Letter to my American friends

Letter to my American friends

The Saker

Introduction by the Saker: During my recent hurricane-induced evacuation from Florida, I had the pleasure to see some good friends of mine (White Russian emigrés and American Jews who now consider themselves American and who fully buy into the official propaganda about the USA) who sincerely think of themselves as liberals, progressives and anti-imperialists. These are kind, decent and sincere people, but during our meeting they made a number of statements which completely contradicted their professed views. After writing this letter to them I realized that there might be many more people out there who, like myself, are desperately trying to open the eye of good but completely mislead people about the reality of Empire. I am sharing this letter in the hope that it might maybe offer a few useful talking points to others in their efforts to open the eyes of their friends and relatives.

——-

Dear friends:

During our conversation you stated the following:

  1. The USA needs a military
  2. One of the reasons why the USA needs a military are regimes like the North Korean one
  3. The USA has a right to intervene outside its borders on a) pragmatic and b) moral grounds
  4. During WWII the USA “saved Europe” and acquired a moral right to “protect” other friends and allies
  5. The Allies (USSR-US-UK) were morally superior to the Nazis
  6. The Americans brought peace, prosperity and freedom to Europe.
  7. Yes, mistakes were made, but this is hardly a reason to forsake the right to intervene

I believe that all seven of these theses are demonstratively false, fallacies based on profoundly mistaken assumptions and that they all can be debunked by common sense and indisputable facts.

But first, let me tackle the Delphic maxim “know thyself” as it is, I believe, central to our discussion. For all our differences I think that there are a number of things which you would agree to consider as axiomatically true, including that Germans, Russians, Americans and others are roughly of equal intelligence. They also are roughly equally capable of critical thinking, personal investigation and education. Right? Yet, you will also agree that during the Nazi regime in Germany Germans were very effectively propagandized and that Russians in Soviet Russia were also effectively propagandized by their own propaganda machine. Right? Do you have any reason to suppose that we are somehow smarter or better than those propagandized Germans and Russians and had we been in their place we would have immediately seen through the lies? Could it be that we today are maybe also not seeing through the lies we are being told?

It is also undeniable that the history of WWII was written by the victors of WWII. This is true of all wars – defeated regimes don’t get to freely present their version of history. Had the Nazis won WWII, we would all have been treated to a dramatically different narrative of what took place. Crucially, had the Nazis won WWII, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that the German people would have shown much skepticism about the version of history presented in their schools. Not only that, but I would submit that most Germans would also believe that they were free people and that the regime they live under was a benevolent one.

You doubt that?

Just think of the number of Germans who declared that they had no idea how bad the Nazi regime really was. Even Hitler’s personal secretary, Traudl Junge, used that excuse to explain how she could have worked for so many years with Hitler and even like him so much. There is an American expression which says “where I sit is where I stand”. Well, may I ask – where are we sittting and are we so sure that we have an independent opinion which is not defined by where we sit (geographically, politically, socially and even professionally)?

You might ask about all the victims of the Nazi regime, would they not be able to present their witness to the German people and the likes of Traudl Junge? Of course not: the dead don’t speak very much, and their murderers rarely do (lest they themselves end up dead). Oh sure, there would be all sorts of dissidents and political activists who would know the truth, but the “mainstream” consensus under a victorious Nazi Germany would be that Hitler and the Nazis liberated Europe from the Judeo-Bolshevik hordes and the Anglo-Masonic capitalists.

This is not something unique to Germany, by the way. If you take the Russian population today, it has many more descendants of executioners than descendants of executed people and this is hardly a surprise since dead people don’t reproduce. As a result, the modern Russian historiography is heavily skewed towards whitewashing the Soviet crimes and atrocities. To some degree this is a good thing, because it counteracts decades of US anti-Soviet propaganda, but it often goes too far and ends up minimizing the actual human cost of the Bolshevik experiment in Russia.

So how do the USA compare to Germany and Russia in this context?

Most Americans trust the version of history presented to them by their own “mainstream”. Why? How is their situation objectively different from the situation of Germans in a victorious Third Reich? Our modern narrative of WWII was also written by victors, victors who had a vested reason in demonizing all the other sides (Nazis and Soviets) while presenting us with a heroic tale of liberation. And here is the question which ought to really haunt us at night: what if we had been born not Russians and Jews after a Nazi defeat but if we had been born Germans after an Allied defeat in WWII? Would we have been able to show enough skepticism and courage to doubt the myths we were raised with? Or would we also be doubleplusgoodthinking little Nazis, all happy and proud to have defeated the evil Judeo-Bolshevik hordes and the Anglo-Masonic capitalists?

Oh sure, Hitler considered Jews as parasites which had to be exiled and, later, exterminated and he saw Russians as subhumans which needed to be put to work for the Germanic Master Race and whose intelligentsia also needed to be exterminated. No wonder that we, Jews and Russians, don’t particularly care for that kind of genocidal racist views. But surely we can be humans before being Jews and Russians, and we can accept that what is bad for us is not necessarily bad for others. Sure, Hitler was bad news for Jews and Russians, but was he really so bad news for “pure” (Aryan Germanic) Germans? More importantly, if we had been born “pure” Germans, would we have have cared a whole lot about Jews and Russians? I sure hope so, but I have my doubts. I don’t recall any of us shedding many tears about the poly-genocided (a word I coined for a unique phenomenon in history: the genocide of all the ethnicities of an entire continent!) Native Americans! I dare say that we are a lot more prone to whining about the “Holocaust” or “Stalinism”, even though neither of them ever affected us personally, (only our families and ethnicity) than about the poly-genocide of Native Americans. I very much doubt that our whining priorities would have been the same if our ethnicity had been Lakota or Comanche. Again, I hope that I am wrong. But I am not so sure.

Either way, my point is this:

We are hard-coded to be credulous and uncritically accept all the demonization of Nazis and Soviets because we are Jews and White Russians. Careful here, I am NOT saying that the Nazis and Soviets were not evil – they definitely were – but what I am saying is that we, Jews and Russians, are far more willing to accept and endorse any version of history which makes the Nazis and Soviets some kind of exceptionally evil people and that, in contrast, we almost instinctively reject any notion that “our” side (in this case I mean *your* side, the American one since you, unlike me, consider yourselves American) was just as bad (if only because your side never murdered Jews and Russians). So let’s look at this “our/your side” for a few minutes.

By the time the USA entered WWII it had already committed the worse crime in human history, the poly-genocide of an entire continent, followed by the completely illegal and brutal annexation of the lands stolen from the Native Americans. Truly, Hitler would have been proud. But that is hardly all, the Anglo invaders then proceeded to wage another illegal and brutal war of annexation against Mexico from which they stole a huge chunk of land which includes modern Texas, California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico!

Yes, all this land was illegally occupied and stolen by your side not once, but TWICE! And do I even need to mention the horrors of slavery to add to the “moral tally” of your side by the time the US entered the war?

Right there I think that there is more than enough evidence that your side was morally worse than either the Nazis or the Soviets. The entire history of the USA is one of endless violence, plunder, hypocrisy, exploitation, imperialism, oppression and wars. Endless wars of aggression. None of them defensive by any stretch of the imagination. That is quite unique in human history. Can you think of a nastier, more bloodthirsty regime? I can’t.

Should I even mention the British “atrocities tally”, ranging from opium wars, to the invention of concentration camps, to the creation of Apartheid, the horrors of the occupation of Ireland, etc. etc. etc.?

I can just hear you say that yes, this was horrible, but that does not change the fact that in WWII the USA “saved Europe”. But is that really so?

To substantiate my position, I have put together a separate PDF file which lists 5 sources, 3 in English, 2 in Russian. You can download it here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByibNV3SiUooWExTNGhMTGF5azQ

I have translated the key excerpts of the Russian sources and I am presenting them along with the key excerpts of the English sources. Please take a look at this PDF and, if you can, please read the full original articles I quote. I have stressed in bold red the key conclusions of these sources. You will notice that there are some variations in the figures, but the conclusions are, I think, undeniable. The historical record show that:

  1. The Soviet Union can be credited with the destruction of roughly 80% of the Nazi military machine. The US-UK correspondingly can be credited with no more than 20% of the Allied war effort.
  2. The scale and scope of the battles on the Eastern Front completely dwarf the biggest battles on the Western Front. Battles in the West involved Divisions and Brigades, in the East they involved Armies and Groups of Armies. That is at least one order of magnitude of difference.
  3. The USA only entered the war a year after Stalingrad and the Kursk battle when it was absolutely clear that the Nazis would lose the war.

The truth is that the Americans only entered the war when it was clear that the Nazis would be defeated and that their real motive was not the “liberation of oppressed Europe” but to prevent the Soviets from occupying all of Europe. The Americans never gave a damn about the mass murder of Jews or Russians, all they cared about was a massive land-grab (yet again).

[Sidebar: By the way, and lest you think that I claim that only Americans act this way, here is another set of interesting dates:

Nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: August 6 and 9, 1945

Soviet Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation: August 9–20, 1945

We can clearly see the same pattern here: the Soviets waited until it was absolutely certain that the USA had defeated the Japanese empire before striking it themselves. It is also worth noting that it took the Soviets only 10 days to defeat the entire Kwantung Army, the most prestigious Army of the Japanese Empire with over one million well-trained and well-equipped soldiers! That should tell you a little something about the kind of military machine the Soviet Union had developed in the course of the war against Nazi Germany (see here for a superb US study of this military operation)]

Did the Americans bring peace and prosperity to western Europe?

To western Europe, to some degree yes, and that is because was easy for them: they ended the war almost “fresh”, their (stolen) homeland did not suffer the horrors of war and so, yes, they could bring in peanut butter, cigarettes and other material goods. They also made sure that Western Europe would become an immense market for US goods and services and that European resources would be made available to the US Empire, especially against the Soviet Union. And how did they finance this “generosity”? By robbing the so-called Third World blind, that’s all. Is that something to be proud of? Did Lenin not warn as early as 1917 that “imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism”? The wealth of Western Europe was built by the abject poverty of the millions of Africans, Asians and Latin Americas.

But what about the future of Europe and the European people?

There a number of things upon which the Anglos and Stalin did agree to at the end of WWII: The four Ds: denazification, disarmament, demilitarisation, and democratisation of a united Germany and reparations to rebuild the USSR. Yes, Stalin wanted a united, neutral Germany. As soon as the war ended, however, the Anglos reneged on all of these promises: they created a heavily militarized West Germany, they immediately recruited thousands of top Nazi officials for their intelligence services, their rocket program and to subvert the Soviet Union. Worse, they immediately developed plans to attack the Soviet Union. Right at the end of the WWII, Anglo powers had at least THREE plans to wage war on the USSR: Operation DropshotPlan Totality and Operation Unthinkable. Here are some basic reminders from Wikipedia about what these operations were about:

Operation Dropshot: included mission profiles that would have used 300 nuclear bombs and 29,000 high-explosive bombs on 200 targets in 100 cities and towns to wipe out 85% of the Soviet Union’s industrial potential at a single stroke. Between 75 and 100 of the 300 nuclear weapons were targeted to destroy Soviet combat aircraft on the ground.

Plan Totality: earmarked 20 Soviet cities for obliteration in a first strike: Moscow, Gorki, Kuybyshev, Sverdlovsk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Saratov, Kazan, Leningrad, Baku, Tashkent, Chelyabinsk, Nizhny Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Molotov, Tbilisi, Stalinsk, Grozny, Irkutsk, and Yaroslavl.

Operation Unthinkable: assumed a surprise attack by up to 47 British and American divisions in the area of Dresden, in the middle of Soviet lines. This represented almost a half of roughly 100 divisions (ca. 2.5 million men) available to the British, American and Canadian headquarters at that time. (…) The majority of any offensive operation would have been undertaken by American and British forces, as well as Polish forces and up to 100,000 German Wehrmacht soldiers.

[Were you aware of these? If not, do you now wonder why?]

I am not making these things up, you can look it up for yourself on Wikipedia and elsewhere. This is the Anglo idea of how you deal with Russian “allies”: you stab them in the back with a surprise nuclear attack, you obliterate most of their cities and you launch the Nazi Wehrmacht against them.

I won’t even go into the creation of NATO (before the WTO – known in the West as the “Warsaw Pact” – was created in response) or such petty crimes as false flag terrorist attack (Operation Gladio).

[Have you ever heard of Operation Gladio or the August 1980 “Bologna massacre”, the bombing of the Bologna train station by NATO secret terrorist forces, a false-flag terrorist attack (85 dead, over 200 wounded) designed to discredit the Communist Party of Italy? If not – do you now wonder why you never heard of this?]

The sad reality is that the US intervention in Europe was a simple land-grab, that the Cold War was an Anglo creation, as was the partition of Europe, and that since WWII the USA always treated Europe as a colony form which to fight the “Communist” threat (i.e. Russia).

But, let’s say that I am all wrong. For argument’s sake. Let’s pretend that the kind-hearted Americans came to Europe to free the European people. They heroically defeated Hitler and brought (Western) Europe peace, prosperity, freedom, happiness, etc. etc. etc.

Does this good deed give the USA a license for future interventions? You both mentioned WWII as an example and a justification for the need for the USA to maintain a military large enough to counter regimes such as the North Korean one, right? So, let me ask again,

Does the fact that the USA altruistically, kindly and heroically liberated Europe from both the Nazis and the Soviets now grant the moral legitimacy to other, subsequent, US military interventions against other abhorrent, aggressive or evil regimes/countries out there?

If you reply “no” – then why did you mention it as a justification?

If you reply “yes” – then please forgive me for being so obtuse and ask you for how long this “license to militarily intervene” remains valid? One year? Five years? Maybe ten or even seventy years? Or maybe this license grants such a moral right to the USA ad aeternam, forever? Seriously, if the USA did liberate Europe and bring it peace and happiness, are we to assume that this will remain true forever and everywhere?

I also want to ask you this: let’s say, for the argument’s sake, that the moral license given by the US participation in the war in Europe is, truly, forever. Let’s just assume that, okay? But let me ask you this: could it be revoked (morally, conceptually)? Say the USA did something absolutely wonderful in Europe. What about the subsequent horrors in southeast Asia, Latin America or the Middle-East. How many murdered, maimed, occupied, terrorized, bombed and otherwise genocided “non-West Europeans” would it take to outweigh the putatively “happily liberated” Europeans which, according to you, grant the USA the license to intervene? Even if the US in Europe was all noble and pure, do the following seventy years of evil mass murder worldwide really count for nothing or does there come a point were “enough is enough” and the license can be revoked, morally speaking, by people like us, like you?

May I point out to you that your words spoken in defense of a supposed need for the USA to maintain a military capable of overseas operations strongly suggest that you believe that the USA has a moral right (if not a duty!) to conduct such operations, which means that the post WWII atrocity-tally of the USA is not, in your opinion, sufficient to elicit a “enough is enough” reaction in you. Are you sure that you are comfortable with this stance?

In theory, there could be another reason to revoke such a moral license. After all, one can have the moral right to do something, but not necessarily the capability to do so. If I see somebody drowning in a flood, I most certainly have the moral right to jump in the water and try to save this person, do I not? But that does not mean that I have the strength or skills to do so. Right? So when you say that the USA needs to maintain a military capable of protecting friends and allies from rogue and dangerous regimes like the one in North Korea, you do imply that besides having the right to extend such a protection the USA also has the capabilities and the expertise to do so?

Really?

And what is the evidence for that, may I ask?!

I asked you to name me a single successful US military intervention since WWII and you could name none. Good! I agree with you. The reality is that every single US military operation since WWII has resulted in a disaster either on the humanitarian, political and military level (often on all of them combined). Even Grenada was a total (military) failure! Also, do you see who sits in the White House today? Do you really want The Donald in charge of protecting “our friends and allies” and are you confident that he has the skillset needed to do this competently? Or Hillary for that matter? Even Sanders has a record of defending catastrophic military operations, such as the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 which, you guessed it (or not), ended in abject defeat for the Israelis and untold civilians horrors in Lebanon. But forget the President, take a look at US generals – do they inspire in you the belief that they are the kind of people who can be trusted to skillfully execute a military intervention inspired by moral and ethical reasons?! What about US “Congresspersons”? Would you trust them? So where do you see honest and competent “saviors of others” in the US polity?

Did you notice that there was no Islamic State in Iraq before the US invasion? Or did you notice that ever since the US declared a war on ISIS the latter has been getting stronger and stronger and taking over more countries. Yes, of course, once the Russians got involved ISIS began suffering defeat after defeat, but all the Americans had to say about the Russian intervention was to denounce it and predict it would fail. So why is it that the Russians are so good at fighting ISIS and the Americans, and their allies, so bad? Do you really want the Americans in charge of world security with such a record?!

Is insanity not repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different results?

Now I hear the reply you gave me to this point. You said “yes, mistakes were made”.

Mistakes?!

I don’t think that millions of murdered people, including hundreds of thousands of children, are “mistakes” (how would you react if somebody conceded to you that Hitler and Stalin made “mistakes”?). But there is something even more insidious in this notion of “mistake”.

How would you define “success”?

Say the US armed forces were not only good at killing people (which they are), but also good at winning wars (which they ain’t). Say the USA had been successful in not only invading Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in fully pacifying these countries. Say the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been successfully defeated, their economy had bounced back, and democratic regimes put in power: capitalism everywhere, 100 channels on each TV, McDonalds in every Afghan villages, gay pride parades in downtown Kabul, gender-neutral toilets in every mosque, elections every 4 years or so and not a single shot fired, not a single bomb going off? Would that be a “success”?

I pray to God and hope with all my heart that your reply to this question is a resounding “no!!”. Because if you answered “yes” then you are truly messianic genocidal imperialists. Yup, I mean that. Why? Because your notion of “success” is the spiritual, psychological and cultural death of an ancient civilization and that makes you, quite literally, an mortal enemy of mankind as a whole. I can’t even imagine such a horror. So I am sure that you answered “no!!” as every decent human being would, right?

But then what is a “success”? You clearly don’t mean the success as defined by your rulers (they would enthusiastically support such an outcome; in fact – they even promise it every time over and over again!). But if their idea of “success” is not yours, and if you would never want any other nation, people or ethnicity to ever become a victim of such as “successful” military intervention, why do you still want your rulers with their satanic notion of “success” to have the means to be “successful” in the future? And that in spite of the fact that the historical record shows that they can’t even achieve any type of “success” even by their own definition, nevermind yours?!

Did you notice that nowhere in my arguments above did I mention the fact that the USA has never asked people (as opposed to local Comprador elites) whether they wanted to be saved by Uncle Sam or not? Neither did they ask the American people if they wanted to go to war, hence all the well-known false flags from the “remember the Maine”, to the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, to Pearl Harbor, to the “Gulf of Tonkin incident”, to September 11th: every time a lie had to be concocted to convince the American people that they had to go to war. Is that really people power? Is this democracy?!

Are there people out there, anybody, who really favor US military interventions? Yes, I suppose that there are. Like the Kosovo Albanians. I suspect that the Afghan Tajiks and Hazara were pretty happy to see the US bomb the crap of the Taliban. So there might be a few cases. Oh, and I forgot our Balt and Ukrainian friends (but then, they were also happy when the Nazis came, hardly much of an example). But it is pretty safe to say that in reality nobody wants to be liberated by Uncle Sam, hence the wordwide use of the “Yankee go home” slogan.

This letter is already way too long, and I will forgo the listing of all the reasons why the USA are pretty much hated all over the planet, not by the ruling elites, of course, but by the regular people. And when I say “the USA” I don’t mean Paul Newman, Mark Twain, Miles Davis, Quentin Tarantino, James Taylor or the Bill of Rights or the beautiful country called “the USA”. But the regime, as opposed to any one specific government or administration in Washington, the regime is what is truly universally hated. I have never seen any anti-Americanism directed at the American people anywhere, not even in France, Greece or Latin America. But the hate for the Empire is quasi universal by now. Only the political elites whose status, power and well-being is dependent on the Empire do, in fact, support the Empire and what it stands for. Everybody else despises what the USA stands for today. And every military intervention only makes this worse.

And you want to make sure this continues? Really?

Right now the US is desperately trying to save al-Qaeda (aka IS, ISIS, Daesh, al-Nusra, etc.) from defeat in Syria. How is that for a moral stance after 9/11 (that is, if you accept the official narrative about 9/11; if you understand that 9/11 was a controlled demolition in which al-Qaeda patsies were used as a smokescreen, then this makes sense, by the way).

By the way – who are the current allies the US are so busy helping now?

  • The Wahabi regime in Saudi Arabia
  • The Nazi regime in the Ukraine and
  • The last officially racist regime on the planet in Israel

Do these really strike you as allies worth supporting?!

And what are the American people getting from that? Nothing but poverty, oppression, shame, hatred, fear and untold physical, psychological and moral suffering.

These are the fruits of Empire. Every Empire. Always.

You mentioned that every time you see a veteran you thanked him for his service. Why? Do you really think that he fought in a just war, that his service is something he can be proud of? Did he fight for his people? Did he defend the innocent? Or was he an occupier in a foreign land and, if he saw combat, did he not kill people who defended their own land, their families and their way of life? What exactly do you thank that veteran for? For following orders? But is that not something the Nuremberg trials specifically condemned as immoral and illegal?

Do you remember how you told me that xxxxx’s Marine husband lived in a nice house with all their material needs taken care of? You added “compare that to Russian servicemen”. Well, you clearly are not aware of how Russian soldiers live nowadays, under your hated Putin, but that is besides the point. The question which I wanted to ask you then and which I will ask you now is this: is the comfortable lifestyle granted to US Marines good enough a reason to be a Marine – that is being part of the very first force called in to murder innocent people and invade countries? Do you even know what Marines did to Fallujah recently? How much is a human soul worth? And it is really your belief that being a hired killer for the Empire is an honorable way of life? And should you think that I am exaggerating, please read the famous essay “War is a Racket” by Marine Brigadier General Smedley Butler, who had the highest rank a Marine could achieve in his time and who was the most decorated Marine in history. If war is a racket, does that not make Marines professional racketeers, hired thugs who act as enforcers for the mobsters in power? Ask yourself this: what would be the roughly equivalent counterparts of the US Marines in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? To help you answer this question, let me offer a short quote from the Wikipedia entry about the Marine Corps: (emphasis added)

The Marine Corps was founded to serve as an infantry unit aboard naval vessels and was responsible for the security of the ship and its crew by conducting offensive and defensive combat during boarding actions and defending the ship’s officers from mutiny; to the latter end, their quarters on ship were often strategically positioned between the officers’ quarters and the rest of the vessel.

Does that help you identify their Nazi or Soviet counterparts?

Of all people, is it not we, Jews and Russians, who ought to recognize and categorically reject the trappings of Empire and all the rationalizations used to justify the subservient service to Empires?

I believe that history shows beyond any doubt that all Empires are evil, inherently and essentially, evil. They are also therefore equally evil. Shall I explain why?

Do you know what crimes is considered the ultimate, supreme, most evil crime under international law? It is not genocide, or crimes against humanity. Nope, the ultimate crime is the crime of aggression (that, by the way, makes every single US President a war criminal under international law, think of it!). In the the words of the chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg, Robert H. Jackson, the crime of aggression is the ultimate crime because “it contains within itself the accumulated evil” of all the other war crimes. Well, to paraphrase Jackson, imperialism contains within itself all the accumulated evil of all empires. Guantanamo, Hiroshima, Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, Gladio and all the rest, they “come with the territory”, they are not the exception, they are the norm.

The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of this Empire. The support, even tacit and passive, of this Empire by people like yourself only delays this outcome and allows this abomination to bring even more misery and pain upon millions of innocent people, including millions of your fellow Americans. This Empire now also threatens my country, Russia, with war and possibly nuclear war and that, in turn, means that this Empire threatens the survival of the human species. Whether the US Empire is the most evil one in history is debatable, but the fact that it is by far the most dangerous one is not. Is that not a good enough reason for you to say “enough is enough”? What would it take for you to switch sides and join the rest of mankind in what is a struggle for the survival of our species? Or will it take a nuclear winter to open your eyes to the true nature of the Empire you apparently are still supporting against all evidence?

The Saker

Advertisements

Tyranny at Nuremberg. The Criminalization of War

Tyranny at Nuremberg. The Criminalization of War

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts,

The showtrial of a somewhat arbitrarily selected group of 21 surviving Nazis at Nuremberg during 1945-46 was US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson’s show. Jackson was the chief prosecutor. As a long-time admirer of Jackson, I always assumed that he did a good job.

My admiration for Jackson stems from his defense of law as a shield of the people rather than a weapon in the hands of government, and from his defense of the legal principle known as mens rea, that is, that crime requires intent. I often cite Jackson for his defense of these legal principles that are the very foundation of liberty. Indeed, I cited Jackson in my recent July 31 column. His defense of law as a check on government power plays a central role in the book that I wrote with Lawrence Stratton, The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

In 1940 Jackson was US Attorney General. He addressed federal prosecutors and warned them against “picking the man and then putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm—in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense—that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views or being personally obnoxious to, or in the way of, the prosecutor himself.”

Later as a Supreme Court justice Jackson overturned a lower court conviction of a person who had no idea, or any reason to believe, that he had committed a crime.

Having just finished reading David Irving’s book Nuremberg (1996), I am devastated to learn that in his pursuit of another principle, at Nuremberg Jackson violated all of the legal principles for which I have so long admired him. To be clear, at Nuremberg Jackson was in pursuit of Nazis, but their conviction was the means to his end—the establishment of the international legal principle that the initiation of war, the commitment of military aggression, was a crime.

Roberthjackson.jpg

Justice Robert Jackson (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The problem, of course, was that at Nuremberg people were tried on the basis of ex post facto law—law that did not exist at the time of their actions for which they were convicted.

Moreover, the sentence—death by hanging—was decided prior to the trial and prior to the selection of defendants.

Moreover, the defendants were chosen and then a case was made against them.

Exculpatory evidence was withheld. Charges on which defendants were convicted turned out to be untrue.

The trials were so loaded in favor of the prosecution that defense was pro forma.

The defendants were abused and some were tortured.

The defendants were encouraged to give false witness against one another, which for the most part the defendants refused to do, with Albert Speer being the willing one. His reward was a prison sentence rather than death.

The defendants’ wives and children were arrested and imprisoned. To Jackson’s credit, this infuriated him.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, General Eisenhower, and Winston Churchill thought that surviving Nazis should be shot without trial. Roosevelt laughed about liquidating 50,000 German military officers. Eisenhower told Lord Halifax that Nazi leaders should be shot while trying to escape, the common euphemism for murder. Russians spoke of castrating German men and breeding German women to annihilate the German race. US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau wanted to reduce Germany to an agrarian society and send able-bodied Germans to Africa as slaves to work on “some big TVA project.”

Robert Jackson saw in these intentions not only rank criminality among the allied leadership but also a missed opportunity to create the legal principle that would criminalize war, thus removing the disaster of war from future history. Jackson’s end was admirable, but the means required bypassing Anglo-American legal principles.

Jackson got his chance, perhaps because Joseph Stalin vetoed execution without trial. First a showtrial, Stalin said, to demonstrate their guilt so that we do not make martyrs out of Nazis.

Whom to select for the list of 21-22 persons to be charged? Well, whom did the allies have in custody? Not all those they desired. They had Reichsmarschall Herman Göring who headed the air force. Whatever the valid charges against Göring, they were not considered to be mitigated by the fact that under Göring the German air force was mainly used against enemy formations on the battleground and not, like the US and British air forces in situation terror bombing of civilian cities, such as Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, or by the fact that in Hitler’s final days Hitler removed Göring from all his positions, expelled him from the party, and ordered his arrest.

The Nuremberg trials are paradoxical in that the law Jackson intended to establish applied to every country, not to Germany alone. The ex post facto law under which Germans were sentenced to death and to prison also criminalized the terror bombing of German and Japanese cities by the British and US air forces. Yet, the law was only applied to the Germans in the dock. In his book, Apocalypse 1945: The Destruction of Dresden (1995), Irving quotes US General George C. McDonald’s dissent from the directive to bomb civilian cities such as Dresden. Gen. McDonald characterized the directive as the “extermination of populations and the razing of cities,” war crimes under the Nuremberg standard.

They had foreign minister Ribbentrop. They had field marshalls Keitel and Jodl and the grand-admirals Raeder and Dönitz. They had a German banker, who was saved from sentencing by the intervention of the Bank of England. They had a journalist. They had Rudolf Hess who had been in a British prison since 1941 when he went to Britain on a peace mission to end the war. They wanted an industrialist, but Krupp was too old and ill. He was devoid of the persona of a foreboding evil. You can read the list in Irving’s book.

Göring knew from the beginning that the trial was a hoax and that his death sentence had already been decided. He had the means (a poison capsule) throughout his imprisonment to commit suicide, thus depriving his captors of their planned humiliation of him. Instead, he held the Germans together, and they stood their ground. Possessed of a high IQ, time and again he made fools of his captors. He made such a fool of Robert Jackson during his trial that the entire court burst out in laughter. Jackson never lived down being bested in the courtroom by Göring.

Defendants in the dock at the Nuremberg trials. The main target of the prosecution was Hermann Göring (at the left edge on the first row of benches), considered to be the most important surviving official in the Third Reich after Hitler’s death. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

And Göring wasn’t through with making his captors look foolish and incompetent. He, the field marshalls and grand admiral requested that they be given a military execution by firing squad, but the pettiness of the Tribunal wanted them hung like dogs. Göring told his captors that he would allow them to shoot him, but not hang him, and a few minutes before he was to be marched to the gallows before the assembled press and cameras he took the poison capsule, throwing the execution propaganda show into chaos. To this injury he added insult leaving the prison commandant, US Col. Andrus a note telling him that he had had 3 capsules. One he had left for the Americans to find, thus causing them to think his means of escaping them had been removed. One he had taken minutes prior to his show execution, and he described where to find the third. He had easily defeated the continuous and thorough inspections inflicted upon him from fear that he would commit suicide and escape their intended propaganda use of his execution.

There was a time in Anglo-American law when the improprieties of the Nuremberg trials would have resulted in the cases being thrown out of court and the defendants freed. Even under the ex post facto law and extra-judicial, extra-legal terms under which the defendants were tried, at least two of the condemned deserved to be cleared.

It is not clear why Admiral Donitz was sentenced to 10 years in prison. The chief American judge of the Tribunal, Francis Biddle, said:

“It is, in my opinion, offensive to our concept of justice to punish a man for doing exactly what one has done himself.” “The Germans,” Biddle said, “fought a much cleaner war at sea than we did.“

Jodl, who countermanded many Nazi orders, was sentenced to death. The injustice of the sentence was made clear by a German court in 1953 which cleared Jodl of all Nuremberg charges and rehabilitated him posthumously. The French justice at the Nuremberg Tribunal said at the time that Jodl’s conviction was without merit and was a miscarriage of justice.

The entire Nuremberg proceeding stinks to high heaven. Defendants were charged with aggression for the German invasion of Norway. The fact was kept out of the trial that the British were about to invade Norway themselves and that the Germans, being more efficient, learned of it and managed to invade first.

Defendants were accused of using slave labor, paradoxical in view of the Soviets own practice. Moreover, while the trials were in process the Soviets were apparently gathering up able-bodied Germans to serve as slave labor to rebuild their war-torn economy.

Defendants were accused of mass executions despite the fact that the Russians, who were part of the prosecution and judgment of the defendants, had executed 15,000 or 20,000 Polish officers and buried them in a mass grave. Indeed, the Russians insisted on blaming the Germans on trial for the Katyn Forest Massacre.

Defendants were accused of aggression against Poland, and Ribbentrop was not permitted to mention in his defense the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that divided Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union, without which Germany could not have attacked Poland. The fact that the Soviets, who were sitting at Nuremberg in judgment on the Germans, had themselves invaded Poland was kept out of the proceedings.

Moreover, without the gratuitous British “guarantee” to Poland, the Polish military dictatorship would likely have agreed to return territories stripped from Germany by the Versailles Treaty and the invasion would have been avoided.

The greatest hypocrisy was the charge of aggression against Germany when the fact of the matter is that World War 2 began when the British and French declared war on Germany. Germany conquered France and drove the British from the European Continent after the British and French started the war with a declaration of war against Germany.

Irving’s book is, of course, politically incorrect. However, he lists in the introduction the voluminous files on which the book is based: Robert Jackson’s official papers and Oral History, Francis Biddle’s private papers and diaries, Col. Andrus’ papers, Adm. Raeder’s prison diary, Rudolf Hess’ prison diary, interrogations of the prisoners, interviews with defense counsel, prosecutors, interrogators, and letters from the prisoners to their wives. All of this and more Irving has made available on microfilms for researchers. He compared magnetic tape copies of the original wire-recordings of the trial with the mimeographed and published transcripts to insure that spoken and published words were the same.

What Irving does in his book is to report the story that the documents tell. This story differs from the patriotic propaganda written by court historians with which we are all imbued. The question arises: Is Irving pro-truth or pro-Nazi. The National Socialist government of Germany is the most demonized government in history. Any lessening of the demonization is unacceptable, so Irving is vulnerable to demonization by those determined to protect their cherished beliefs.

Zionists have branded Irving a “holocause denier,” and he was convicted of something like that by an Austrian court and spent 14 months in prison before the conviction was thrown out by a higher court.

In Nuremberg, Irving removes various propaganda legends from the holocaust story and reports authoritative findings that many of the concentration camp deaths were from typhus and starvation, especially in the final days of the war when food and medicine were disappearing from Germany, but nowhere in the book does he deny, indeed he reports, that vast numbers of Jews perished. As I understand the term, a simple truthful modification of some element of the official holocaust story is sufficient to brand a person a holocaust denier.

My interest in the book is Robert Jackson. He had a noble cause—to outlaw war—but in pursuit of this purpose he established precedents for American prosecutors to make law a weapon in their pursuit of their noble causes just as it was used against Nazis—organized crime convictions, child abuse convictions, drug convictions, terror convictions. Jackson’s pursuit of Nazis at Nuremberg undermined the strictures he put on US attorneys such that today Americans have no more protection of law than the defendants had at Nuremberg.

Comfortable places for proxy wars, Jewish strength, monarchy, Terminator 2 and other news

July 08, 2017

Comfortable places for proxy wars, Jewish strength, monarchy, Terminator 2 and other news

July 8th, 2017

by Scott Humor and Baaz

Family photo at G20

Germany tried to place Trump at the end of the line, but Macron jumped in and saved the moment.

Family photo 
Germany tried to place Trump at the end of the line 🙂
Good boy Macron jumped in, saved the momenthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwqhdRs4jyA 

Emmanuel Macron jostled his way to the front of a G20 photo to stand by Donald Trump

Emmanuel Macron jostled his way to the front of a G20 photo to stand by Donald Trump

The Defense Minister of Poland, Antoni Macierewicz, issued a statement stating that:

“The enemy that we face is Russia, and the Patriot missiles are our response to the Iskander  missiles (Russian – ed.)”

Macierewicz also thanked the deputy minister of defense Bartoszowi Kownackiemu for negotiating with the United States.

It is apparent that the Defense Minister of Poland is illiterate and doesn’t know anything about the technical characteristics of said missiles. Iskanders targeting Poland from Kaliningrad cannot be stopped by Patriot missiles.


Wild fires can potentially devastate a small rural community. That’s why it is excellent news that the Emergency Ministry and Russian Orthodox Church signed a Cooperation Agreement to work together on disaster relief, with the Church managing local teams of volunteers and the MCHS training and providing them with firefighting equipment. They will be training volunteer firefighters and nurses. The ongoing coordination of the volunteers will be done by the priests, and I would assume the local church councils.


Maybe in the near future, robots will be actively participating in firefighting.

Promobot came up with another entertaining video in which their robot “saves” a child. This is same company that released last year a video of their robot “escaping” a lab and wondering the streets.

 

I don't know how good they are in robot building, but they are really good at producing viral videos that everyone talks about.

News about the Church being in the middle of the countrywide efforts to fight fires and other natural and manmade disasters has been met by the predictable hysteric of the liberal media screaming something about the church being separated from the state.

It’s true, but it’s not separated from the life of the country and communities. And, it’s not like the liberals and other critics have a better idea how to organize firefighting everywhere in the country. No, they just like to report on devastating fires and floods and people in remote areas being powerless to deal with them.

Now, when the neo-liberal systemic and non-systemic opposition had failed so spectacularly, there is an ongoing effort to stirrup three virtual teams, White, Red and Blue, or fake “Christian patriots,” fake “monarchists” and fake “communists.”  These are those who are going to try to destabilize the society this fall and next year spring for the presidential elections.

Some of the current and former priests like Vsevolod Chaplin, an agent provocateur, who was sacked from his position as the chairman of the Synodal Department for the Cooperation of Church and Society, makes the most outrages and bizarre statements using the name of the Church. What he says has nothing to do with Christianity and it throws some weak-minded individuals off their rockets. For example, he proposed to invite the ISIS, international anarchists, and other “freedom fighters”  to relocate to Russia, in order to build a “ideal society.”

Poklonskaya, former Prosecutor General of Crimea, has also been making bizarre pro-monarchy statements; for example she just said that people who would watch an insulting neoliberal creation about Nicolai II will be banned by the Church. The Church even issued a statement saying that Poklonskaya was spreading fake news.

There are many people concerned about the agenda Natalia Poklonskaya is pushing forward, and they are looking into her background to see what’s there and why she acts this way, instead of being a productive member of the government and to do the job she is paid to do, instead of trying to destroy the country.  So far, it looks like there are more questions than answers about this person, and how she came to be in Crimea from post-Maidan Kiev, and even her real identity.

Not to be outdone by Natalia Poklonskaya, whose close connections with a gang of fake Romanovs has become a true handicap of her working as an elected representative in the Duma, bishop Hilarion Alfeyev started making friendly noises towards the idea of restoration of monarchy.  He, too, has been noticed as being very closed to the self-proclaimed heirs to the Russian throne.

Make no mistake, the calls for restoration of monarchy in Russia or for a “White color revolution” is an attempt to change its constitutional order and to topple its republican government, which is a criminal offense.

What’s there to be said about this idiotism if not a treason?

  1. The Romanov’s relatives were known Hitler collaborators.
  2. The Romanovs weren’t Russians. They were German, and Dutch.
  3. Because they were foreigners who didn’t speak the Russian language and treated Russia as their personal colony, they were universally despised and hated by all people, including the old pre-Peter nobility. They led immoral lives and had enormous personal debts that they placed on the shoulders of the Russian people. They exchanged Russian territories like Alaska for their personal debt to the Rothschilds. They started an illegal war on Germany, in which 5.5 million Russian men perished. The list of their crimes goes on and on.
  4. A little known historical fact that during so-called “February revolution”,  the Church, whose head was the monarch, didn’t do anything to support him and his institution of power. Even more, the highest church hierarchs gathered together for a private meeting in March 1917 and decided “to fire” the ex-Emperor. They went so far as to taking out his chair from the Synod building and placing it into a museum.

Nikolai and his family were arrested by the Mensheviks, and it was the Interim government that took  the class on the Divine Law out of school programs. The country was rapidly becoming a failed state, and all they wanted to do was to prevent children from studying the Bible. And they were “the White team,”  before the Red team showed up.

On March 9th 1917, the Synod issued a statement, “To the faithful of the Russian Orthodox Church about experiencing current events.” The message starts with the following: “God’s will has been done. Russia has embarked on a new life and statehood. May God bless our great Homeland with happiness and glory on its new path.”

So, it’s disingenuous for the Church employees to come out and to say that what had happened to Nikolai was a crime committed by the Russian nation. I cannot be charged with a crime committed by someone else, even if this someone else claims that they committed this crime in my name. And so no one else can’t blamed for the crime committed by the well known historical figures. This is if the crime was even committed. No one proved that it was. Right now we are all waiting for the results of the new investigation into the murder of the last tsar and his family to be completed and revealed.

The Romanovs were canonized along with their servants as saints by the Church for how they died, not how they lived.

If you want to know my opinion, the Romanovs should be charged for the crimes committed against the Russian nation, at least a court process would help us to settle the score. Maybe then, those people claiming to be the real Romanovs should be charged in the war crimes committed by this family during the WWI and their collaboration with Hitler during the WWII and made paid retribution to the Russian people whose relatives perished in this WWI and the WWII.

Let’s see how fast these wannabe monarchs/ slave holders will vanish.

President Putin said: “Thank God we are not a monarchy. Thank God Russia is a republic,”

—————————————————————————————————-

Another Russian programmer was kidnapped by the US on the territory of the third country and illegally transported to the US and being held for fictitious crimes.

The hunt for the Russian software engineers and abuse of those who already live in faraway lands has reached horrendous proportions.

I have wrote about programmer Sergey Aleynikov, who was nearly destroyed by his former employer Goldman Sachs, after he had designed for them the best high frequency trading algorithm.

Last year, Russia’s foreign ministry had issued a caveat emptor for all those young, talented engineers from Russia, to stay home until the dust from the falling US empire settles. But, being in a free country, they are not banned from traveling abroad. Some of them view themselves as liberals, and they don’t understand, until it’s too late, that it’s irrelevant what political views they hold, as long as they have the expertise that the US government needs. They travel to the NATO cesspools like the Baltic republics, where the laws has been effectively suspended, or they travel to CIA playgrounds like Singapore. The US kidnaps people of high value, just like Israel kidnaps Iranian physics, the Ukrainian SBU kidnaps rich individuals, and ISIS kidnaps journalists.

Yuri Martyshev has become the US latest victim. He is reportedly being held in a facility in Arlington, Virginia, where, by all accounts, other kidnapped programmers are being held.  Guccifer comes to mind, also known as Marcel Lazăr. A Romanian gardener, who discovered Hillary Clinton’s illegal server installed in the basement of her house in Chappaqua, NY.  He didn’t publish any of the found documents and emails. He just shared his discovery with his peers, and for that he has been jailed for years.

Knowing the modus operandus of CIA, it’s a fair game to assume that programmers snatched all over the world are being coerced and tortured into working for the US government in writing software programs. Judging by the former FBI director Comey complaining back in 2014 that they couldn’t find hackers to fire because they all smoke weed.

It’s no secret that the federal government is having a hard time hiring cybersecurity experts, largely because many hackers can find more lucrative deals that don’t involve working for the feds.”

Considering the US state and non-state actors just steal anything of value with impunity, and considering that the Russian programmers are the best in the world, they are the high value targets. I have a sneaking suspicion that if the US won’t be able to kidnap them, it will try to kill them. So, staying home and traveling only to Russia’s allies is the best strategy for now.

Kaspersky Lab‏’ NoRansom will help you to get your files back

Хотим напомнить вам, что иногда зашифрованные файлы – это не конец света. Есть бесплатные дешифраторы: https://noransom.kaspersky.com/ru/ 

No Ransom – Касперский

На сайте No Ransom можно скачать бесплатные декрипторы для расшифровки файлов, испорченных троянами-шифровальщиками (вирусами-шифровальщиками).

noransom.kaspersky.com


By now everyone with at least half a brain knows that the US government and its affiliates use buzzwords like “fight for democracy and freedom” as a cover up of its illegal wars against the world nations in order to pillage them off their national wealth.

It’s remarkable how they don’t even try to hide their two-tier ideology, one tier for plebs and another for themselves.

For example, this week the US government owned and funded NPR radio announces as news that a war is taking place in Yemen “between the Yemen government and the Houthi rebels.”

This being said at the same time as ghoulish Robert D. Kaplan says that for the US Yemen is “a comfortable place to have a proxy war.”

A link to his lengthy A&Q is here.

He talks about an advantage that the US had when the infrastructure of the Soviet Union, Europa and China had been dissipated during the WWII. This helped America to become the global empire.

He also talks about utter economic devastation of America today.

Despite that, he says that “America is fated to lead the world” and that “America has moral responsibility to lead.”

“America has experience in nation building that’s why it has the moral responsibility to lead.”

Based on Somalia and Bosnia

“If you declare and indentify human tights catastrophe somewhere to the American people… The American people, even trump’s people, they will feel compassionate, they will feel concern, they are not bad people,  or heartless people, and that may gets the troops there to help the human rights problem. But the minute you start taking casualties, you better be able to articulate the naked national interest in a fifteen second soundbyte, or else the public will desert you in a second.”

“That’s the balance that you have to maintain. Humanitarian interests, which are the bla-blabs to get for you troops there in place, but it  won’t keep them there without naked national interests.”

“Even if you don’t have an argument for robust intervention, you staffed out problems in advance. You have an assistant secretary, deputy assistant secretaries, undersecretary, who have an articulated policy response to things that could have been predicted in the first place. Even if cannot intervene in a robust satisfying way, there is always  other things that you can do with your allies.”

About the Pentagon taking control over Trump’s policy at 18:00:

“This has been going on for the last twenty-five years. It’s been a gradual process of the pentagon overtaking the state department. It’s actually because in so many situation, actually carrying out  policy, involved some military action or another, even if it’s non violent.

“It may not be healthy to have the military so front and center, but they is all we have got.”

The most notable expressions from the video:

At 21:00

“America lacks the ability to set complex Islamic societies to rights in the correct direction.”

“Policy elite, which doesn’t seem to learn and wanted to go into Syria in a big way. They toppled the dictator in Libya, who has given up his WMDs, who is cooperating with American and other Western intelligence services. As bad and oppressive as he was has kept the country that was never really a country together.”

About the cost associated with the foreign policy establishment has become too large, the globe has become too flabby and America being overly adventures, and America being perceived as too weak and not as effective

At 23:00 The American foreign policy establishment has become bigger and bigger because of the economic prosperity, and it had the emergence of the policy class, who all grew up  wealthy, and in nice suburbs, many of them never served in the military, they didn’t have an experience of witnessing the war or cover war, And their entire careers and they economic self-interest was tied up with America projective power in a big way. And Trump has essentially saying that these people have failed us.”

About Jaksonian impulse (after Andrew Jackson)

At 24:00

“What is Jalsonian impulse dumbed down… We are not in a business of promoting democracy around the world. That’s not what we do. We are not going to set up little Americas around the world… We are not going to tell you how to live your life, but don’t tell us how to live our life. And if you humiliate us, or hurt us, we will hunt you down and kill you.”

About the North Korea at 25:00

“The North Korean hatred directed against Japan, not South Korea.”

“North Korea as a weaker economy and military will be taken over by the South Korea.”

In reality is the opposite, The North Korea has huge mineral resources, estimated to be at $10 trillion. North Korea has booming economy, while South Korea has a weak economy that is failing.

“President Obama sent very unhelpful signal when he toppled Kaddafi. because Kaddafi had given up his WMD, and we toppled him any way. That sent a signal to North Korea, don’t give up your WMDs. because that’s the only thing that is protecting this regime.”

By bombing Syria and dropping bombs in Afghanistan, we sent a signal that we relish the projection of power in a way that Obama administration did not.”

At 30:00 about having a proxy war with Iran in Yemen.

“Yemen is a safe place to have a proxy war.”

The US is concern that Iran will gain a control over the strategic chock point of the Red Sea. Especially considering that the is a Chinese military base in Djibouti on t the other side of the Red Sea very nearby.

“Yemen is impossible to rule country. It’s has never been cohesive”.

It’s monologue of a cannibal discussing other countries like a meat market.

Kaplan’s monologue is a manifestation of evil in its most horrifying, simple, completely devote of compassion to humanity, psychopathic form.

—————————————————————————————————-

Exclusive: Seymour Hersh Dishes on New Exposé Upending the Official Story

About Trump and Syrian Chemical Attacks (Interview)

“Relying on a high-level adviser to the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency as his source, Hersh punched holes in the official narrative of the chemical attack, reporting that the Syrian bombing had actually targeted a high-level jihadi meeting with conventional munitions and warned the U.S. government of the strike beforehand, using a deconfliction channel.”


AJC Global Forum June 2017

Bernard-Henri Lévy about the strength of the Jewish community :

Jews have been for so long weak, shy, as we say in French “hugging the walls,” being in the shadow. And, one of the peculiarity of our times, for Jews all over the world, Europe, Israel and America, is that this behavior is finished.The strength, which we are committed to,  is a political strength. is when it’s needed a military strength, but above all, it’s a spiritual, intellectual strength.”.

Bill Kristol, Editor-at-Large, The Weekly Standard, joined French author Bernard-Henri Lévy and MK Tzipi Livni for the “A Jewish Lens on Global Trends” panel at the AJC AJC Global Forum 2017, exploring the geopolitical developments shaping our world and what they mean for the Jewish community.

Power, Politics, and Putin Russia’s Role in Today’s World Order Video

During the 2016 presidential election, a new term entered the lexicon of political pundits—kompromat, incriminating material on a public figure compiled for purposes of blackmail. And that was just the beginning. From Russia’s role in Syria and Ukraine to its support for far-right nationalist parties in Europe and its alleged hack of the DNC email system, it is no wonder Russian President Vladimir Putin was dubbed “the world’s most powerful man” by Fareed Zakaria. To help us understand what Russia wants and what strategies it will employ to get it, during this AJC Global Forum 2017 session hear from three experts: Stephen Cohen, Professor Emeritus, NYU and Princeton; Julia Ioffe, Staff Writer, The Atlantic; and Andrew Weiss, Vice President for Studies, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Moderater Jason Isaacson, AJC Associate Executive Director for Policy. Introduction by Steven Zelkowitz, AJC Executive Council.

Stephen Cohen at the AJC 2017 Forum, about Russia and Terrorism (Video)

“Remember The Jackson–Vanik (1975) sanction that were placed on the Soviet Union, according to them the SU couldn’t trade with the US on favorable conditions? Those sanctions were placed until the Soviet Union would let the Jews to go.”

“Years later, more Jews are coming to Russia, then they are leaving, but those sanctions are still in place.”

[ Remarkably, the AJC: Global Jewish Advocacy forum has been mostly about Russia. Should we take the words of Bernard-Henri Lévy as a threat? Scott]

The True Cost of Jackson-Vanik

This article is from 2012, but is still relevant.

“Thirty-eight years later, the Soviet Union no longer exists, there is visa-free travel between Russia and Israel, and daily flights connect Moscow and Tel Aviv. Many formerly Soviet Jewish émigrés have returned to Russia to work, albeit in most cases without Russian citizenship. While Jackson-Vanik remains on the books, Russia has been certified as being in compliance with that law by successive U.S. administrations every year since 1994. Thus, for almost two decades Jackson-Vanik has persisted as a relic of the Cold War era, surviving statutorily mostly due to inertia. Aside from occasional remonstrations from Moscow—which still bridles at the perceived stigmatization—Jackson-Vanik has had little material impact on the course of post–Cold War U.S.-Russia relations and, therefore, there has been no compelling reason to remove Russia from the scope of that law.”

—————————————————————————————————————–

5 Reasons America Should Not Fight Iran, Russia and Assad in Syria

Pursuing an ambitious mission against all three adversaries in Syria is dangerous, imprudent and unnecessary.

The United States Can’t Eradicate ISIS in Syria

There’s No Foreseeable Stable End State for Syria

We Don’t Want a War with Iran

The United States Can’t Sideline Russia

U.S. Interests in Syria Aren’t as Vital as Those of Its Adversaries

————————————————————————————————————

News In Brief

by the Saker’s research assistant Baaz

 

Article by Vladimir Putin published in the German business newspaper Handelsblatt

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/54988

——————————————————————————————————

Where Lies the Power of Russian Weapons

Jul 7, 2017

Subscribe to Vesti News https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCa8M…
Russian weapons in Syria demonstrate reliability and great possibilities, so it’s important to carefully analyze and use Syrian combat experience when creating new weapons. Vladimir Putin set this task at a meeting of the Commission for Military-Technical Cooperation. The President expressed his special gratitude to the developers of the Kh-101 cruise missile.

———————————————————————————————-

Russia: Coalition ‘provocations’ lead to expansion of terrorist activities in

Syria – Shoigu Eng subs

Putin Launches Manufacturing of Turbine Engines for Ships in Russia instead of those manufactured in Ukraine

Russia Is Prepared To Respond to US Preemptive Nuclear Strike, Eng subtitles

 


Russian Terminator 2 Combat vehicle got new guns

———-

Russia tests terminator-2 in Syria

The BMPT-72 fighting vehicle is undergoing tests in Syria. It will most likely go into mass production and join the Russian Armed Forces in the near future.
On June 27, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad visited the Khmeimim Russian base, where he was shown the newest Russian BMPT-72 (aka Terminator-2) armored fighting vehicle.
The vehicle was invented to protect tanks from rocket attacks in an urban environment.
The Russian Ministry of Defense recently sent a single combat BMPT-72 to Syria to test the vehicle and decide its future.
Details of the Terminator-2’s mission in Syria are unclear. It may participate both in guarding Khmeimim, and in battles in Syrian towns and cities…

———————————————————————————————

Russian Spetsnaz”Alpha” & ”Vympel” Vs. international terrorists

—————————————————————————————————-

 

Scott Humor

Director of Research and Development

author of The enemy of the State

Follow me on twitter

In case you have forgotten what happened in Ukraine, this book should refresh your memory with the incredibly precise and humorous chronicles: ANTHOLOGY OF RUSSIAN HUMOR: FROM MAIDAN TO TRUMP

The History of Fake News

The History of Fake News

EDITOR’S CHOICE | 03.07.2017

The History of Fake News

Why can’t America reliably separate out fact, falsehood, opinion and reasoned analysis?

David V. GIOE

It was a clear autumn day in Washington, DC on October 27, 1941, when President Franklin Roosevelt delivered his Navy Day speech to the American people. Halloween was later that week, but Adolf Hitler and his Wehrmacht war machine were scaring the administration. Roosevelt used his address to highlight the threat posed to the Western Hemisphere—America’s hemisphere—per the longstanding Monroe Doctrine. The Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was six weeks hence, and Americans were leery of getting involved again in Europe’s perennially bloody wars. Charles Lindbergh and the “America First” movement, which represented America’s isolationist current, objected to greater involvement. Roosevelt needed to make the case that the Nazi threat to America was real. He noted, earlier that month, that a German U-boat had attacked an American destroyer, the USS Kearny, causing eleven American combat fatalities. “America has been attacked,” Roosevelt declared. “The USS Kearny is not just a navy ship. She belongs to every man, woman and child in this nation… Hitler’s torpedo was directed at every American.”

Roosevelt left out the minor detail that the Kearny was busy raining down depth charges on a German U-boat when she was torpedoed. In case the attack on the Kearny wasn’t enough to convince skeptical Americans of Hitler’s devious transatlantic designs, Roosevelt pressed his point with further evidence: “Hitler has often protested,” Roosevelt continued, “that his plans for conquest do not extend across the Atlantic Ocean. But his submarines and raiders prove otherwise. So does the entire design of his new world order,” Roosevelt stated ominously. “For example, I have in my possession a secret map made in Germany by Hitler’s government… of the new world order.”

“It is a map of South America and a part of Central America, as Hitler proposes to reorganize it… into five vassal states, bringing the whole continent under their domination… [including] our great lifeline—the Panama Canal… This map,” Roosevelt thundered, “makes clear the Nazi design not only against South America but against the United States itself.”

In addition to millions of Americans tuning their radios in to Roosevelt’s revelations of Nazi treachery, the Germans were listening too. They vociferously denied the authenticity of Roosevelt’s map, but then again, it was marked “Geheim,” (Secret), so of course they would disown it, wouldn’t they? German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels rejected FDR’s “absurd accusations.” In his estimation, this was a “grand swindle” intended to “whip up American public opinion.” The problem is that Goebbels was right. The map was a forgery. He didn’t know who the real authors were, but British intelligence did—because it was they.

Operating out of the forty-fourth floor of New York’s Rockefeller Center, the remit of the vanilla sounding British Security Coordination office was, in part, to get America into the war. The Roosevelt administration was already reaching across the Atlantic with all sorts of civilian and military aid, but it wasn’t coming fast enough during the dark days of the Blitz, and each new initiative to support the British was met with howls of indignation by the isolationists in Congress. Prime Minister Winston Churchill believed that the Americans would eventually get around to doing the right thing; they just needed a prod in the right direction—a prod in which the ends justified the means.

British intelligence recalled their previous success at stoking America’s ire for war when, in February 1917, desperately seeking American entry into the Great War, they passed the Americans the infamous Zimmermann Telegram, albeit with a phony cover story to hide the fact that they were routinely breaking American diplomatic codes. The Zimmermann Telegram, intercepted and decrypted by British codebreakers, offered a secret deal in which the Germans promised to return New Mexico, Arizona and Texas to Mexico if the latter would declare war on the United States in the event that Washington declared war on Germany.

In that instance, the British artfully used the telegram, authored by German foreign minister Arthur Zimmermann, to overcome characteristic American concern about foreign entanglements. President Woodrow Wilson was in a pickle. Just a year earlier, in the election of 1916, correctly sensing the national mood of nonintervention, he had run and won on the slogan, “He kept us out of war.” Now he felt that war might be inevitable, but how to reverse himself? A week after Wilson received the telegram from the British he authorized its publication in (or, in today’s vernacular, “leaked it to”) the media. It made the front page on March 1, 1917.

Notably, many Americans suspected the dark arts at play, assessing the telegram as a forgery. The wind was taken out of their conspiratorial sails when, two days later, none other than Arthur Zimmermann himself helpfully confirmed that his telegram was genuine. By the next month, America was at war. Not only did the British weaponize the explosive content of Zimmermann’s telegram, but Wilson used it to change tack as well, each to their own political ends.

The Zimmermann Telegram was but one of several factors, including German unrestricted submarine warfare, which led to American entry into World War I. The Americans tipped the balance in favor of the Entente powers and Germany was forced to sign the punitive Treaty of Versailles in 1919, but such a peace could not last, and exactly two decades later the European powers were again at war.

The sequel to the Great War in Europe had been raging since 1939, the German Blitzkrieg seemed unstoppable, and Britain stood alone against it. By late 1941, America had made itself the “arsenal of democracy,” but, as the Kearny incident showed, it actually went much further than that. In addition to Lend-Lease and similar arrangements, American warships and planes patrolled much of the Atlantic convoy route, guarding ships packed with millions of tons of American products—Britain’s tenuous lifeline for survival.

Still, the lost tonnage projections for transatlantic shipping were unsustainable. In a war of material, Britain was going to lose, whereas America’s population and industrial potential were still largely untapped. The supplies sent by America were critical, but if Britain was going to do more than lose slowly, America needed to go all in. But where was the next Zimmermann telegram to help this president lead his country to war? It seemed that, although Britain had affixed keys to every kite it had, lighting was not going to strike twice, but just maybe, this time they could put lightning in a bottle for FDR.

Britain’s senior intelligence official in the United States, Sir William Stephenson, sat atop the British Security Coordination office and became fast friends with Roosevelt’s decorated protointelligence chief, William J. Donovan, acting as coordinator of information, the forerunner of the wartime Office of Strategic Services, itself subsequently reassembled in 1947 as the Central Intelligence Agency. Donovan and Stephenson were birds of a feather. Self-made wealthy men, internationalist in outlook, and both combat heroes of World War I. Stephenson referred to the avuncular and paunchy Donovan as “Big Bill,” and Donovan affectionately labeled the smaller and trimmer Stephenson as “Little Bill.” Years later, Donovan opined, “Stephenson taught us all we ever knew about foreign intelligence”—although perhaps some lessons were learned the hard way.

Despite the bonhomie between the “Bills,” Stephenson was using his friendship with Donovan to run unilateral propaganda operations against the isolationists in American chattering classes. It was in this context that Little Bill handed the fake map (amongst other forgeries) to Big Bill, who presented it to FDR as a cat brings a mouse to its master, perhaps, reminiscent of contemporary news media, not lingering over questions of authenticity because it was a scoop that Donovan had over his rivals in the military branches and J. Edgar Hoover at the FBI.

The State Department, on the other hand, assessed British “intelligence” relating to Latin America as forgeries, even complaining to the British Embassy about it. Assistant Secretary of State Adolf Berle, a man for who his intelligence portfolio was a bothersome sideshow, was on the right track with his skepticism about the British intelligence that Donovan was feeding to Roosevelt. He had concerns regarding reliability and veracity of the volumes of British intelligence that was finding its way to the Oval Office. Berle told his boss, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, “British intelligence has been very active in making things appear dangerous [in Latin America] . . . I think we have to be a little on our guard against false scares.”

Despite Berle’s suspicions, Roosevelt was not informed of the differing analytical lines in his bureaucracy. In fact, after the Germans cried foul, responding to a question about the map’s authenticity, Roosevelt claimed the source was “undoubtedly reliable.” One scholar pronounced “the most striking feature of the episode was the complicity of the President of the United States in perpetuating the fraud.” Another historian commented that British forgeries like the map were “truly a frontal assault on the rules of evidence.” Yet, like the Zimmermann Telegram twenty-four years earlier, the map served both the author and recipient’s intended political purpose.

Roosevelt died, in all probability, ignorant of the map’s true provenance, but whether or not he, like Assistant Secretary Berle in Foggy Bottom, personally harbored any suspicions about the map’s authenticity, on that sunny day in October 1941, Roosevelt needed it to be true, and that was what mattered. Thus, although the British put forward the fake news, Roosevelt was a willing political vessel for it. Several commentators have observed that fake news is not a fraud perpetrated on the unsuspecting, but rather willful belief. A shrewd political operator, Roosevelt was no novice to narrative shaping, but was likely willing to suspend disbelief for his policy goals. Indeed, the mud of deception often slides into self-deception.

One commentator asserted that the purpose of fake news “is not to pose an alternative truth . . . but to destroy truth altogether, to set us adrift in a world of belief without facts, a world where there is no defense against lies.” Actually, the purpose of fake news isn’t to destroy truth; it is to manipulate, to weaponize information, made out of whole cloth at times, to achieve political or societal goals. America is no more “post-truth” than it is “post-gravity”; it’s just that the terrible repercussions will take longer to drop. Information alchemy is about weaving straw into golden political outcomes. Several commentators have suggested that, during the 2016 presidential election, Russian president Vladimir Putin sought to engender a general crisis of civic confidence in the American electoral system. That’s a nice byproduct from his point of view, but even he knows full well that he can’t destroy American democracy—he just wanted to manipulate it toward his own ends.

Likewise, the saga of the fake map wasn’t a British assault on truth as such; it wasn’t intended to cloud the American people in an epistemological fog in which it was unclear who were the aggressors in Europe. The British needed a political—and by extension military—outcome and they assessed that the best way to do this was through bespoke disinformation.

In today’s deluge of information and disinformation, enabled in part by social media as news propagation outlets, the solution most proffered is “consider the source” as a way to separate wheat from chaff. Media outlets are trying to outcompete each other to earn their reputational halo. But, in the case of the fake map, Little Bill a was usually reliable source, and, if the British couldn’t be trusted, who could be? Indeed, the fall comes hardest when betrayed by trusted friends, and whom we admire. CIA’s own webpage homage dedicated to Stephenson is notably silent on the specifics of his greatest deception.

CIA has matured immeasurably from the heady and freewheeling days of the OSS, partly through the progression of intelligence officers from glorious amateurs to seasoned professionals, and partly in response to lessons learned from mistakes. Professional intelligence analysts are put through a rigorous analytical training pipeline that includes how to structure analysis, how to weigh sources, and how to consider competing hypotheses. They are taught that one analytical conclusion isn’t equally as valid as another, and that nuances matter. They are taught to figuratively interrogate sources and to consider the source’s purpose in providing information, and who was the intended audience? On the operational side, most raw intelligence generated by CIA’s case officers bears a health warning, a sort of caveat emptor, reminding analysts of what they should already know: “The source of the following information knew their remarks could reach the U.S. Government and may have intended to influence as well as inform.”

And in fact, many tools that intelligence analysts use every day are those that are borrowed from the practice of history, with critical thinking and a skeptical mind at the top of the list. The analytical cadre of Donovan’s nascent intelligence bureaucracy was staffed with the best minds from leading universities, raising questions about whether Donovan, in his haste to please his intelligence consumer in chief and scoop his rivals, even stopped for any analytical on what would be considered raw-liaison intelligence.

Not everyone needs to be professionally trained as an intelligence officer or historian to wade through sources, but Hugh Trevor-Roper was both. To apply his craft to approaching a primary source, he listed three questions that should be asked about every document: Is it genuine? Was the author in a position to know what he was writing about? And, why does this document exist? Answers to these questions are the handmaidens of trusting information and halting the malign influence of fake news. Perhaps, before passing the map to Roosevelt, Donovan should have heeded the wise counsel of a different British subject, the historian E.H. Carr, who commanded: “interrogate documents and . . . display a due skepticism as regards their writer’s motives.” Indeed, what intelligence analysts have in common with historians is that the best of the bunch are skeptics.

One practical way that skepticism ought to manifest itself in considering the source was offered by historian and strategist B. H. Liddell Hart: “On every occasion that a particular recommendation is made, ask yourself first in what way the author’s career may be affected.” Or, as the Romans may have inquired, “cui bono?” Who benefits? Maybe this level of skepticism sounds paranoid, but as the aphorism goes, you’re only paranoid if there is no plot. Or applied to the twenty-first century information wars, deception.

While considering the source is necessary, it is not sufficient—it’s a shortcut that too often turns into a handicap. Fact-based and objective reporting and analysis is surely the gold standard, but information consumers also have a role, even a civic obligation as citizens to take some responsibility for what they allow themselves to consider as truth. It is the manifestation of this shortcut crossed over to handicap that demands Facebook or Twitter do a better job of curating information on their platforms. It elides society’s individual responsibility for skepticism and critical thought in the evaluation of evidence and argument. For the same reason that diet pills don’t work, it’s just not that easy. Seeing results is going to take some discipline. Social-media sites, amongst others, are appropriately required to weed out extremist or illegal content, but filtering information is a more challenging feat. It would be convenient if they can run an algorithm and block bots and trolls, but disingenuous information and especially fraudulent analysis of facts would still remain. There is no Internet filter or setting that can remove conspiracy theory from the digital public square. Moreover, that might not be desirable in any case. It may be worth considering whether technological convenience, rapidly morphing into dependence past the point of no return, may have a causal relationship to America’s contemporary intellectual helplessness.

Perhaps technology companies will develop a genius algorithm to filter out Russian bots and disable some troll accounts, but this will not stop overly credulous people from retweeting, sharing and reposting “news” that bears as much semblance to reality as CheezWhiz does to cheese. Despite significant strides in artificial intelligence, artificial intelligence remains ineffective against intellectually dishonest analysis, non sequitur conclusions and ideological spin. It is therefore dubious to hope social-media sites will become guardian curators of fact-based knowledge and objective journalism. But there is no reason to rely on technology companies to solve the problem of fake news. The do-it-yourself tools are readily available.

How to begin to learn how to discern fake news? By rediscovering the broad civic applicability of the historical method. It starts with modifying the national epistemological approach to acquiring knowledge, and, applied across the population of the United States, the impact could be profound.

Quite when America started deviating from critical thinking is unclear, but a test of American college students, the College Learning Assessment Plus (CLA+) shows that, in over half of the universities studied, there is no increase in critical thinking skills over a four-year degree. The reasons for this are far from clear, but the pursuit of knowledge has become more argumentative, opinion-based and adversarial than illuminating. Research papers are reminiscent of watching the prosecutor layout a criminal case on Law and Order.

The CLA+ findings track with an informal survey of professors’ experience at over a dozens American (and some international) universities. In the main, here is how a research paper usually unfolds: Students set out a thesis, about which they know very little at the outset, but about which they already seem to have well-developed or even passionate opinions as if they have skin in the game, as if their thesis is personal and deeply held. They spend the rest of the paper proving the validity of these opinions, like a court case, beyond a reasonable doubt. They comb through material, hunting for those key nuggets of evidence that support their thesis, and ignoring those equally important discoveries that don’t support their narrative. In the worst cases, logical fallacies are waived away because a conclusion “feels right” or “should be true.” Once enough similarly suggestive nuggets are accumulated, they are listed like items entered into evidence, often devoid of argumentation or theoretical framework. Moving onto their conclusions, they again restate their strongest bits of evidence, and pronounce their thesis proved; case closed. Rediscovering the historical method and teaching the difference between argument and assertion offers promise.

The starting point is to have a research question in mind. It is not a thesis at the outset; it is a question to be answered, ideally with bias explicitly stripped out of it. Working on the research question itself takes a great deal of time, phrasing and rephrasing, testing and reformulating it for just the right construction. The net difference may be only a carefully excised word, but the effect on the rest of the project can be significant. It might be the difference between, “When did Saddam Hussein restart his WMD program?” and “Did Saddam Hussein restart his WMD program?” One is an important question for national security. The other contains a presupposition that led a country to war. Likewise, “Why is Kim Jong-un an irrational actor?” is a separate question from “Is Kim Jong-un an irrational actor?” American policy toward an international pariah with nuclear weapons hinges on the answer.

Once the research question is established, a method of inquiry is needed, a process by which the question might be answered. Research is a voyage of intellectual discovery where unexpected information is not unwelcome because there is no initial thesis to prove as yet. Most questions, of course, don’t have easy answers and there are usually good arguments and reliable sources on both sides. The important thing is to grapple with all of the information and not cherry-pick supporting evidence or selectively exclude contradictory evidence. Historian J. H. Hexter has argued that, rather than seeking evidence to bolster an initial thesis, one should actively seek out evidence that challenges or even disproves it. This is the heart of research and analysis, and again calls on the craft of the historian to weigh the credibility of sources, to consider the original purpose of documents, and to test whether a conclusion makes sense based on other knowledge.

Finally, before a thesis is published as news or breathlessly retweeted, it would be better to pause and consider on what basis the arguments might be criticized, and in light of these weaknesses, shore up analytical flanks. Intellectual “stress testing” is as important to public discourse as financial stress testing is to banking, yet seems to be as a lost tradition on college campuses as in American politics.

If the method just outlined seems like a foreign land for students, information consumers, politicians and an uncomfortable plurality of media outlets, then what went wrong? Why can’t America reliably separate out fact, falsehood, opinion and reasoned analysis? As the CLA+ test suggests, the American educational system is responsible to some degree for not exposing students to critical thinking—or maybe demanding some mastery of it before awarding a degree, but what happened, at a national level, to skepticism of claims, to questions without baked-in bias, to critical thinking?

It seems that in polarized America, political and ideological precommitments have superseded a skeptical mindset and even the desire, if not capacity, for critical thought, thus leaving America frightfully vulnerable to fake news. Consider a scenario in which, upon proper methodological inspection, one was to discover new information or arguments that demonstrate an error in a personal stance. Would one swallow his pride and update his views, especially on social media—the platform of personal record. What would one’s political tribe say after such an admission? Would they, following the scientific method, attempt to replicate the experiment to verify the results and update their own thinking? Or would there instead be a feeling of political or social betrayal? Princeton Professor Jonathan Haslam considered it is a sign of intellectual immaturity to read only those thinkers who reinforce preexisting beliefs. If that is the case, is American society intellectually regressing in a closed echo chamber of self-reinforcement? In an age of fake news, considering whether information is true is less important than whether it is useful for supporting a worldview, or discounting that of others. Thus, the utility of information is now more important than its veracity.

Professors don’t help matters when their syllabus requires that students only use certain pre-vetted source material for research projects. These well meaning professors are trying to help students avoid relying on fake news or highly biased books, journal articles and websites, but this is actually harming students because it doesn’t require the students to critically evaluate sources or material. Instead, it is the equivalent of intellectual training wheels for students well past their primary education. Students with helicopter professors learn that they just need to color inside the safe lines and they can’t go too far astray. Yet by circumscribing the known world of pre-vetted material our universities are failing to live up to their mandate to prepare students for the real world, where there won’t be anyone to screen what information these newly minted alumni are consuming. It would be better to let students make—and then learn from—their mistakes in the structured halfway house of being an adult than protect them until graduation and then push them out of the nest into a world of fake news and disinformation, of which they have had no previous experience. This increasingly widespread practice of benevolence in university courses probably also directly contributes to the increasing helplessness, thus vulnerability, of post-university civic life.

This is more than one elbow-patched curmudgeon’s complaint about American education and society; suggested here is a timeless strategy for defense from fake news. It is not foreordained that America is doomed to a virtual future of reflexive retweeting and conspiracy theories parading as news. Encouraging a different approach to discovering knowledge is part of the solution to an overly credulous population. As was demonstrated during the 2016 election, Americans seem particularly vulnerable to information war, and it appears that Putin’s minions will be back again in 2020 and beyond. Yet rediscovering the tools of the historian—skepticism and critical thinking—can help develop a more resilient national character as a key pillar of future American security.

nationalinterest.org

Gilad Atzmon on Red Ice Radio talking about Being in Time

June 04, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Gilad returns to Red Ice to discuss his new book, Being in Time, political censorship, Marxism, and much more. To begin, Gilad tells us about a recent incident in which antifa, unhappy with his outspoken views, attacked him. Gilad uses this story to draw attention to the fact that the West is currently divided between those who believe in civil debate, and those who do not. We discuss how the elite caters to the later, silencing views in opposition to the globalist agenda. Later, we discuss Trump, the Left’s curious relationship with the working class, and the role identity plays in politics.

In the members’ hour, we discuss how the Left discarded its support for free speech. We then talk about Karl Marx. Gilad argues that Marx was, all things considered, an intellectual open to debate and philosophical inquiry; his followers, as Gilad explains, then took his ideas and turned them into dogma. Switching gears, we discuss Gilad’s recent book, Being in Time. Gilad outlines some of its main ideas, and describes how it relates to The Bell Curve – a book which has been thoroughly suppressed and attacked by egalitarian academics. This leads to a discussion on the ruling elite: who they are, how they came to power, and to what extent Jews play a role. Our show covers much more, and concludes with a discussion of the Manchester bombing.

The book can be ordered on Amazon.co.uk  & Amazon.com  and on Gilad’s site  here.

 

Who was defeated in the Great Patriotic war?

Who was defeated in the Great Patriotic war?

by Scott Humor

Sergey Shoigu , the Russia’s Minister of Defense, issued an order to congratulate servicemen and veterans with the Victory Day

 

May 9th Victory Day Parade on Red Square 2017 (FULL VIDEO)

President Putin’s speech at 17:30 with English voice over

This morning I got a message from Veritas: “Thanks Scott.

I am sitting here watching the Victory Parade live – VVP’s speech this year was different in tone. He was stern and passionate – it was a message to those outside of Russia too. Never on our soil again – he was stressing. The planes have been grounded due to weather sadly, but at least the rehearsals would have shown the planes and helicopters.

I truly believe the elections in France and especially the UK are to get the war parties in or maintained. This nonsense about Brexit – it’s about May getting a majority in the Commons to go to war. That is why there has been a sudden snap election – everyone is being manipulated. I feel VVP’s speech today was a sign of this…….this is why the UN info  is so important – history repeats itself…..yet again….”

 

1,000s of troops, state-of-the-art weaponry parade through Moscow on V-Day (PHOTOS, FULL VIDEO)

During the celebration with the veterans of the Great Patriotic in Kremlin, Putin made a statement  about a fate of the Russian people if the Nazi Germany would win the war.

“This sacred holiday is celebrated by all of Russia. And it is clear why.

It is not just the many millions of victims which our people sacrificed on the altar of Victory. If our country would have succumbed to the terrible tragedy and, like many other European countries, suffered defeat, a totally different fate would have awaited us than the enslaved countries of the European continent. It was not only a question of the existence of our country, it was a question of the existence of our people as an ethnos.

And we are well aware of this from the documents of the Nazi party and the fascist state which are still stored in archives. Those who were not used for slave labour would have been subject either to physical elimination, plain and simple, or resettlement to remote regions without any infrastructure where they would have been doomed to gradual extinction.

This is what we must always remember when we talk about the truth of the Second World War, the Great Patriotic War, when we speak about the victims which our people sacrificed on the altar of Victory, as I already mentioned. This is something we must never forget. This is the most important thing.”

=========

Let’s remember that it was not Germany alone that attacked us, but all European nations took a part in this war against us.

What moved those ordinary Europeans? Why did they decide to put on military overcoats, to take weapons in their hands and to invade our motherland?

On June 22nd, 1941 all of the radio stations of Germany were broadcasting the following announcement made by Hitler:

 

National Socialists!

You probably all felt that this was a bitter and difficult step for me. The German people have never had hostile feelings toward the peoples of Russia. During the last two decades, however, the Jewish-Bolshevist rulers in Moscow have attempted to set not only Germany, but all of Europe, aflame. Germany has never attempted to spread its National Socialist worldview to Russia. Rather, the Jewish-Bolshevist rulers in Moscow have constantly attempted to subject us and the other European peoples to their rule. They have attempted this not only intellectually, but above all through military means.

The results of their efforts, in every nation, were only chaos, misery, and starvation.

I, on the other hand, have tried for two decades to build a new socialist order in Germany, with a minimum of interference and without harming our productive capacity. This has not only eliminated unemployment, but also the profits of labor have flowed increasingly to working people.

The results of our policies are unique in all the world. Our economic and social reorganization has led to the systematic elimination of social and class barriers, with the goal of a true people’s community.

<…>

I was forced by circumstances to keep silent in the past. Now the moment has come when further silence would be not only a sin, but a crime against the German people, against all Europe.

Today, about 160 Russian divisions stand at our border. There have been steady border violations for weeks, and not only on our border, but in the far north, and also in Rumania. Russian pilots make a habit of ignoring the border, perhaps to show us that they already feel as if they are in control.”

You can read the full speech here. It’s very long, confusing and anticlimactic, as everything that Hitler wrote, and you can discover a remarkable wording identical to those of the U.S. defense news and the U.S. senate speeches.

 

The attack on the Soviet Union early in the morning of June 22nd 1941 were involved:

the German formations: 153 divisions, 600,000 of motorized units, 3580 tanks, 7184 guns, 2740 aircraft;

12 divisions and 10 brigades of Romania,

18 Finnish divisions;

3 Hungarian brigade;

two and a half Slovak brigades;

later joined by 3 Italian teams and the Spanish “Blue division”.

Besides Hungarians, Romanians, Finns, Italians, Slovaks and Spaniards who attacked our country in their national divisions and brigades, in the ranks of Nazi troops that broke into our land there were hundreds of thousands of French, Belgians, Dutch, Poles, Czechs, Danes, Norwegians, Bulgarians, Croats, Luxembourgers, Jews, etc.

All European nations, with some rare exception, treacherously and suddenly attacked us and began ruthlessly killing civilians.

From a remarkable collection of letters coming from the invaders back home in summer of 1941.

 

From the diary of Joseph Goebbels (9-15 July 1941)

“…The Fuhrer is extremely pleased that disguise of the preparations for the Eastern campaign was quite successful, and the entire maneuver was performed with incredible sneakiness.

…Preliminary results suggests that the war in the East has been largely won: two-third of the Bolshevik forces have been already destroyed or badly frayed… five-sixths of the air and armored forces can already be considered destroyed.

…The repetition of the fate of Napoleon impossible, though — the irony! — we are opposing the Bolshevism that night, when Napoleon crossed the Russian border.

…The Fuhrer intends to erase from the face of the earth cities like Moscow, Kiev and St. Petersburg. And it is necessary! For if we want to dismember Russia into separate parts, this huge state should not have any spiritual, or political, or economic center.

…Moscow be wiped off the face of the earth, and in its place we will make a giant water reservoir in order to destroy all memory of this city and what it was.”

—-

Letter of Lieutenant Ewald Lassen (July 2)

Dear brother Freddy! Everything is wonderful! Our company at first crossed the river Bug, and destroyed 3 border bunkers, and on the first day of fighting advanced 40 kilometers in…

It’s been already a week and a half as we have been fighting and moving forward. Raging fires are everywhere, and there are huge black pillars of smoke.

Any compassion towards the Russians is impossible, we exterminate fleeing Russians in huge quantities. There are thousands of corpses lying in the fields, on the roads and in the villages. No one removes or buries them. We should be glad that the führer fooled Stalin and hit sooner, than the Russians were prepared to repel our attacks, because if they were ready, the things wouldn’t go so well for us. Now it is clear that the outcome of the war is predetermined, and Russia sang it’s last song.

Every day confirms the words of the greatest of men our commander Adolf Hitler that this war is a crusade against the Bolsheviks and Jews is the most sacred of all wars in German history and for this reason we scarify everything.

What a joy to feel involved in the defeat of this state and its Red Army…

=======

Letter from corporal troops “SS” Willie Steube (23 July)

Dear mother! Ukraine is a fabulously rich land, the fat black Ukrainian earth was created by God for the German ploughs. Ukraine could feed not only Germany, but all the annexed countries and territories.

We live here like gods. Chickens, geese, eggs, roast, butter, cream, sour cream, juices, wine, honey — every day.

But to take it from the hands of these dirty and sick people are dangerous and scary:  I couldn’t put anything in your mouth they offer, so we take it all by yourself. It’s very simple, without much discussion, but following the German purity. If we want meat, we take an alive pig and slaughter it, the same with calf or geese. If we want fresh milk, we milk the cows. If we want honey, we get it right from its comb, and doing it so cleverly, that not a single bee would bite.

Right now my friend calls me, he opened a hive and I am dying to try fresh honey. We have every right to believe that all this wealth and abundance belongs to us. If someone does not like it, we just stick a gun between their teeth and they go silent. The same our soldiers do when they need a woman. As you know, while we’re here we don’t have to polite with this lowlifes. They are especially afraid of us  the “SS” forces.

I feel like a winner every step of the way, it feels amazingly nice to show that we the Germans, are the lords and absolute owners of everything around us. I  like this kind of life very much.

============

Letter from corporal Walter Koch (July 28)

My priceless treasure! For a month we advanced East 750 km, all goes according to the Fuhrer’s plan, and in August we should be in Moscow. After the surrender of Russia, it will be the British turn and then America’s.

The commander of our battalion, major Seifert is convinced that every Russian should be killed everywhere, and we have this task performed.

Tomorrow I’ll send you another parcel. I have prepared the following things.[A list of children clothes and household items follows.]

The blue, almost new suit for our little Puni, there are some blood stains. I’m sorry, my heart’s treasure, but we are in the field, to wouldn’t be that difficult for you to get rid of blood stains with the help of my uncle Herbert.

You wrote about some paintings in gilded frames and other art objects. I remember this all the time, but found nothing suitable so far. Nothing good or valuable, nothing you dream of for our cozy place.

I kiss both of you long and strong kiss.

Your daddy Walter

============

Letter from the head of a group of chroniclers chief-cameraman Otto Lange

The materials that we have sent demonstrate that you are totally missing out on one of the major issues in our propaganda.

You strive to capture the victorious advance of our troops and make it highly professional. However, you ignored the most important task. We should immediately, clearly and convincingly show to the German people and all of the Europe, that Soviet Russia is a multimillion assemblage of  racially inferior and  degenerat bastards: Jews and Asians, who represent a terrible danger to civilized humanity.

In this aspect, pay attention to the experience of Dr. Muller, who in Ukraine found in one mental hospital two dozen of mentally ill,  and dressed them into the uniforms of commanders and commissars of the Red Army. He photographed them under  different angles, dirty and unshaven, and created the whole gallery of disgusting, repulsive, aggressive idiots that makes a strong impression.

Also, what deserves your attention is the work of Dr. Hecker, of filming the  civilian population near Minsk. For greater credibility he used accompanying text of the chronicles and make them look even more disgusting by dressing those civilians in rags: old sweaters, torn jackets. The men are unshaven, barefoot, in dirty shirts, without ties, holding their falling down pants, since he took their belts. Unkempt women with the brutal expression on the faces we made to hold axes and pitchforks. These images also evoked an active distaste and disgust.

Of course, there should not be a template, maybe you can create a variety of solutions. However, when photographing the Russian prisoners of war and local population it is necessary to try to show the ugliest of Jewish and Asian types, whose faces express anger and hatred and can cause in response only similar sentiments, and, above all, disgust and hatred.

I hope that my views expressed in this letter will help you in your productive future;

Heil Hitler!

Your Henry Demel.

====================

From the letters of the Germans to the eastern front

To Ober-Lieutenant Heinz Heidenreich/ Neuhausen, June 29, 1941

My dear boy!

You participated in the battle for Smolensk? Three time I watched chronicled in “Vohenshau”. What a grandiose view! On the screen tanks were moving, guns rumbled, and our  tanned, dusty, smiling young men in shirts with rolled elbow-length sleeves, among them I was hoping to see you my favorite person. And then the field that has been littered with corpses of Russians, and the columns of prisoners of war. Those horrible alive Russians, they look like beasts, just looking at these creatures we can see the horror, a horrible mob that you must fight! Their country is so terrible, so terrible that I don’t know how you and your soldiers are moving forward there.

When I see this on the screen, only then I realize what you, poor boys have to endure. However, I hope that the greatest challenges are already behind you, Moscow will fall soon and the war will end. I pray daily for your return. Send you greetings and kisses with a caring love — your mother.

======================

to the Lieutenant Nola Franz (Munich, 19 July 1941)

My dear! I have received your letters No. 4 n No. 5, and No. 3 is still not here.  Parcel No. 57 of June 30, No. 12 dated July 4, and No. 86 dated July 9, I got one too. The clothing and footwear from Russia do not have decent quality, clumsy and ugly. Do you think that  I’m going to wear this?..  The Corporal Kurtof  sent Mitzi three massive gold rings, pendant with large diamonds and fur of a beautiful silver fox. This has value. Mitzi gave me an advice: if you occasionally send gold and precious stones, to avoid possible hassles at the border, where the luggage of the soldiers are being examined quite carefully, it’s the best to stick jewelry into a bar of soap.

On the radio right now there is an emergency message broadcasting about new major victories in the East. This is epic! What a great happiness to be these days a German! Keep on, but be careful!

Your Elfriede.

=================

To the Feldwebel Kurt Hesse (July 22, 1941)

My dear hubby! Now, the direct road to Moscow is opened. Moscow is a big city, with a huge number of prostitutes, dirty and contagious. I understand that a young, healthy man need a relief time from time. In two little parcels I’ve sent you 3 cakes, 2 apples, cookies, a bag of sausage, cigarettes, and 20 condoms. If you love me and little Rosie, don’t do anything without them. This should be enough for awhile.

I send you many greetings and passionate kisses.

Your wife Irma.

=========

To the chief Leitenanta Richard Lange (Germic, July 30, 1941)

Dear boy! The newsreel that we watch 2-3 times a week, each time, horrified by an unprecedented poverty, abominable roads and unseemly types, with which you have to deal with. Oh, these terrible, criminal, stupid faces, apparently all Jews. And then some women with guns and pathetic, starving children, sick and infested with parasites. Whether these creatures and their entire criminal state has any right to exist?

Imagine, Richard, that on these territories there are people, or rather, the large apes that think that their bestial existence is the Paradise.

The movie theaters are filled starting with early morning. Every German wants to enjoy the sight of your victories in Russia and to see our enemies being brought to their knees. Even I, a kind middle-aged woman, a devout and exemplary Catholic, am getting a great satisfaction watching thousands of prisoners walking along the roads, these criminal types, and especially I enjoy the sight of countless corpses. I watch every newsreels for 3-4 times. Yeah, I’m not ashamed to say that the corpses of the enemies make me happy. It’s hard to accept the idea that such backward degenerate nation takes from us so many sacrifices.  But this nation must be thrown away out of the history of the world like garbage, once and for all.

God bless you as He kept you in Poland, in Holland and in France.

Loving you to pieces your mother and grandmother.

==============

Now you see who and why attacked us and invaded our Homeland! Judge for yourself what those “civilized Europeans” thought of us. Read what they wanted to do to us.! Do you think that today’s Europeans and Americans think about us differently? Do you think they would treat us humanly, if they are given a chance to attack us again? You would think wrong. Remember, what they have been doing in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Syria…

====

Newly released UN “Nazi Holocaust archives” show US & UK colluded with Third Reich to destroy Soviet Union

 

Veritas: ” It was an important piece of news that the UN had finally opened up the archives – despite US/UK trying to stop the info getting out. It also backs up everything that the site has always said.

I think the release of this information by the UN needs to be highlighted on the site. It is so important that everyone is aware – of course the MSM isn’t covering this……the Duran has highlighted it:

:…the Western governments, or at least powerful sections, were loath to hamper the Nazi war effort against the Soviet Union. Notwithstanding that the Soviet Union was a nominal «ally» of the West for the defeat of Nazi Germany.

This perspective harks to a radically different conception of the Second World War in contrast to that narrated in official Western versions. In this alternative historical account, the rise of the Nazi Third Reich was deliberately fomented by American and British rulers as a bulwark in Europe against the spread of communism. Adolf Hitler’s rabid anti-Semitism was matched only by his detest of Marxism and the Slavic people of the Soviet Union. In the Nazi ideology, they were all «Untermenschen» (subhumans) to be exterminated in a «Final Solution».

 So, when Nazi Germany was attacking the Soviet Union and carrying out its Final Solution from June 1941 until late 1944, little wonder then that the US and Britain showed a curious reluctance to commit their military forces fully to open up a Western Front. The Western allies were evidently content to see the Nazi war machine doing what it was originally intended to do: to destroy the primary enemy to Western capitalism as represented by the Soviet Union.”

===

Scott Humor

Director of Research and Development

author of The enemy of the State

Follow me on twitter


Putin’s Victory Day Speech: No Force Will Ever Enslave Russian People

Local Editor

Russian President Vladimir Putin made a speech at the Victory Day Parade in Moscow.

Putin's Victory Day Speech: No Force Will Ever Enslave Russian People


There was no, there is no and there will be no force that could ever enslave the Russians, the country’s President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday at the Victory Day Parade in Moscow.

“There was no, there is no and there will be no force that could ever enslave our people. They fought to the bitter end, defending their homeland, and did what seemed impossible, they turned the bloody wheel of the Second World War back, drove the enemy from our land where it dared to come, crushed Nazism, put an end to its atrocities,” Putin said.

“And we will never forget that it was our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers who brought the freedom to Europe and the long-awaited peace on the planet,” he added.

Moreover, according to Putin, the international community should join efforts to fight common threats and Russia is open to this kind of cooperation.

“The consolidation of the efforts of all international community is necessary for the effective fight against terrorism, extremism, neo-Nazism, and other threats. We are open to this kind of cooperation,” the Russian president said.

Putin further added that the Russian Armed Forces are ready to counter any potential attacks, as the past wars taught Russia to be vigilant.

“We will always guard Russia as you, the soldiers of the Victory, did it. And [we will] strengthen the traditions of patriotism, loyally serving the homeland. The lessons of the past war force us to be vigilant and the Russian Armed Forces are ready to repel any potential attack,” Putin said.

Putin stressed that the need to strengthen the defenses was dictated by the life itself.

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team

09-05-2017 | 11:37

Elie Wiesel honors Angela Merkel

On Monday, the US taxpayers’ funded Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC, honored German Chancellor Angela Dorothea Merkel, 62, with 2017 Elie Wiesel Award for her services to the Holocaust Industry.

Merkel called the award a great honor and a major gesture toward her and her country. She said that for Germany to have a bright future, it’s essential to understand the Holocaust as the ultimate betrayal of all civilized values.

I’m glad Merkel acknowledged the German nation’s Holocaust guilt and like Benjamin Netanyahu didn’t blame Mufti of Palestine for forcing Hitler to murder innocent Jews.

The award was established in 2011 and Elie Wiesel himself was the first recipient of it. Other recipients include Rep. John Lewis (2016), Jew Judge Thomas Buergenthal (2015), pro-Israel Canadian Senator Lt. Gen.Roméo Dallaire (2014), Polish Jew Władysław Bartoszewski  (2013) and Aung San Suu Kyi (2012), the Myanmar leader who was condemned by United Nations last year for her part in ethnic-cleansing of Rohingya Muslims.

Angela Merkel who was honored by Jew Time magazine as Person of the Year 2015, was born in former Russian occupied East Germany and was a member of communist party in her youth. She is daughter of a Lutheran pastor. After the inauguration of Donald Trump, Murdoch-owned media declared her the so-called Leader of the Free World in February 2017.

Merkel is considered the most popular Western leader among Israeli Jews for her military and financial help. Last month Israel’s Angela Merkel, Tzipi Livni, former Mossad sexpot met Merkel in Berlin.

However, there are some of Merkel’s acts hated by the organized Jewry. For example, on January 10, 2017, British Jew weekly Spectator declared the Worst German Chancellor for allowing Muslim immigrants from Africa and Middle East who commit mass rape of White Christian women like the Russian and American soldiers did during WWII.

Germany has second largest Muslim population (4-4.5 million) in Europe after France (7-9 million). 70% of foreign Muslim immigrants in Germany are of Turkish origin – while 80% of Muslim immigrants don’t have German citizenship. There are over 100,000 German Christian and Jew converts to Islam. My favorite among them is Dr. Murad Hofmann, ambassador, author and former top NATO official (listen to an interview with him below).

%d bloggers like this: