s “secret cousin,” Larry Chertoff, in  constructing  what appears to be a covert delivery system for such a pandemic, enhances concerns about  Michael Chertoff’s appointment to this position.

While the mechanisms may be different—adult guardianship as a vehicle for elder cleansing and a potential pandemic as a vehicle for what constitutes selective biological warfare—the resonance with  what happened seventy- odd years ago in Eastern Europe is unnerving.

The President’s Commission on the Holocaust made a number of recommendations, including the establishment of the Holocaust Museum and a Committee on Conscience. The Commission also specifically recommended that the US Senate ratify the Convention against Genocide.

The United States ratified the Convention in 1967, with a specific reservation which explicitly requires that the nation grant consent to trial of its citizenry before an international court for the genocide. What this means is that the offending country must consent to be tried.

Writes Elie Wiesel in the preface to the Commission report:

“Our own country was also involved….our great government was not without blemish. One cannot but wonder what might have happened had the then American President and his advisors demonstrated concern and compassion….How many victims….could have been saved….”

Barbara Stone’s trial is set for November 20th.  The status of her mother, Helen, is unclear at this time. Barbara is barred from contacting her mother and Helen Stone’s Rabbi, Ed Farber, has been denied access to the elderly woman, on the orders of  Roy Lustig, who is the guardian’s attorney.

Barbara Stone and her mother





National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse

Holocaust Museum

THE POWER OF – United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

Blood Tastes Lousy With Scotch by Robin Cohen Westmiller

Petition of the Month, July 2014: Ditkowsky v. The Illinois …

From Ken Ditkowsky –demanding an investigation and …

Euthanasia Program

Action T4

T4 Program (Nazi policy) — Encyclopedia Britannica

Background & Overview of the Nazi Euthanasia (T-4) Program

Florida’s Guardians Often Exploit the Vulnerable Residents …

From Barbara Stone–a lawyer/probate victim in Florida …

Larry Chertoff (Michael’s Cousin) Has Huge Control Over …

From Barbara Stone–a lawyer/probate victim in Florida under house arrest–merely for protecting her mother


From Barbara Stone–a lawyer/probate victim in Florida under house arrest–merely for protecting her mother

Originally posted on MaryGSykes.com:

From: Barbara Stone
Sent: Aug 26, 2014 12:15 AM
To: Kenneth Ditkowsky , “joanne@justice4every1.com” , Janet Phelan , Eric Holder , Human Rights Watch , “FBI- (” , “ComplaintAdmin ADA (CRT)” , Probate Sharks , “J. Ditkowsky” , Harry Heckert , Matt Senator Kirk , ISBA Main Discussion Group ,  etc.
Subject: Guardianship fraud

Certain of the members of the Florida Bar use their organization as a front for their orchestrating and acting as an accomplice to cause atrocities, embezzlement and death of certain classes of citizens, the elderly, disabled and the vulnerable in a scheme operating under the guise of guardianship. 

My 86 year old mother, Helen Stone is being abused, extorted and her death is being orchestrated by a criminal enterprise that operates under a guise of “guardianship”. 

Federal and State Laws prohibit abuse, aggravated abuse, exploitation, embezzlement and discrimination.  They prohibit murder and premeditated murder.


This lawless operation has taken human ownership of my mother. She…

View original 969 more words

From Pigs to Monkeys, Ebola Goes Airborne



When news broke that the Ebola virus had resurfaced in Uganda, investigators in Canada were making headlines of their own with research indicating the deadly virus may spread between species, through the air.

The team, comprised of researchers from the National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease, the University of Manitoba, and the Public Health Agency of Canada, observed transmission of Ebola from pigs to monkeys. They first inoculated a number of piglets with the Zaire strain of the Ebola virus. Ebola-Zaire is the deadliest strain, with mortality rates up to 90 percent. The piglets were then placed in a room with four cynomolgus macaques, a species of monkey commonly used in laboratories. The animals were separated by wire cages to prevent direct contact between the species.

Within a few days, the inoculated piglets showed clinical signs of infection indicative of Ebola infection. In pigs, Ebola generally causes respiratory illness and increased temperature. Nine days after infection, all piglets appeared to have recovered from the disease.

Within eight days of exposure, two of the four monkeys showed signs of Ebola infection. Four days later, the remaining two monkeys were sick too. It is possible that the first two monkeys infected the other two, but transmission between non-human primates has never before been observed in a lab setting.

While the study provided evidence that transmission of Ebola between species is possible, researchers still cannot say for certain how that transmission actually occurred. There are three likely candidates for the route of transmission: airborne, droplet, or fomites (any object or substance capable of carrying infectious organisms, such as germs or parasites, and hence transferring them from one individual to another).

Airborne and droplet transmission both technically travel through the air to infect others; the difference lies in the size of the infective particles. Smaller droplets persist in the air longer and are able to travel farther- these droplets are truly “airborne.” Larger droplets can neither travel as far nor persist for very long. Fomites are inanimate objects that can transmit disease if they are contaminated with infectious agents. In this study, a monkey’s cage could have been contaminated when workers were cleaning a nearby pig cage. If the monkey touched the contaminated cage surface and then its mouth or eyes, it could have been infected.

Author Dr. Gary Kobinger suspects that the virus is transmitted through droplets, not fomites, because evidence of infection in the lungs of the monkeys indicated that the virus was inhaled.

What do these findings mean? First and foremost, Ebola is not suddenly an airborne disease. As expert commentators at ProMED stated, the experiments “demonstrate the susceptibility of pigs to Zaire Ebolavirus and that the virus from infected pigs can be transmitted to macaques under experimental conditions… they fall short of establishing that this is a normal route of transmission in the natural environment.”

The study does raise the possibility that pigs are a host for Ebola. If this proves to be true in the wild, there are direct ramifications for prevention and control measures. It is still unclear what role pigs play in the chain of transmission. To continue work on answering this question, the team plans to take samples from pigs in areas known to have recently experienced Ebola outbreaks.

The Disease Daily has previously reported on Dr. Kobinger’s work on the Ebola vaccine.


Virology Notes:


•  Description     •  Mechanism     •  Outbreaks*
•  Location     •  Incubation Period     •  Vaccine
•  Vector     •  Symptoms     •  Odds ‘n’ Ends
    •  Diagnosis     •  Links*
    •  Mortality Rates
    •  Treatment

The Economics of Violence


, ,

leaders_start_wars_people_stop_warsWhat is the biggest source of violence in our world? With the brutal conflicts in Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere constantly in the news, many people would probably say war. But that turns out to be spectacularly wrong.

Getting it right matters if we are to find cost-effective solutions to this and other global problems. Obviously, everyone would like to stop wars and violence, just as we would like to end poverty,and while providing education to all. But, given limited resources, the international community will only do so much. We have to prioritize, which is what an economic analysis of costs and benefits can do.

The international community is working on new development goals for the next 15 years, and the Copenhagen Consensus has asked some of the world’s leading economists to give their assessment of the smartest targets they can choose. Is reducing violence a goal worthy of resources that would otherwise be spent on, say, reducing hunger? And, if so, which forms of violence should be targeted?

A study by James Fearon of Stanford University and Anke Hoeffler of Oxford University’s Center for the Study of African Economies argues that societal violence – homicides and especially violence against women and children – is a much bigger problem than civil wars. Nine people are killed in interpersonal violence for every battlefield death in a civil war, and one child is killed for every two combatants who die.

In 2008, there were 418,000 homicides around the world, with far too many countries recording a murder rate of more than 10 per 100,000, which the World Health Organization regards as an epidemic. A single homicide in America costs the individual and society $9.1 million. If we scale this by national income across the world, this single category of violent crime costs 1.7% of global GDP.

Of course, this is not a direct financial loss to the global economy, but a way of expressing the impact. If murders could be eliminated, societies around the world would be better off in ways that can be valued at 1.7% of GDP. Compare this to the much lower cost of civil wars, which are equivalent to about 0.2% of global GDP.

Stop-Violence-Against-Women-2But this is still much less than the biggest source of violence of all: violence against women in the home. Based on studies published in Science, 28% of all women in Sub-Saharan Africa reported experiencing violence in the past year at the hands of their partners or family. This includes women subjected to beatings, forced marriage at an early age, sexual assault, “honor” crimes, and female genital mutilation. A conservative estimate puts the welfare cost of intimate partner violence alone at $4.4 trillion, or 5.2% of global GDP.

The second-largest source of violence is the abuse of children, 80% of which is inflicted by parents. The definition of what constitutes child abuse varies by culture; but about 15% of children suffer each month from what the UN calls severe physical punishment. This includes being slapped on the face, head, or ears, and a quarter of these children are beaten with some kind of implement repeatedly and as hard as possible.

Every month, some 290 million children endure such suffering. The welfare cost is $3.6 trillion, or 4.2% of global GDP.

A tiny fraction of international aid funding currently goes toward reducing societal violence and improving criminal justice systems. The enormous cost borne by society and individuals seems to cry out for action. Unfortunately, there is still little hard evidence about where resources should best be focused.

All we can say is that the money spent to reduce violence might be better targeted. Considerable amounts of aid are directed toward “fragile states” to help stop or prevent civil war, but only 0.27% of international aid goes to projects with a “crime prevention” component. Other programs may help in indirect ways, but there obviously is much room for improvement.

Some solutions, it is clear, do work very well. Stronger social services can reduce violence against children. Studies in Washington State show that home visits from trained staff can reduce child abuse, improve children’s quality of life and physical and mental health, and reduce child-welfare and litigation costs. A dollar spent on this program produces benefits of $14, making it a highly cost-effective policy.

In many cases, changes in social attitudes are needed. To reduce violence against women and girls, one program in Uganda, called SASA! (Kiswahili for “Now!”) promotes the view that partner violence is unacceptable, and has helped to halve the rate of it. This is a fantastic outcome, of course, though there has been no analysis of how cost-effective it is.

violenceThere are other examples of countries taking effective action. In 1993, Bogota suffered 80 murders per 100,000 people. By taking an integrated approach – limiting the hours during which alcohol can be sold, reclaiming public space, and improving the police and justice systems – the homicide rate was reduced to 21 per 100,000 in 2004. That is still high, but it is far below the rate of 55 per 100,000 in Detroit.

Alcohol is a factor in many assaults, and controlling its availability could have a significant part to play, as the findings in Bogota suggest. In the United Kingdom, a pilot study on stronger enforcement of existing rules showed that assaults could be reduced in a very cost-effective way, with the benefits outweighing the costs by 17 to one.

While we still don’t know enough, two points are certain. First, domestic violence against women and children imposes a social cost of $8 trillion each year, making it a huge – and vastly underreported – global issue. Second, there are solutions that can help to tackle some of these problems very cost-effectively. That is why reducing domestic violence belongs on the short-list for the world’s next set of development goals.




The world’s most extreme poor are located primarily in rural places. Clearly, people’s proximity (or lack of) to city centers of decision-making, power and relative affluence is a determining factor …
High Atlas Foundation on 1:14 pm, 7 Nov, 2014
There is a need for determined Sub-national, National and Global Collective Action to achieve New Sub-national, National and Global Order – Political and Cultural; Economic and Financial; Social and E…
The OWG has begun to engage in detailed consideration of individual goals and targets. At this important moment however CIDSE believes a number of over-arching issues must be taken into account if thi…
CIDSE on 11:34 am, 5 May, 2014
Stakeholder Forum has produced a ‘Summary of targets from proposals in the SDGs e-Inventory under the OWG’s 19 Focus Areas’. A section is devoted to targets and indicators related to poverty eradicati…
Stakeholder Forum on 5:50 am, 7 Apr, 2014
Under MDG 1, the main measurements of poverty are either the percentage of population living below $1 (PPP) per day or percentage population living below $1.25 USD. However, UNDP, many member states a…
International Movement ATD Fourth World on 10:22 am, 13 Mar, 2014
The eradication of poverty and hunger are the first Millennium Development Goal (MDG). Yet, two years from the target date for the MDGs, millions continue to suffer from poverty while inequality withi…
This is the 3rd Chronic Poverty Reporti and comes at a time when the world is on the cusp of agreeing new global goals to succeed the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which largely expire in 2015….
Chronic Poverty Advisory Network on 11:09 am, 30 Jan, 2014
Áine O’Connor from Mercy International Association at the 5th session of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals.In this video, Ms O’Connor emphasises the need of sustainable devel…
Stakeholder Forum on 12:59 pm, 9 Jan, 2014
This paper draws on available evidence to challenge existing thinking on the way forward for a revised agenda to eradicate extreme poverty. In light of the finding that between a quarter and a half o…
Chronic Poverty Advisory Network on 10:48 am, 22 Nov, 2013
Animals are the primary productive asset of around 1 billion of the world’s poorest people.1 Protecting the welfare of animals maintains the livelihoods of those who depend on them for food,income, tr…
The Rio+20 outcome document The Future We Want requested the Secretary-General of the United Nations to ensure all necessary input and support to the Open Working Group from the United Nations system,…
La pauvreté dans sa dimension complexe nécessite à ce jour des efforts concertés afin de passer à une vitesse devant permettre à reduire d’une manière sensible l’état de précarité auprès de la populat…

Materials/Methods, Supporting Text, Tables, Figures, and/or References

Download Supplement
Table S3
Raw data from all studies considered


Sustainable development goals – United Nations


Bjorn Lomborg: Get the facts straight

English – News | Bjorn Lomborg

Greed and grievance in civil war – Department of Economics


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,235 other followers