ISSN 1440-9828
                                                                                                        January 2009                                                  
                                                                     No 427   

A Thank You

____________________ 

 

CounterPunch Diary

"It's Kristallnacht Two!" An Ethnic Cleansing in America

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

Weekend Edition, December 19 - 21, 2008

Call any Jewish friend across the few days and the degrees of separation from someone financially devastated by Bernie Madoff are often only one or two. One rich Jewish friend in New York volunteers that because of some intricate family dispute his own money hadn’t been parked at Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. On the other hand his uncle had woken up the morning after Madoff’s arrest to discover that the $40 million he’d entrusted to Bernie was gone forever, along with the multi-million pension fund of his workforce, which he’d also entrusted to Madoff.

It’s not just ruined heiresses in the Palm Beach Country Club now faced with the prospect of dividing the contents of the Whiskas can into two equal portions for mistress and cat, it’s academics on Ivy League campuses, doctors in Santa Monica, rich people from Boston to San Francisco to the West Side of Los Angeles finding their retirement nest eggs or charitable trusts wiped out overnight.

In terms of financial and psychological impact, Bernard Maddow’s $50 billion heist certainly ranks as a major ethnic cleansing here in America, a hugely traumatic event for American Jewry. Of course Madoff had clients of every creed and nation, but he made a specialty of trolling for Jewish money.  I asked a Jewish woman I know here in California if any in her circle had taken a hit. She looked at me tremulously, shaking her head, on the edge of tears. Though no one was in immediate earshot, she whispered, “They kept telling me to put my money with Madoff. At that time the entry level was $250,000. I dodged the bullet. Some of my friends didn’t. They’ve lost everything. This is Kristallnacht Two.”  Her fear and horror would scarcely have been diminished if she’d heard what a perfectly nice young person had remarked to me earlier, apropos the Madoff affair: “Now the rich people will know what it’s like.”

"‘It’s an atomic bomb in the world of Jewish philanthropy,’  Mark Charendoff, president of the Jewish Funders Network, told Anthony Weiss and Gabrielle Birkner of The Forward newspaper. ‘There’s going to be fallout from this for years to come.’ The collapse of the investment firm of Bernard Madoff has opened a black hole at the center of the tight knit circles of wealthy Jews who socialize and do business together, and who, year after year, support Jewish causes… ”

Among those apparently taking serious and even financially fatal hits: Yeshiva University in New York; Senator Frank Lautenberg, New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon, real estate and media mogul Mortimer Zuckerman (“significantly hurt”), GMAC Financial Services chairman J. Ezra Merkin (who ran a hedge fund, Ascot Partners, which reinvested many charities’ funds with Madoff), the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, Steven Spielberg’s Wunderkinder Foundation, Jeff Katzenberg, the Boston-based Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation (which has closed its doors), Eliot Spitzer’s family, the Chais Family Foundation, the Carl and Ruth Shapiro Foundation, Hadassah (the Women’s Zionist Organization of America), the United Jewish Endowment Fund of the Jewish Federation of Greater Washington , the Los Angeles’ Jewish Community Foundation’s $238 million Common Investment Pool, the American Jewish Congress, the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology.

It’s a savage body blow to the commercial real estate market in New York. Christine Haughney in Friday’s New York Times quotes Robert J. Ivanhoe, a lawyer who is representing 10 developers and investors who lost $5 million to $50 million each, as saying “The level of devastation, both financial and on a human level, is astounding,” Haughney cites a Manhattan psychotherapist who counsels real estate leaders and bankers as saying “most of the patients he has seen this week have close friends and relatives who lost money with Mr. Madoff. The victims include executives at the global commercial brokerage CB Richard Ellis, most prominently Stephen Siegel, a major Bronx landlord who is chairman of worldwide operations at the brokerage.”

A huge problem is that many developers were using their investments with Madoff as collateral on projects and now banks are saying, “Show us the money.”  Residential real estate will take a hit too as people back out of purchases because they’ve lost their money , or abandon coops because they can longer afford the annual fees and mortgage payments.

Pam Martens, CounterPuncher and former Wall St stockbroker, points out to me that “Yes, in the early years Madoff and his brother, Peter, worked the Jewish country clubs and got referrals from referrals.  But as he ran into trouble with redemptions and needed ever larger pools of new money, he turned to funds of funds (hedge funds that raise money and then dole it out to various hedge fund money managers).  That meant that Madoff really didn't know who the ultimate individual investors were.  That also means that a lot of these people don't yet know they're victims because they were never told by their fund of funds that their money went to Madoff.  (He would not let his name be given out by the fund of funds; obviously so the SEC couldn't figure out how much money he was really taking in.) So expect to hear a lot more big names being announced as victims over the next few weeks.”

"People are horrified. They are frightened of being exposed. They don't know how to go on," said a Boston-area psychologist, cited in an interesting story by Svea Herbst of Reuters: “Many duped investors have been left with a sense of betrayal so strong that it will cause severe psychological scars, said Dr. James Grubman, a psychologist who counsels wealthy families in the Boston area struggling with the emotional issues of having money. "He gave his investors a lot of intangibles. He allowed people to feel they were part of an exclusive club, part of the 'in crowd' and ultimately deemed worthy of investing with him."

How did Madoff, despite widespread suspicions across many years, continue to allure so many investors, smart fellows like Steven Spielberg well equipped with expert number crunchers? The most gullible dupes of all are those who preen themselves as being privileged accomplices in a profitable conspiracy, at scant risk to themselves. Part of Madoff’s genius as a swindler was that he turned many away. As my father, Claud,  used to joke to me, “Alexander, people talk about ‘falling into the clutches of money lenders. I had to force my way in.” Madoff would turn down applicants unless they could put up millions, and that of course vastly increased the zeal of the suckers  to be on a good thing, to join the exclusive club.

Of course many of them thought Madoff’s famous model was dubious. After all, how could the laws of financial gravity be defied, year after year, producing  an unending yield (for the fortunate) of 10 to 12 per cent annual returns on capital invested.  But the thought came with a knowing wink, that Bernie was scoring these huge returns, by being in the know, running on the inside track, using insider knowledge. As my father pointed out to me many times, many people have a bit of larceny in their bloodstream, and it’s what con men trade on, as Gogol imperishably described in Dead Souls.

CounterPuncher Pam Martens, who will be writing about the affair here in a few days, was on to Madoff back in 1991, as Susan Antilla described in a column on Bloomberg. Martens was “taking over management of a customer’s municipal-bond portfolio, but was alarmed when she heard how the man had invested the rest of his nest egg.

"He told me that the bulk of his money was with Bernie Madoff, and that Madoff guarantees a 13 percent a year return.  I said, “First of all, that’s impossible, and second of all, that’s illegal.’”  Martens got copies of the man’s brokerage statements and phoned Madoff.  “I said, ‘I’m looking at Mr. X’s statements, and it’s clear you’re not doing anything here that generated 13 percent a year,’ He said, ‘No one has ever dared question what I’m doing.’”

In the years that followed, there were those who did question. Some of them pressed their suspicions upon bodies like the SEC, stating emphatically their view that Madoff was running a Ponzi game.  Madoff sailed through the charges for a variety of reasons. First, he posed as a regulator and due diligence watchdog himself. The SEC thought he was one of their own. Then again, he had heavy duty social and financial connections and heavy duty political protection. Here’s where there should be a lot more investigation.

Madoff poured money into the Democratic  Senatorial  Campaign war chest  ($100,000 between 2005 and 2008)and made large contributions to important Democrats on the Finance Committees, like Rep Henry Waxman  and Senator Charles Schumer.  Waxman and Schumer have hastily announced they’re donating this money to charity. (Who knows? Maybe the donations have gone to the next Ponzi racket down the food chain so it’ll come back to them again as protection money.)

The carnage will go on for years. As Dean Rotbart points out in The Jewish Journal:

“A phalanx of plaintiffs attorneys are trolling this very moment for clients who are certain to mount a legal assault on charities, universities and other non-profits in a bid to force them to disgorge past donations whose origins can be linked back to the Madoff scheme.

“At the very least, large numbers of individuals and institutions who today consider themselves to be victims of the Madoff scandal should brace for forthcoming legal actions that will allege their remaining wealth is not theirs at all – rather, it is the recoverable property of other claimants who were bilked by Madoff.

To keep their libraries, laboratories, scholarship programs, hospital services, meal programs and the like, universities and other non-profits who continue to operate in the wake of the Madoff scandal will also almost certainly have to retain law firms to combat efforts to strip those non-profits of past Madoff-related donations – whether directly from Madoff or indirectly from Madoff investors.”

Maybe not. Since a ot of Madoff-derived money went to Israel, I think perhaps we will soon see Congress rush through  legislation to limit the liability of Madoff recipient non-profits, with President Obama , whose campagn contributions surely included Madoff  money too, only to happy to sign on the dotted line.

On the larger canvas, what exactly separates Madoff’s operation from those of the banks rewarded for their shady follies by a $700 billion bailout? Just like Madoff, the banks finally had to admit that all their public financial statements were false, that the supposed assets were worthless.

The operating assumption of the Ponzi scheme is that the tide will always rise, that old investors can be repaid by the infusions ponied up by the fresh recruits. For the past twenty years the entire American economy has become—to quote Bernie’s succinct résumé of his business to his sons —“a giant Ponzi scheme,”.

Uncle Sam is the biggest Ponzi operator of all, with the added magical power denied Madoff (unless forgery was among his talents) of being able to print money at will. CounterPunch tip of the week. Wheelbarrow stocks. Buy ‘em while the price is right. Soon Americans will  be needing wheelbarrows to put the money in to go shopping. A vast new wheelbarrow industry could be part of Obama’s recovery plan. Collapsible wheelbarrows for the soccer moms to get in the back of the Volvo.  Electric-powered wheelbarrows. Hybrid wheelbarrows from GM. Gold-plated wheelbarrows from the Defense sector.

This was no one-man operation, run after hours by Madoff with a secret ledger.  No one person can single-handedly run a $50 billion business, even one with cooked books.  This was a family business. Every decade has its signature swindles capturing the zeitgeist, and we remember them fondly – from Clifford Irving’s homage to Howard Hughes, the Hitler Diaries, Keating.

Madoff is in the pantheon now. Though the legal obstacles will be formidable, I hope Spielberg, one of those stung by Madoff, gets around to making a movie about him. The Jewish Journal has even comes up with a title for him, Swindler’s List.

It’s Not Over till it’s Over

As snow here in a good deal of America falls on the just and unjust alike, and here at CounterPunch we use blowtorches to open the ice-frozen post box, let me rally CounterPunchers to one last thought for our future.  We’ve had a strong year. Month after month  our site has attracted millions of unique visitors. Our newsletters have been well received and have won new subscribers. CounterPunch Books enjoy a steady sale. It’s an encouraging picture and all of us here at CounterPunch thank you for your donations and subscriptions, but the edgy fact remains that in financial terms we’re never more than an inch or two from the edge of the cliff. We need every penny we can get, and so as we head to year’s end, and  if you haven’t been wiped out by Bernie Madoff and  feel that you have something to send our way, remember that all donations are tax deductible.

Our latest newsletter has three very strong pieces – starting with Bill and Kathy Christison’s powerful description of the fearful sufferings inflicted on Gaza by Israel and the United States. Barbara Rose Johnston takes us to the Guatemalan gravesites of one more human catastrophe instigated by the terror network known as the World Bank. I review the grim Bush record on freedom and constitutional protections.

Alexander Cockburn can be reached at

alexandercockburn@asis.com

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn12192008.html

__________________  ____________________________________________________________

Head of school exams watchdog resigns over SATs fiasco

By Julie Henry, Education Correspondent, Daily Telegraph, 13 December 2008

Ken Boston has stood down as chief executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, a position he has held since September 2002 Photo: JUSTIN LEIGHTON

The head of the schools testing watchdog resigned yesterday on the eve of a Government report into this summer's SATs exams fiasco. Ken Boston, the chief executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, said he believed in "public officials taking responsibility when things go wrong".

His decision comes three days before the Lord Sutherland inquiry publishes its findings into the chaos surrounding this year's national curriculum tests, which saw tens of thousands of 11 and 14-year-olds issued with late and incorrect exam results.

Mr Boston, 65, who has been in the post since 2002, came under pressure during the affair to justify his £328,000-a-year pay deal, which includes the use of a £1 million Chelsea flat and six business-class flights a year back to his home country of Australia.

In a statement yesterday, Mr Boston said the performance of ETS, the American company hired to deliver the 2008 SATs, was "quite unacceptable" and reiterated the apology to pupils, teachers and parents, that he made in the summer.

"I have reflected since the summer on the delivery failure and on the difficulties associated with key stage testing," he said. "I have always believed in public bodies and public officials taking responsibility when things go wrong. In the light of that reflection and that belief, and in view of the challenges facing the QCA in the coming year, I believe it would be in the Authority's interests to find new leadership."

The QCA refused to confirm whether Mr Boston will step down immediately or whether he will be in line for a pay-off. His contract runs until autumn 2009.

Christopher Trinick, the QCA Chairman, said: "The QCA board will give the matter full consideration following the publication of the Sutherland report."

The six-month report, which will be published on Tuesday, is likely to criticise ETS and the National Assessment Agency, the arm of the QCA which overseas the test, which was taken by 1.2 million children in May.

ETS was sacked by QCA in August. The Government then announced that the tests for 14-year-olds would be scrapped. Critics of SATs are hoping the Sutherland inquiry will expose a testing regime "at breaking point" which will heap pressure on ministers to also axe the tests for 11-year-olds.

"Ed Balls has made a start on the necessary reforms by abolishing key stage 3 tests," said Mr Dunford. "The Sutherland report will doubtless describe a system at breaking point. Ministers now need to instigate the root and branch review that Lord Sutherland should have been asked to carry out."

Dr John Dunford, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, described Mr Boston's resignation as a "tragedy" and praised the work he had done at the QCA.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/3742501/Head-of-school-exams-watchdog-resigns-over-SATs-fiasco.html

 

Download: The Boston-Curry Party http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/XdownloadsX/The%20BostonCurry%20Party.zip

Comment:

Dr Ken Boston, the Man who in 1984 terminated Fredrick Töben's teaching career within the Victorian Education Department, Australia, created many more teaching casualties as he became Director General of Education in South Australia and New South Wales where he clashed with long-serving principals who resisted his ideologically-motivated internationalism. In Adelaide his predatory power base was the feminist BBQ-set. His Marxist-feminist-predatory-hedonist world view was too strong for the educational traditionalists who continued to focus on delivering basic education to all. His hatred of things German flowed freely from his leftist world-view, especially from the radical feminists who regard National Socialism as a political philosophy that oppresses women. Such a perverse mindset celebrates a denial of what is beautiful, good and wholesome such as motherhood, family, community, tradition.

_____________________________

Education:  The Mediocre Teacher tells – The Good Teacher explains –The Superior Teacher demonstrates – The Great Teacher inspires.

___________________________________________

FROM THE ARCHIVES:

Jews in court fight against Holocaust revisionist

Apology demanded over Internet statements

Independent, Wednesday, 4 April 2001

The Australian Jewish community has launched a court case to try to force a Holocaust revisionist to apologise for offending Jews with statements published on his Internet site.

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry is seeking to have a Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (HREOC) order against Frederick Toben enforced.

The commission last October ordered Toben to apologise to the Executive Council's national vice president Jeremy Jones and to remove Holocaust revisionist material from his Adelaide Institute Web site.

Toben said he was expecting the legal action and had not complied with the commission's orders because its procedures were flawed. "HREOC's procedure is terribly flawed, it's an irrational business of reaching a conclusion on the basis of hurt feelings," Toben said. "The principle of free speech is at stake here."

Australia's Jewish community had no alternative but to take legal action, Jones said. "The material (on his Web site) is clearly offensive, it's blatantly anti–Jewish and blatantly racist," he said.

In 1999, a German court convicted Toben of denying the killing of millions of Jews by the Nazis during World War II in pamphlets and on the Internet.

A preliminary hearing of the complaint was scheduled for May.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/jews-in-court-fight-against-holocaust-revisionist-753158.html

Fighting Wars to Make the World Safe for Usury, er, sorry, make the world safe for DEMOCRACY!

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

WHY THE USA FORCED THE EMPIRE OF JAPAN INTO WORLD WAR II

By Stephen M Goodson abolishusury@telkomsa.net

Although the establishment view that the United States of America became embroiled in World War II as a result of a surprise attack¹ on Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941 is no longer accepted by serious historians; the origins of this conflict have far deeper roots.

During the 1930s Japan rapidly expanded her industrial production, while the rest of the world, with exception of National Socialist Germany, stagnated.  By 1941 Japan had become the leading economic power in East Asia and her exports were steadily replacing those of America and England.

Japan has very few natural resources, so what was the secret of her success?  In order to answer this question it is necessary to return to the year 1929, when one of the twentieth century’s foremost monetary reformers, Major Clifford Hugh Douglas, went on a lecture tour of Japan.

Douglas’s economic theory advocated the transfer of the money creation process from private banks, which create money out of nothing as an interest-bearing debt, to the state.  This government created money he termed social credit.  He also favoured the payment of a basic income or national dividend to each citizen.  This dividend would provide consumers with the additional buying power necessary to absorb all the current production of goods in a non-inflationary manner².

Douglas’s financial proposals for an honest money system, based on government creating the nation’s money and credit on an interest-free basis, were enthusiastically received by Japanese industry and government.³  All Douglas’s books and pamphlets were translated into Japanese, and more copies were sold in that country than in all the rest of the world put together.⁴

Since its inception in 1882 the largest shareholder of the Bank of Japan (Nippon Ginko) had been the Japanese Imperial Household.  Its reorganization into a state bank, which was administered exclusively for the accomplishment of national interests, was implemented in 1932.

The reform of the central bank was completed in February 1942 when the Bank of Japan Law as remodelled on the Reichsbank Act of Germany of 1939.

“It declared that the bank was a special corporation of strongly national nature.  The Band was ‘to assume the task of controlling currency and finance and supporting and promoting the credit system in conformity with policies of the state to ensure the full use of the nation’s potential’. 

Further, it was ‘to be managed with the accomplishment of national aims as its sole guiding principle’ (Article 2).  As for the functions of the Bank, the law abolished the old principle of priority for commercial finance, empowerment it to supervise facilities for industrial finance.  The law also authorized the Bank to make unlimited advances to the government without security, and to subscribe for and to absorb government bonds.  In respect of note-issues the law made permanent the system of the maximum issues limit; thus, the Bank could make unlimited issues to meet the requirements of munitions industries and of the government. 

On the other hand, government supervision of the Bank was markedly strengthened.  The government could nominate, superintend and give orders to the president and the directors; there was also a clause giving the government more comprehensive powers to give so-called ‘functional orders’ to the Bank, to direct it to perform any function it deemed necessary for the attainment of the Bank’s purpose.   Moreover, the law made a wide range of the Bank’s business subject to governmental approval, including such matters as the alteration of Bank rate, note-issues and accounts”.⁵

The accompanying table illustrated the sustained improvement which took place in the Japanese economy, once the shackles of usury had been removed.  During the 1931-41 period manufacturing output and industrial production increased by 140% and 136% respectively, while national income and Gross National Product (GNP) were up by 241% and 259% respectively.  These remarkable increases exceeded by a wide margin the economic growth of the rest of the industrialized world.

In the labour market unemployment declined from 5.3% in 1930 to 3.0% in 1938.  Industrial disputes decreased with the number of stoppages down from 998 in 1931 to 159 in 1941.

In contrast to Japan, America had a private, mostly foreign owned central bank, the United States Federal Reserve Bank.  Since its establishment on December 23, 1913 under highly suspicious circumstances, this bank had been undermining the US Constitution and destroying the freedom and prosperity of the American people.

A contemporary indictment of the US Federal Reserve may be found in a quotation from the opening paragraphs of a speech given by the Honorable Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency (1920-31).  It was delivered to Congress on June 10, 1932 to the general acclaim of the members present.

“Mr. McFadden.  Mr Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever know. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks.  The Federal Reserve Board, a Government board, has cheated the Government of the United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. 

The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. 

This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government.  It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.  Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions.  They are not Government institutions.  They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.”

Mr McFadden then went on to expose how the Federal Reserve Bank buys votes in the States in order to control the state legislatures;  and how they use their vast financial resources in maintaining “an international propaganda” for covering up their previous misdeeds and setting in motion new opportunities for their “gigantic train of crime”.

According to him these 12 private credit monopolies were “deceitfully and disloyally” foisted on an unsuspecting public by foreign bankers, who in 1904 bankrolled Japan in her war with Russia.  In 1917 they financed Trotsky’s political programme in America and paid for his passage to Russia.  With the assistance of their branch banks in Sweden, these international bankers “fomented and instigated the Russian Revolution”, which resulted in the “destruction of the Russian Empire”.

It can thus be seen that the US Federal Reserve Bank was intimately involved in plotting and financing the overthrow of the Russian Empire⁷.  With its stranglehold on the media and its placemen occupying most of the key positions in government in 1941, the Bank was in a favourable position from which to manipulate and provoke war with Japan.

Both the Bank of Japan and the German Reichsbank⁸ with their systems of state creation of the money supply at zero interest; and the inevitability that those systems of finance would be replicated by other countries, in particular those of the proposed Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere, posed such a serious threat to the private investors of the US Federal Reserve Bank, that a world war was deemed to be the only means of countering it.

In July 1939 the United States unilaterally abrogated the Treaty of Commerce of 1911, thereby restricting Japan’s ability to import essential raw materials.  These measures were imposed avowedly because of the war in China and were followed in June 1940 by an aviation fuel embargo and a ban on the export of iron and steel in November 1940⁹.

In July 1941 all Japanese assets in England, Holland and America were frozen after Japan had peacefully occupied Indochina, with the permission of Vichy France, in order to block off China’s southern supply routes.  At the same time an oil embargo was enforced.  Without oil Japan could not survive.

General Hideki Tojo, Prime Minister (October 1941 – July 1944) explains in his diary how the United States continually thwarted Japanese efforts at maintaining the peace.  Japan’s peaceful commercial relations were being persistently undermined by the USA and posed a grave threat to her future existence.  By means of the economic blockade a noose was being placed around Japan’s neck.  Not only were  the United States, England, China and Holland encircling Japan through economic pressures, but naval forces throughout the region in the Philippines, Singapore and Malaya were being redeployed and strengthened.  An American admiral claimed that the Japanese fleet could be sunk in a couple of weeks, while Prime Minister Churchill declared that England would join America’s side within 24 hours.

“Japan attempted to circumvent these dangerous circumstances by diplomatic negotiation, and though Japan heaped concession upon concession, in the hope of finding a solution through mutual compromise, there was no progress because the United States would not retreat from its original position. Finally, in the end, the United States repeated demands that, under the circumstances, Japan could not accept: complete withdrawal of troops from China, repudiation of the Nanking government, withdrawal from the Tripartite Pact. At this point, Japan lost all hope of reaching a resolution through diplomatic negotiation. Since events had progressed as they had, it became clear to continue in this manner was to lead the nation to disaster.  With options thus foreclosed, in order to protect and defend the nation and clear the obstacles that stood in its path, a decisive appeal to arms was made.

War was decided upon at the Imperial Conference on December 1, 1941, and the shift to real operations was made at this point.  However, even during the preparations for action, we laid our plans in such a manner that should there be progress through diplomatic negotiation, we would be well prepared to cancel operations at the latest moment that communication technology would have permitted.”¹⁰

A further incentive for the unprincipled leaders of the US government to instigate a war with Japan was the Tripartite Pact of September 21, 1940.  This was a defensive military alliance under the terms of which, if one of the Axis powers was attacked, the others would come to its defence.  By these means Germany was induced to declare war on the USA.¹¹

After numerous diplomatic initiatives including the offer of a summit on August 8, 1941 had failed, Japan was forced into attacking America in order to maintain her prosperity and secure her existence as a sovereign state.

In the ensuing slaughter 2.3 million Americans and Japanese lost their lives. Tens of thousands of allied soldier were subjected to the indignities and sufferings of prisoner of war camp life.¹²

In a consummate act of hypocrisy the Japanese High Command was placed on trial for “war crimes”.  These tribunals were based on ex post facto laws, which resulted in the subversion of 2000 years of Western jurisprudence.  The rule of tu quoque (thou also) was cynically ignored, notwithstanding the brutal nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki where an estimated 239 000 died.¹³

One of the first acts of the United States occupation forces in Japan in September 1945 was to restructure the Japanese banking system, so as to make it complaint with the norms of the international bankers i.e. usury.  The unrestricted financing of the state by the Bank of Japan was abolished and the large industrial combines, the Zaibatsu, were dismantled.  This policy was carried out by Joseph Dodge, a Detroit banker, who was financial adviser to the Supreme Allied Commander, General

Douglas MacArthur.

On both the 50^th and 60^th anniversaries commemorating the end of World War II, Japanese officials, including Japan’s prime minister Junichiro Koizumi¹⁴ on the latter occasion, have apologized.  Clearly such apologies are misplaced and it is perhaps we who should be apologizing to the Japanese for having provoked them into a senseless and useless war, which according to Allied propaganda was fought to make the world safe for democracy.  The reality is that World War II was fought to make the world safe for usury, and to ensure the permanent enslavement of mankind through debt and interest.

Notes

1. Thomas Kimmel (grandson of Admiral Husband Kimmel), ’12 New Pearl Harbor Facts’, The Barnes Review, November/December 2004, pp. 37-41.  Critical intelligence was withheld from the local commanders to ensure that the “surprise” attack was as spectacular as possible.  See also Roger A Stolley, ‘Pearl Harbor Attack No Surprise’, The Journal for Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, Spring 1992, pp. 119-21 who quotes LTC Clifford M. Andrew, a former U.S. Army intelligence officer, who temporarily was assistant chief of staff, military intelligence, general staff, United States Army as follows:

‘Five men were directly responsible for what happened at Pearl Harbor.  I am one of those five men ….. We knew well in advance that the Japanese were going to attack.  At least nine months before the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor, I was assigned to prepare for it.

I was operating under the direct orders of the President of the United States and was ordered not to give vital intelligence information relating to the whereabouts of the Japanese fleet to our commanders in the field.

We had broken the Japanese code … We’d been monitoring all their communications for months prior to the attack …. It was a lie that we didn’t have direct communication with Washington, D.C.’

Stolley concludes by saying the “For the people of the United sates both then and now I feel sorrow, for a people to have been so misled, to have been lied to so much and to have so thoroughly believed the lie given to them.’

2. This forms part of Douglas’s A + B theorem, viz that prices are always being generated at a faster rate than incomes are produced, so that the total prices of all goods in the economy at any particular stage exceed the total buying power of consumers.  The national dividend was intended to make up for this deficit of purchasing power, and as a consequence would assist in abolishing the business cycle and the syndrome of poverty amidst plenty.

3. This enthusiasm may be contrasted with the alarm with which Douglas’s ideas were received by the City of London or Square Mile (677 acres).  During the 1930s £5 million (a prodigious sum in to-day’s values) was raised by the international bankers in order to neutralize Douglas’s proposals.

4. ‘New Economics’, January 19,1934, p. 8 as quoted in D J Amos, ‘The Story of the Commonwealth Bank’, Veritas Publishing Company, Bullsbrook, Western Australia, 1986, p. 44.

5. Money and Banking in Japan, The Bank of  Japan Economic Research Department, translated by S Nishimura, edited by L S Pressnell, Macmillan, London, 1973, p.38.

6. “Collective Speeches of Congressman Louis T. McFadden’ Omni Publications, Hawthorne, California, 1970, Chap XVI, The Treacherous and Disloyal Conduct of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, pp.298-9.

7. In 1914 Russia was the most prosperous nation in the world. She had a small and declining foreign debt and no central bank. See George Knupffer, “The Struggle for World Power”, London, 1971, Chap. 15, Some Details about Russia, pp. 138-46.

8. Stephan M. Goodson, “Bonaparte & Hitler Versus the International Bankers’, The Barnes Review, November / December 2004, pp. 23 -9.

9. Alleged human rights violations were the outward motivation for the imposition of sanctions. However , this may also  have been a manoeuvre to protect US oil investments in China.

10. The Journal for Historical Review, Vol. 12, No.1, Spring 1992, Hideki Tojo’s Prison Diary , pp. 41-2.

11. Besides the obligations of the alliance, other factors which influenced the German declaration of war were the persistent provocations of the US Navy in the north Atlantic, and the anticipation that the Japanese would open up a Russian front in the Far East and provide relief for the beleaguered German forces outside Moscow.

12. In view of Japan’s non-ratification of the Geneva Convention in 1929, the Allied Chiefs of Staff have to bear some of the responsibility for the hardship, which they knew their soldiers would have to endure if captured.  A recent study by Professor Richard Aldrich of Nottingham University, England ‘The Faraway War, Personal Diaries of the Second World War in Asia and the Pacific’, 2005, Doubleday has revealed that the stereotyping of the Japanese as being cruel and robotic is inaccurate, and that most of them were tough and fair in their treatment of enemy prisoners. In contrast American and Australia soldiers frequently did not take prisoners, but massacred them as “machine-gun practice”. (1943 diary of Eddie Stanton, Australian posted to Goodenough Island off Papua New Guinea). 

According to a spokesman of the Imperial War Museum, London in a programme broadcast on British Sky television on August 15, 2005, Japanese treatment of Russian prisoners of the Russo-Japanese War (1904-5) and German prisoners of World War I (1914-18) was exemplary.

13. The justification for these bombings was that the conquest of the Japanese mainland would have cost an estimated 500 000 allied lives.  Yet these disasters could have been avoided if Japanese peace overtures for a conditional surrender had been accepted in January 1945.

14. According to the September 2005 issue of the monthly journal Right Now, 78 Marylebone High Street, London WIU 5AP on p. 15, ‘Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi is attacked time and again for continuing to visit a Tokyo shrine (the Yasukini) where Japan’s war dead are deified.  The International Herald Tribune and the New York Times refer to these Japanese dead as war criminals.’

 

ECONOMIC INDICES OF JAPAN 1931 – 41

                 Manufacturing              All Industries             National Income                 GNP

1931                19.1                             19.7                             10.5                                         12.5

1932                20.2                             20.8                             11.3                                         13.0

1933                24.7                             25.3                             12.4                                         14.3

1934                26.4                             27.0                             13.1                                         15.7

1935                27.9                             28.7                             14.4                                         16.7

1936                31.5                             32.3                             15.5                                         17.8

1937                37.2                             37.7                             18.6                                         23.4

1938                38.2                             39.0                             20.0                                         26.8

1939                42.4                             43.0                             25.4                                         33.1

1940                44.3                             44.9                             31.0                                         39.4

1941                45.8                             46.5                             35.8                                         44.9

Source : Statistics Department, The Bank  of Japan

______________________________________________________________________________________________________  

 

Mahler macht Gerichtssaal zur Showbühne
Neonazi erhält von Sympathisanten Beifall - Friedman in Interview beleidigt, vom 24.12.2008

Landshut. Zur Showbühne funktionierten der frühere NPD-Anwalt und einstige Mitbegründer der linksterroristischen RAF, Horst Mahler (72), und zahlreiche seiner Sympathisanten den Schwurgerichtssaal des Landshuter Landgerichts am gestrigen dritten Verhandlungstag um: Sogar eine lautstarke Beifallskundgebung gab es, als der wegen Volksverhetzung und Beleidigung vor Gericht stehende Rechtsextremist einmal mehr Oberstaatsanwalt Georg Freutsmiedl attackierte.

Die Weihnachtsferien hatten es offenbar vielen Mahler-Anhängern aller Altersgruppen ermöglicht, den eigentlich als „Schiebetermin“ geplanten Verhandlungstag zu verfolgen: Die Zuhörerbänke waren jedenfalls fast bis auf den letzten Platz besetzt.

Der Rechtsextremist war, wie berichtet, vom Amtsgericht Erding wegen Volksverhetzung und Beleidigung zu einer Haftstrafe von zehn Monaten verurteilt worden. Bei einem Interview hatte Mahler den ehemaligen Vizepräsidenten des Zentralrates der Juden, Michel Friedman, mit „Heil Hitler, Herr Friedman“ begrüßt, im Gesprächsverlauf den Holocaust geleugnet und das Judentum attackiert. In der Berufungsverhandlung stellte Mahler inzwischen über 100 Beweisanträge, mit denen er - so wörtlich - den Glauben von Richter und Schöffen an den Holocaust erschüttern wolle.

Oberstaatsanwalt Freutsmiedl beantragte seinerseits, sämtliche Anträge, die darauf abzielten, die Offenkundigkeit der systematischen Judenvernichtung zu widerlegen, abzulehnen. Freutsmiedl setzte sich insbesondere mit dem von Mahler ins Spiel gebrachte Gutachten des inzwischen von der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft fristlos entlassenen Diplom-Chemikers Germar Rudolf auseinander. In dem Gutachten war die Nachweisbarkeit von Cyanid-Verbindungen in den Gaskammern von Auschwitz in Abrede gestellt worden. „In Auschwitz war nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg alles kaputt und dem Verfall preisgegeben.

Es ist nicht nachvollziehbar, woher die angeblich für das Gutachten untersuchten Mauerteile stammen“, so der Anklagevertreter. Zuverlässige Unterlagen gebe es dagegen über die Errichtung der Gaskammern: „Die so genannten Duschräume waren mit gasdichten Türen ausgestattet, sie waren geeignet, täglich 2400 Menschen zu vergasen.“

Mahler-Verteidiger Ludwig Bock zeigte sich von der im Prozessverlauf ergangenen Ankündigung, dass gegen ihn ebenfalls ein Verfahren wegen Holocaust-Leugnung eingeleitet werde, wenig beeindruckt. Zynisch stellte er fest: „Niemand widerspricht, dass es in Auschwitz Gaskammern gegeben hat, aber zum Desinfizieren von Kleidung.“ Gleichzeitig forderte er den Anklagevertreter auf, nachzurechnen, wie lange es gedauert hätte, „bis bei 2400 täglich insgesamt sechs Millionen Menschen umgebracht worden wären“.

Vorsitzender Richter Robert Mader lehnte die Mahlerschen Beweisanträge ab und erklärte zur Begründung: „Wir halten uns an das, was das Gesetz im § 130 - Volksverhetzung - vorgibt. Allein in 89 Anträgen wurde der Holocaust geleugnet.“Das Berufungsverfahren wird am 2. und 22. Januar fortgesetzt. Gegen Mahler läuft derzeit ein weiteres Verfahren in Potsdam. Am 12. Januar wird ihm auch noch vor einem Münchner Gericht der Prozess gemacht. – tl

http://www.pnp.de/nachrichten/artikel.php?cid=29-22588240&Ressort=bay&BNR=0

___________________________________  

Mahler Turns Courtroom Into Stage

Defendant Applauded by Sympathizers – Friedman Insulted in Interview

Translated by J M Damon jamesmdamon@yahoo.com

Landshut, Bavaria: Yesterday, in the third day of his appeal trial, Horst Mahler and numerous sympathizers turned Landshut District Court into a political theater. The 72-year-old revolutionist and rebel turned revisionist [a living testimonial to the Emersonian axion that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds] is the former attorney for NPD (National Party of Germany) as well as cofounder of the RAF – Rote Armee Faktion = “Red Army Faction” – in the 1970s.

There was loud applause in the courtroom as the “rightwing extremist” on trial for “Insult” and “Incitement of the Masses” repeatedly attacked the lead prosecutor, Georg Freutsmield.

The holiday season made it possible for a large number of Mahler supporters of all ages to attend the proceedings, which had been postphoned from an earlier date.The visitors section was completely filled.

 As we reported earlier, Mahler had been sentenced by Erding County Court to ten months in jail for “Insult” and “Incitement of the Masses.”

During a historical interview, published in Vanity Fair,  with Michel Friedman, the Vice President of the Jewish Central Committee of Germany [famous in certain quarters for his highly publicized exploits with cocaine and Ukrainian prostitutes], Mahler greeted the Jewish playboy civic leader with “Heil Hitler, Herr Friedman!”

In the course of the Vanity Fair interview, which Friedman apparently arranged with intent to file additional criminal complaints against his guest, Mahler had questioned the authenticity of “Holocaust” while criticizing certain tenets of the Jewish faith.

In the trial he submitted over 100 evidentiary motions with which he said he intended to destroy the judges’ faith in “Holocaust.”

As expected, head prosecutor Freutsmiedl moved to reject all of Mahler’s evidentiary motions that dispute the “Manifest Obviousness” of systematic German attempts to eradicate Jews during World War II.

[“Manifest Obviousness,” a prosecutorial ploy that the German courts borrowed from the Nuremberg and Moscow show trials, relieves the prosecution of the burden of proving that alleged crimes were actually committed - JMD]

Specifically, Freutsmiedl was responding to Germar Rudolf’s Expert Report on alleged homicidal gas chambers, which report had been introduced by Mahler as evidence.

[Rudolf, a diploma chemist formerly with the Max Planck Institute, is currently imprisoned in Germany on account of this report, which proved that no cyanide compounds are present in the walls of the alleged homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz - JMD]

According to Freutsmiedl, everything at Auschwitz was destroyed and left in ruins after the Second World War, and the Court cannot be sure from where Rudolf’s alleged samples of masonry were taken. [There’s an easy soluion to that problem!]

He said there is supporting documentation for the construction of gas chambers and that “so-called shower rooms” were equipped with airtight doors and designed to murder 2400 persons per day.

Mahler’s defense lawyer Ludwig Bock seemed unconcerned that District Attorney Freutsmiedl had threatened him with criminal charges for defending Mahler.

He observed that nobody has denied there were numerous gas chambers in Auschwitz for disinfecting clothing and blankets.

[The Germans used enormous amounts of “Zyklon B” to protect inmates and staff from typhus and the lice that transmitted it. At Nuremberg, in the spirit of true “chutzpah,” the Allied Military Tribunal convicted German leaders of having used the pesticide to murder millions of Jews – JMD]

Bock then asked the prosecutor to estimate how long it would take to murder six million persons at a rate of 2400 per day.

As expected, Presiding Judge Robert Mader refused to accept Mahler’s motions, explaining that he had to follow instructions contained in Section 130 of the German Penal Code regarding “Incitement of the Masses.”

Mahler, [who holds the world record for political trials in Occupied Germany – JMD], is questioning the authenticity of “Holocaust” in 89 evidentiary motions.

His appeal trial in Landshut Court will continue on the 2nd and 22nd of January. At present he is also the defendant in an ongoing trial in Potsdam. In addition, he is scheduled for a third trial to begin in Munich on 12 January.

________________________________________ 

A Thank You to Mr Ben Watson

Counsel before Judges Evans and Wickham, CoW Magistrates’ Court

From: Adelaide Institute info@adelaideinstitute.org, Saturday, 13 December 2008 4:34 PM

Dear Ben

I did not have the time formally to thank you for your excellent barrister work, which I now do via these few words: Thank you very much for having given of your best.

I also remain somewhat indebted to Kevin, especially because he so sweetly kept me informed at every step of the process – what will not happen, what could happen, what may happen, what will most likely happen, what didn’t happen and what HAPPENED!

Each of his visits to prison brought me more information that then enabled me to see the issues unfold, and that this battle was one where Common Law principles confronted the perversity of what is Section 130 of the German Penal Code, which criminalises thought process and ideas itself, and more. It was thus Kevin’s ever presence and watchful eye over my case that I felt safe until, of course, he took off on his holiday to Egypt and so it was that during this period the somewhat dramatic event of my sudden release unfolded in his absence.

Still, I heard some painful legal stories while at HMP Wandsworth, for example, where a couple of individuals were sent to serve 3-6 weeks because their solicitor had failed to inform them of a crucial court hearing, with the result that this was a breach of their bail conditions and the judge unhesitatingly imposed a prison sentence on them.

From the beginning of my legal process the stress was on having a legal team and so I am now resisting, ever so gently, the suggestion that any one person had a decisive role to play that produced the qualified victory because it was indeed a beautiful team performance, and let me put it slightly in unconventional order: –without you, no Kevin – without Kevin no Adrian – without Adrian no Michele – without Michele no David who gave her the news of my arrest, which already less than 24 hours after my 1 October court appear was trumpeted to the world by The Times with a flattering photo of myself in battle-mode! – see article immediately below. And then there was Art, Siegfried, Serge, Christian, and the wider Internet community, and many more individuals not on the Internet who support our Revisionist cause.

I still hear Kevin’s words of caution: “I hope to keep you fully appraised but please temper the enthusiasm to get the media involved with a great deal of caution at this point as it may impede our legal challenge. At the end of the day we must all sing from the same song book.”  

Within the education sector, where I worked for many years, I observed how the ones who talked the loudest about team-spirit and effort  usually, when it goes right, want to claim they were team leader, and when it goes wrong they disappear and find a scapegoat, which is then someone within the team who is usually dubbed ‘the weakest link’. This kind of thinking is based on the death-producing process of Marxist-Feminist-Talmudic dialectics.

I cannot accept that kind of reasoning. It reminds me of my teaching days where it was common practice, which it still is in countless schools, to have a staff at a school congratulate itself if the pass rate, for example at final year level, is 100% - and the school’s reputation rises. It would not be common knowledge that a weeding out process occurs in the penultimate year, which makes the final year 100% possible.

Further, individual teachers have a strategy of deceit that enables them to fool themselves without self-reflecting on what is actually happening. The reasoning is that, for example, Johnny passed brilliantly – that’s because he had a good teacher; Had Johnny failed, then that would be attributed to Johnny’s inherent inability to master the mental challenges that came his way. Either way, the teacher bungles along happily scapegoating when a student fails and taking the glory when a student passes, but all the time without self-reflecting and without voicing a critical comment about the actual systemic failures that lie at the root of falling standards, which may in some instances be the teacher’s own inability to eliminate his own blind spots, etc.

And so, Ben, thank you again for your assistance in this matter. Next time I’m in London, perhaps we’ll be able to have a cuppa – but before I make any such trip I’ll need to clarify matters with Immigration’s Mr Gilbert. Few knew that he was the one who after my release from HPM Wandsworth had the final say on whether I was free to visit Lady Michele Renouf or whether I was to be taken to a detention centre and from there be directly removed from the UK without spending any time in the City of London. Mr Gilbert was civilized about it all because he knew he could trust me not to make a commotion or to offend against the Public Order Act, or, as some media commentators would interpret the situation, he let me ‘flee the country’ because I feared a re-arrest, something that was a nonsense, of course. After all, I had prepared myself for 6-8 months prison, and a possible 4 more years in Germany. Anyone who is involved in exposing the Holocaust-Shoah lies must be prepared for this – and not play the victim when they’re carted off to prison. Any imprisonment is to be regarded as a further defeat of those who cannot answer the Revisionist challenges. Their argument relies on the force of law because they cannot meet our challenges, hence my claim that the upholders of the Holocaust-Shoah narrative are morally and intellectually bankrupt. I know that some shy away from using the term ‘moral’ but we cannot ignore this dimension of our human condition, just as we cannot avoid the term ‘religion’  when reflecting on what life is all about. Note that I am Cc-ing this email to all those directly and indirectly involved in the matter, thereby ending my words of thanks in this matter.

Sincerely

Fredrick Töben

------------------------------ 

Lieber Ben,

ich hatte noch nicht die Zeit, Dich in aller Form für Deine hervorragende Anwaltsarbeit zu danken, was ich nun mit diesen wenigen Worten tun möchte: vielen Dank dafür, daß Du Dein Bestes gegeben hast.

Ich bleibe auch irgendwie gegenüber Kevin in der Schuld, vor allem da er mich immer so schnell in Kenntnis setzte über jeden einzelnen Schritt des Prozesses – was nicht geschehen wird, was geschehen könnte, was geschehen dürfte, was höchstwahrscheinlich geschehen wird, was nicht geschehen ist und was GESCHEHEN ist!

Jeder seiner Besuche im Gefängnis brachte mir mehr Informationen, die mich dann in die Lage versetzten, den Fortgang des Geschehens zu verfolgen, und dieser Kampf war einer zwischen den Grundsätzen des Gemeinen Rechts mit der Perversion des Paragraphen 130 des deutschen Strafgesetzbuches, der Gedankengänge und sogar Überlegungen unter Strafe stellt, und noch mehr. Es war also Kevins konstante Anwesenheit und sein wachsames Auge über meinen Fall, weswegen ich mich sicher fühlte, bis er natürlich nach Ägypten in seinen Urlaub wegging, so daß während dieser Zeit seiner Abwesenheit der einigermaßen dramatische Vorfall meiner plötzlichen Freilassung geschah.

Denn so hörte ich beispielsweise während meines Aufenthaltes in der JVA Wandsworth einige schmerzhafte Geschichten, in der einige Personen 3 bis 6 Wochen in den Knast gehen mußten, weil ihr Anwalt vergessen hatte, sie über eine wichtige Gerichtsanhörung zu benachrichtigen, so daß dies ein Bruch ihrer Kautionsbestimmungen darstellte und der Richter ohne zu zögern ihnen eine Gefängnisstrafe auferlegen konnte.

Von Anbeginn meines gerichtlichen Verfahrens lag die Sorge darauf, eine Anwaltsmannschaft zu haben, und deswegen widerstehe ich der Versuchung, daß irgendeine bestimmte Person eine entscheidende Rolle eingenommen habe, um den qualifizierten Erfolg zu erzielen, denn es war in der Tat eine wundervolle Gemeinschaftsleistung. So möchte ich in einer etwas unkonventionellen Reihenfolge aufzählen: ohne Dich, kein Kevin, ohne Kevin, kein Adrian, ohne Adrian, keine Michèle, ohne Michèle, kein David, der ihr die Nachricht meiner Verhaftung gab, so daß diese innerhalb von nicht einmal 24 Stunden nach meinem Erscheinen vor dem Gericht am 1. Oktober in die Welt hinausposaunt wurde durch The Times, mit einem schmeichelhaften Photo von mir in Gefechtsstellung! (siehe untenstehenden Artikel) Und dann waren noch Art, Siegfried, Serge, Christian und die breite Internet-Gemeinschaft, und viele andere Personen außerhalb des Internets, die unsere revisionistische Sache unterstützen.

Ich höre immer noch Kevins Worte der Vorsicht: „Ich hoffe, Dich in Gänze gewürdigt zu sehen, aber zügele Dein Temperament mit einem großen Ausmaß an Vorsicht, die Medien zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt eingeschaltet zu sehen, denn es könnte unserer gerichtlichen Herausforderung schaden. Am Ende des Tages werden wir alle aus demselben Gesangbuch singen müssen“.

Innerhalb des Erziehungswesen, in dem ich für viele Jahre gearbeitet habe, habe ich beobachtet, daß die, die am lautesten über Mannschaftsgeist und gemeinsamer Anstrengung redeten, üblicherweise, wenn es gut ausgeht, verlangen, sie wären die Mannschaftsführer gewesen, wenn es aber schief geht verschwinden und einen Sündenbock ausfindig machen, der jemand innerhalb der Mannschaft ist, der üblicherweise als „das schwächste Glied“ bezeichnet wird. Diese Art der Denkweise beruht auf das todbringende Verfahren der marxistisch-feministisch-talmudischen Dialektik.

Ich kann diese Art der Gedankengänge nicht annehmen. Es erinnert mich an meine Tage als Lehrer, wo es Usus war – und in unzähligen Schulen immer noch ist -, daß sich der Lehrkörper zum Beispiel für die Abschlußklasse darüber beglückwünschte, wenn die Quote der Bestandenen 100% war und so das Ansehen der Schule stieg. Es war aber nicht Allgemeinwissen, daß ein Ausleseprozeß in den vorangegangen Jahren stattgefunden hatte, so daß nur dadurch das Abschlußjahr die 100%-Quote aufweisen konnte.

Des weiteren verfügen einzelne Lehrer über eine Täuschungsstrategie, die ihnen ermöglicht, sich selbst zu betrügen, ohne sich selbst zu fragen, was denn tatsächlich geschieht. Die Überlegung ist zum Beispiel so, daß wenn Johnny mit Auszeichnung bestanden hatte, dann deswegen, weil er einen guten Lehrer hatte. War Johnny durchgefallen, dann wurde das der eigenen Unfähigkeit Johnnys zugewiesen, die geistigen Herausforderungen auf seinem Wege zu bewältigen. So oder so, der Lehrer lebt glücklich dahin, entweder den Schüler anklagend, wenn dieser durchfällt, oder indem er die Lorbeeren einheimst, wenn der Schüler besteht, aber stets ohne sich selbst zu hinterfragen und ohne eine kritische Bemerkung über die tatsächlichen systemischen Verfehlungen zu äußern, die an der Wurzel für Nichtbestandene liegen, die in einigen Fällen des Lehrers eigene Unfähigkeit sein kann, seine eigenen schwarzen Flecken zu sehen, usw.

Und deshalb, Ben, nochmals Danke für Deine Unterstützung in dieser Sache. Nächstes Mal, wenn ich in London bin, werden wir vielleicht ein Käffchen trinken können, aber bevor ich solch eine Reise unternehme, werde ich erst einmal mit dem Herrn Gilbert von der Einwanderungsbehörde die Sachlage klären müssen. Wenige wissen, daß er derjenige war, der nach meiner Freilassung aus der JVA Wandsworth das letzte Wort darüber hatte, ob ich freigelassen werden würde, um Lady Michèle Renouf zu besuchen, oder ob ich in ein Gefängnis gebracht werden würde, um von dort unmittelbar aus Großbritannien ausgewiesen zu werden, ohne daß ich mich in der Innenstadt von London hätte aufhalten können. Herr Gilbert war zivilisiert genug, weil er mir vertrauen konnte, daß ich nicht gegen die Gerichtsbeschluß verstoßen würde, oder, wie einige Medienkommentatoren die Situation beschrieben haben, daß er mich „aus dem Land habe fliehen lassen“, weil ich eine erneute Verhaftung befürchtete, obwohl dies natürlich vollkommner Unfug war. Denn ich hatte mich auf 6 bis 8 Monaten Haft eingestellt, und auf weitere 4 Jahre in Deutschland. Jeder, der mit dem Aufdecken der Holocaust-Shoah-Lüge befaßt ist, muß dafür bereit sein – und nicht das Opfer spielen, wenn sie ins Gefängnis geschleppt werden. Jegliche Inhaftierung muß betrachtet werden als eine weitere Niederlage von denen, die nicht die revisionistische Herausforderung beantworten können. Ihre Argumentation beruht auf der Gewaltausübung des Gesetzes, weil sie unserer Herausforderung nichts entgegenzusetzen haben, weswegen ich sage, daß die Verfechter der Holocaust-Shoah-Erzählung moralisch und intellektuell eine Bankrotterklärung abgegeben haben. Ich weiß, daß einige davor zurückschrecken, das Wort „moralisch“ zu nutzen, aber wir können nicht diese Dimension der menschlichen Verfaßtheit ausklammern, genauso wie wir nicht den Begriff „Religion“ ausblenden können, wenn wir darüber nachdenken, worum es eigentlich im Leben geht.   

Beachte, daß ich diese EPost an alle unmittelbaren und mittelbar Beteiligten in dieser Sache in Kopie versende, womit ich meine Dankesworte in dieser Angelegenheit beende.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Friedrich Töben

_____________________________________________ 

Germany has dispelled the myth of British-EU unity

So let's start a belated discussion of economic alternatives, Friday, 12 December 2008

Germany's finance minister for the past three years, Peer Steinbrück, is not exactly a household name in Britain. But the sharp words he addressed to the British government's economic policy in an interview with Newsweek magazine have earned him rather more than his allotted two minutes of fame. Not only did he question the wisdom of the Chancellor's reduction in VAT, but he laid into the Government's whole response to the financial crisis, marvelling at the "breathtaking switch", as he saw it, "from decades of supply side politics all the way to a crass Keynsianism".

Good for him. The Prime Minister and his Chancellor have so far been given an extraordinarily easy ride for what amounts to one of the most stunning policy U-turns in a generation – and one that now threatens a collapse of sterling. The way in which Mr Steinbrück's words leapt into the British headlines, however, shows that he struck a chord.  Of course, this can be explained in part by British sensitivity towards any critical remarks originating in Germany. In fact, the significance lay less in the fact, than in the substance, of what he said. He shattered the illusion of European solidarity that Gordon Brown and his ministers had striven so mightily to create.

For weeks they had encouraged the impression that all Europe was united around the British government's successive rescue plans. Shovelling vast sums of money into the economy, putting pressure on bailed-out banks to resume lending at last year's levels, and encouraging the Great British public to carry on shopping were, we were led to believe, policies embraced by a grateful Eurozone. Our very own Gordon Brown had stepped forward as the saviour of the euro – even as Britain continued to keep its scornful distance from the single currency.

The visit to Downing Street earlier this week of the French President and the President of the European Commission sent a similar message of EU-British unity. And even though it would have been questionable protocol to invite the German Chancellor to such a meeting, her absence – it was put about – showed that Germany was out on a limb before the EU summit.

Mr Steinbrück's comments – seized upon as EU leaders started to gather for their summit yesterday – gave the lie to the notion of EU unanimity around British rescue plans based on the extension of more credit – the approach that helped to trigger the global crisis in the first place. Nor is Germany alone. It has the support of at least Poland and Denmark, and perhaps others will be emboldened to speak up.

There are sound reasons, of course, to do with the different structure and preoccupations of the German economy, why Ms Merkel is less keen than Gordon Brown to pump money into her domestic economy. But her government has come under increasing attack at home for the modesty of its response. Mr Steinbrück's words reflect, at least in part, that internal debate.

They are more inflammatory in Britain, though, because of the political argument slowly getting under way here. With the Conservatives increasingly distancing themselves from Mr Brown's big spending promises, the German government's "sound money" argument gives them succour. In his interview, Mr Steinbrück supplied the seditious thought that there might be a less extravagant, more responsible, remedy than the one Gordon Brown has chosen. He has fuelled a debate we urgently need to have.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-germany-has-dispelled-the-myth-of-britisheu-unity-1062784.html

_______________________________________________

From the Archives: May 1999: IN DENIAL, by Jeremy Jones

At the mid-April meeting of the Adelaide City Council, a debate took place on when and how the name "Adelaide" could be used by organisations and corporations. This extraordinary discussion was prompted by the arrest in Germany of one of that city's more notable and less noteworthy residents, Fredrick Toben. Toben's Adelaide Institute has an astonishingly high profile in the dark galaxy of international antisemitism, having found the Internet a useful megaphone for the broadcast of anti-Jewish defamations, insults, caricatures and libels.

Since the time of his arrest, many words have been spoken and uttered concerning Toben, his Institute and what lies ahead of him. From much of what we have read, seen and heard in Australia since his arrest, it appears his record is not so well-known to a number of working journalists in Australia.

Depending on your perspective, I am either fortunate or unfortunate enough to be a Complainant in a case against Toben and his private 'Institute', currently awaiting a decision by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, under the Racial Hatred Act. The elected representative organisation of the Australian Jewish community, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, submitted the complaint three years ago, concerning a range of antisemitic matter on the Adelaide Institute website, which supplements Toben's printed newsletters, which were earlier entitled 'Truth Mission'. During the long three years of legal processes, many pieces of paper have been exchanged and much time expended, unlike the German situation where laws are in place which recognise the seriousness of Nazi apologia to that society.

The Adelaide Institute is not an association of historians or scholars or even, by any rational description, a 'think tank'. It is simply and totally a private vehicle through which Toben gains a letterhead under which to publish and re-print a wide-ranging collection of anti-Jewish slurs. For all intents and purposes, and by his own admission, Toben is personally responsible for all and any acts of the Institute.

Despite some of the more wide-eyed reportage, Fredrick Toben does not describe himself as an expert or authority in any area of history. To the contrary, he has written: "I am not a historian and I have massive knowledge gaps and so I approach the 'holocaust' topic from my field which is philosophy."

The only real 'philosophy' discernible on the Adelaide Institute website is a philosophy of antisemitism. Although Toben and his apologists claim that they are mis-identified as Holocaust deniers, in a number of places on the site Toben and others assert "No Holocaust!", on the basis of one or other allegation they make concerning the accepted historical record. The context of the Holocaust denial is not history but the charge of Jewish conspiracy and other unethical, immoral and criminal Jewish behaviour, including responsibility for the outrages of the Bolshevik tyrannies.

The Institute's print and electronic newsletter brings together the obsessions, thoughts and concerns of a number of internationally disreputable Jew bashers, as well as allowing Toben and his mates to have a platform. History doesn‘t enter the equation.

The usual suspects have been out in force trying to garner sympathy for Toben. His Adelaide Institute "associate", David Brockschmidt, made the extraordinary claim that there is nothing antisemitic about Toben's work, perhaps relying on the laziness of the public who only need to go to the website to find the evidence. John Bennett, perhaps hoping that enough journalists were unfamiliar of the history of the founding of his insignificant little club, the Australian Civil Liberties Union,

perhaps confusing it with a mainstream civil liberties organisation, emerged as a 'legal adviser' for the incarcerated propagandist.

Englishman David Irving, Canadian Ernst Zundel and others immediately took up the case, with One Nation webmaster Scott Balson providing those visiting his website with direct lifts of Adelaide Institute material, not balanced by a word of intelligent commentary.

As mentioned earlier, Fredrick Toben describes himself as a philosopher. According to Penny Debelle in the Sydney Morning Herald, his current contribution to Australian society is through one day's employment during the whole of 1998 as a temporary relief teacher, with not even that much work this year. His major contributions to international antisemitism during the same time period has been the broadcast of offensive and insulting anti-Jewish material on his website and his hosting, in August last year, of a 'seminar' focusing on the promotion of distortions of history, which brought together many of the most notorious purveyors of anti-Jewish prejudice on this planet.

Toben himself has provided ample testimony that claims by his supporters, that he could be in any way unaware of the likelihood of his arrest in Germany, are totally disingenuous. Not only has he published a great deal of material in which he has expressed his objection to the German law, designed to stop the rehabilitation of the most evil regime the world has ever known, but he published a 'Travel Diary' prior to leaving for Germany which opened with the sentence from the Wimmera Mail Times, "Controversial Goroke identity Dr Fredrick Toben flies to Europe today to challenge the German ban on denying the Nazi genocide of Jews."

The last item on the 'Travel Diary' of 21 March 1999 was "Next missive from Germany ... wish me luck". The active promotion of racism has the effect of diminishing the quality of life of members of the target group and of creating social divisions to supplement personal guilt. If Fredrick Toben is "unlucky" in Germany, it will only be because he has received a fair trial.

http://www.aijac.org.au/review/1999/245/jones.html

________________________________

Happy New Year Wishes From Fredrick Töben

Dear Supporter

Yes, we have made it through the period of excessive consumerism by not participating in any binge-buying of things we don’t really need. In any case, with limited resources at our disposal, it seems that most of us reflected a little more on how to manage that impulse to go shopping – this being one of the few freedoms that we still have left to structure without someone else informing us how to go about doing it.

Were it not for the incessant Holocaust-Shoah propaganda in the media, for me personally the October-November 2008 episode in London seems a distant past and our focus for this year will remain settled on what is going on in Germany. For example the Horst Mahler cases are developing as expected – the prosecution is fumbling because it cannot without justification refuse to consent an opening of the argument for abandoning the ‘Offenkundigkeit’ – the obviousness of the Holocaust whereby a judge simply takes judicial notice of the topic, then proceeds to punish individuals for criminal intent. That this has so clearly become a victimless crime should stop all German defence counsels and cause them to reflect on Section 130 of the German Criminal Code.

Were it not so serious, but on a more amusing note, the new social phenomenon of Germans turning themselves in to the police for breaking Section 130 is also developing. That individuals are resisting the criminalisation of their thoughts and opinions is a healthy sign. It is not possible to do any predicting as to how long it will take to dismantle section 130 of the German penal Code , i.e. this being the core of the legal thought pattern designed to kill-off any mental activity that could re-ignite a German’s sense of autarky, of being German.

Head-on passive resistance to this kind of mental bullying is ideally designed to break-down the Holocaust dogma, just as Marxism broke down in the former Soviet Union countries because the people didn’t believe what their politicians were telling them.

If that lack of trust is really so important in determining a passive resistance stance, then let’s hope what Dirk Zimmermann and Kevin Käther are doing will be taken up by youths who will not shy away from such deeds on account of receiving a prison sentence, as Mr Käther received in December 2008. It is obvious that he will appeal that sentence in the new year of 2009, this being Adelaide Institute’s 15^th year of operations.

In this sense, I wish you a Happy 2009.

Fredrick Töben, Adelaide

_________________________

 

Here is how Mohammed Hegazi on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 read the whole affair:

TÖBEN DEALS A BLOW TO GERMAN SHYLOCKS  

 Fredrick Töben collecting his passport outside New Scotland Yard from Officer Karin

Fredrick Töben is a rock of determination upon which German Shylockian power has been smashed by a cautious decision by Westminster Magistrates Court.

Early in the piece, Fred warned colleagues, who might contemplate taking up research that would expose the Holohoax lie. He said, “If you wish to begin to doubt the Holocaust narrative, you must be prepared for personal sacrifice, must be prepared for marriage and family break-up, loss of career, and go to prison. This is because Revisionists are, among other things, dismantling a massive multi-billion dollar industry that the Holocaust enforcers are defending”.

Fred was right, but he was the one to face most of the open hostility of fanatic Jews, both in Germany and here at home in Australia, where a character of the name Jeremy Jones has been trying to drag him through a legal system littered with the obnoxious vermin.

As explained in a previous post, http://hegazi.blogspot.com/2008/10/shylocks-are-lusting-for-tobens-flesh.html

German Shylockian enforcers tried to get him extradited from the United Kingdom to Germany, where he was likely to be charged by a Shylockian prosecutor and sentenced by a Shylockian judge. He was trapped for fifty days in the British legal system before he emerged victorious.

Lady Michele Renouf

It wasn’t easy. The pressure would have weakened most men, but Fred never bent. Sincere colleagues gathered in London for support, headed by Robert Faurisson, David Irving and Lady Renouf. These are three wonderful individuals, each in his own way, who share the passion of wanting to make the world aware of the evil Shylockian factor in our miserable world. Faurisson is the father of modern revisionism; Irving is an honest historian who once was denied a visa, to visit his daughter in Australia, by a Shylockian minister for immigration; Michele Renouf is an Aussie socialite, who preferred the honest intellectual ordeal of political activism to an empty life of fake glamour.  

 

 

Kevin Lowrie-Mullins

Fred also had a keen lawyer, who was confident of success. Kevin Lowry-Mullins was confident because he knew that the matter was previously discussed in the House of Lords in 2002, albeit indirectly. When the draft extradition Act passed through the House of Lords, one of the questions raised was about what would happen “if someone was arrested on a European arrest warrant to be extradited to a country where Holocaust denial is an offence”. The response then was "that will never happen." Fredrick Toben made it happen!
The Shylockian chief state prosecutor handling the case had been so confident of success at one point that he had bragged, “Dr Toben would be in Germany for Christmas”. Later, the pompous Shylockian had to contemplate the prospect that even a successful appeal at the High Court would eventually be defeated at the House of Lords.

Faced with mounting negative publicity and eventual defeat, the appeal had been withdrawn and the German government signed a consent order to end the case. This is undoubtedly a landmark victory, for all humans, over the Shylockian vermin.

P.S.
Fredrick Toben is back home. He arrived at Adelaide on 3 December 2008. Appearing on a Channel 7 broadcast, as part of its coverage of his arrival back, someone stated to him that he should sue the UK government for false imprisonment. His witty spontaneous response was, "I don’t sue because I’m not a Jew!"

http://hegazi.blogspot.com/2008/11/fredrick-toben-deals-blow-to-german.html

========================= 

Germany gets go-ahead to prosecute 'Ivan the Terrible' in last Nazi trial

Germany is preparing for what could be the last Nazi war criminal trial as the country's highest court ruled a former death camp guard known as 'Ivan the Terrible' can be tried in Munich.

Last Updated: 4:17PM GMT 12 Dec 2008

Ivan Demjanjuk, alleged to be Ivan the Terrible, moved to America in 1952 and changed his first name to John Photo: AP 

Ukrainian-born Ivan Demjanjuk, 88, is alleged to have been involved in the murder of over 29,000 Jews when he served as a guard in several Nazi prisons including the death camp Sobibor in Poland during World War II.

Demjanjuk moved to America in 1952 and changed his first name to John, and now lives as a retired car worker in Ohio.

Last month, a court in Munich ruled that Demjanjuk, who was dubbed Ivan the Terrible for his role in the mass murder, could not be charged in Germany.

But Germany's Federal Court of Justice has overturned the verdict, making it possible for Demjanjuk to be indicted and tried in Munich, where he lived before emigrating to America.

The court ruling read: "Demjanjuk, who is accused of involvement in the killing of at least 29,000 Jews in the Sobibor extermination camp in Poland in 1943, lived for several months in 1951 in a camp in the current jurisdiction of the court."

The office of the German Federal Prosecutor indicated that new evidence that surfaced after Demjanjuk trial in Israel in 1986 would be sufficient to charge him with war crimes. Demjanjuk always denied having served in the Nazi army and claimed to have been fighting in the former Soviet armed forces.

German authorities are now expected to seek extradition and put Demjanjuk on trial, which is likely to be the last high-profile process of an alleged Nazi war criminal. Demjanjuk was already extradited to Israel once where he was sentenced to death in Israel in 1986, but a higher instance court overturned the verdict for lack of evidence and he was allowed to return to America.

Demjanjuk's relatives in America repeatedly said that he was too old to stand trial, but Charlotte Knobloch, president of Germany's Central Council of Jews, urged authorities to "do everything legally possible to accelerate the process so that Demjanjuk can be held responsible for his crimes during his lifetime."

"Demjanjuk and all other Nazi criminals still alive should know that for them there is no mercy," Mrs Knobloch said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/3724126/Germany-gets-go-ahead-to-prosecute-Ivan-the-Terrible-in-last-Nazi-trial.html

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

Volume 54, Number 2 · February 15, 2007

On the Holocaust Conference Sponsored by the Government of Iran

By Gholam Reza Afkhami and over one hundred others

To the Editors:

We the undersigned Iranians,

Notwithstanding our diverse views on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict;

Considering that the Nazis' coldly planned "Final Solution" and their ensuing campaign of genocide against Jews and other minorities during World War II constitute undeniable historical facts;

Deploring that the denial of these unspeakable crimes has become a propaganda tool that the Islamic Republic of Iran is using to further its own agendas;

Noting that the new brand of anti-Semitism prevalent in the Middle East today is rooted in European ideological doctrines of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and has no precedent in Iran's history;

Emphasizing that this is not the first time that the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has resorted to the denial and distortion of historical facts;

Recalling that this government has refused to acknowledge, among other things, its mass execution of its own citizens in 1988, when thousands of political prisoners, previously sentenced to prison terms, were secretly executed because of their beliefs;

Strongly condemn the Holocaust Conference sponsored by the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Tehran on December 11–12, 2006, and its attempt to falsify history;

Pay homage to the memory of the millions of Jewish and non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust, and express our empathy for the survivors of this immense tragedy as well as all other victims of crimes against humanity across the world.

Delnaz Abadi, Filmmaker, USA
Shahla Abghari, Professor, Life University, USA
Siavash Abghari, Professor/Chair, Department of Business Administration, Morehouse College, USA
Janet Afary, Faculty Scholar/Associate Professor of History, Purdue University, USA
Gholam Reza Afkhami, Senior Scholar, Foundation for Iranian Studies, USA
Mahnaz Afkhami, Executive Director, Foundation for Iranian Studies/Women's Rights Advocate, USA
Mahasti Afshar, Arts/Culture Executive, USA
Ali Afshari, Human Rights Advocate/Political Activist, USA
Ramin Ahmadi, Associate Professor, Yale School of Medicine/Founder, Griffin Center for Health and Human Rights, USA
Farideh Akashe-Bohme, Social Scientist/Writer, Germany
Hamid Akbari, Human Rights Advocate/Chair/Associate Professor, Department of Management and Marketing, Northeastern Illinois University, USA
Payam Akhavan, Jurist/Senior Fellow, Faculty of Law of McGill University, Canada
Shadi Amin, Journalist/Women's Rights Activist, Germany
Bahman Amini, Publisher, France
Mohammad Amini, Writer/Political Activist, USA
Kurosh Amjadi, Human Rights Advocate
Mary Apick, Actress/Playwright/Producer/Human Rights Advocate, USA
Daryoush Ashouri, Writer/Translator, France
Akbar Atri, Student Rights and Political Activist, USA
Hossein Bagher Zadeh, Human Rights Advocate/Former Professor, Tehran University, Great Britain
Abbas Bakhtiari, Musician/Director, Pouya Iranian Cultural Center, France
Monireh Baradaran, Human Rights Advocate/Writer, Germany
Massoud Behnoud, Writer/Journalist, Great Britain
Jaleh Behroozi, Human Rights Advocate/Iranian Mothers' Committee for Freedom, USA
Niloofar Beyzaie, Theater Director/Playwright, Germany
Ali-Mohammad Boroumand, Lawyer, France
Ladan Boroumand, Historian/Research Director, Boroumand Foundation, USA
Roya Boroumand, Historian/Human Rights Advocate, USA
Chahla Chafiq, Sociologist/Writer/ Women's Rights Advocate, France
Javad Dadsetan, Filmmaker
Abbas Daneshvar, Chemist, Netherlands
Hassan Daneshvar, Mathematician, Netherlands
Reza Daneshvar, Writer, France
Arta Davari, Painter, Germany
Mohammad Reza Djalili, Professor, L'Institut Universitaire de Hautes Études Internationales, Switzerland
Farah Ebrahimi, USA
Ahmad Eskandani, Entrepreneur, France
Reza Fani Yazdi, Political Activist, USA
Fariborz Farahmand, Engineer, USA
Fahimeh Farssai, Writer, Germany
Keivandokht Ghahari, Historian/Journalist, Germany
Farhang Ghassemi, Professor in Strategic Management, France
Ghodsi Hejazi, Professor/Researcher, Frankfurt University, Germany
Hormoz Hekmat, Human Rights Advocate/Editor, Iran Nameh, USA
Ali Hojat, Entrepreneur/Human Rights Advocate, Great Britain
Dariush Homayoun, Writer, Switzerland
Didier Idjadi, Professor/Associate Mayor, France
Golroch Jahangiri, Women's Rights Advocate, Germany
Marjan Jahanshahi, Professor, Institute of Neurology, University College London, Great Britain
Center for Persian Studies, University of Maryland, USA
Kazemi, Monireh Karimi Hakkak, Director, Women's Rights Advocate, Germany
Minoo Khajeh Aldin, Painter, Germany
Nasim Khaksar, Writer, Germany
Nahid Khazenie, Remote Sensing Scientist/Program Director, NASA, USA
Zari Khodaparast Santner, Landscape Architect, USA
Mehrdad Khonsari, Political Activist, Great Britain
Hadi Khorsandi, Poet/Writer, Great Britain
Azar Khounani, Educator/Human Rights Advocate, USA
Massoud Mafan, Publisher, Germany
Sirus Malakooty, Composer/Chairman, Artists Without Frontiers, Germany
Alireza Manafzadeh, Writer, France
Ahmad Mazahery, Engineer/Political Activist, USA
Lily Mazahery, Lawyer, President of the Legal Rights Institute/Human Rights Advocate, USA
Mariam Memarsadeghi, Freedom House, USA
Iraj Mesdaghi, Human Rights Advocate/Writer, Sweden
Abbas Milani, Director, Iranian Studies Program, Stanford University, USA
Samira Mohyeddin, Graduate Student, University of Toronto, Canada
Mohammadreza Moini, Journalist/ Human Rights Advocate, RSF, France
Afshin Molavi, Journalist, USA
Faeze Monzavi, Women's Rights Advocate, Germany
Golmorad Moradi, Political Scientist/Translator, Germany
Homa Moradi, Women's Rights Advocate, Germany
Ziba Moshaver, London Middle East Institute, SOAS, Research Fellow, Great Britain
Shahrokh Moshkin-Ghalam, Ballet Dancer/Actor, France
Khosro Mourim, Sociologist, France
Mehdi Mozaffari, Professor of Political Science, Denmark
Majid Naficy, Poet/Writer, USA
Azar Nafisi, Writer/Johns Hopkins University, USA
Reza Nassehi, Human Rights Advocate/Translator, France
Jahan Pakzad, Teacher/Researcher, France
Bagher Parham, Writer/Translator, France
Shahrnush Parsipour, Writer, USA
Mohammad Parvin, Human Rights Advocate/Founding Director of Mehr/Adjunct Professor, California State University, USA
Jaleh Pirnazar, Professor, Iranian Studies, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Farideh Pourabdollah, Human Rights Advocate, USA
Saeid Pourabdollah, Human Rights Advocate, USA
Shahrouz Rashid, Poet/Writer, Germany
Yadollah Royaie, Poet, France
Mihan Rusta, Human Rights Advocate/Refugee Adviser, Germany
Hamid Sadr, Writer, Austria
Houman Sarchar, Independent Scholar, USA
Homa Sarshar, Journalist, USA
Marjane Satrapi, Writer, France
Parviz Sayyad, Actor/Playwright, USA
Sheila Shahriari, World Bank, USA
Parvaneh Soltani, Actor/Theater Director, Great Britain
Shahran Tabari, Journalist, Great Britain
Ahmad Taghvaie, Founding Member, Iranian Futurist Association, USA
Roya Toloui, Human Rights Advocate, USA
Hellen Vaziri, Germany
Wahied Wahdat-Hagh, Social Scientist, USA
Fathieh Zarkesh Yazdi, Human Rights and Refugee Rights Advocate, Great Britain
Arsalan Ziazie, Writer, Germany

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19831

 

 

Douglas MacArthur.

On both the 50^th and 60^th anniversaries commemorating the end of World War II, Japanese officials, including Japan’s prime minister Junichiro Koizumi¹⁴ on the latter occasion, have apologized.  Clearly such apologies are misplaced and it is perhaps we who should be apologizing to the Japanese for having provoked them into a senseless and useless war, which according to Allied propaganda was fought to make the world safe for democracy.  The reality is that World War II was fought to make the world safe for usury, and to ensure the permanent enslavement of mankind through debt and interest.

Notes

1. Thomas Kimmel (grandson of Admiral Husband Kimmel), ’12 New Pearl Harbor Facts’, The Barnes Review, November/December 2004, pp. 37-41.  Critical intelligence was withheld from the local commanders to ensure that the “surprise” attack was as spectacular as possible.  See also Roger A Stolley, ‘Pearl Harbor Attack No Surprise’, The Journal for Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, Spring 1992, pp. 119-21 who quotes LTC Clifford M. Andrew, a former U.S. Army intelligence officer, who temporarily was assistant chief of staff, military intelligence, general staff, United States Army as follows:

‘Five men were directly responsible for what happened at Pearl Harbor.  I am one of those five men ….. We knew well in advance that the Japanese were going to attack.  At least nine months before the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor, I was assigned to prepare for it.

I was operating under the direct orders of the President of the United States and was ordered not to give vital intelligence information relating to the whereabouts of the Japanese fleet to our commanders in the field.

We had broken the Japanese code … We’d been monitoring all their communications for months prior to the attack …. It was a lie that we didn’t have direct communication with Washington, D.C.’

Stolley concludes by saying the “For the people of the United sates both then and now I feel sorrow, for a people to have been so misled, to have been lied to so much and to have so thoroughly believed the lie given to them.’

2. This forms part of Douglas’s A + B theorem, viz that prices are always being generated at a faster rate than incomes are produced, so that the total prices of all goods in the economy at any particular stage exceed the total buying power of consumers.  The national dividend was intended to make up for this deficit of purchasing power, and as a consequence would assist in abolishing the business cycle and the syndrome of poverty amidst plenty.

3. This enthusiasm may be contrasted with the alarm with which Douglas’s ideas were received by the City of London or Square Mile (677 acres).  During the 1930s £5 million (a prodigious sum in to-day’s values) was raised by the international bankers in order to neutralize Douglas’s proposals.

4. ‘New Economics’, January 19,1934, p. 8 as quoted in D J Amos, ‘The Story of the Commonwealth Bank’, Veritas Publishing Company, Bullsbrook, Western Australia, 1986, p. 44.

5. Money and Banking in Japan, The Bank of  Japan Economic Research Department, translated by S Nishimura, edited by L S Pressnell, Macmillan, London, 1973, p.38.

6. “Collective Speeches of Congressman Louis T. McFadden’ Omni Publications, Hawthorne, California, 1970, Chap XVI, The Treacherous and Disloyal Conduct of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, pp.298-9.

7. In 1914 Russia was the most prosperous nation in the world. She had a small and declining foreign debt and no central bank. See George Knupffer, “The Struggle for World Power”, London, 1971, Chap. 15, Some Details about Russia, pp. 138-46.

8. Stephan M. Goodson, “Bonaparte & Hitler Versus the International Bankers’, The Barnes Review, November / December 2004, pp. 23 -9.

9. Alleged human rights violations were the outward motivation for the imposition of sanctions. However , this may also  have been a manoeuvre to protect US oil investments in China.

10. The Journal for Historical Review, Vol. 12, No.1, Spring 1992, Hideki Tojo’s Prison Diary , pp. 41-2.

11. Besides the obligations of the alliance, other factors which influenced the German declaration of war were the persistent provocations of the US Navy in the north Atlantic, and the anticipation that the Japanese would open up a Russian front in the Far East and provide relief for the beleaguered German forces outside Moscow.

12. In view of Japan’s non-ratification of the Geneva Convention in 1929, the Allied Chiefs of Staff have to bear some of the responsibility for the hardship, which they knew their soldiers would have to endure if captured.  A recent study by Professor Richard Aldrich of Nottingham University, England ‘The Faraway War, Personal Diaries of the Second World War in Asia and the Pacific’, 2005, Doubleday has revealed that the stereotyping of the Japanese as being cruel and robotic is inaccurate, and that most of them were tough and fair in their treatment of enemy prisoners. In contrast American and Australia soldiers frequently did not take prisoners, but massacred them as “machine-gun practice”. (1943 diary of Eddie Stanton, Australian posted to Goodenough Island off Papua New Guinea). 

According to a spokesman of the Imperial War Museum, London in a programme broadcast on British Sky television on August 15, 2005, Japanese treatment of Russian prisoners of the Russo-Japanese War (1904-5) and German prisoners of World War I (1914-18) was exemplary.

13. The justification for these bombings was that the conquest of the Japanese mainland would have cost an estimated 500 000 allied lives.  Yet these disasters could have been avoided if Japanese peace overtures for a conditional surrender had been accepted in January 1945.

14. According to the September 2005 issue of the monthly journal Right Now, 78 Marylebone High Street, London WIU 5AP on p. 15, ‘Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi is attacked time and again for continuing to visit a Tokyo shrine (the Yasukini) where Japan’s war dead are deified.  The International Herald Tribune and the New York Times refer to these Japanese dead as war criminals.’

_________________________

Here is how Mohammed Hegazi on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 read the whole affair:

TÖBEN DEALS A BLOW TO GERMAN SHYLOCKS  

 Fredrick Töben collecting his passport outside New Scotland Yard from Officer Karin

Fredrick Töben is a rock of determination upon which German Shylockian power has been smashed by a cautious decision by Westminster Magistrates Court.

Early in the piece, Fred warned colleagues, who might contemplate taking up research that would expose the Holohoax lie. He said, “If you wish to begin to doubt the Holocaust narrative, you must be prepared for personal sacrifice, must be prepared for marriage and family break-up, loss of career, and go to prison. This is because Revisionists are, among other things, dismantling a massive multi-billion dollar industry that the Holocaust enforcers are defending”.

Fred was right, but he was the one to face most of the open hostility of fanatic Jews, both in Germany and here at home in Australia, where a character of the name Jeremy Jones has been trying to drag him through a legal system littered with the obnoxious vermin.

As explained in a previous post, http://hegazi.blogspot.com/2008/10/shylocks-are-lusting-for-tobens-flesh.html

German Shylockian enforcers tried to get him extradited from the United Kingdom to Germany, where he was likely to be charged by a Shylockian prosecutor and sentenced by a Shylockian judge. He was trapped for fifty days in the British legal system before he emerged victorious.

Lady Michele Renouf

It wasn’t easy. The pressure would have weakened most men, but Fred never bent. Sincere colleagues gathered in London for support, headed by Robert Faurisson, David Irving and Lady Renouf. These are three wonderful individuals, each in his own way, who share the passion of wanting to make the world aware of the evil Shylockian factor in our miserable world. Faurisson is the father of modern revisionism; Irving is an honest historian who once was denied a visa, to visit his daughter in Australia, by a Shylockian minister for immigration; Michele Renouf is an Aussie socialite, who preferred the honest intellectual ordeal of political activism to an empty life of fake glamour.  

Kevin Lowrie-Mullins

Fred also had a keen lawyer, who was confident of success. Kevin Lowry-Mullins was confident because he knew that the matter was previously discussed in the House of Lords in 2002, albeit indirectly. When the draft extradition Act passed through the House of Lords, one of the questions raised was about what would happen “if someone was arrested on a European arrest warrant to be extradited to a country where Holocaust denial is an offence”. The response then was "that will never happen." Fredrick Toben made it happen!
The Shylockian chief state prosecutor handling the case had been so confident of success at one point that he had bragged, “Dr Toben would be in Germany for Christmas”. Later, the pompous Shylockian had to contemplate the prospect that even a successful appeal at the High Court would eventually be defeated at the House of Lords.

Faced with mounting negative publicity and eventual defeat, the appeal had been withdrawn and the German government signed a consent order to end the case. This is undoubtedly a landmark victory, for all humans, over the Shylockian vermin.

P.S.
Fredrick Toben is back home. He arrived at Adelaide on 3 December 2008. Appearing on a Channel 7 broadcast, as part of its coverage of his arrival back, someone stated to him that he should sue the UK government for false imprisonment. His witty spontaneous response was, "I don’t sue because I’m not a Jew!"

http://hegazi.blogspot.com/2008/11/fredrick-toben-deals-blow-to-german.html

========================= 

Germany gets go-ahead to prosecute 'Ivan the Terrible' in last Nazi trial

Germany is preparing for what could be the last Nazi war criminal trial as the country's highest court ruled a former death camp guard known as 'Ivan the Terrible' can be tried in Munich.

Last Updated: 4:17PM GMT 12 Dec 2008

Ivan Demjanjuk, alleged to be Ivan the Terrible, moved to America in 1952 and changed his first name to John Photo: AP 

Ukrainian-born Ivan Demjanjuk, 88, is alleged to have been involved in the murder of over 29,000 Jews when he served as a guard in several Nazi prisons including the death camp Sobibor in Poland during World War II.

Demjanjuk moved to America in 1952 and changed his first name to John, and now lives as a retired car worker in Ohio.

Last month, a court in Munich ruled that Demjanjuk, who was dubbed Ivan the Terrible for his role in the mass murder, could not be charged in Germany.

But Germany's Federal Court of Justice has overturned the verdict, making it possible for Demjanjuk to be indicted and tried in Munich, where he lived before emigrating to America.

The court ruling read: "Demjanjuk, who is accused of involvement in the killing of at least 29,000 Jews in the Sobibor extermination camp in Poland in 1943, lived for several months in 1951 in a camp in the current jurisdiction of the court."

The office of the German Federal Prosecutor indicated that new evidence that surfaced after Demjanjuk trial in Israel in 1986 would be sufficient to charge him with war crimes. Demjanjuk always denied having served in the Nazi army and claimed to have been fighting in the former Soviet armed forces.

German authorities are now expected to seek extradition and put Demjanjuk on trial, which is likely to be the last high-profile process of an alleged Nazi war criminal. Demjanjuk was already extradited to Israel once where he was sentenced to death in Israel in 1986, but a higher instance court overturned the verdict for lack of evidence and he was allowed to return to America.

Demjanjuk's relatives in America repeatedly said that he was too old to stand trial, but Charlotte Knobloch, president of Germany's Central Council of Jews, urged authorities to "do everything legally possible to accelerate the process so that Demjanjuk can be held responsible for his crimes during his lifetime."

"Demjanjuk and all other Nazi criminals still alive should know that for them there is no mercy," Mrs Knobloch said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/3724126/Germany-gets-go-ahead-to-prosecute-Ivan-the-Terrible-in-last-Nazi-trial.html

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

Volume 54, Number 2 · February 15, 2007

On the Holocaust Conference Sponsored by the Government of Iran

By Gholam Reza Afkhami and over one hundred others

To the Editors:

We the undersigned Iranians,

Notwithstanding our diverse views on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict;

Considering that the Nazis' coldly planned "Final Solution" and their ensuing campaign of genocide against Jews and other minorities during World War II constitute undeniable historical facts;

Deploring that the denial of these unspeakable crimes has become a propaganda tool that the Islamic Republic of Iran is using to further its own agendas;

Noting that the new brand of anti-Semitism prevalent in the Middle East today is rooted in European ideological doctrines of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and has no precedent in Iran's history;

Emphasizing that this is not the first time that the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has resorted to the denial and distortion of historical facts;

Recalling that this government has refused to acknowledge, among other things, its mass execution of its own citizens in 1988, when thousands of political prisoners, previously sentenced to prison terms, were secretly executed because of their beliefs;

Strongly condemn the Holocaust Conference sponsored by the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Tehran on December 11–12, 2006, and its attempt to falsify history;

Pay homage to the memory of the millions of Jewish and non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust, and express our empathy for the survivors of this immense tragedy as well as all other victims of crimes against humanity across the world.

Delnaz Abadi, Filmmaker, USA
Shahla Abghari, Professor, Life University, USA
Siavash Abghari, Professor/Chair, Department of Business Administration, Morehouse College, USA
Janet Afary, Faculty Scholar/Associate Professor of History, Purdue University, USA
Gholam Reza Afkhami, Senior Scholar, Foundation for Iranian Studies, USA
Mahnaz Afkhami, Executive Director, Foundation for Iranian Studies/Women's Rights Advocate, USA
Mahasti Afshar, Arts/Culture Executive, USA
Ali Afshari, Human Rights Advocate/Political Activist, USA
Ramin Ahmadi, Associate Professor, Yale School of Medicine/Founder, Griffin Center for Health and Human Rights, USA
Farideh Akashe-Bohme, Social Scientist/Writer, Germany
Hamid Akbari, Human Rights Advocate/Chair/Associate Professor, Department of Management and Marketing, Northeastern Illinois University, USA
Payam Akhavan, Jurist/Senior Fellow, Faculty of Law of McGill University, Canada
Shadi Amin, Journalist/Women's Rights Activist, Germany
Bahman Amini, Publisher, France
Mohammad Amini, Writer/Political Activist, USA
Kurosh Amjadi, Human Rights Advocate
Mary Apick, Actress/Playwright/Producer/Human Rights Advocate, USA
Daryoush Ashouri, Writer/Translator, France
Akbar Atri, Student Rights and Political Activist, USA
Hossein Bagher Zadeh, Human Rights Advocate/Former Professor, Tehran University, Great Britain
Abbas Bakhtiari, Musician/Director, Pouya Iranian Cultural Center, France
Monireh Baradaran, Human Rights Advocate/Writer, Germany
Massoud Behnoud, Writer/Journalist, Great Britain
Jaleh Behroozi, Human Rights Advocate/Iranian Mothers' Committee for Freedom, USA
Niloofar Beyzaie, Theater Director/Playwright, Germany
Ali-Mohammad Boroumand, Lawyer, France
Ladan Boroumand, Historian/Research Director, Boroumand Foundation, USA
Roya Boroumand, Historian/Human Rights Advocate, USA
Chahla Chafiq, Sociologist/Writer/ Women's Rights Advocate, France
Javad Dadsetan, Filmmaker
Abbas Daneshvar, Chemist, Netherlands
Hassan Daneshvar, Mathematician, Netherlands
Reza Daneshvar, Writer, France
Arta Davari, Painter, Germany
Mohammad Reza Djalili, Professor, L'Institut Universitaire de Hautes Études Internationales, Switzerland
Farah Ebrahimi, USA
Ahmad Eskandani, Entrepreneur, France
Reza Fani Yazdi, Political Activist, USA
Fariborz Farahmand, Engineer, USA
Fahimeh Farssai, Writer, Germany
Keivandokht Ghahari, Historian/Journalist, Germany
Farhang Ghassemi, Professor in Strategic Management, France
Ghodsi Hejazi, Professor/Researcher, Frankfurt University, Germany
Hormoz Hekmat, Human Rights Advocate/Editor, Iran Nameh, USA
Ali Hojat, Entrepreneur/Human Rights Advocate, Great Britain
Dariush Homayoun, Writer, Switzerland
Didier Idjadi, Professor/Associate Mayor, France
Golroch Jahangiri, Women's Rights Advocate, Germany
Marjan Jahanshahi, Professor, Institute of Neurology, University College London, Great Britain
Center for Persian Studies, University of Maryland, USA
Kazemi, Monireh Karimi Hakkak, Director, Women's Rights Advocate, Germany
Minoo Khajeh Aldin, Painter, Germany
Nasim Khaksar, Writer, Germany
Nahid Khazenie, Remote Sensing Scientist/Program Director, NASA, USA
Zari Khodaparast Santner, Landscape Architect, USA
Mehrdad Khonsari, Political Activist, Great Britain
Hadi Khorsandi, Poet/Writer, Great Britain
Azar Khounani, Educator/Human Rights Advocate, USA
Massoud Mafan, Publisher, Germany
Sirus Malakooty, Composer/Chairman, Artists Without Frontiers, Germany
Alireza Manafzadeh, Writer, France
Ahmad Mazahery, Engineer/Political Activist, USA
Lily Mazahery, Lawyer, President of the Legal Rights Institute/Human Rights Advocate, USA
Mariam Memarsadeghi, Freedom House, USA
Iraj Mesdaghi, Human Rights Advocate/Writer, Sweden
Abbas Milani, Director, Iranian Studies Program, Stanford University, USA
Samira Mohyeddin, Graduate Student, University of Toronto, Canada
Mohammadreza Moini, Journalist/ Human Rights Advocate, RSF, France
Afshin Molavi, Journalist, USA
Faeze Monzavi, Women's Rights Advocate, Germany
Golmorad Moradi, Political Scientist/Translator, Germany
Homa Moradi, Women's Rights Advocate, Germany
Ziba Moshaver, London Middle East Institute, SOAS, Research Fellow, Great Britain
Shahrokh Moshkin-Ghalam, Ballet Dancer/Actor, France
Khosro Mourim, Sociologist, France
Mehdi Mozaffari, Professor of Political Science, Denmark
Majid Naficy, Poet/Writer, USA
Azar Nafisi, Writer/Johns Hopkins University, USA
Reza Nassehi, Human Rights Advocate/Translator, France
Jahan Pakzad, Teacher/Researcher, France
Bagher Parham, Writer/Translator, France
Shahrnush Parsipour, Writer, USA
Mohammad Parvin, Human Rights Advocate/Founding Director of Mehr/Adjunct Professor, California State University, USA
Jaleh Pirnazar, Professor, Iranian Studies, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Farideh Pourabdollah, Human Rights Advocate, USA
Saeid Pourabdollah, Human Rights Advocate, USA
Shahrouz Rashid, Poet/Writer, Germany
Yadollah Royaie, Poet, France
Mihan Rusta, Human Rights Advocate/Refugee Adviser, Germany
Hamid Sadr, Writer, Austria
Houman Sarchar, Independent Scholar, USA
Homa Sarshar, Journalist, USA
Marjane Satrapi, Writer, France
Parviz Sayyad, Actor/Playwright, USA
Sheila Shahriari, World Bank, USA
Parvaneh Soltani, Actor/Theater Director, Great Britain
Shahran Tabari, Journalist, Great Britain
Ahmad Taghvaie, Founding Member, Iranian Futurist Association, USA
Roya Toloui, Human Rights Advocate, USA
Hellen Vaziri, Germany
Wahied Wahdat-Hagh, Social Scientist, USA
Fathieh Zarkesh Yazdi, Human Rights and Refugee Rights Advocate, Great Britain
Arsalan Ziazie, Writer, Germany

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19831