The Hidden History of America’s Mound Builders

This presentation is a great overview of the many finds in North America that show a great civilization, which is not Amerindian, resided here for thousands of years.

A race of giants did indeed inhabit North America BEFORE the “Native Americans” arrived. It’s no wonder the Native Americans do not allow excavation of ancient burial sites – it would dispel the myth they were the first Americans. You see, they were the ones who killed the giants, and these so called giants, were ancient Europeans.

A “Fact Of Common Knowledge” Did Not Require Proof To Execute Germans; Propaganda & Torture Provided The Legal ‘Evidence’

A “Fact Of Common Knowledge” Did Not Require Proof To Execute Germans; Propaganda & Torture Provided The Legal ‘Evidence’

From Wear’s War

Each week we bring you a quote from one of the many fine men and women of various nationalities and professions, including senior military personnel, who were openly appalled by the dispensation of normal military and/or criminal evidentiary processes expected in a trial. These people were highly respected and prominent in their field, at least until they spoke out against the Nuremberg trials.

Rudolf Höss was the first of three successive commandants of the Auschwitz concentration camp… He appeared before the International Military Tribunal as a witness… To the amazement of the defendants and in the presence of journalists from around the world, he confessed to the most frightful crimes that history had ever known. He said that he had personally received an order from Himmler to exterminate the Jews. He estimated that at Auschwitz 3,000,000 people had been exterminated, 2,500,000 of them by means of gas chambers. His confessions were false. They had been extorted from Höss by torture, but it took until 1983 to learn the identity of the torturers and the nature of the tortures they inflicted upon him.  IHR

German Judge Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich, who visited Auschwitz several times during World War II, wrote:

The Nuremberg IMT trial transcripts likewise cannot—as we have seen in another connection—be considered a reliable historical source or even merely a standard of comparison for other documents, as here in the case of the Höss memoirs. For the testimonies produced under Nuremberg “law” contained anything but historical truth. This is the conclusion which has been reached by all objective and unbiased observers of this judicial farce. We have already expounded on the fact that Höss, after his capture, was subjected to the most inhumane treatment and at every stage of his imprisonment placed under various kinds of pressure…

…In the Nuremberg trials, the basic rule was that a “fact of common knowledge” did not require proof. It was enough for the court to take “judicial notice” thereof. The same device was employed in the Auschwitz Trial. Since the post-war “re-education” of the German people, founded on Zionist and Bolshevik atrocity propaganda, had made the “gas chamber” legend into a “fact of common knowledge,” the judges in the Auschwitz Trial had to take “judicial notice” of it, in a certain sense, since otherwise they would have been subjected to the most grievous professional disadvantages and personal attacks

Source: Stäglich, Wilhelm, Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence, Institute for Historical Review, 1990, pp. 200-201, 259.


The Biggest Murder Trial In History! Did The American-Run Einsatzgruppen Trial Use Forged Documents To Convict Germans Of Genocide?

By John Wear

Benjamin Ferencz, Chief Prosecutor:

“I once saw DPs [Displaced Persons] beat an SS man and then strap him to the steel gurney of a crematorium. They slid him in the oven, turned on the heat and took him back out. Beat him again, and put him back in until he was burnt alive. I did nothing to stop it. I suppose I could have brandished my weapon or shot in the air, but I was not inclined to do so.”

…official Holocaust historiography, however, claims that the Einsatzgruppen had the additional task of committing genocide against Soviet Jews. The Einsatzgruppen reports… are the primary proof of this alleged genocide. The Einsatzgruppen reports that have been produced are copies which show clear signs of postwar additions, inaccurate and inflated figures, and rare signatures which appear on non-incriminating pages.

Benjamin Ferencz immigrated to America as a baby with his Hungarian Jewish parents, he graduated Harvard Law School in 1943. He then joined the U.S. Army as a Private in the 115th AAA Gun Battalion. He was discharged Christmas 1945. Within a few months he was selected as Chief Prosecutor for “The Biggest Murder Trial In History”. Out of thousands of highly experienced American lawyers – young, inexperienced Benjamin Ferencz was chosen. In the following video Benjamin Ferencz describes liberating concentration camps and the known effects of Typhus. At the 5:40 minute mark he mentions how the Nazis used the fat of Jewish victims to make soap. At the 10 minute mark he justifies his interrogation methods stating “There’s a war going on! They’ll kill you if they could!”. The war had finished. Germany was in ruins and occupied by the Allies.

Switching from one myth to another. This is why it is illegal to question the evidence of the so-called Holocaust in 22 countries. The implications if this narrative collapsed would be staggering. Truth does not fear investigation.

The Einsatzgruppen Trial


The Einsatzgruppen trial was the ninth of 12 American-run trials held after the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg, Germany. The trial was officially titled “The United States of America v. Otto Ohlendorf et al.” and lasted from September 29, 1947 to April 10, 1948. The court indicted 24 Einsatzgruppen leaders on three counts of criminality: crimes against humanity, war crimes, and membership in organizations declared criminal by the IMT. Only 22 defendants were tried because one committed suicide and another had to be excluded for health reasons.[1]

Benjamin Ferencz, a 27-year-old Harvard-educated attorney, was appointed by Telford Taylor as chief prosecutor in the case. The prosecution’s case was based primarily on the Einsatzgruppen reports his team had discovered in Berlin. Ferencz later said about the Einsatzgruppen reports:

So we had the names of each town and village, the date, the number of people killed, the name of the unit, the officer in charge, and other officers. I sat down in my office with a little adding machine, and I began to count the people that were murdered in cold blood. When I reached a million, I said that’s enough for me. I flew from Berlin to Nuremberg, to see Telford Taylor, who by then was a general. And I said, we’ve got to put on another trial.[2]

Ferencz said the Einsatzgruppen trial probably would not have taken place if his team had not had the extraordinary luck of finding these reports.[3]

The presentation of the prosecution’s evidence lasted less than two days and consisted mainly of excerpts from the Einsatzgruppen reports. Ferencz and the four attorneys assisting him called no prosecution witnesses and presented no films during the trial. Thus, the Nuremberg prosecutors set out to prove by documentation alone that the defendants had participated in some of the worst crimes of the National Socialist regime.[4] Since the Einsatzgruppen reports were crucial to the prosecution’s case, we will examine the validity of these reports.


The Einsatzgruppen sent reports of their activities back to Berlin by radio. These reports were transcribed and edited by civil servants and distributed in summary format to non-SS offices such as the German Foreign Office. None of these reports exist today in the original—all of them are copies.[5]

That the Germans let copies of the Einsatzgruppen reports fall into the hands of the Allies is strikingly odd. They could have easily burned these few stacks of incriminating papers before the Allies conquered Germany.[6] The authenticity of the Einsatzgruppen reports has also been questioned because, like so much other “evidence” of Nazi atrocities, the documents emerged from the Soviet occupation zon.[7]

The Soviets murdered up to 22,000 Poles in Katyn Forest & other locations. Until 1990 Germans were blamed for this atrocity by the Soviets.

The copies of the Einsatzgruppen reports which have been produced show clear signs of postwar additions. A typical example is Einsatzgruppen Report No. 111. Peter Winter writes that this report contains not only completely garbled wording, but also a clear addition to the end of a paragraph (highlighted in italics below):

These were the motives for the executions carried out by the Kommandos: Political officials, looters and saboteurs, active Communists and political representatives, Jews who gained their release from prison camps by false statements, agents and informers of the NKVD, persons who, by false depositions and influencing witnesses, were instrumental in the deportation of ethnic Germans, Jewish sadism and revengefulness, undesirable elements, partisans, Politruks, dangers of plague and epidemics, members of Russian bands, armed insurgents—provisioning of Russian bands, rebels and agitators, drifting juveniles, Jews in general.[8]

Dr. Arthur Robert Butz also questions the authenticity of the Einsatzgruppenreports. Butz writes:

They [the documents] are mimeographed and signatures are most rare and, when they occur, appear on non-incriminating pages. Document NO-3159, for example, has a signature, R. R. Strauch, but only on a covering page giving the locations of various units of the Einsatzgruppen. There is also NO-1128, allegedly from Himmler to Hitler reporting, among other things, the execution of 363,211 Russian Jews in August-November 1942. This claim occurs on page four of NO-1128, while initials said to be Himmler’s occur on the irrelevant page one. Moreover, Himmler’s initials were easy to forge: three vertical lines with a horizontal line drawn through them.[9]

Carlo Mattogno has shown that the figures quoted in the Einsatzgruppen reports are inaccurate. Mattogno writes:

For example, in the summary of the activity of Einsatzgruppen A(October 16, 1941, to January 31, 1942) the number of Jews present in Latvia at the arrival of the German troops is 70,000, but the number of Jews shot is reported as being 71,184! Furthermore, another 3,750 Jews were alive in work camps. In Lithuania, there were 153,743 Jews, of which 136,421 were allegedly shot, whereas 34,500 were taken to the ghettos at Kaunas, Wilna, and Schaulen, but the total of those two figures is 170,921 Jews![10]

The British trial of German Field Marshall Erich von Manstein in Hamburg, Germany also proved the inaccuracy of the Einsatzgruppen reports. The prosecution’s case was based on the reports showing that Einsatzgruppe D under the command of Otto Ohlendorf had executed some 85,000 Jews in four and one-half months. Manstein’s defense attorney, Reginald T. Paget, wrote that these claims seemed quite impossible:

In one instance we were able to check their figures. The S.D. claimed that they had killed 10,000 in Simferopol during November and in December they reported Simferopol clear of Jews. By a series of cross checks we were able to establish that the execution of the Jews in Simferopol had taken place on a single day, 16th November. Only one company of S.D. was in Simferopol. The place of execution was 15 kilometers from the town. The numbers involved could not have been more than about 300. These 300 were probably not exclusively Jews but a miscellaneous collection of people who were being held on suspicion of resistance activity…

It was indeed clear that the Jewish community had continued to function quite openly in Simferopol and although several of our witnesses had heard rumors about an S.D. excess committed against Jews in Simferopol, it certainly appeared that this Jewish community was unaware of any special danger…

By the time we had finished with the figures and pointed out the repeated self-contradiction in the S.D. reports, it became probable that at least one “0” would have to be knocked off the total claimed by the S.D. and we also established that only about one-third of Ohlendorf’s activities had taken place in von Manstein’s area. It is impossible to know even the approximate number of murdered Jews, for not only was Ohlendorf lying to his superiors but as we were able to show his company commanders were lying to him.[11]

Von Manstein testified that he had no knowledge that the Einsatzgruppe D or the German army had a policy of murdering Jews. The court believed Manstein and found him innocent of murdering Jews.[12]


Benjamin Ferencz has made statements that call into question his independence and integrity. For example, the defense counsel at the Mauthausen trial in Dachau insisted that signed confessions of the accused, used by the prosecution to great effect, had been extracted from the defendants through physical abuse, coercion and deceit.[13] Benjamin Ferencz admits in an interview that these defense counsel’s claims were correct:

You know how I got witness statements? I’d go into a village where, say, an American pilot had parachuted and been beaten to death and line everyone up against the wall. Then I’d say, “Anyone who lies will be shot on the spot.” It never occurred to me that statements taken under duress would be invalid.[14]

In the same interview, Ferencz admits that he observed the torturing and execution of a captured Nazi at a concentration camp:

I once saw DPs [Displaced Persons] beat an SS man and then strap him to the steel gurney of a crematorium. They slid him in the oven, turned on the heat and took him back out. Beat him again, and put him back in until he was burnt alive. I did nothing to stop it. I suppose I could have brandished my weapon or shot in the air, but I was not inclined to do so. Does that make me an accomplice to murder?[15]

Ferencz, who enjoys an international reputation as a world peace advocate, further relates a story concerning the interrogation of an SS colonel. Ferencz explains that he took out his pistol in order to intimidate him:

What do you do when he thinks he’s still in charge? I’ve got to show him that I’m in charge. All I’ve got to do is squeeze the trigger and mark it as auf der Flucht erschossen [shot while trying to escape]…I said “you are in a filthy uniform sir, take it off!” I stripped him naked and threw his clothes out the window. He stood there naked for half an hour, covering his balls with his hands, not looking nearly like the SS officer he was reported to be. Then I said “now listen, you and I are gonna have an understanding right now. I am a Jew—I would love to kill you and mark you down as auf der Flucht erschossen, but I’m gonna do what you would never do. You are gonna sit down and write out exactly what happened—when you entered the camp, who was there, how many died, why they died, everything else about it. Or, you don’t have to do that—you are under no obligation—you can write a note of five lines to your wife, and I will try to deliver it…” [Ferencz gets the desired statement and continues:] I then went to someone outside and said “Major, I got this affidavit, but I’m not gonna use it—it is a coerced confession. I want you to go in, be nice to him, and have him re-write it.” The second one seemed to be okay—I told him to keep the second one and destroy the first one. That was it.[16]

Peter Winter asks the question: “Is this the sort of ‘objective’ legal person who can be relied upon to produce evidence at a major trial?”[17] The fact that Ferencz threatened and humiliated his witness and reported as much to his superior officer indicates that he operated in a culture where such illegal methods were acceptable.[18] Any lawyer knows that such evidence is not admissible in a legitimate court of law.


Otto Ohlendorf testified at the IMT that Einsatzgruppe D, the mobile security unit he commanded in the Crimea between June 1941 and 1942, was responsible for the murder of approximately 90,000 people. Ohlendorf’s testimony horrified the court and had a depressing effect on the defendants. Dr. Gustav M. Gilbert, the American prison psychologist, wrote that Ohlendorf’s testimony established

the inescapable reality and shame of mass murder…by the unquestionable reliability of a German official.”[19]

British attorney Reginald Paget, however, questioned the validity of Ohlendorf’s testimony at the IMT. Paget wrote:

Ohlendorf had reported that not only Simferopol but the whole Crimea was cleared of Jews. He was clearly a man who was prepared to say anything that would please his employers. The Americans had found him the perfect witness.”[20]

Otto Ohlendorf at the Einsatzgruppen trial retracted his earlier testimony at the IMT that there had been a specific policy to exterminate Jews on racial or religious grounds. Under cross examination, Ohlendorf testified that any Jews and gypsies killed by his group D were killed as part of anti-partisan activities. Ohlendorf also testified that only 40,000 people had been executed by his group D instead of the 90,000 that he had testified to at the IMT.[21]

Another defendant at the Einsatzgruppen trial, Walter Haensch, claimed he knew nothing of the murder of the Jews and denied any criminal wrongdoing by his Kommando while he was its leader. Haensch claimed he first learned of the murder of Jews in July 1947 when his interrogator at Nuremberg told him of the Final Solution. Haensch claimed that the Einsatzgruppen reports that contradicted his testimony were inaccurate. After the trial, Haensch became so obsessed with proving his innocence that he refused to apply for parole, hoping that American officials would see their error and grant him the clemency he deserved.[22]

Benjamin Ferencz claims the Einsatzgruppen reports were definitive proof that the Einsatzgruppen had mass murdered Jews. Ferencz states:

Michael Musmanno, the presiding judge, provided the defendants with wide latitude in their presentation of evidence in the Einsatzgruppen trial. However, Ferencz writes that Musmanno was convinced early on of the defendants’ guilt:

The judge handed down worse sentences than I would have imposed. So he had made up his mind, early on, that he wasn’t going to be deceived. For him the question was how to sentence them. He was a devout Catholic, and he went into a monastery for a week before sentencing. He convicted all 22 people, and of these he sentenced 13 to death by hanging. During the trial, he had let everyone say whatever they wanted to say. He gave so much leeway; he was leaning over backwards to show the world that it was a fair trial.[24]

“There were times when I felt outraged. For example, the day one defendant, a colonel, said: ‘What, Jews were shot? I hear that in this courtroom for the first time.’ We had the records of every day that man was out murdering, and he had the gall to say that. I was ready to jump over the bar and poke my fingers into his eyes.”[23]

Four Einsatzgruppen units altogether numbering 3,000 men—including non-combat troops such as drivers, interpreters, and radiomen—became operational soon after the German invasion of the Soviet Union. One of their missions indisputably consisted of fighting against partisans, and in this regard they committed numerous mass shootings.[25]

Michael Musmanno, the presiding judge, provided the defendants with wide latitude in their presentation of evidence in the Einsatzgruppen trial. However, Ferencz writes that Musmanno was convinced early on of the defendants’ guilt:

The judge handed down worse sentences than I would have imposed. So he had made up his mind, early on, that he wasn’t going to be deceived. For him the question was how to sentence them. He was a devout Catholic, and he went into a monastery for a week before sentencing. He convicted all 22 people, and of these he sentenced 13 to death by hanging. During the trial, he had let everyone say whatever they wanted to say. He gave so much leeway; he was leaning over backwards to show the world that it was a fair trial.[24]

The defendants at the Einsatzgruppen trial did not receive a fair hearing. The shootings carried out by the Einsatzgruppen were not nearly as extensive as claimed at the trial, for the numbers mentioned in the Einsatzgruppen reports cannot be objectively confirmed and in many cases are demonstrably exaggerated. These reports should not have been used to convict the Einsatzgruppen defendants of genocide against Soviet Jewry.[27]

The Nuremberg Trials are critical to defending the slaughter of more than 9 million Germans post-WWII. Known as History’s Most Terrifying Peace.

Read Germany’s War


[1] Earl, Hilary, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 1, 9-11.

[2] Stuart, Heikelina Verrijn and Simons, Marlise, The Prosecutor and the Judge, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009, pp. 14-15.

[3] Ibid., p. 14.

[4] Earl, Hilary, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 179-180.

[5] Winter, Peter, The Six Million: Fact or Fiction?, The Revisionist Press, 2015, p. 24.

[6] Mattogno, Carlo and Graf, Jürgen, Treblinka: Transit Camp or Extermination Camp?, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2010, p. 204.

[7] Winter, Peter, The Six Million: Fact or Fiction?, The Revisionist Press, 2015, p. 25

[8] Ibid., pp. 24-25.

[9] Butz, Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, ninth edition, Newport Beach, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 198.

[10] Rudolf, Germar and Mattogno, Carlo, Auschwitz Lies: Legends, Lies & Prejudices on the Holocaust, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2011, p. 243.

[11] Paget, Reginald T., Manstein: His Campaigns and His Trial, London: Collins, 1951, pp. 169-172.

[12] Ibid., p. 174.

[13] Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012, p. 6.

[14] Brzezinski, Matthew, “Giving Hitler Hell”, The Washington Post Magazine, July 24, 2005, p. 26.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012, pp. 82-83.

[17] Winter, Peter, The Six Million: Fact or Fiction?, The Revisionist Press, 2015, p. 24.

[18] Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012, p. 83.

[19] Earl, Hilary, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 72.

[20] Paget, Reginald T., Manstein: His Campaigns and His Trial, London: Collins, 1951, p. 171.

[21] Butz, Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, ninth edition, Newport Beach, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 202.

[22] Earl, Hilary, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 162-163.

[23] Stuart, Heikelina Verrijn and Simons, Marlise, The Prosecutor and the Judge, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009, p. 19.

[24] Ibid., pp. 19-20.

[25] Mattogno, Carlo and Graf, Jürgen, Treblinka: Transit Camp or Extermination Camp?, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2010, pp. 203, 205.

[26] Ibid., pp. 203-211.

[27] Ibid., pp. 208-211.

All these things that happened so long ago, are very relevant to the current narrative promoted today, and the genocide of the white race.


How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Höss

Robert Faurisson

Rudolf Höss was the first of three successive commandants of the Auschwitz concentration camp. He is often called “the Commandant of Auschwitz,” and the general public knows of him from a book published under the title Commandant in Auschwitz.

He appeared before the International Military Tribunal as a witness on 15 April 1946, where his deposition caused a sensation. To the amazement of the defendants and in the presence of journalists from around the world, he confessed to the most frightful crimes that history had ever known. He said that he had personally received an order from Himmler to exterminate the Jews. He estimated that at Auschwitz 3,000,000 people had been exterminated, 2,500,000 of them by means of gas chambers. His confessions were false. They had been extorted from Höss by torture, but it took until 1983 to learn the identity of the torturers and the nature of the tortures they inflicted upon him.

The confessions of Rudolf Höss supply the keystone to the theory which maintains that systematic extermination of the Jews, especially by means of homicidal gas chambers, was a historical reality. These confessions consist essentially of four documents which, in chronological order, are the following:

1. A written deposition signed on l4 March (or l5 March?) l946 at 2:30 in the morning; it is an 8-page typed text written in German; I do not think, under normal circumstances, a court in any democracy would agree to take into consideration those pages lacking as they did any heading and any printed administrative reference; and crawling with various corrections, whether typed or handwritten, uninitialled and without a notation at the end of the total number of words corrected or deleted. Höss signed it for the first time after having written: “14.3.46 230.” He signed again after two lines which are supposed to have been handwritten but which were typed, and which say:

I have read the above account and confirm that it is corresponding to my own statement and that it was the pure truth. (Official translation.]

The names and the signatures of the two witnesses, British sergeants, follow. One did not note the date, while the other indicated 15 March. The last signature is that of a captain of the 92nd Field Security Section, who certifies that the two sergeants were present throughout the entire proceedings, during which the prisoner Rudolf Höss made his statement voluntarily. The date indicated is 14 March 1946. Nothing indicates the place!

The Allies numbered this document NO-1210.

2. An affidavit signed 22 days later on 5 April 1946. It is a typed text, 20 pages long, written in English. That is surprising: thereby Höss signed a declaration under oath, not in his own language but in that of his guards. His signature appeared three times: at the bottom of the first two pages, then on the third and last page, after a text of four lines, still in English, still typed, which reads:

I understand English as it is written above. The above statements are true: this declaration is made by me voluntarily and without compulsion; after reading over the statement, I have signed and executed the same at Nurnberg, Germany, on the fifth day of April 1946.

There follows the signature of Lieutenant-Colonel Smith W. Brookhart after the statement: “Subscribed and sworn before me this 5th day of April 1946, at Nurnberg, Germany.”

In its form, this text is, if possible, even less acceptable than the preceding one. In particular, entire lines have been added in capital letters in the English style, while others are crossed out with a stroke of the pen. There is no initialling in the margin next to these corrections, and no summary at the end of the document of the words struck out. The Allies assigned this document the number PS-3868.

In order to hide the fact that Höss had signed an affidavit that was in English when it ought to have been in his own language, and in order to make the crossed-out words and the additions and corrections disappear, the following trick was used at Nuremberg: the original text was recast and presented as a “Translation” from German into English! But the person responsible for this deception did his work too quickly. He thought that a handwritten addition to paragraph 10 (done in an English handwriting style) was an addition to the end of paragraph 9. The result of that misunderstanding is that the end of paragraph 9 is rendered totally incomprehensible. There are, therefore, two different documents that bear the same file number, PS-3868: the document signed by Höss and the “remake.” It is the “remake,” really a glaring forgery, that was used before the Nuremberg tribunal. One historical work that claimed to reproduce document PS-3868 by Höss in fact reproduced the “remake” but omitted (without saying so) the end of paragraph 9 as well as all of paragraph 10: see Henri Monneray, La Persécution des Juifs dans les pays de l’Est présentee à Nuremberg, Paris, Center for Contemporary Jewish Documentation,1949, pp.159 – 162.

3. The spectacular oral deposition, which I have already mentioned, made before the IMT on 15 April 1946, ten days after the writing of document PS-3868. Paradoxically, it was a lawyer for the defense, Kurt Kauffmann, Ernst Kaltenbrunner’s attorney, who had asked for Höss’s appearance. His obvious intention was to show that the person responsible for the presumed extermination was Himmler and not Kaltenbrunner. When it came time for the representative of the prosecution (at that point the American assistant prosecutor, Col. Harlan Amen) to question Höss, he seemed to be reading from the affidavit signed by the latter but, in fact, he was reading excerpts from the “remake.” Col. Amen gave an excuse for not reading paragraph 9 (and, at the same time, paragraph 8). Stopping after reading each excerpt, he asked Höss if that was in fact what he had stated. He received the following responses: “Jawohl,” “Jawohl,” “Jawohl” “Ja, es stimmt,” a two sentence response (containing an obvious error about the Hungarian Jews supposedly having been killed at Auschwitz as early as 1943 even though the first convoy of them did not arrive at Auschwitz until May 2 of 1944), “Jawohl,” “Jawohl,” “Jawohl,” a one-sentence response, “Jawohl,” and “Jawohl.” [IMT, XI, pp. 457-461]. Höss is quoted according to the text of the German-language edition of the IMT series.

In a normal murder case there would have been a hundred questions to ask about the extermination and the gas chambers (that is to say about a crime and an instrument of the crime which were without precedent in history), but no one asked those questions. In particular, Colonel Amen did not ask for a single detail nor for any additional information about the frightening text which he had read in the presence of journalists whose stories would make the headlines in newspapers around the world the next day.

4. The texts generally collected under the title Commandant in Auschwitz. Höss is alleged to have written these texts in pencil under the watchful eye of his Polish-Communist jailers, while in a prison at Cracow awaiting his trial. He was condemned to death on 2 April 1947 and hanged at the Auschwitz concentration camp fourteen days later. The world had to wait 11 years, until 1958, for the publication in German of his alleged memoirs. They were edited by the German historian Martin Broszat without regard for scholarly method. Broszat went so far as to suppress several fragments which would have too clearly made it appear that Höss (or his Polish jailers) had offered outrageous statements which would have called into question the reliability of his writings in toto.

The four documents that I have just enumerated are closely connected in their origin. Looking at them more closely, there are contradictions among their respective contents, but, for the most part, they are internally consistent. The eight pages of NO-1210 are in a sense summed up in the 2º pages of PS-3868; that latter document served as the central document in the oral testimony before the IMT; and, finally, the memoirs written at Cracow crown the whole. The base and the matrix are thus document NO-1210. It was in the Cracow memoirs, written under the supervision of Polish examining magistrate Jan Sehn, that Höss was to give particulars about how the British had obtained that very first confession.

Höss’s Revelations about His First Confession (Document NO-1210 of 14 or 15 March 1946)

The war ended in Germany on 8 May 1945. Höss fell into the hands of the British, who imprisoned him in a camp for SS men. As a trained agronomist, he obtained an early release. His guards were unaware of the importance of their prey. A work office found him employment as an agricultural work at a farm near Flensburg, not far from the Danish border. He remained there for eight months. The military police looked for him. His family, with whom he succeeded in making contact, was closely watched and subjected to frequent searches.

In his memoirs Höss recounts the circumstances of his arrest and what followed. The treatment that he underwent was particularly brutal. At first sight it is surprising that the Poles allowed Höss to make the revelations he did about the British military police. On reflection, we discover that they might have done so out of one or more of the following motives:

  • to give the confession an appearance of sincerity and veracity;
  • to cause the reader to make a comparison, flattering for the Polish Communists, between the British and Polish methods, Indeed Höss later said that during the first part of his detention at Cracow, his jailers came very close to finishing him off physically and above all morally, but that later they treated him with “such decent and considerate treatment” that he consented to write his memoirs;
  • to furnish an explanation for certain absurdities contained in the text (NO-1210) that the British police had had Höss sign, one of these absurdities being the invention of an “extermination camp” in a place which never existed on any Polish map: “Wolzek near Lublin”; confusion with Belzec is not possible since Höss talks about three camps: “Belzek (sic), Tublinka (sic) and Wolzek near Lublin.” Farther on, the spelling of Treblinka will be corrected. Let us note in passing that the camps of Belzec and Treblinka did not yet exist at the time (June 194l) when Himmler, according to Höss, told him that they were already functioning as “extermination camps.”

Here are the words Höss uses to describe, in succession, his arrest by the British; his signing of the document that would that would become NO-1210; his transfer to Minden-on-the-Weser, where the treatment that he underwent was worse yet; his stay at the Nuremberg tribunal’s prison; and, finally, his extradition to Poland.

I was arrested on 11 March 1946 (at 11 pm).

My phial of poison had been broken two days before.

When I was aroused from sleep, I thought at first I was being attacked by robbers, for many robberies were taking place at that time. That was how they managed to arrest me. I was maltreated by the Field Security Police.

I was taken to Heide where I was put in those very barracks from which I had been released by the Bntish eight months earlier.

At my first interrogation, evidence was obtained by beating me. I do not know what is in the record, although I signed it. Alcohol and the whip were too much for me. The whip was my own, which by chance had got into my wife’s luggage. It had hardly ever touched my horse, far less the prisoners. Nevertheless, one of my interrogators was convinced that I had perpetually used it for flogging the prisoners.

After some days I was taken to Minden-on-the-Weser, the main interrogation centre in the British Zone. There I received further rough treatment at the hands of the English public prosecutor, a major.

The conditions in the prison accorded with this behaviour.

After three weeks, to my surprise, I was shaved and had my hair cut and I was allowed to wash. My handcuffs had not previously been removed since my arrest.

On the next day I was taken by lorry to Nuremberg, together with a prisoner of war who had been brought over from London as a witness in Fritzsche’s defence. My impnsonment by the Intemational Military Tribunal was a rest-cure compared to what I had been through before. I was accommodated in the same building as the principal accused, and was able to see them daily as they were taken to the court. Almost every day we were visited by representatives for all the Allied nations. I was always pointed out as an especially interesting animal.

I was in Nuremberg because Kaltenbrunner’s counsel had demanded me as a witness for his defence. I have never been able to grasp, and it is still not clear to me, how I of all people could have helped to exonerate Kaltenbrunner. Although the conditions in prison were, in every respect, good — I read whenever I had the time, and there was a well stocked library available — the interrogations were extremely unpleasant, not so much physically, but far more because of their strong psychological effect. I cannot really blame the interrogators — they were all Jews.

Psychologically I was almost cut in pieces. They wanted to know all about everything, and this was also done by Jews. They left me in no doubt whatever as to the fate that was in store for me.

On 25 May, my wedding anniversary as it happened, I was driven with von Burgsdorff and Bühler to the aerodrome and there handed over to Polish officers. We flew in an American plane via Berlin to Warsaw. Although we were treated very politely during our joumey, I feared the worst when I remembered my experiences in the British Zone and the tales I had heard about the way people were being treated in the East. (Commandant in Auschwitz, Introduction by Lord Russell of Liverpool. English translation, Weidenfeld and Nicolson,. 1959, p. 173-175.)

Revelations in 1983 About the British Torturers of Rudolf Höss

The Revisionists proved a long time ago that the various confessions of Rudolf Höss contained so many gross errors, nonsensical elements, and impossibilities of all kinds, that it is no longer possible to believe them, as did the judges at Nuremberg and Cracow, as well as certain self styled historians, without any prior analysis of their content and of the circumstances in which they were obtained.

In all likelihood, Höss was tortured by the British soldiers of the 92nd Field Security Section, but a confirmation of that hypothesis was necessary. Confirmation has come with the publication in England of a book containing the name of the principal torturer (a British sergeant of Jewish origin) and a description of the circumstances of Höss’ arrest, as well as his third-degree interrogation.

The book is by Rupert Butler. It was published in 1983 (Hamlyn Paperbacks). Butler is the author of three other works: The Black Angels, Hand of Steel and Gestapo, all published by Hamlyn. The book that interests us is entitled Legions of Death. Its inspiration is anti-Nazi. Butler says that he researched this book at the Imperial War Museum in London, the Institute for Contemporary History and Wiener Library, and other such prestigious institutions. At the beginning of his book, he expresses his gratitude to these institutions and, among others, to two persons, one of whom is Bernard Clarke (“who captured Auschwitz Commandant Rudolf Höss”). The author quotes several fragments of what are either written or recorded statements by Clarke.

Bernard Clarke shows no remorse. On the contrary, he exhibits a certain pride in having tortured a “Nazi.” Rupert Butler, likewise, finds nothing to criticize in that. Neither of them understands the importance of their revelations. They say that Höss was arrested on 11 March, 1946, and that it took three days of torture to obtain “a coherent statement.” They do not realize that the alleged “coherent statement” is nothing other than the lunatic confession, signed by their quivering victim on the l4th or l5th of March 1946, at 2:30 in the morning, which was to seal Höss’ fate definitely, a confession which would also give definitive shape to the myth. The confession would also shape decisively the myth of Auschwitz, the supposed high-point of the extermination of the Jews, above all due to the alleged use of homicidal gas chambers.

On 11 March 1946, a Captain Cross, Bernard Clarke and four other intelligence specialists in British uniforms, most of them tall and menacing, entered the home of Frau Höss and her children.

The six men, we are told, were all “practised in the more sophisticated techniques of sustained and merciless investigation” (p. 235). Clarke began to shout:

If you don’t tell us [where your husband is] we’ll turn you over to the Russians and they’ll put you before a firing-squad. Your son will go to Siberia.

Frau Höss broke down and revealed, says Clarke, the location of the farm where her husband was in hiding, as well as his assumed name: Franz Lang. And Bernard Clarke added:

Suitable intimidation of the son and daughter produced precisely identical information.

The Jewish sergeant and the five other specialists in third degree interrogation then left to seek out Höss, whom they surprised in the middle of the night, sleeping in an alcove of the room used to slaughter cattle on the farm.

Höss screamed in terror at the mere sight of British uniforms.

Clarke yelled “What is your name?”

With each answer of “Franz Lang,” Clarke’s hand crashed into the face of his prisoner. The fourth time that happened, Höss broke and admitted who he was.

The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of the Jewish sergeants in the arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following an order signed by Höss.

The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from his body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.

Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: “Call them off, unless you want to take back a corpse.”

A blanket was thrown over Höss and he was dragged to Clarke’s car, where the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whisky down his throat. Then Höss tried to sleep.

Clarke thrust his service stick under the man’s eyelids and ordered in German: “Keep your pig eyes open, you swine.”

For the first time Höss trotted out his oft-repeated justification: “I took my orders from Himmler. I am a soldier in the same way as you are a soldier and we had to obey orders.”

The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow was swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Höss and he was made to walk completely nude through the prison yard to his cell. (p. 237)

So it is that Bernard reveals “It took three days to get a coherent statement out of [Höss]” (ibid.). This admission was corroborated by Mr. Ken Jones in an article in the Wrexham Leader. (October 17,1986):

Mr. Ken Jones was then a private with the fifth Royal Horse Artillery stationed at Heid[e) in Schleswig-Holstein. “They brought him to us when he refused to cooperate over questioning about his activities during the war. He came in the winter of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail cell in the barracks,” recalls Mr. Jones. Two other soldiers were detailed with Mr. Jones to join Höss in his cell to help break him down for interrogation. “We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed with axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help break down his resistance,” said Mr. Jones. When Höss was taken out for exercise he was made to wear only jeans and a thin cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three days and nights without sleep, Höss finally broke down and made a full confession to the authorities.

Clarke’s statement, obtained under the conditions just described by bullies of British Military Security under the brutal inspiration of sergeant-interpreter Bernard Clarke, became Höss’s first confession, the original confession indexed under the number NO-1210. Once the tortured prisoner had begun to talk, according to Clarke, it was impossible to stop him. Clarke, no more conscious in 1982 or 1983 than in 1946 of the enormity of what he forced Höss to confess, goes on to describe a series of fictitious horrors presented here as the truth: Höss went on to tell how after the bodies had been ignited, the fat oozing from them was poured over the other bodies (!). He estimated the number of dead during just the period when he was at Auschwitz at two million (!); the killings reached 10,000 victims per day (!).

It was Clarke’s duty to censor the letters sent by Höss to his wife and children. Every policeman knows that the power to grant or withhold permission to a prisoner to write to his family constitutes a psychological weapon. To make a prisoner “sing” it is sometimes sufficient to merely suspend or cancel that authorization. Clarke makes an interesting remark about the content of Höss’s letters; he confides to us:

Sometimes a lump came to my throat. There were two different men in that one man. One was brutal with no regard for human life. The other was soft and affectionate. (p. 238)

Rupert Butler ends his narrative by saying that Höss sought neither to deny nor to escape his responsibilities. In effect, at the Nuremberg tribunal Höss conducted himself with a “schizoid apathy.” The expression is that of the American prison psychologist, G.M. Gilbert, who was in charge of the psychological surveillance of the prisoners and whose eavesdropping aided the American prosecution. We can certainly believe that Höss was “split in two”! He had the appearance of a rag because they had turned him into a rag.

“Apathetic”, writes Gilbert on page 229 of his book; “apathetic, he repeats on the following page; “schizoid apathy,” he writes on page 239 (Nuremberg Diary, 1947, Signet Book, 1961).

At the end of his trial at Cracow; Höss greeted his death sentence with apparent indifference, Rupert Butler comments as follows:

[Höss] reasoned that Allies had their orders and, that there could be absolutely no question of these not being carried out. (ibid.)

One could not say it any better. It seems that Rudolf Höss, like thousands of accused Germans turned over to the mercy of conquerors who were totally convinced of their own goodness, had quickly grasped that he had no other choice but to suffer the will of his judges, whether they came from the West or from the East.

Butler then quickly evokes the case of Hans Frank, the former Governor of Poland. With the same tone of moral satisfaction he recounts the circumstances of Frank’s capture and subsequent treatment:

Celebrity status of any kind singularly failed to impress the two coloured GIs who arrested him and made sure he was transported to the municipal prison in Miesbach only after he had been savagely beaten up and flung into a lorry.

A tarpaulin had been thrown over him to hide the more obvious signs of ill-treatment; Frank found the cover useful when he attempted to slash an artery in his left arm.

Clearly, no such easy way out could be permitted; a US army medical officer saved his life and he stood trial at the International Military Tribunial at Nuremberg. (p. 238-239)

Rudolf Höss and Hans Frank were not the only ones to undergo treatment of that kind. Among the most celebrated cases, we know of Julius Streicher, Hans Fritzsche, Oswald Pohl, Franz Ziereis, and Josef Kramer.

But the case of Rudolf Höss is by far the most serious in its consequences. There is no document that proves that the Germans had a policy of exterminating the Jews. Léon Poliakov agreed with this in 1951:

As regards the conception properly called of the plan for a total extermination, the three or four principal actors committed suicide in May of 1945. No document has survived or perhaps has ever existed.

(Bréviaire de la haine: Le IIIe Reich et les Juifs, Calmann-((((((((((((Levy)))))))))))), 1951, Livre de Poche, 1974, p.171 )

In the absence of any document, historians à la Poliakov have repeatedly returned, primarily, to doubtful confessions like those of Kurt ((((((((((((Gerstein)))))))))))) or Rudolf Höss, sometimes modifying the texts to suit their convenience.

Bernard Clarke is “today a successful businessman working in the south of England” (Legions of Death, 1983, p. 235). One can in fact say that it is his voice that was heard at Nuremberg on 15 April 1946, when Assistant Prosecutor Amen read, piece by piece, to an astonished and overwhelmed audience, the supposed confession of Rudolf Höss. On that day was launched a lie of world-wide dimensions: the lie of Auschwitz. At the origins of that prodigious media event: several Jewish sergeants of British Military Security, including Bernard Clarke, “today a successful businessman working in the south of England.”

The Testimony of Moritz von Schirmeister

During the war, Moritz von Schirmeister had been the personal press attaché of Joseph Goebbels. On 29 June 1946, he was interrogated before the IMT as a defense witness for Hans Fritzsche. His deposition was particularly interesting regarding the actual personality of Dr. Goebbels and the attitude of the official German news services toward the flood of atrocity stories about the concentration camps spread during the war by the Allies.

At the end of the war, Moritz von Schirmeister had been arrested by the British and interned in a camp in England, where he was given the task of politically “re-educating” his fellow prisoners. Before testifying at Nuremberg, he was transferred by plane from London to Germany. At first he was kept at Minden-on-the-Weser, which was the principal interrogation center for the British Military Police. From there he was taken by car (31 March — 1 April 1946) to the prison at Nuremberg. In the same car rode Rudolf Höss. Moritz von Schirmeister is precisely that “prisoner of war who had been brought over from London as a witness in Fritzsche’s defense about whom Höss speaks in his “memoirs” (see above, p. 393).

Thanks to a document that I obtained from American researcher Mark Weber, who gave me a copy of it in Washington in September of 1983 (a document whose exact source I not yet authorized to indicate), we know that they were able to talk freely in the car that took them to Nuremberg. In that document, slightly more than two pages long, Schirmeister reports, as regarding the charges hanging over Höss, that Höss confided to him:

Gewiss, ich habe unterschrieben, dass ich 2 Millionen Juden umgebracht habe. Aber ich hätte genausogut untershrieben, dass es 5 Millionen Juden gewesen sind. Es gibt eben Methoden, mit denen man jedes Geständnis erreichen kann — ob es nun wahr ist oder nicht.

“Certainly, I signed a statement that I killed two and a half million Jews. But I could just as well have said that it was five million Jews. There are certain methods by which any confession can be obtained, whether it is true or not.”

Another Confession Signed by Rudolf Höss

The British torturers of Rudolf Höss had no reason to exercise any restraint. After making him sign document NO-1210 at 2:30 in the morning of the l4th or l5th of March 1946, they obtained a new signature from him on March 16, this time at the bottom of a text in English, written in an English handwriting style, with a blank in the space where the name of the place ought to have been given. His guards made him sign a simple note written in English:

Statement made voluntarily at ______ Gaol by Rudolf Höss, former Commandant of Auschwitz Concentration Camp on l6th day of March 1946.

I personally arranged on orders received from Himmler in May 1941 the gassing of two million persons between June/July 1941 and the end of 1943 during which time I was commandant of Auschwitz.

Rudolf Höss,
Eh. (?) Kdt. v. Auschwitz-Birkenau

(even the word “signed” was written in an English hand).

The Auschwitz Myth

We have known for some time that the Auschwitz myth is of an exclusively Jewish origin. Arthur R. Butz has related the facts in his book, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, as has Wilhelm Stäglich in The Auschwitz Myth. The principal authors of the creation and the peddling of the “rumor of Auschwitz” have been, successively, two Slovaks, ((((((((((((Alfred Wetzler)))))))))))) (or Weczler) and ((((((((((((Rudolf Vrba)))))))))))) (or ((((((((((((Rosenberg)))))))))))) or ((((((((((((Rosenthal))))))))))))); then a Hungarian, Rabbi Michael Dov Ber Weissmandel (or Weissmandl); then, in Switzerland, representatives of the World Jewish Congress like Gerhard Riegner, who were in touch with London and Washington; and finally Americans like ((((((((((((Harry Dexter White)))))))))))), ((((((((((((Henry Morgenthau)))))))))))) Jr. and Rabbi ((((((((((((Stephen Samuel Wise)))))))))))). Thus was born the famous World Refugee Board Report on Auschwitz and Birkenau, published in Washington in November 1944. Copies of this report were included in the files of the judges advocate general in charge of prosecuting the Germans involved in the Auschwitz camp. It constituted the official version of the story of the alleged gassing of the Jews in that camp. Most probably it was used as a reference work by the inquirers-interrogators-torturers of “the Commandant of Auschwitz.” All the names here mentioned are those of Jews.

Moreover we now see that Bernard Clarke, the first British torturer, was a Jew, The second British torturer, Major Draper (?), may also have been a Jew. The same for the two Americans: psychologist G.M. (Gustave ((((((((((((Mahler))))))))))))) Gilbert and Colonel Harlan Amen. Finally, in Poland, Höss was faced with Polish Jews who treated him more or less the same way. When he wrote his “memoirs” it was under the supervision of instructing magistrate Jan Sehn, who was also probably a Jew.

Establishment historians dispute that Höss had been tortured and had confessed under duress. Since the publication of Rupert Butler’s book in 1983, however, it is no longer possible for them to contest that. The Revisionists were right.

Since 1985 it is even less possible. In January-March 1985, the trial of Ernst Zündel, who was accused by a Jewish association and by the Crown of spreading Revisionist literature, took place in Toronto (Canada). ((((((((((((Rudolf Vrba)))))))))))) testified as a Crown witness. (He lives now in British Columbia). Affirmative and self assured as long as he answered the questions of the Crown, he suffered a spectacular rout when cross-examined by Ernst Zündel’s lawyer, Doug Christie. For the first time since 1945 a Jewish witness to the alleged gassings in Auschwitz was asked to explain his affirmations and his figures. The result was so terrible for R. Vrba that finally the Crown itself gave a kind of coup de grace to its key witness. That unexpected event and some others (like the leading specialist of the Holocaust, ((((((((((((Raul Hilberg)))))))))))), being caught red-handed in his lies) really made of the “Toronto Trial” the “Trial of the Nuremberg Trial.”

The unintentional revelations of Rupert Butler in 1983 and unexpected revelations of the “Toronto Trial” in 1985 succeeded at last in showing entirely and clearly how the Auschwitz myth was fabricated from 1944 to 1947, to be exact from April 1944, when ((((((((((((Rudolf Vrba)))))))))))) and ((((((((((((Alfred Wetzler)))))))))))) are supposed to have escaped from Auschwitz to tell their story to the world up until April 1947, when Rudolf Höss was hanged after having supposedly told the same world his own story about Auschwitz.

It is remarkable that from beginning to end that story comes from essentially or perhaps even exclusively Jewish sources. Two Jewish liars (Vrba and Wetzler) from Slovakia convinced or seemed to have convinced other Jews from Hungary, Switzerland, United States, Great Britain, and Poland. This is not a conspiracy or a plot; it is the story of the birth of a religious belief: the myth of Auschwitz, center of the religion of the Holocaust.

This photograph was published after p. 161 of Lord Russell of Liverpool’s Geissel der Menschheit, Berlin, Verlag Volk und Welt, 1960. The title of the original book in English is The Scourge of the Swastika. The caption of the photo says: ‘The Confession of Rudolf Höss.” It is not NO-1210 or PS-3868 but only a very short text of 16 March 1946. You will note the difference between the handwriting of the text of the confession and Höss’s own handwriting. In his introduction to the English edition of Commandant in Auschwitz Lord Russell claims to furnish some information on the conditions in which Höss had to sign that note, but, since he commits errors in the chronology of the events in that regard, his information is to be received with reservations. (See Commandant in Auschwitz, p.18.)

The second photo was published as photo #22 in Tom Bower, Blind Eye to Murder (Britain, America and the Purging of Nazi Germany — A Pledge Betrayed), Granada: London, Toronto, Sydney, New York 1981. The caption of the photo says: “Colonel Gerald Draper of the British War Crimes Group photographed as he finally secured the confession of Rudolf Höss, the commandant of Auschwitz, to the murder of three million people.” As one remembers, Höss said in his “memoirs”: “I received further rough treatment at the hands of the English public prosecutor, a major” (Commandant in Auschwitz, p. 74). Did this major become a colonel and was his name “Draper”?

From The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1986-87 (Vol. 7, No. 4), pages 380-403

Fake History Lie: The Allies Won The Good War And Treated Defeated Germans Humanely

Fake History Lie: The Allies Won The Good War And Treated Defeated Germans Humanely

By John Wear
The Lie:

The Allies fought the Good War. They treated defeated German men, women and children humanely.

After learning about the murderous rape rampage of Soviet soldiers following Germany’s defeat in WWII, a young Polish man in Gdansk, Poland was so deeply affected he created a statue titled Komm Frau, of a pregnant young woman being raped to memorialize the memory of the 2 million girls and women. After displaying it on a city street, he was promptly arrested and the statue was removed.

A beautiful traditional English setting, the Victoria Tower Gardens, will soon be blighted by a new Holocaust Memorial. Nicknamed the “toast rack” few people can figure out how this monstrosity memorializes suffering. Holocaust Memorials increase in number every year around the world.

The Truth:

There were clear designs to destroy Germany before WWII. The Allies also committed horrific crimes against Germans after World War II while preparing for and conducting the Nuremberg show-trials for vindication. This is because the breathtaking scale and horror of the atrocities committed against Germans dwarfs the so-called Holocaust. The real agenda of World War II was the complete destruction of Germany in perpetuity, as evidenced by German leader Angela Merkel throwing away a German flag in disgust on a globally televised platform.

The “Good War” Ends & 95% Of Babies Born in Berlin The Summer of 1945 Die On America’s Watch: The Policy To Expel & Force Resettlement of Germans into Germany
After signing the pre-Armistice contract to end WWI, the Allies continued their naval blockade. This resulted in the starvation of 800,000 Germans (the elderly and young children were the worst affected), to force Germany to sign a new and unfair contract – The Versailles Treaty. NO MERCY! The Unprecedented Vengeance Of The Versailles Treaty

Despite Hitler’s repeated efforts to avert a world war and defend Europe from a   Communist take-over by the greatest offensive army ever created, the Allies led by Churchill and FDR, conspired to create WWII.

A Blank Check & Forked Tongues: How Britain & Poland Started WWII & Blamed Hitler & Germans For Eternity!
Did President Roosevelt Betray America To Force An Unjustified Global War?

The intentional prolonging of WWII permitted the extraordinarily excessive saturation bombing of Germany. The Holocaust firestorm of the militarily unimportant city of Dresden alone resulted in 250,000 people dying including refugees, The bombing was followed by the aerial mowing down by bullets of survivors. Even the last surviving Zoo animals were mowed down. This Hellstorm has been publicly revealed by the efforts of many including Thomas Goodrich and Kyle Hunt.

Gen. Patton Exposes The Allied Conspiracy To Extend WW2 & Give Eastern Europeans To Stalin. Suddenly Patton Dies Burying The Real Holocaust

The saturation bombing and destruction of food and medical supply lines resulted in the senseless deaths of Germans and many concentration camp inmates due to months of hunger and diseases including Typhus. Large numbers of refugees from neighboring countries fleeing the Red Army also died.

While Germany’s unconditional surrender to the Allies marked the end of a long nightmare for German citizens, it was the beginning of a new, even more dangerous future. Most Germans assumed that as bad as the coming weeks and months might be, the worst of their death and suffering was behind them. However, although World War II was history’s most catastrophic and destructive war, the death and suffering of Germans increased after the end of the war. What lay ahead for Germany was, as Time magazine later phrased it, “history’s most terrifying peace.”[1]

Numerous writers had warned of the terrible consequences that Germans would face if Germany lost the war. In his widely read book published in 1941, Germany Must Perish, Theodore ((((((Kaufman)))))) wrote:

This time Germany has forced a total war upon the world. As a result, she must be prepared to pay a total penalty. And there is one, and only one, such total penalty: Germany must perish forever! In fact—not in fancy!…The goal of world-dominion must be removed from the reach of the German and the only way to accomplish that is to remove the German from the world….There remains then but one mode of ridding the world forever of Germanism—and that is to stem the source from which issue those war-lusted souls, by preventing the people of Germany from ever again reproducing their kind.[2]

Why the Holocaust Story Was Invented

((((((Kaufman)))))) concluded that all German men and women should be sterilized to eliminate Germanism and its carriers.[3] Many leading American journals such as Time magazine and the Washington Post expressed strong support for this genocidal concept.[4]

The Allied postwar treatment of Germany resulted in more German deaths than were incurred during the Second World War. While the exact number of casualties will never be known, the number of German military and civilian deaths during World War II is approximately 6.5 million.[5] The total number of German postwar deaths from 1945 to 1950 almost certainly exceeds 9 million. Few acknowledge the incredible death toll amongst the elderly and young after more than 16 million Germans were expelled from their homes and home lands, nor the fate of those who were trapped in the Allied-run concentration camps.

The Nuremberg trials failed to recognize these horrific crimes committed against the German people. They also overlooked the intentional starvation of ethnic German infants and children in post-WWII Eastern Europe.

The German dead do not tell the entire story of the tragedy that was inflicted on Germany after World War II.

In Germany as a whole it is estimated that 2 million German girls and women were raped in the aftermath of the Second World War. This represents more rapes against a defeated enemy than any other war in history. The German women and girls (as young as 8 years old) who had been repeatedly raped, often with torture, and survived had to bear the physical and psychological scars for the rest of their lives.[6] Compounding this atrocity was the post-WWII requirement that these victims assume guilt and pay on-going reparations for their role in alleged German atrocities.

The Soviet, French Senegalese and Moroccan troops were notorious for raping German girls and women.

By contrast, the German army behaved very correctly toward the people of occupied territories whose governments were signatories of The Hague and Geneva Conventions. Rape by German soldiers in these territories was strictly forbidden. This has been confirmed by numerous sources and is beyond dispute. For example, after a tour of inspection in which he visited areas where the Germans had been in occupation for four years, Frederick C. Crawford stated in his “Report From the War Front”:

The Germans tried to be careful in their dealings with the people…We were told that if a citizen attended strictly to business and took no political or underground action against the occupying army, he was treated with correctness.”[7]

The German POWs fared no better, if not intentionally starved to death by Americans, they were slave labor for the other Allies and died in the millions.

If laws must be adjusted to a particular crime scene to defend that specific crime scene from forensic investigation, then that is a most odious set of laws akin to the Nuremberg Trials.

While a 96-year-old man is deemed fit to serve a prison sentence, we are awaiting the equivalent ‘justice’ to be granted to the non-Communist Jews who were intentionally deprived of food and basic necessities by the gangs of Communist-Jews in the Buchenwald Concentration Camp.

Buy Germany’s War


[1] Keeling, Ralph Franklin, Gruesome Harvest: The Allies’ Postwar War against the German People, Torrance, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, p. XII.

[5] Bessel, Richard, Germany 1945: From War to Peace, London: Harper Perennial, 2010, p. 388.

[6] Lowe, Keith, Savage Continent: Europe in the Aftermath of World War II, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2012, pp. 51, 55.

[7] Keeling, Ralph Franklin, Gruesome Harvest: The Allies’ Postwar War against the German People, Torrance, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, pp. 64-65.

[2] ((((((Kaufman)))))), Theodore N., Germany Must Perish! Newark, NJ: Argyle Press, 1941, pp. 6-7, 28, 86.

[3]Ibid., pp. 88-89.

[4] Goodrich, Thomas, Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany,1944-1947, Sheridan, CO: Aberdeen Books, 2010, pp. 7-8.

Why Internment Camps Are Necessary: A St. Louis-Inspired Visual Argument

White Man,

No matter how many times President Cuck pushes the idea of saluting the same “beautiful red, white, and blue flag,” and no matter how many times you push unity, these people are going to hate you.

They will continuously agitate against you, will constantly plot against you, and will pray to whatever it is they believe every single night that the day may soon arrive when they will be able to kill you.

They wish to rape your women, torture your children, and make you watch before they slit your throat.

They are tearing down your history before your eyes, and will soon turn to the real flesh and blood thing once stone, metal, and concrete becomes boring.

Even if you were to somehow seize control of the state and push for repatriation/deportations, you would have these feral creatures strike hard while the details were hashed out.

No, the only places these critters could be safely contained would be inside properly-constructed camps sealed by barbed wire, guard towers, and soldiers aplenty.

This would of course be a temporary measure, and yes, I suppose you would have to send in rations from time to time, but it’s probably the only measure that would work in the long-term.

Otherwise, you might as well start explaining to your children that what you are about to witness will soon become a daily feature all across this crumbling nation.

And I think we found one of the potential (((ringleaders))) of this specific semi-riot, because all of a sudden it smells quite like certain parts of New York City, Miami, or Boston up in here.

It’s nature and nature knows how to correct an anomaly. Do you really want these pathetic, weakling white zombies, who are so easily manipulated by the government/media/entertainment, to breed with sturdy and clear-headed whites? No way! Trust me, our people are being strengthened and reinforced by being culled of our defective. It’s a win-win. We get rid of our worst and other groups reap the “benefits”!

If that dark day ever comes when Whites become a minority in the USA, an attempt at our extermination is guaranteed. The magical thinking orcs and antifa have themselves convinced that once their hated overlords are displaced then everything will be a multi-culti utopia. We all know that this is bullshit, and that the inferior groups will remain inferior whether they’re calling the shots or not (and let’s be realistic, the idea of niggers running the near-future USA is ludicrous. Jews, Chinese, Indians, and High caste Hispanics will be locked in a power struggle while the country deteriorates), but as the unhappy dindu and mestizo/Indio remain mired in failure despite the ending of “White Privilege,” they’ll still have to blame the evil Whitey for their plight. Whoever the elites are at that time will encourage the demonization of Huwhyte remnant in order to distract the seething hordes of Mordor from tearing up the place.

More on NERES centers later.

China Plots New World Order

China Plots New World Order


For over two weeks the world news has been revolving around the massive earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan and left behind tremendous devastation and loss of human lives.

It was one of the worst disasters in Japan’s history.

Some calamities of nature are impossible to predict or cope with. Human calamities are far more predictable because they originate first inside human minds of the rulers of slave states like the “People’s Republic of China” (PRC), so named and created by Mao in 1949.

Few Americans suspected how urgent it was for America to develop nuclear weapon ahead of Germany. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had never heard of the German nuclear project, which was already under way, until the late 1930s, when the news came to him in a letter from a German scientist of genius, Albert Einstein, in which he alerted the president as to how crucial it was for the United States to be ahead of Germany in developing the nuclear bomb. President Roosevelt was quick to act: the United States developed and obtained the nuclear bomb ahead of Germany.

Roosevelt received Einstein’s warning in the late 1930s, and the nuclear bomb was ready in the 1940s. Today it is March of 2011, and I tried to find out if any superweapons as advanced as superweapons in the 1940s have been constructed since then in the United States or in Germany or in any other country. No!

Has any country produced a new, advanced, modern nuclear superweapon in the last 70 years? No one knows. But what is known is that no advanced free country has produced it! It is peace, you know, not the 1940s — which experienced a war between countries like Nazi Germany, the United States, Great Britain, Soviet Russia, etc.

But what has been going on in the deepest recesses of countries like the PRC we don’t know.

I have in my possession the “World’s Most Comprehensive and Authoritative Almanac,” “The New York Times Almanac of Record,” edited by John W. Wright, with editors and reporters of the Times.

It contains more than 1,000 pages, but there is not a single reference to nuclear weapons
(I have the Almanac of 2007).

It is little surprise that the news about powerful war preparations in PRC and other such alarming events does not reach most U.S. populations, who spend public time on searching for wonderful clothes and other pleasurable items.

Let us now recall how Germany surprised the world. Surely it was a country of philosophers, poets, and such others. But it turned out to be the world’s most dangerous military machine, which occupied France as though France and Britain (with British troops in France), were not modern industrial countries but a French-British health resort.

World War III will bring many such surprises, and finally the call will be, “Kill all the people of the so-called free countries, or they will kill us.”

Today it is not the 1940s, but 2011. Slave countries have massive populations and their rulers understand that World War III may end up unfavorably for them, and therefore they should be as ruthless as their weapons.

War is a calamity, which “slave” countries are preparing to win, and the United States has, owing to its “general election,” a U.S. president who is a friend of the PRC, who had invited the PRC ruler to the White House festivities to honor him as the leader of the PRC.

Slave societies do not change essentially in peace and in war, since they are always at war and their inhabitants are always slaves. Hence their output of evermore deadly weapons is not affected.

Slavery is a permanent war against slaves, whom propaganda convinces from the cradle to the grave that they are the happiest inhabitants of the earth and will be angels after what heretics describe as the end of earthly happiness.

Once upon a time, all people were being persuaded that they were immortal and, after what heretics and savages described as their mortal end, they would wake up to a happy, beautiful, eternal experience beyond any description in any human tongue.

That persuasion worked in the European Medieval times. Surely it can work in a slave society today, while all the vital forces of a slave state are being aimed at achieving military superiority over the countries calling themselves free to attract the credulous.

China’s Former Defense Minister Predicted World Domination

It is a dual reality that had been awaiting those born in Russia, after it had become Soviet Russia.

Why did the word “Russia” figure into the name of post-1917 Russia — “Soviet Russia”?

The Soviet culture-propaganda had a dual vision of Russia. On the one hand, Russia was so bad that its replacement with the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” was the greatest achievement of world history.

This “Union” was to occupy the entire world. On the other hand, that horrible old Russia, overthrown by Soviet arms, had produced amazing operas (performed in the opera houses left by that old Russia), unique plays, and music and literature worthy to be called classical.

I quickly found that the only way to make a living for me, away from hated Soviet propaganda, was in translating Russian classical literature into English, and a Moscow publishing house sold the books abroad and paid me handsomely.

From the best-known Soviet pop singer Leonid Utyosov, my wife and I bought a three-storied stone villa, with a birch tree coppice, opposite the back of the building, and an apple orchard — opposite its front.

In 1972, 19 years after Stalin died, the Soviet rulers decided to permit several hundred “Soviet people” to emigrate from the “Soviet country”! The news, however, was too sacrilegious to have ever been reported in the Soviet media.

Now in New York, my wildest dreams have come true. I smuggled out the manuscript of my book (on microfilm), which I clandestinely had written in Russia, and had it published by Harper & Row. I lectured to the university audiences on the future of the world all over the country and abroad. Now I have been writing a weekly column for my appreciative editors — to save freedom, freedom which created genius in old Russia and, having lost it, became a slave society.

On March 24, 2011, I received many e-mails from my readers. One of them, Gesa L., wrote that “I just finished reading some of your columns at Newsmax.” He goes on to say that in 1978, his “Group of 70” faced “a huge communist demonstration in Bonn, Germany, where some of us ended up in hospital.”
“Thank you for opening the eyes of many and keep warning the public,” he concludes.

In another email on March 24, 2011, Ken K. says that he enjoyed my article “China Plots a New World Order.” He also sent me a link to Chi Haotian’s speeches of 2005, “in case you might have overlooked them.”

In fact, I did read them and wrote about them in 2005. Chi Haotian was the Minister of Defense of the PRC and delivered his pronouncements in his speeches in 2005.

First of all, in his first of the three speeches, he announced that “Hitler’s Germany had once bragged that the German race was the most superior race on Earth, but the fact is, our nation is far [!] superior to the Germans.” That is, to the German Nazis.

Now, thanks to Ken, I am again looking at the text of the speech delivered by the PRC Minister of Defense in 2005.

Says Chi Haotian: “Many citizens say in private, ‘We never voted for you, the Communist Party, to represent us. How can you claim to be our representatives?”

Well, Stalin staged a general election, except that the only candidate was Stalin. I decided to go to our “voting station” to vote against him. It was not difficult to slip my anonymous voting paper, with my note against Stalin, into one of the numerous boxes that voting papers were dropped in.

So what did the Chinese government do? Says Chi Haotian: “whether we can forever represent the Chinese people depends on whether we can succeed in leading the Chinese people out of China.” That is, invading the world and giving it to “the Chinese people.”

Further, Chi notes: “Only countries like the United States, Canada, and Australia have the vast land to serve our need for mass colonization.”

It is necessary, he goes on to say, to “focus” on “developing lethal weapons that can eliminate the mass populations of the enemy countries.”

Well, what does this article tell us? When we, watchers of societies deprived of freedom, were speaking about the global ambitions of the country which Mao named “People’s Republic of China” in 1949, we were accused of childish fantasies.

In vain did I try to attract the attention of the free countries to Chi’s speech when it first appeared. Perhaps now in the free countries, there are more sensitive watchers of China?

Time is running out. PRC is working at full speed — in particular, to train its billion people, by which its population exceeds that of the United States, into new builders and users of new superweapons.

Free-Thinking West Must Vigorously Defend Against Slave States

The free countries will not survive if there is only dedication to prosperity and not to freedom, as there is no free thinking but only recitals of university or government texts.

Unique, high-level free-thinking in the West came to be known as genius, and this is what the U.S. president and his British counterpart, the prime minister, should be.

But before analyzing intelligence as uniquely valuable free-thinking, it is worthwhile to repeat what I wrote before in previous columns, such as the fact that the prime minister in Britain gets appointed, not elected by the majority of people.

A majority of 100 million American voters (that is, all who cared to vote) voted for Obama, an open friend of the “People’s Republic of China,” the main enemy of the United States. The PRC was created in 1949 by the communist Mao, said to have killed many more people than did the communist Stalin, without any court hearing or with “propaganda courts,” obeying Stalin and Mao, respectively, as their slave owners.

The U.S. president, elected by a majority of 100 million electors, may turn out to be not a thinker of genius but an idiot. Well, a majority of 100 million American voters may be smart in other fields, but idiots in international relations.

This is why in Britain the prime minister (the equivalent of the U.S. president) is not directly elected “by general vote.” He is chosen by the political party with the greatest number of seats in Congress. After his discussions with the most intelligent people of the land, including the queen and king, he becomes the prime minister.

Are the American admirers of Obama sure that the American people are incomparably more intelligent than the British people?

This brings us to a general question, What is intelligence, that is, free thinking, in contrast to repeating what is trite or absurd or both, and what idiots say?

In classical antiquity and in the West-European Medieval classical culture, thinkers of genius had disciples, and that was how education in intelligence had existed until came those universities which were indeed universal, for they taught above all whatever ensures a prestigious job with a good salary.

But this is not the intelligence or free-thinking that distinguishes an original human mind from a machine.

Intelligence is an inner human ability which endows one human mind decades or centuries before it does other minds, though sometimes the interval of hours or even minutes may spell life or death for the free countries as well as for the owners of the slave countries trying to enslave the free countries, since slaves for slave-owners are their wealth.

Before the 20th century, countries were divided into advanced, industrial countries, in particular where machines and weapons were produced, and those which were mainly agricultural, with their bucolic nature, the main attraction for the travelers.

Russia was the first country which upset this division. The owners of Russia established an industry that was sufficiently powerful in the production of weapons, which later proved to be a decisive factor during World War II in defeating Germany and routing Hitler’s army from the territory of “Soviet Russia.”

It has to be noted that Germany had already been a developed industrial country, while Russia started its speedy yet powerful industrialization by the communist Stalin (who died in 1953).

According to Wikipedia, the number of trained military personnel in the “People’s Republic of China” as of 2010 exceeded that of the United States by 1 million (about one-third), and there is no doubt that the PRC relies or will rely on its surplus of 1 billion (!) people.

The “People’s Republic of China,” often called in the West just China, is a slave country, and yet it is not clear how the United States will defend itself against China if the United States is attacked now or in 20 or 30 years.

Yes, to survive in the next half a century, the world requires intelligence and free-thinking on the part of the free countries, not a “general election” of a U.S. president, friend of the PRC, to defend them from an aggressive slave country.

Slavery is also an economic advantage. The slaves can work for a tiny fraction of what free people get in free countries for the same work. To stay alive, the slaves must obey orders from their owners.

In short, in our age of militarized industrial slavery (as in PRC), the free countries must take all advantages of freedom — above all in the intelligence that results from free thinking.

A Good Defense Against China Is a Solid Offense of Knowledge

France was the country of Napoleon, and in alliance with England, it defeated Germany in World War I. But during World War II, Hitler’s occupation of France, with the British troops that were in France to help France defend itself, was a short pleasure trip for Hitler’s army. Many came to believe that he would conquer the world!

In the late 1930s, a German sent a letter to President Roosevelt. I keep a copy of the letter. The German’s name was Albert Einstein. My Encyclopaedia Britannica says that Einstein was born in 1870, and by the late 1930s he had all scientific titles and awards that can be bestowed on a physician of genius.

In 1913, Einstein became a professor at the University of Berlin, director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, and a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences. In 1922, he received the 1921 Nobel Prize in physics. And so on.

There was only one biographical detail which was not disclosed because Nazi Germany began the extermination of Jews, but even my Britannica (the latest edition, which I bought when we came to the West in 1972) does not say in its three-page article about Einstein (vol. 8, pp. 95-97) that this super-genius was a Jew. The Nazi rulers of Nazi Germany forced Hitler to join the extermination of Jews (look up any detailed biography of Hitler published in the United States to see that earlier Hitler had not been an anti-Semite).

In the late 1930s, Einstein and his family decided to leave Germany (while the going was still good, at least for them). As they were leaving, Einstein dropped into the mailbox his letter to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Its moral was simple: Those who would have nuclear weapons would win World War II, and those who would not would lose it.

And those who conducted the anti-Semitic campaign in Nazi Germany could well say, Come on, the destiny of mankind depends on what a German Jew said or did?

Yes, that’s it! Owing to Roosevelt, the United States had nuclear weapons, while Nazi Germany had already collapsed, and the United States dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan, whereupon Japan surrendered immediately and unconditionally.

Einstein died in 1955 at the age of 85, and I wonder if anyone asked him to write a column “How I, a lonely Jew, won World War II because Nazi Germany had started the extermination of Jews and I with my family decided to leave it and hence mailed my letter to President Roosevelt.”

Owing to developing science and technology, we can imagine the growth of global-scale military operations. But just as before, much will depend on the performance of human beings, not only machines per se.

A free country makes it possible to see human beings as they are. The slave societies convert human beings into mechanisms behind uniform masks.

Hence any slave may be infinitely dangerous because a slave’s personality is hidden behind his or her mask. Take myself, as an example. The owners of Russia let me and my family leave the country, and I emigrated to become a free man able to freely express myself in my books, my lectures, my speeches on radio in English (for the West) and in Russian (for Russia) what I had not dared publish or say in Russia, where behind my mask I was totally unknown to the totalitarian powers that be until I was safely out of their reach. Yes, in such a society, slaves like myself are totally unknown to their owners as their worst enemies.

Knowledge of the enemy has always been considered a decisive prerequisite of the military victory. But here the totalitarian owners of the countries are thus faced with millions of totally unknown enemies like Albert Einstein or me or anyone such that you know.

The “People’s Republic of China,” which will move to conquer the world (read the speeches of the minister of defense Chi in 2005), will have two armies to defeat: the foreign army and its own native army, whose soldiers may be secretly against their rulers, as was Albert Einstein against Nazi Germany at the end of the 1930s or as was I against the Soviet rulers.

Here the pattern may be more unpredictable than it was during the Western wars among nations whose troops were not made up of slaves. With slaves as soldiers, the picture will be more unpredictable and chaotic, since slaves are unpredictable by definition. No, it wasn’t Hitler who in the late 1930s was told by the German physicist Albert Einstein how to defeat all enemy countries by nuclear weapons!

Globalization Does Not Make an Enslaved Country Free

Globalization has become a fashionable trend. Many industrial goods which originated in Britain, the mother of industrialization, began to be used by both free and slave countries throughout the world.

Another sphere of globally used goods is the military. The unfree countries try to acquire the most advanced weapons of the free countries through espionage. We are led to believe that eventually all countries will thus make up one world; that is, they all will be “globalized.” Karl Marx espoused a similar idea of a single world, but his was to be realized through a global revolution, not through similar goods spreading all over the world.

Slavery goes back to antiquity. On the other hand, in the free countries of today, all inhabitants are free, except those who are convicted of crimes.

The main role of the military in a free country is to protect the country and its people from being annihilated or enslaved. The origination and existence of slavery are inevitable in those countries in which there are no social safeguards of freedom, as there were none in Russia after November 1917.

Ironically, war globalization in World War I played its full role in the conversion of Russia, a country which had produced people of genius in culture, including sociology, into a full-fledged slave state. By 1917, Russia had been too exhausted, demoralized, and desperate to resist Lenin, with his “dictatorship of the proletariat,” and a semi-literate Georgian gangster Stalin, who spoke Russian with a heavy accent and grabbed the absolute power in the country.

The name “USSR,” as Russia came to be called under the pseudo-emperor Stalin, has perished after the dictator’s death, as have other “Soviet” names. Why do the owners of slave countries love and encourage “real globalization”?

Stalin’s slaves glorified him — they had to pretend that they adored “our teacher and friend Stalin,” who owned them. Powerless, with no means to defend themselves, slaves work for their owner on his terms (such as “If you don’t work hard enough, I’ll order to torture you to death”).
Also, slaves, who work for their owners practically without pay — barely enough to sustain life and be able to work — are the ideal slaves.

To a slave owner with a leaning toward Marxism, such social arrangement nurses high hopes of slave countries eventually achieving communism, the conclusive phase of socialism, when everyone will be satisfied according to their needs, not according to their ability to work.

In unfree countries, all inhabitants, except their owners, as was, for example, Stalin, who died in 1953, are slaves, who are watched, arrested, tortured or killed by the secret police. The chasm between the free countries and the slave countries is not getting less pronounced because their slaves can buy the same “global” umbrellas.

Public radio, television, and other controlled media in slave countries exist in order to glorify the life of their slaves and to malign the free countries for their “exploitation” of the “working class” by the “bourgeoisie.”

The owners of the slave countries are trying hard to stifle any display of freedom in their countries, for they know that secretly many of their slaves are yearning for freedom.

In a desperate attempt to prevent the “emancipation” of their slaves and to preserve the status quo of their power, the owners of slave societies are encouraging globalization by providing access to the free Western countries to use cheap labor of their slaves, thereby creating a false impression of the benevolence of their regime, meanwhile acquiring Western know-how and the latest military technology for their future wars to destroy the free countries by conquering them and thus acquiring more slaves.

The fact that, say, the population of the “People’s Republic of China” exceeds that of the United States by 1 billion people should be counterbalanced by the fact that the people of the free countries are more creative (for creativity needs freedom), motivated to defend their freedom, and in case of war with a slave country, they will liberate its slaves and thus win them over to their side.

Yes, the weapons of all countries are being globalized. None of today’s countries can even think of starting a war without having the latest modern weapons based on the latest research in science and technology.

On the other hand, socially, there has never been less globalization: The free countries and slave states have never differed more than they do today. And herein lies the strength of the free world.

China Plotting Communist Takeover

“China’s Master Plan to Destroy America”: This is the subtitle of a book written by two colonels of the People’s Liberation Army and copyrighted in 2002.

The United States is the most powerful country among the Western free countries, and even just by pestering it, PRC becomes globally significant.

Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th edition) says on page 709: “Maoism in China was developed chiefly by Mao.” (Surely — but with some help from books by Karl Marx.)

According to Marx, the first step of the victorious communists will be to dismiss all non-proletarians; that is, creators of all inventions, all machinery, and other aspects of all production, as well as all advertising of what is being produced. After that, the production would be in a hole and “the working class” would also die of hunger.

Owing to Marx, Mao gave the Chinese a vision of one-country world of the future, following the world “communist revolution.” Mao called himself (and was called) a communist, and the society he named “PRC” in 1949 also called itself and was called “communist.”

But today it is difficult to find the word “communist” even in the PRC materials. The reason is that the PRC was to fight for its communist world in alliance with the most powerful countries. However, the very word “communist” became unacceptable in too many countries to parade it.

Each time the PRC is testing anything new in weaponry, it attacks the United States (though never overtly enough to raise justified suspicion) since the reaction of the United States is useful for the PRC to know.

Also, an honest-to-goodness world war may indeed start in “x” months or “y” years, to make the PRC the owner of a single communist world. The PRC will be all ready to participate in that “communist (shhhhh) war.”

I get the impression that the names of Chinese communists are never revealed in public. They are secret agents, expected to be highly motivated, interested, and active.

Is China’s hope to possess the world on the basis of nothing except Mao’s words? No! The United States is the most powerful country among the free Western countries. But the population of the PRC is bigger than that of the United States by 1 billion people. Imagine a billion people converted into creators, producers, and users of the latest weapons on the world battlefields.

China is said to have existed for 6,000 years. Its science and technology go as far back into history as those of Rome and Greece. So science and technology are not its weaknesses.

I am getting a lot of materials about China from my readers, which they send me in the hope that I will use those materials and make them known. One book, entitled “Unrestricted Warfare: China’s Master Plan to Destroy America,” was written by two colonels of the People’s Liberation Army.

Originally, the book was published in 1999 by China’s People’s Liberation Army, Beijing, and then by Pan American Publishing Company, Panama City, in 2002.

The Soviet communists used inventions about the fabulous growth of welfare in their country. The Chinese communists avoid calling themselves communists, and their inventions are about warfare, not welfare. Indeed, in totalitarian societies of the last century, there have been propaganda fictions of either fabulous welfare in their own countries or fabulous warfare in other countries to conquer them and create sources of “welfare for their people.”

Naturally, a country devoted to warfare evokes greater hostility in the outside world than the one devoted to welfare, though warfare and welfare can mix or merge. Warfare destroys the prosperity of the defeated (if not totally destroyed) country, while welfare leaves it open for robbery without warfare.

If the PRC creates a line of allies engaged in warfare, the position of the United States may, indeed, become desperate. Its rescue may depend on its ability to defend itself, not only on its ability to conduct unrestricted warfare.

It is not impossible that what Stalin’s Russia failed to do — create world communism — will be done by a global entity, dominating the world by the PRC, which the communist Mao created and so named in 1949.

Not so long ago, there was a strong general belief in mental development due to education, progress, philosophy, and enlightenment. Surely, Hitler was an illiterate, a soldier in a country left defenseless in a blind alley of a military rout.

Looking at the festive cover and title of the book authored by the two colonels, I am thinking about a world-sized lunatic asylum, into which mankind will confine itself, as made hopelessly insane by “unrestricted warfare” and “China’s master plan to destroy America.”

China Seeks World Conquest to Protect Its Tyranny

Before the 20th century, China had existed for the West only as a historical memory.

In the 20th century, however, China’s conquest of the world, to protect the tyranny in China, seemed realistic in the West: It was recalled that the population of China exceeds that of the United States by 1 billion, and an army so gigantic and well armed it could conquer the world if it is not defensive enough.

Mao attracted Western attention after he had become the chief military man of China and later its ruler.

The official name of Stalin’s Russia was the USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Well, China is just one republic, and hence it is one in Mao’s acronym: the PRC, or “The People’s Republic of China.”

The name of Mao’s army is the exact replica of that of the Soviet army: “workers’ and peasants’ red army.” All of Mao’s ranks in China are fashioned after Soviet military ranks.

Soviet Marxism was Mao’s original to copy and admire.

What is Soviet Marxism? Marx was not involved in production. So, according to Marx, “leaders of production” are parasites by definition. The results were the enrichment of the parasites and the progressive poverty of the working class. What’s the way out? Eliminate the parasites!

To project his infinite power, Mao introduced or reintroduced mass torture even for a vague and often impersonal offense.

Mao’s status has been elevated during his rule. Outside China there has been a strong fear that China is preparing for war to dominate the world, in particular to deliver itself from the danger of being conquered (by Japan, for example).

Just as some other silent skeptics in Russia, I wondered even as a child why social systems which advertised themselves as the most collective had one person — like Stalin or later Mao — as the overall leader or absolutist owner of the country.

There are discrepancies in all Marxist theories, as there are in life. A human being must be loved and medically treated like Mao, who lived beyond the age of 80. And here we learn that Mao treated human beings like insects, of whom he destroyed from 40 to 70 million between 1949, when he became the “leader” of the PRC, and 1976, when he died.

It is small wonder that after Mao’s death the “leaders” of China have been processing its extra 1 billion people into global human troops and producers of global military weapons.

Let’s face it. The country with the largest and most technologically advanced army on land, in water, and in space will be the owner of the world. The survival contest has started; its advantages in the Western democracies being freedoms used by genius and talent, the defense of individuals and corporations against crime, competitive results, and their protection.

A lawyer in a democratic country would say that nothing above contradicts its legal rationale. Yes, all that is required is to understand that the primary importance of this rationale is not the satisfaction of individuals defended by law, but the eternal renaissance of creativity. The new renaissance needs a permanent renaissance for its own permanent survival.

It is to be hoped, but should not be expected as a law of social spiritual development, that finally the renaissance becomes universal, and the war, kept vigorously alive as a method of criminals (like Stalin, Hitler, or Mao) will be discarded as was cannibalism.

In other words, Mao, who was born in 1893, expected as he was dying (and leaving behind his numerous former wives) that his sermons had convinced mankind to go centuries or millennia back, that is, to live as happily as in the “People’s Republic of China,” to use Mao’s name for the slave state of China.

Mao established his PRC by killing, torture, and maiming, and he evidently expected that his PRC bliss may thus be established everywhere, except those countries where the entire population can be wiped out, as Hitler was forced by a “powerful group” to wipe out Jews.

Mao aimed not at the destruction of Jews, but of all people refusing to become slaves. To become slaves or be dead: that was the only general choice.

Yes, mass murder, mass torture, and slavery for all those who survive in China had the “leader” whose Chinese name was Mao Zedong, or Mao Tse-tung. Well, he had a shortcoming: His forehead was both low and retreating, which made him look like a slave of 3,000 years ago.

China Seeks to Enslave the World

There is an opinion that the cause of slavery is the historic backwardness of a country. Actually, the cause of slavery is the same as that of other crimes: impunity. Slavery is one of the gravest crimes, for the criminal robs his victim of everything except what is needed for a slave to carry out his or her owner’s wishes.

Stalin, Hitler, and Mao were equally uneducated (except for the Georgian Stalin, who could barely speak his working tongue — Russian). But their slaves were to take them for gods, not idiots that they were.

In Russia, I was living in Moscow, when one fine day it was announced that Stalin would be the candidate to vote for in our district. I described how I voted in my earlier columns. But the episode is highly relevant, and so I recall it again.

I was to go to our local voting station to “vote.” At a table, several officials held a list of the “voters” with their addresses. I was to take my voting bulletin and drop it into one of the voting boxes down the hall.

Now, what would have happened if I had not turned up to vote? An official would have come to remind me that it was Election Day and that I was expected to vote before midnight.

So I duly went to our voting place and duly dropped my voter’s bulletin into one of the boxes.

Secretly, I had also picked up (with my hand in glove!) another bulletin, wrote on it (in block letters) why I was voting against Stalin, and, with my hand in glove, dropped that bulletin into one of the boxes.

Soon after midnight there was a ring at the door of our “communal apartment,” shared by five or six families. The police were searching the entire electoral district. At their demand, I showed them my passport. They had found nothing suspicious.

Of course, like any slave-owner, Stalin was assuring his slaves via his powerful propaganda that they were free, in contrast to those whom Marx called the “slaves of capital.”

About 15 years after Stalin’s death, several hundred “Soviet people,” including myself and my family, were granted permission to emigrate. By doing so, the new Soviet rulers were trying to offset the scandalous fact that at that time some Soviet spies were apprehended in the United Nations. The diversion worked: Western newspapers front-paged the unprecedented emigration news from Soviet Russia!

So there we were: from the slavery of Moscow to the freedom of New York, where I started publishing in the then fashionable monthly magazine Commentary.

Of course, on the issues like freedom, many are influenced, at the beginning of or throughout one’s life, by one’s native country.

In Britain, the prime minister (equivalent of the U.S. president) is not elected by the people, most or many of whom are not qualified to do so, but is nominated as the chairman of the largest political party in parliament and then referred to the queen to be confirmed as Her Majesty’s prime minister, provided he or she satisfies Her Majesty’s requirements.

Someone like Obama, therefore, could not have possibly met any of those requirements and could have never qualified for such high office.

By contrast, elected in the United States was a certain Obama, who had Marxist-Maoist leanings and particular sympathies for China. Nevertheless, those who voted for Obama did not pay much attention to that fact or maybe they just didn’t care to find out anything about him and awarded him (through their ignorance) the greatest political honor of being the U.S. president.

On the other hand, unlike Obama, Russia fears, and not loves China, its neighbor. And it is partly out of this fear, which is quite real, that Russia has withdrawn from the territories of what formerly constituted its “national republics.” Officially, Russia is now called the “Russian Federation,” or RF. At the same time, possibly also out of fear, Russia has been helping China to accomplish its military projects.

On Dec. 6, 2010, carried on its front page an article entitled “An Epoch-Making Shift”: China Has Mastered The Russian Aviatechnology, Which May Change The Military Balance.

According to, the above is a paraphrase of an article which appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

What’s the gist of it?

After China has copied all the best Russian weapons as well as the best Western weapons and has put that knowledge into its armed forces (which could be based on its “extra” 1 billion people), the RF will practically cease to exist, except maybe for some former Soviet slaves, important for the military industry, who will be relocated to China to slave there for their new master’s world ownership.

China Prepares for Modern War

To their owners, slave states may seem more powerful in principle than free countries and destined to defeat them.

I repeatedly mention in my columns that in late 1930s Germany, only a genius such as Albert Einstein understood that a country that would be the first to possess nuclear weapons would win the war.

Einstein’s letter to Roosevelt saved the world from being conquered by Hitler had Hitler been armed with nuclear weapons. Actually, Japan, which did not have nuclear weapons and which attacked the United States, surrendered unconditionally after the United States dropped two nuclear bombs on Japanese islands Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Einstein was born in Germany in 1879. If freedom is measured by the depth of personal philosophies, Germany before 1914 was the world’s freest country. By the late 1930s, however, it had regressed to totalitarian militarism with global ambitions.

Einstein saved mankind by having discreetly left Germany with his family and sending a letter to President Roosevelt warning him about the crucial military importance of nuclear weapons. The United States built them promptly enough and had them by the end of Hitler’s debacle in Russia and his consequent suicide.

The inside of flap of “Cyber War,” written by two former U.S. government officials, says that the senior of the two authors, Richard A. Clarke, served “in the White House, and Bill Clinton appointed him as National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counterterrorism.”

What is “cyber war”? Clarke is over 60 years old, but this is his first study on the subject.

I pulled up “cyber war” on my computer and received thousands of results mentioning Clarke, as though the United States is consumed by a “cyber war” and is fighting it back under the expert leadership of Clarke.

Norbert Wiener (1894-1964), a mathematician, engineer, and social philosopher, coined the word “cybernetics” from the Greek word meaning “steersman.” He defined it as the science of control and communication in the animal and the machine.

Cybernetics treats not things but ways of behaving: It attempts to understand how systems behave themselves, control themselves, and organize themselves. Cybernetics cuts across many traditional disciplinary boundaries, like engineering, systems control, computer science, biology, philosophy, and the organization of society.

If the United States stays at the mental level of Bill Clinton and his appointee Richard A. Clarke, the annihilation of this country is almost certain.

Today a global military analysis should begin with the statement that China has about 1 billion more inhabitants than the United States. This 1 billion Chinese are a huge reservoir from which to draw those capable to be involved in science and technology.

Of course, since a born inhabitant of China is a slave, this gives the slave state of China its advantages in war. But its disadvantage is that a genius like Albert Einstein cannot be identified in a slave state because there is no other known genius in the field, and hence the field does not exist.

On the other hand, in a free society, Einstein would be discovered by another Einstein if such exists, or by someone aspiring to be a genius.

Much of what is mentioned by the authors of the “Cyber War” as the “new war” threatening the United States has been used hundreds or thousands of years before: espionage, terrorism, sexual seduction, stealing of military plans and what have you. Of course, new science and technology came up the means to destroy them.

Both free countries and slave states have their own advantages and disadvantages in war in general and modern war in particular.

Many inhabitants of free countries take freedom for granted, as existing for them only to enjoy their private lives. Recall the documentary films showing the carefree French on the eve of Hitler’s occupation of France, which happened at a lightning speed.

And what about the current U.S. president’s friendship with China, his desire to see China grow strong, a country which may yet conquer the United States with such ruthless cruelty that will surpass that of Hitler’s occupation of France?

Incidentally, Norbert Wiener became an opponent of war in general. Why not? Freedom in America! One can study cyber war and be openly against war, any war, war in general, and without as much as paying attention to how China has been using 1 billion of its “surplus” population for preparing its war to win the ownership of the world.

China Readies for World War

Recently China’s intentions to unleash a new world war to conquer the world have grabbed the attention of the Western media.

An unfounded Western invention? No, not this time!

The population of the People’s Republic of China exceeds that of the United States by 1 billion. With such advantage and having adequate weapons, China can bury the United States, to say nothing of smaller countries. This is a fact nobody can deny.

The United States and practically all advanced countries participated in World War I and World War II, not to mention smaller wars. What about the “People’s Republic of China”? Here from my collection is the photograph of the smiling Mao, raising his fist to salute the coming of the next “new Russian revolution.”

Well, the “new Russian revolution” never came. But what was important for Mao was to stop using the word “war” in a positive sense. All wars are mass murders. Mao was interested in revolutions. Hence Mao’s China had no need for the latest weapons, since surely the “new Russian revolution” would be armed by Russians themselves.

For about 10 years the Western media have been suspecting that China is making war preparations to conquer the world. On Aug. 5, 2003, few noticed the headline in the blog ParaPundit: “Students from China Caught Stealing Military Technology.”

Well, for years, some 50,000 students from China studying in the United States have been stealing the knowhow and military secrets and whatever else necessary to make the army of the People’s Republic of China the world’s supreme leader.

But many or most leaders of the democratic countries were worried more about their careers than about the safety of their countries, and in particular, about the scandals involving Chinese students in America pilfering American military secrets and sensitive military data. For example, President George W. Bush had a meeting with China’s leader and the scandals were waived aside.

Why do these 50,000 Chinese study in the United States? Well, the United States has been trying to help the People’s Republic of China to educate its people. Hence 50,000 Chinese “study” in the United States — actually helping to equip China’s army with whatever it needs to achieve its ultimate goal: global victory, requiring the world’s best weapons.

In June of 2010, The Washington Post published an article headlined “China Becoming a Scientific Superpower.”

At this point let us recall the millennial social differences between freedom in the United States and other democracies and the absence of it in the People’s Republic of China, converting its inhabitants into slaves, living by sacred rules of slavery.

There is nothing that a free American cannot say or do unless a court finds that those actions do harm to other human beings. On the other hand, there is nothing a Chinese inhabitant can dare to do or say if that contradicts the sacred rules of slavery, established as they were established millennia ago.

That chasm was understood in the United States and other free countries after China’s inhabitants were shot about 20 years ago for saying that it would be good if some government institutions in their country were elected by the people.

On Sept. 23, 2010, the China’s Premier Wen Jiabao spoke in New York. He said, “There are thousands of reasons for U.S.-China relations to move forward.” He went on to say that he “is an optimist about the relations between the two nations.”

Chi Mak had began sending “sensitive materials” to China in 1983, two years before he became a U.S. citizen. Today he is on trial. That is, for 24 years he was sending American sensitive military (naval) technology to China. He is now 66 years old — well, it’s time for him to get some rest.

But surely there will be others like him until China surpasses the United States in the effectiveness of its military weapons to successfully wage its global war to grab and enslave the world.

In this column, I tried to show the “U.S.-China relations” as the U.S. mass media have presented them, and hence most Americans have perceived them, especially in view of the fact that in his New York speech last month Wen Jiabao expressed his optimistic belief that mutual relations between the United States and China should “move forward.”

However, apart from what top Chinese officials may be openly saying for Moscow and the entire world to hear, something infinitely more important and sinister may be secretly discussed in their offices. And this will be the subject of my next-week column.

China Eyes Free Societies

In the first millennium, China and the countries west of China barely knew of each other’s existence, and if a Chinese were asked why he or she never visited Western Europe, the likely answer would be that those Western countries were so boring that no visit was worth it.

In 1949, China appeared in the West under its new name, which had been invented by Mao and presented in English as the “People’s Republic of China.”

The French word “republic” means “wealth (res) of publica,” that is, of “people,” and so Mao’s new name of China meant “People’s Wealth of People of China.”

In the People’s Republic of China, the Tiananmen Square’s participants publicly dared to call for the free election of the government — and were shot.

In the United States, Obama repeatedly expressed his sympathy for the slave society of the post-1949 China — and remains the freely elected U.S. president.

At one time China was regarded in the West as a “big village,” while many crucial strategic achievements (like the Newtonian mathematics and physics) were made in China before they appeared in the West.

So what’s the way out for the West from the looming disaster threatening it by Mao’s China?

While the population of a country such as post-1949 China may be acting reflexively, the population of the West must act as one human being, aware of the overall goal to preserve freedom. This is a route of suffering, ensuring the superiority of the general awareness of the goal of the survival of a free society over a slave country.

The pacifist mood of France, attacked by the totalitarian Germany, ensured the French collapse. Even the totalitarian Germany lost its war with Russia owing to Hitler’s nonchalant mood, good for a play at war, not the war of Hitler’s Germany against Stalin’s Russia.

Thus we arrive at the most tragic dilemma: Freedom is the possibility to do what he or she wants to do, is it not? But then a free country such as France may be routed, as it was by Hitler, precisely because of her freedom.

Freedom just for the sake of freedom leads to death. The death of that same free person. Or the death of a free country. Freedom has to be meaningful, just as the human life has to be meaningful.

Otherwise even Hitler, having invaded Russia, could expect nothing but a bullet through his brain.

When speaking of the meaning of freedom, we speak of a national freedom or of the freedom of all free nations in the world.

When a free nation ignores the danger to its existence because it finds better ways to enjoy its freedom, contrary to the interests of self-preservation of national and world freedom, the latter gets destroyed, as the freedom of France was destroyed when Hitler invaded it.

Let us not forget that the preservation of freedom depends on us. It is our personal responsibility as well.

In a country in which a friend of today’s China is in the White House, a lot of sensitive information gets released and becomes easily available and harmful to our country. If you happen to be in possession of such secret information, do not divulge it; do not give it away just because you happen to have access to this secret information.

Do not destroy your country while it is still yours.

I wonder whether a healthy change will come to the United States before long. Let us remember that each of us is responsible either for a process of its innovation or for its hopeless decay, which may end up as it did in France with Hitler’s conquest.

I call upon all those who want to preserve freedom in the world. Let each of us act like dramatic personae in a possible, real-life final tragedy of mankind, brought on by slave societies.

Yes, one person can do a lot if he or she acts intelligently and does his or her best for the benefit of freedom in our world, where the population of the People’s Republic of China exceeds 1.3 billion.

At the same time, let us not forget that the scale of death and destruction in war increases automatically with the growth of technology. There may come a time when war will become the suicide of mankind.

The problem now will be to keep the world scale of war deaths and destruction within the crucial limits. Still, let us see and hear more of the best world strategists. Let no one be surprised if everyone in a free country will be a literate, well-informed world strategist saving from death at least the free part of mankind.

This may lead to more time spent on the saving of the free world than on watching the television programs, whose aim is to sell fashionable trinkets or “movies about war.” We should remember that without countries dedicated to freedom the universe will become a corpse.

It is possible that before long we will have the final judgment as to whether the world will embrace freedom as it still does, or whether it will sink into slavery.

Human life, whether free or slave, may disappear forever due to ever-new military technology.

Will the U.S. Be Conquered by China?

At the beginning of the “Sovietia,” Stalin was concerned that by destroying the treasures of Russian art, valued all over the refined world, he would get branded by the West as a vandal.

Osip Mandelstam, a Russian poet considered a genius, wrote a stinging poem about Stalin. These are the opening lines of the poem (which was not published at the time, but it was copied, read, and passed on):

We live without feeling the earth under our feet.
What we say is never heard ten steps away.

Now, was Mandelstam a poet of genius? If he was, he would not be killed publicly right away. There would be problems abroad: “Stalin has killed a poet whom the Russians call the greatest, not only in Russia but in the world at large.”

Stalin contacted the poet Boris Pasternak: “Is Mandelstam a poet of genius?” he asked. “Yes,” Pasternak answered, “but I would like to speak with you about something else.” “What about?” Stalin asked. “Life and death,” was the response.

Stalin hung up.

Mandelstam was committed to a temporary exile, where he lived with his wife, Nadezhda, and where he created his great poetry. Months later he was sent to a concentration camp, where he perished.

There were no changes in the Sovietia except those for the worse, until 1970 brought incredible, impossible news: Several hundred “Soviet citizens” were allowed to emigrate to the countries of their choice!

Where should we emigrate? For quite a few of us the choice was made by history.
The English-speaking countries have the most elaborate freedom rights! And that was where we went — America! — the most powerful free country which would be able to defend us best.

Before going over to the current flow of time, let me devote a couple of paragraphs to the life of myself and my near and dear here in New York City. During our life in Moscow, Russia, we eyed our beloved English-speaking countries, where the freedom of speech (such as writing poetry by Mandelstam) was no crime, one that could end in a poet’s death in a concentration camp.

We had a nervous worry about the survival of the free countries in the age of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, and in New York I began writing a weekly column about the world at large. My wife was my secretary, since both of us went through the same world drama.

Now, after having lived in America for 40 years, I cannot help comparing the electoral systems of the United States and Great Britain.

The majority party in the British parliament, which receives more votes than any other party, nominates a candidate to speak with Her Majesty, after which the Queen either approves or rejects the nominee to be her prime minister.

The British briefcase “Prime Minister” contains about 50 pages. Why did I choose to write the above paragraph? Well, some information is more important the greater the number of those who voted for it. But with other information, it may be the other way around: the fewer the voters know about it, the more valuable it may be.

Had not the U.S. president received the information about nuclear bombs through a letter he received from a great German scientist (who was not even a voter in the United States!), Hitler with nuclear bombs would have become the owner of the world.

The American government power is said to have originated in the American Revolution.
I saw it being abused by Obama after he became president of the United States. Shortly after Obama moved into the White House, he declared a new era of “cooperation, not confrontation” with China and arranged for the two days of high-level talks with Chinese officials. Said Obama: “The relationship between the United States and China will shape the 21st century, which makes it as important as any bilateral relationship in the world.”

Has Obama read numberless conclusions of experts about the coming destructive war between the United States and the “People’s Republic of China”?

But what about those Americans who believe that the China founded in 1949 by Mao, the Stalinist who killed 64 million Chinese, will save America because Obama declared it to be its friend?

What about us who emigrated to the United States, and not to Britain, because we believed that as a larger country than Britain, America will be able to defend its citizens better?

Actually, all Americans who want to remain Americans, can, on the contrary, find themselves in a trap, created by Mao and his “communist China.”

It is generally recognized today that the harm to Russia done by the “Russian Revolution,” which took place in a country by no means as free as Britain, was tremendous, and its inheritor Stalin died only in l953, but his unprecedented-scale atrocities continued after his death.

It may be appropriate to mention here that Canada is not part of the United States.

Surely had America remained part of the English-speaking territory, the queen of England would have spoken with Obama after he had been elected and would have rejected him after their conversation.

The opposite result? It seems possible for those who make up Obama’s noisy army of those who have been and will be displeased with any America except if it becomes the “People’s Republic of America.”

Obama discovered the “People’s Republic of China” not by reading scientific accounts, but by “their flesh and spirit” being “mine now and for centuries ahead.”

Russia, US Should Join Against China

A smart Russian friend of mine, an outstanding technologist living and working in the United States, sent me a 17-page transcript of one of Yulia Latynina’s Saturday television talk shows called “Code of Access.”

Google introduces Yulia as a “Russian journalist, writer and radio host” and devotes to her nine headlined paragraphs plus “video results.”

To me, a Russian who emigrated from Russia 40 years ago, Yulia is a Russian woman in a new role in a new Russia. Forty years ago her program would have been impossible and, indeed, inconceivable: a charming young woman discussing life in Russia on her TV program, criticizing its social and political aspects, thinking out loud . . .

Indeed, I find in Latynina’s program the thoughts which I have not heard in the United States, but which are politically infinitely valuable.

Here is my favorite, on page 10 of the transcript: “As for elections . . . Dear ladies and gentlemen, a remarkable public opinion poll was taken in 2007: Does the Sun revolve around the Earth or does the Earth revolve around the Sun? Of those polled, 27% answered that the Sun revolves around the Earth.”

In the elementary school of Russia, it has been explained that the Earth rotates around the sun, but to the people on the Earth it seems that the sun rotates around the Earth. Yet 27 percent of potential voters forgot the school explanation.

I also have developed a similar point when I asked how U.S. President Roosevelt could be presumed to have known that it was a life-or-death matter for the United States to build a nuclear bomb if perhaps none of his voters had ever heard of such a bomb.

It was only Einstein, at the time not yet officially an American immigrant, who in his 1939 letter to Roosevelt explained the nuclear bomb and the dire need for the United States to have it and thus save the free countries from being atom-bombed by Hitler, for Hitler’s Germany had started developing nuclear bombs already in 1939.

President Roosevelt was quick to respond to Einstein’s letter, and the United States outpaced Hitler’s Germany by having obtained the nuclear bomb ahead of it.

Having President Roosevelt, however, was just good luck for the United States and other free countries. But the destiny of the world should not depend on just good luck. The United States should work out a foolproof, reliable electoral system as to leave no opportunity for error, misuse, or failure in choosing a president.

In her television talk show, Yulia is quick, colorful, and witty. At the same time, at the beginning of her talk, some will find that she is too brief and light, considering the gravity of the subject.

This is how the transcript begins: “There are many questions concerning Putin’s negotiations with China and especially concerning the article in the newspaper Vedomosti which mentioned a forthcoming Russian-Chinese treaty, in which sold to China is Russia in total and a little more.”

Latynina goes on to explain: “As far as I know, the Kremlin is afraid of China to a state of horror, to a stomach ache.”

In my weekly columns published in the United States, I keep saying that the People’s Republic of China, with its population of 1.3 billion, is or will be against the United States, with its 300 million people, like four Chinese armies confronted by the U.S. Army. In the case of Russia, with its population half of that of the United States, it will be like eight Chinese armies confronted by one Russian defense army.

But that’s not all. Hitler’s Germany could not bomb the United States: It was impossible to fly bombers across the Atlantic Ocean and back.

Now, the ground army of the People’s Republic of China is capable of invading Russia, since China adjoins the eastern edge of Russia.

It is true that Imperial China never invaded other nations. But it is worth asking why not. Because Imperial China regarded all nations so beneath itself that to invade them would be as aimless as to make havoc of useless and disgusting beasts.

At the same time it is worthwhile to recall the “Tatar-Mongol Yoke” in Russia, which began in 1240 and was overthrown only in 1480, that is, went on for 240 years!

Yet the danger to Russia is far greater than to be invaded by China’s ground army.

I already described in my columns how Col. Larry M. Wortzel (United States, retired) had confirmed in his online memo that the People’s Republic of China had been working on “space warfare.” Google search “Larry M. Wortzel” provides “about 49,100 results.”

There is plenty of such information today, and Yulia describes how much the Kremlin fears China.

The fear is justified (but is not sufficient!). What is China’s “space warfare”? So far wars have been waged at the Earth. But we know that the Earth is only a tiny speck in the vast Universe. And the Earth with its atmosphere and stratosphere is surrounded by the space of the Universe.

It is there that the People’s Republic of China has been creating a new warfare, as Wortzel describes it, with the help of Google. Let us recall that the People’s Republic of China has expelled Google from its territory. The space warfare should be kept secret until it’s ready to go into action.

So what should the Kremlin do, apart from experiencing fear, as described by Yulia Latynina? In the United States, I have been asked by my readers on which side Russia is: on the side of the United States and other Western countries or on the side of the People’s Republic of China?

Yulia, you should say to the Kremlin: Your fear is justified. But surely it is no good to fear just for the sake of fear itself!

The Kremlin should side with the United States and join, together with the other Western countries, in the development of defense against the People’s Republic of China, including its space warfare.

Yulia, do you see any other way out? I don’t. Please use your outstanding intelligence and knowledge to help save Russia and other endangered countries.

China Preparing for World War III

Since the future of our world is likely to be decided by World War III, it may be of interest to predict its outcome.

Owing to my obsession with freedom, I emigrated from Russia with my wife, our son, my mother, and several hundred strangers (the purpose of the owners of Russia was to create the fantastic impression that Soviet Russia was a democracy!).

My eagerness to emigrate was reinforced by my egomania, according to which I fancied that in the West I would be writing in English whatever I thought and be paid for it, since enough Americans and other Westerners would find what I wrote worth reading.

In 2005, Gen. Chi Haotian of China, its “minister of national defense” since 1993 to 2003, revealed in his speeches that in China’s war on the United States, from one-third to two-thirds of Americans would be poisoned or infected biologically by the Chinese, and their homes and property would be transferred over to Chinese settlers, since the Chinese (and not the Germans, as Chi stipulated in his speech) are the superior race and must have everything best in the world.

Anyway, a slave state (China) has this advantage over a free country (the United States): it can reward (enrich!) 100 million or 200 million of its troops and its civilians with what those killed (poisoned and infected) Americans and their ancestors had been acquiring for the past two-and-a-half centuries.

In the United States, an American’s betrayal of his country to China may well be seen to be his use of his freedom.

This certainly applies to the U.S. presidents, whose elections (which have little to do with the appointment of the prime minister in Britain) contradict the knowledge of mental ability, according to which the value of a thought may include its exclusivity: Einstein said that he was understood by seven people in the world.

It was only owing to Einstein’s letter to President Roosevelt in 1939 that the Americans got the nuclear bombs before Hitler’s Germany completed its nuclear project.

Einstein emigrated to the United States because he was a Jew. Suppose he was not a Jew and did not emigrate? Hitler would have “the bomb,” which his Germany began to develop earlier than the United States. But what about the 100 percent American professors?

None of them wrote a letter to Roosevelt about both possibility and necessity of developing the nuclear bomb. Einstein did, though officially he was not yet even an immigrant.

Have you ever heard the word “professor” used before the name “Einstein”? To begin with, he was not a professor.

Mental worker and mental work have been evaluated in the free countries in the past centuries as “genius,” “highly important,” or as “mediocre twaddle,” “a pack of insults, to humiliate his opponents.”

Today such comments are conspicuously rare in the United States. If a holder of an opinion is a professor (something one can buy online!) or has another degree, rank, or title, that opinion is accepted at least politely, and if he/she is just an Einstein, his/her opinion is ignored or met with a pack of insults.

The result? My article “What the CIA Knows about Russia” (worse than nothing!) in the September 1978 issue of the Commentary magazine was reprinted or outlined in about 500 periodicals all over the free world.

The most powerful free country has no intelligence service! A catastrophy? Yes! But the case was buried by professors and other titled officials in total silence as beneath attention.

In the United States, it is still understood sometimes that scientific, technological, philosophical, political or artistic endeavors have different levels of achievement, and not just one level. Yet the academic and government bureaucracy in the United States tends to reduce all of its endeavors to one level of mediocrity.

In the post-1949 China, we have been facing a geostrategic paradox.

By the standards which had prevailed before the “advanced” Hitler’s Germany was routed by the “backward Russia,” China was classified as “backward,” since it had a vast agricultural population living outside cities.

In 1917, the “backward” Russia produced 3.1 million tons of steel, as against 45.8 million of the United States. But in 1989, the figures were 160 million for Russia versus 96 million for the United States.

In 2007, China produced 489.2 million tons of steel, while the U.S. output stayed near its 1989 figure. Which one is a backward country?

Just a decade ago, China was still considered backward because of its huge population.

Today it is obvious (though not to most academic and government officials in the United States) that the population of China, which is 1.3 billion, that is, more than four times larger than that of the United States, can be converted by the slave state of China into at least four times more creators and users of the latest weapons than can the United States.

A “slave state” is a mobilized military country, in which every slave is a mobilized military man or woman.

The slave state of China has been at war, though that war is internal until it becomes an assuredly victorious limited operation, like conversion of the United States (described by General Chi Haotian) into a Chinese country as part of the Chinese world empire.

On the other hand, a free country enables everyone to be a great thinker as Einstein was. But many Americans would not like to be Einsteins even if they had the ability.

I have not met anyone in the East or West more dedicated to freedom than those in charge of Newsmax and WorldTribune. But the tremendous mission of rescue of the free world from the slave state of China requires a far greater attention.

Hence life in the United States is presented by the rest of the media as an ongoing festival, in which money as well as new goods and services, crimes, and sex are the most prominent, while for weeks or months China seems to have never existed.

Few people in the free countries believed that Hitler would launch aggressive wars to become the world dictator until he launched them just as soon as he was able to do so. But to the owners of China, wars should not be started unless there is a certainty that having started them, they will win them.

The masters and slaves of China are preparing for victorious wars while free Americans enjoy their festivals.

How to Ensure Adequate Defense of a Free Country

An adequate defense of a free country requires an adequate government.

In the United States, the British system of electing a prime minister was replaced by the direct election of a U.S. president by a majority of voters, which opens the possibility of electing a mentally average mind, for the more minds think about complex problems in the same way and with a stereotypical simplicity, the lower is their mental level, while Einstein, who in 1939 explained to Roosevelt the immediate need to begin to develop the “atom bomb,” used to say that he was understood by seven people in the world. Fortunately, Roosevelt’s mind happened to be far above the average.

At a two-day meeting in Washington, including top officials from China, President Obama has proclaimed himself and the United States a “partner of China,” while in the past decade China’s Gen. Chi Haotian, the minister of national defense up to 2004, proclaimed in his speeches that China should poison or infect with a mortal disease one-third or two-thirds of the Americans and then transfer their homes and other property to the new (Chinese) settlers as to the really superior race, whom one-third of the Americans left alive are to serve manually.

This information became available in the West via the Western press and television, but the last three U.S. presidents have been deaf to it, not to spoil their “good relations” with the owners of China.

Before the 21st century, the absence of a U.S. president as a unique mind and a unique soul in the defense of the United States was not so tragic for the United States, since North America was protected by the two oceans and Canada against the armed forces of the time in the possession of Hitler.

Canada is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, formerly known as the British Commonwealth. In the American Revolution against Britain, the United States destroyed or ousted those sprouts of the British political wisdom, which had been developing within the English history since the 13th century (Magna Carta).

The Canadians do not elect a Canadian president by a majority of voters.

On the other hand, as William Safire wrote in the New York Times on May 18, 1998, U.S. President Clinton, “hungry for money to finance his re-election overruled the Pentagon; he sold to a Chinese military intelligence front the technology that [U.S.] defense experts argued would give Beijing the capacity to blind our spy satellites and launch a sneak attack.”

George W. Bush saw the threat to the United States coming not from China (population: 1,331 billion) but from the oil-rich Iraq (population: 26 million, 35 percent of whom were Sunni, favoring the free West), and he invaded Iraq in an absurd five-year campaign.

As for Obama, he is a “partner of China” but is vigilant to whatever is going on in Afghanistan (population: 30 million).

The people of England do not elect a U.K. president. They elect members of parliament. The largest party in parliament sends its candidate to the king or queen for the approval as his/her prime minister.

Let us also recall that the word democracy was launched by ancient Athens. The word democracy came from the word demos (“common people”), and the word aristocracy from the word aristos (“best”).

The “revolutionary America” and the “revolutionary Russia” abolished their aristocracy. Yet classical music has been performed in both countries by aristos and for aristos.

All uniquely valuable creativity in arts or sciences, philosophy, or geostrategy, involves aristos.

The U.S. election of a U.S. president by a majority of voters contradicts the organic law of cerebral creativity, according to which the mental ability of members of a similarly thinking group is likely to be the lower, the more numerous the group is, and genius is not a member of a group of millions of similarly thinking members.

If President Roosevelt was a genius, then his election as a U.S. president by millions of Obamas was accidental, and if he had been an Obama, just as were those who voted for him, he could have been fatal for his country.

Today the danger has grown immensely.

If the president is a genius, he must be at the peak of a human pyramid, corresponding to “an intelligence statistical curve,” and transmitting his ideas to the people at large.

This is accepted in cultural or in intellectual endeavors in the West. How can a government do without such a pyramid? Or is the defense against the PRC something so simple that any Obama elected by a majority of Obamas can create it?

Why should President Obama be expected to be smarter than the evil dictators of China?

An Obama who would begin today to engage in a globally developing and vitally important field like war — without any proficiency in it and without any evidence of his proficiency — can be called an idiot and what he has been doing an idiocy.

The U.S. president has been elected by a majority of psychiatrically healthy adult Americans who wished to vote for the candidate of their choice.

Suppose he is a genius in establishing the single-payer healthcare system. And, his all-American healthcare will be the world’s best. But why should a genius in single-payer healthcare be automatically expected to be a genius of today’s geostrategy?

Surely it is safer for him to become a traitor with respect to the United States and a slave of the owners of China, helping them enslave that one-third of Americans who are to remain alive as servants to the superior race from China.

There is a sweet delusion in the free West that a free country is by definition more powerful than a slave country like the “People’s Republic of China.”

This is a delusion.

Freedom has one military advantage: It produces people of genius like Einstein, who flourished in Germany before Nazism, but who emigrated after Hitler’s advent to power — and it was his letter to Roosevelt that was to destroy Hitler, for Hitler stopped the active development of the nuclear bomb in Germany, while the United States had developed it by 1945.

Without the atom bomb, Hitler lost the war in Russia and committed suicide, not to face the public trial and be executed by his war enemies.

But a slave country like post-1949 China has many advantages in war. For example, its every inhabitant (except little children and invalids) is psychologically “mobilized” in war or in peace as in the severest war.

The war losses never deter the owners of a slave country, for they do not sustain any personal losses unless they lose the war as Hitler did.

Are Americans Awakening to the China Threat?

I began publishing columns about the “China Danger” after unarmed Chinese in the Tiananmen Square in 1989 called for a peaceful limitation of the unlimited power in their country, to which the dictators of China responded with what has been described in the West a “massacre.”

What was a discovery to me? The Chinese will to freedom, which later manifested itself again in dozens of millions of withdrawals from the Chinese Communist Party.

I drew the following conclusion: We can well assume that the only way for the dictators of China to preserve their dictatorship is to conquer the world and thus eliminate those countries whose freedom seduces so many Chinese.

That became a theme of my columns, and I was especially interested in the public speeches of General Chi Haotian, China’s minister of national defense from 1993 to 2003.

He now is 80 years of age, but he still is a top official. In his public speeches, he described China’s global strategy. Between one-third and two-thirds of the population of the United States is to be annihilated (biologically) and their homes and other property are to be transferred to the new Chinese settlers.

One-third of Americans will be left alive to serve this “superior” race. Due to such conquests, China will become a global empire.

Initially, General Chi’s predictions were ignored by many “American experts” and passed off for forgeries and what not. Those experts did not seem to understand that if the rulers of China had regarded Chi’s speeches harmful, not useful, to them, they would have made Chi lie to the West that those speeches of his are criminal forgeries and that he, General Chi Haotian, has nothing to do with them.

Even if we accept the totally improbable version that he refused to obey the rulers of China (and had been properly tortured to death, using the Chinese experience in torture of thousands or millions of years), the rulers of China would have found another way of lying to the West that so-called “Chi’s speeches” were forgeries.

Anyway, recently I have noticed that General Chi’s predictions, which I have quoted in my columns, are being taken seriously by American readers of my weekly columns (while President Obama had declared the dictatorship of China and the United States, as represented by himself, to be “partners” in the 21st century).

Chris Reynolds of Dallas, Texas, begins his almost page-long e-mail to me on Sept. 4, 2009: “Please continue writing your outstanding columns about China and other threats facing the United States. You have a rare talent for writing about complex issues in very clear terms, without hyperbole, so that even the most ignorant or stubborn people should be able to comprehend your writing without misunderstanding.”

The day earlier, Sept. 3, an e-mal to me said: “Keep up the good work,” and the next day, in his page-long e-mail of Sept. 4, David Fellows had this to say: “First of all, let me say that every chance I get I read and enjoy your articles. I thank you for what you do to inform my fellow Americans, many of whom are living in an intellectual fog.

“Unfortunately, the ones who are most in need of your insight are too busy ‘drinking the Kool-aid’ as we sometimes say in our country.”

My column of Sept. 17, 2009, produced a string of e-mails. On Sept.18, Bret Simms wrote: Hello, great article! My only question is why are so many Americans asleep into thinking one day we will not be attacked.

“My opinion is that the U.S government is in some ways provoking an attack which will neutralize the U.S.A. An attack that could take place in mere yrs . . . . I am born and raised U.S. citizen and love my country. The people of THE UNITED STATES I fear are in for a rude awakening. Again great article . . . keep speaking truth!”

The following day, Gregory Camp begins his e-mail, “Dear Mr. Navrozov, I just ‘discovered’ your work and am forwarding your articles to my friends and colleagues. Thank you for bringing this information to the public.”

On Sept. 17, the day the column appeared, I received an e-mail from Darryl Hicks, executive administrator of “Chilling! You’ve just put together the most striking column we’ve read.” And then he ends, “We would certainly enjoy putting the spotlight on you and this invaluable column about the Chinese official [General Chi Haotian].”

What’s the conclusion? It seems to me that mentally alert Americans who value the United States for its freedom and all that freedom brings with it, including personal safety from political persecution, and not only for advertised goods and services at the lowest possible prices, are ready to understand that the United States is a country that is being threatened by a war of annihilation, to be accompanied or followed by similar wars of China on all the other free countries less capable of defending themselves.

What is necessary is to make the danger signal reach millions and dozens of millions of Americans as it has reached those whose e-mails I just quoted above.

Several months ago I suggested production of a film on the subject. The donations to our not-for-profit Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., are tax-deductible.

Alas, I am too busy, writing, to go into the money jungle, so that the center has no money to create a highly professional and successful film explaining the geostrategic situation of today.

France, together with 10 British divisions in France, was overrun by Nazi troops within six weeks. The French culture, with its intellectual sophistication, education, and Napoleon in its military history, did not help to defend the country from the Nazi invasion. Nor had the 10 British divisions foreseen their destiny.

Will the United States in its defense against the dictatorship of China, with its population exceeding that of the United States more than four times, go the way France did in its defense against the dictatorship of Germany?

West Oblivious to China Threat

Why is the West asleep? This is what I was asked by Jonathan Smithson, an Australian of English and Chinese descent, who sent me a piece from a speech delivered by Chi Haotian, the minister of national defense of China up to 2004 and a top military analyst today, and published by the dissident Chinese newspaper The Epoch Times, sold in English in English-speaking countries. The space allocated by The Epoch Times to Chi consists of 571 entries, and the first entry is summarized as follows: “A leading Chinese Communist Party official argues for exterminating the population of the United States.”

In Chi’s 12-page speech, which The Epoch Times published on June 6 under the title “WWIII: War Is Not Far from Us and Is the Midwife of the Chinese Century,” Chi devoted on what is page 2 of The Epoch Times publication to his demonstration that the Chinese are the superior race to win in WWIII its right to the “Chinese century.” Says Chi:

“Hitler’s Germany had once bragged that the German race was the most superior race on Earth, but the fact is, our nation is far superior to the Germans.”

Smithson sent me two e-mails. One contains a piece of Chi’s speech from The Epoch Times. In the other, Smithson (who has degrees in law and medicine) asks me “Lev — Why is the West asleep?”

The piece of Chi’s speech from The Epoch Times reads:

“We must prepare ourselves for two scenarios,” Chi begins. What are they? (1) China succeeds in the surprise attack on the United States. (2) China’s attack fails and triggers a retaliation from the U.S. The result? “More than half of the population of China would perish.”

The conclusion? “Whatever the case may be,” Chi goes on to say, “we can only move forward fearlessly for the sake of our Party and state and our nation’s future, regardless of the hardships we have to face and the sacrifices we have to make. The population, even if more than half dies, can be reproduced. But if the Party falls, everything is gone, and forever gone!”

But Chi looks into the future without fear or hesitation. “In any event,” Chi goes on, “we, the Chinese Communist Party, will never step down from the stage of history!”

So? “In my view, there is another kind of bondage, that is, the fate of our Party is tied up with that of the whole world. If we, the Chinese Communist Party, are finished, China will be finished, and the world will be finished.”

Chi is actually kind: “It is indeed brutal to kill one or two [or maybe three?] hundred million Americans.” You see? “But that is the only path that will secure a Chinese century, a century in which the Chinese Communist Party leads the world.”

Chi wouldn’t want to kill one, two (or three?) hundred million Americans just for nothing! “We, as revolutionary humanitarians, do not want deaths.” There is one “but” though.

“But if history confronts us with a choice between death of Chinese and that of Americans, we’d have to pick the latter, as for us, it is more important to safeguard the lives of the Chinese people and the life of our Party.” Why? “That is because, after all, we are Chinese and members of the Chinese Communist Party. Since the day we joined the Chinese Communist Party, the Party’s life has always been above all else!”

It is curious that the “Party,” possessing China and aiming at possessing the world, no matter what victims, is represented by Chi as an infinitely priceless living being whose “life has always been above all else.”

We can now answer that question Smithson raises in his e-mail to me: “Lev — Why is the West asleep?”

The Western democracies have survived owing to industrialization, including science and technology producing ever more effective weapons, up to the nuclear bombs in 1945 by the United States and its allies. But in the 20th century it also turned out that Stalin’s slave society can also produce no less effective weapons. And in the first decade of the 21st century here is Chi arguing that China should be the first to annihilate the U.S., to be on the safe side.

In China, all humans, except the owners of the country, are slaves used as producers or users of weapons. Now, in the free countries, defense is a matter of will of most citizens. Defense requires money as well as the people with outstanding military abilities. The Iraq War demonstrated that there were no such people to lead that war from the beginning, and the initiator of the war, supposedly an adequate military commander, was an ignorant fool who dragged a war against Sunni, and for Shia, in a small backward country for six years.

No, Bush was not asleep. As the president and commander in chief, he could not help hearing what Chi said as the minister of national defense of China about the need to attack the U.S. and exterminate its population as that of an inferior race. But Bush was not interested. He was absorbed with his own Iraq war for his own reason(s).

Is the West asleep? On the contrary, the West is wide awake, in its daily hunts for money and the best bargains, as well as enjoying life in every other way possible. But even purely financial preparations for war will impose higher taxes, and who wants them of their free will?

In short, the free people of the free countries must do of their own free will what slaves in state slavery countries do out of fear of ruthless vindication, including torture. Is this possible? Or are we living at the end of sociopolitical freedom, and mankind will soon be in global slavery forever and ever and anon?