FRANCE: EVIL-DOINGS

 

Today, I learned about a major terror-event in France. First, I heard it on radio stations affiliated with or oriented toward major media newspeak. Then, returning home, I turned on the news at CNN, followed by the news on Fox News. All of these presented the event as a “who did this; what do they want?” act(s) of terrorism. They pretended not to have a clue. “Do you think the terrorists were linked to ISIS?” questions confusedly offered. Naturally, they all featured well-known radio or television fronts for the CIA or FBI to provide expert opinions and analyses. 

Besides ISIS and “Jihadists,” all the newshounds could find no scent. Still, there were issues raised about the refugees flooding into Europe “to escape the bombings and seeking a better life.” Some experts, prodded by a newshound, hypothesized that “jihadists” may have sneaked into Europe with the desperate young males that dominated the demographics of the refugees. Most of these refugees were like other people everywhere: they just wanted a decent life, plenty of pretty ‘hos, and, once they had put down roots, to seek a good woman from back home to join him, wed him, give him a proper home and give him proper children. 

Western Europe is largely shaped by occult circles, including Zionism. These circles often resulted from formations of secret or semi-secret societies in prior years. They may go back thousands of years as products of occult evolution. Members of such circles may be Luciferians, Satanists, Devil-worshippers, atheists, deists, Magi, wiccans and the like. From an intellectual point of view, they all belong in the cabala religions, or “mystery religions.” 

Luciferians often proclaim that Lucifer is the “god of light” and, thus, he is the friend of mankind, as opposed to Adanai, the evil god of darkness (aka, Yhway of the bible). 

A cabala atheist may claim that “god does not exist.” That may shock pious Christians, but he typically means that “god is beyond existence.” 

However, their beliefs may be rationalized, they tend to be part of a category. Typically, they all oppose the Israelitish Christian beliefs, based on the bible. In some cases, contempt is evident (Ted Turner, Luciferian). In others, hatred is not hidden (Manley Hall, exalted Freemason). 

The richest families in the Western nations belong to these circles. They also set national and international policies through their egghead advisers and pliant politicians. The military departments of each Western nation act as “enforcers” in extra-Western nations with whom these families deal. Locally, the police in a nation act as the “enforcers” of their will which politicians enact into law. Their intelligence agencies also “enforce” their policies, often taking the “serpent road” (clandestine & deadly). 

These ruling circles have penetrated Western Christianity to the extent that they have made them overwhelmingly “of none effect.” Many of Christian clergy are Freemasons, Satanists, “converted” Jews, atheists, neo-uranians, and plain heretics. The major media, owned by members of the Resident Evil, rejoice in reporting about scandalous members of the clergy. Human sacrifice may even be committed by some for occult benefits. 

These people hate Yhshua (Jesus) and Christians, missing no opportunity to ridicule and injure. They rejoice to be able to use nominal Christians to attack and defame Christianity. 

As an unequal counterpoint, note how virtually no one will dare to criticize any Jew or any Jewish act, for fear of angering the Jews (“Don’t make the Jews angry!”) 

Let us now return to France. 

In the latter part of the 19^th Century, it was alleged that out of Masonic lodges came a plan developed by Luciferians to engineer a 3^rd world war in which Christians and Muslims would fight to the state of mutual annihilation and/or exhaustion, whereupon the Luciferians could finish them off. They then would establish a world government based on the “light” of Luciferian principles. Ignorance would be banished from the world, and each human would then evolve to perfection. It is a variation of the Jews’ Tikkun olam (“repair of the world”). 

Given the wealth and power of the great families of the West and given the skills, crafts and materials of-and-for mischief possessed by their militaries and intelligence organizations, why would it not be part of the “final solution” of such people to force the two combatants into a common ring, whether Europe or North America – indeed, the Levant – to create the conditions necessary for a “fight to the death?” 

After WW2, the Allied powers met in the United Nations ostensibly to create and enact, often by treaties, laws which would nominally bind its members. Although few Americans think very much ahead, among the Resident Evil there are many who think far ahead. As with grand master chess-players, before making a move, they explore all possible options exhaustively to avoid a “blunder.” One such farsighted law involved the problem of refugees. As the Allies were well aware, wars create refugees. They created a law that mandated that member nations accept a certain level of refugees, when unfortunate conditions create them.  

The Western nations, being wealthier and with a sudden dearth of workers, were friendly toward receiving refugees. Naturally, well-run nations refused, always making an excuse. Not to worry, as Freemasons wanted to make a universal “new man” (which I dubbed Homo blendo), Western nations gladly accepted them. 

Therefore, the Resident Evil had long ago gotten into place the means to bring the hated Muslims and hated Christians “cheek to jowl.” 

Therefore, two crucial events occurred. Firstly, the Resident Evil was able to transform god-fearing Western people, especially Americans, into an immoral, bogus-Christian people, who were primarily interested in “drugs, and sex and rock-n-roll.”  

Secondly, a fundamentalist Islamic revival occurred or was engineered. 

Then, with the aid of Western money, Western war materiel, Western intelligence, undercover agents, cut-outs, false-flag street theatre and sabotage (terrorism), Islamic rebellions, revolutions and jihads sprouted everywhere. Soon after, the West, especially America, helped by Israelis, were freely bombing wedding parties, children, hospitals, schools, etc., as we and our allies struck “hard” at the enemy. Of course, refugees began to appear. [Without going into this area now, something of the same occurred in Africa.] 

At first the refugees in the Middle East lived in camps in Arab countries not too distant from their own country. The solution arrived at by the Resident Evil was simply to turn the whole area of the Levant into three camps: war, Israel, and refugee-refusing Arab nations. Hence forth, there existed only the posh digs of Europe and America offering hope, and here they came. 

However, for fundamentalist Muslims, who hated Western corruption, the refugees became the river through which they would swim to the great cities of the West. Carving out their own neighborhoods, they could take time to study the new world in which they dwelled, becoming well-familiar with their enemies’ ways and weaknesses. 

Although American newshounds were baffled by the latest terrorism in France (“were they not getting enough cake?”), the attack on the heavy-metal American band, which played at a small arena in Paris, utterly confounded the newshounds on CNN and Fox.  

Heavy-Metal rock-n-roll groups have been notorious from their outset for ear-splitting sound, base lines, and Satanic/sexual lyrics. What better place for a fundamentalist Islamic jihadist group to strike than a Satanic band, based in the Great Satan (America), and now playing in corrupt Paris to a SRO crowd of effete French youth? It was a fact that one of the Islamic terrorists shouted, “Allah Akbar!” prior to his aiming and firing his AK-47, along with his jihadist companions, and, in effect, using bullets, flung from the steely arms of their rifles, to “stone to death” the Satanists gathered in that temporary coven.  

None of this provided any clue whatsoever to the major media newshounds, nor to their expert advisers, about the nature of the event that unfolded. They will be trying to figure this one out for days, even weeks. Ominously, President Obama offered the French any assistance, including that of the FBI. 

Caveat: Expect American members of the Resident Evil to use this gruesome set of terror events to demand that the U.S. courts immediately interpret the 2^nd Amendment in such a way that “sanity” can be brought to bear on the issue of gun violence in America.

 

 

 

A QUESTION OF SHAME?

 

On October 22, 2015 CNN provided glimpses of the lengthy session before a congressional committee investigating the role of Hillary Clinton in the “terrorist” attack on the United States embassy in Benghazi, resulting in the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others. This program was hosted by Anderson Cooper. He inquired of various guests what their opinions were in regard to her response to questions and in regard to the committee members’ questions and the overall atmosphere at the meeting.

Most of the opinions expressed admiration for Mrs. Clinton’s handling of numerous, often hostile questions, and they appeared to be generally at one that the session lasted too long and verged on brutal at times.

Among the five observers were David Gergen and Carl Bernstein. Mr. Gergen has appeared on major media programs on many occasions over the years. He has invariably been described as “an adviser to six presidents,” even though he was not holding an appointed position in the vast majority of prior administrations. Was he that effective – or was he courier?

When Carl Bernstein was asked for his view, the pudgy, wealthy author and former reporter for The Washington Post during its apex under Katherine Meyer Graham, saw fit to compare the committee focusing on Benghazi as [Joseph] McCarthy-like in its approach to Hillary Clinton.

This observation was seconded by other members of the panel.

What was curious about the Bernstein comparison of the Senate Un-American Activities Committee, chaired by Senator Joseph McCarthy, with the House Benghazi Committee, chaired by Congressman Trey Gowdy, was that the fall of the U.S.S.R. allowed Western scholars to investigate many of the previously unavailable documents, which provided overwhelming confirmation that many of the government officials scrutinized by Sen. McCarthy’s committee were in fact Soviet agents. They had infiltrated various government agencies, especially DOD and State. Even the Supreme Court witnessed the infiltration of a Marxist traitor in the person of Justice Felix Frankfurter. Mr. Frankfurter was a mentor of Philip Graham, publisher of The Washington Post and husband of Katherine Meyer Graham, who was the daughter of Eugene Meyer, who bought the newspaper in or about 1930.

The others on Anderson Cooper’s panel, such as David Gergen, seemed to share this Bernstein insight.

Besides the inconvenient fact that Senator Joseph McCarthy was largely correct – and might be excused for his hostility to traitors by all but communist fellow travelers, Bernstein’s comparison suggested a sub rosa element. He may have been implying or signaling that the Benghazi Committee was threatening to become a “Jewish witch-hunt” or a threat to Israel’s security.

Since Jews had become well aware that the vast majority of anti-communist movements were thinly disguised anti-Semitic attacks, they apparently organized a counter-attack on the concept of an “Un-American” activity generally and Senator Joseph McCarthy particularly. I don’t believe there exists evidence proving that Senator McCarthy was anti-Semitic. He has been described as kind-hearted by nature. However, to be anti-communist was the same as being anti-Semitic in the eyes of many - and especially in the eyes of leftist Jews.

I now look for a general counter-attack against “unsophisticated, narrow-minded, xenophobic” Republican partisans. I expect that the Benghazi Committee hearing(s) will be framed as a “witch-hunt” and as “infamous.” I expect that “experts” will begin to suggest that these kinds of hearings will hurt the security of Israel.

Since the strength of the “Tea Party” Republicans is founded upon millions of “Zionist” Christians blindly, ardently expressing undying love for Israel and the Jews – often with the same ardent enthusiasm that the ancestors of many of them expressed for “Southern rights,” the suggestion that the Benghazi Committee would not hurt Hillary – it would hurt Israel – would annihilate any further attacks on Hillary on this issue by Republicans.

BAD INFLUENCE

 

For more than a year there have been repeated instances of conflicts between police and citizens in the United States of America. The most widely reported instances have involved police and African American citizens. The conflicts between police and many of these African American citizens have involved lethal force by police against citizens, often resulting in organized protests by relatives, friends and concerned citizens. The major media has often given national coverage to these events. Naturally, local media have joined in the coverage where appropriate.

Although the conflicts have seemed particularly vivid as shown on television, as they often involved rioting, the police-citizen conflicts have been occurring regularly over the years. These conflicts between police and African Americans have especially planted seeds of resentment in predominantly African American neighborhoods, which periodically bear fruit in the form of rioting.

Furthermore, the conflicts that arise often seem to be over relatively trivial matters. Police have been shown repeatedly trying to enforce issues at law that have little weight in and of themselves. Bored legislators are always up to amuse themselves with a silly law that no one seriously expects a police officer to enforce. Yet, the experience historically is that there are police who will try to enforce them – again, perhaps out of boredom. When police stop a citizen to try to enforce a silly law, anger may be fueled, as the matter becomes an issue of wills more than at law.

Everyone wants police to enforce fundamentally weighty issues at law, such as would result from armed robbery, aggravated assaults, domestic violence, burglary, et al, where direct or indirect injury to the citizen is involved. Yet, one can visit YouTube on the Internet and regularly see video where police use excessive force, including kicking at citizens already on the ground. What could possibly be causing American police to “go off” on a citizen?

The matter engendered in me today an association that may well be a factor.

For many years, now, I have rather regularly seen on television, or read about in a lesser news outlet, or viewed on the Internet scenes of violent conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. The Israelis have such a disproportionate military might relative to the Palestinians that all conflicts have been settled according to terms dictated by Israeli military might. The victors hold the losers in derision. The humiliated losers exist with simmering anger and in an impoverished state, which condition, when cruelly provoked again and again, engenders periodic, riotous outbursts.

For many years now, I have been aware that the Israeli state invited American fedcops, such as FBI agents, Homeland Security agents, etc., to be the guests of the IDF, Mossad, etc., who would share Israeli techniques for handling terrorists, rioting Palestinians, and the like. Undoubtedly, the Israelis have developed new tools for quelling angry mobs and extracting answers from prisoners, which American law enforcement agencies might want to consider for use in their own jurisdiction.

Along with invitations to federal law-enforcement agencies, the Israelis have also invited police officers, usually in leadership positions, and county sheriffs from various states of the United States. Therefore, over the years, a significant number of American law-enforcement people have been indoctrinated by the Israeli military, police and intelligence forces in the way the Israelis do business in the arena of “keeping the peace.”

Needless to say, the Israelis would not be doing this without motivation to an end. Schmoozing American lawmen is simply something no one from another country would normally, regularly do – unless they had a good reason.

I might here add a personal supposition that has no known factual basis. The American lawmen go to Israel to ostensibly learn about the Israeli approach to enforcing the laws of Israel, hoping to glean something that could usefully be applied in their work in America. They are also treated to some sightseeing and entertainment by their hosts. I believe that the Israelis probably intentionally provide the opportunity for drunkenness. I believe that it is likely that certain American lawmen have been targeted, based on previously obtained dossiers which have been psychologically analyzed for useful weaknesses.

How might such “targeting” by used by Israelis?

If a selected American lawman were taken on a tour of, say, Tel-a-Viv, by his new Israeli pals, he just might be taken to a “tootsie house” for fun-n-games. Needless to say, the whole house would be filled with clandestine cameras. The Israelis might then introduce the intoxicated American lawman to an attractive, willing “female” friend, carefully leaving them alone. The trained tootsie would, if successful, seduce the American into sex. The cameras would clearly reveal all. Next day, the Israelis would assure him that they would protect their American friend from any of the events of the night before getting into the “wrong hands.” They would share sympathetically his apprehension that it might “get out.” They would assure him that so long as the Israelis could count on his being their friend, he was completely protected. The lawman would go back to America, vaguely aware that he had just sold his soul to the devil.

If one multiplied this hypothetical American by, perhaps, forty years of Israelis hosting American lawmen, then one can see a substantial part of American lawmen being unduly influenced by their Israeli counterparts.

Back in the days of slavery in the Western Hemisphere, Jews developed a successful, enriching triangle of business. Some Jews would obtain African slaves from a tribal leader whose people practiced limited slavery. He would be paid well enough that he’d order his “soldiers” to get more slaves from other nearby tribes. Meanwhile, the merchant Jews transported the obtained slaves to sugarcane plantations, which other Jews had started or subsequently obtained. In time the slave-trading merchants would sell their slaves for sugarcane in a barter operation. This sugarcane would then be taken to rum distilleries in Rhode Island, where they were bartered for kegs of rum. The kegs of rum were taken to West Africa and exchanged for slaves. Thus, the profitable cycle of the triangular business arrangement would continue to grow.

I suspect that the Israelis have in mind another beneficial triangular scheme in mind by importing American lawmen, teaching them the Israeli way of doing things, and sending them back to America to practice what the Israelis teach. The Israelis may be using these American lawmen as a sort of Trojan Horse by which to gain a better hold on the USA. Although it is not clearly worked out in my mind, I do believe that, as American military men and intelligence people seem to be invited over to Israel for conferences on matters of mutual interest as well (and feted and schmoozed), perhaps the third leg of the “triangle” is located in the northern Levant.

However that tangential issue finally plays out, the immediate ramification of American federal and local lawmen going to Israel to learn how the Israelis quell problems with Palestinians may have an important bearing on why American cops seem to use brutal and even lethal force on African American citizens all too quickly. 

Patrick Vs Politico

 

Patrick Ronayne Cleburne

 

  

"News You May Have Missed

 

"The Flag of Dixie

 

"According to Chuck Baldwin, the current war on the Confederate flag and all symbols of the South confirms the prophetic words of Confederate Gen. Patrick Cleburne. In 1864, the general warned that if the South lost the war: 'It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; [and] that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern schoolbooks their version of the war; will be impressed by all of the influences of history and education to regard our gallant defenders as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.' Indeed, brainwashers flooded America’s public schools with propaganda against the people who attempted to win independence from the United States, characterizing them as haters, just as the federal government and mass media seek to characterize whites, Christians, patriots, constitutionalists and preppers today…." [American Free Press, July 20, 2015] 

Patrick Cleburne did not join the Southern cause due to an affection for slavery. Clearly, he saw it a negative, but one that might be the instrument for “saving the day.” Consider:

“By late 1863, it had become obvious to Cleburne that the Confederacy was losing the war because of the growing limitations of its manpower and resources.^[9] In 1864, he dramatically called together the leadership of the Army of Tennessee and put forth the proposal to emancipate slaves and enlist them in the Confederate Army to secure Southern independence.^[10][11] This proposal was met with polite silence at the meeting, and while word of it leaked out, it went unremarked, much less officially recognized.^[9] From his letter outlining the proposal:^[12]

"‘Satisfy the negro that if he faithfully adheres to our standard during the war he shall receive his freedom and that of his race ... and we change the race from a dreaded weakness to a position of strength.

"'Will the slaves fight? The helots of Sparta stood their masters good stead in battle. In the great sea fight of Lepanto where the Christians checked forever the spread of Mohammedanism over Europe, the galley slaves of portions of the fleet were promised freedom, and called on to fight at a critical moment of the battle. They fought well, and civilization owes much to those brave galley slaves ... the experience of this war has been so far that half-trained negroes have fought as bravely as many other half-trained Yankees.

"'It is said that slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.’”

 

>Wikipedia, Patrick Cleburne, Brigadier General, Army, Confederate States of America

In the very same section in which I noticed the article about Brigadier General Patrick R. Cleburne, 15th Arkansas Infantry, Army of Tennessee, I noticed a citation of a portion of a vitriolic article by a Jewish reporter in Politico basically cheerleading the hoped-for dream of the Social Marxists of a genocide of white Southerners. I thought the two articles plus the data from Wikipedia made for interesting comparison and contrast. Consider:

" News You May Have Missed 

 

"They Want Diversity 

"Writer Susan Glaser of the Washington, D.C. daily Politico has upped the anti-white Southerner rhetoric, penning these words: 

"'A lot of the traits that make the United States exceptional these days are undesirable, like higher violence and less social mobility [compared to the UK, Canada and Australia]. Many of these differences can be attributed largely to the South.' 

"So somehow the South is responsible for the riots and crime in Baltimore, Detroit and Ferguson, Mo.?

 

"Ms. Glaser then called for swamping Dixie with waves of illegal aliens and liberals.

 

“'But there is hope,' she opined. 'A combination of demographic change and generational change is weakening the ability of the old-fashioned South to skew American politics and culture in the future.' She boasted: 'Immigration into the South from other countries and American regions is breaking down local oligarchies and old folkways.' "

 

Ms. Glaser seems to have a cultural weakness for hatred of white people. One might say that she was a "chip off the intellectual block" of Susan Sontag, who famously described white people as the cancer of the world. Working for Politico, she need not feel any constraint in regard to attacking white people - so long as they are politically correct targets. Hence, she was given the "green light" by Politico's managing editor (probably also Jewish) to attack white Southerners with her death wish. I'm sure they thought her droll.

 

People do have differences in taste. Once I became acquainted with Jews, I never felt any urge to schmooze with them.

 

As for me, I prefer the company of the Irish lad from County Cork who became a Southern man - Brigadier General Patrick R. Cleburne. After all, I am drawn to people of merit and substance.



ON ETHNIC VANITY



 

The inner most portion, or layer, of the brain has been styled the Crocodilian layer by some early researchers on the human brain. It supposedly controlled the two fundamental expressions engendered when confronted by a threat: Fight or Flee. By extrapolation I surmise that it is that part of the self that sees things in an “either-or” pattern. For the human brain there must be a deep satisfaction in seeing the world in such a simple way. 

Over the years, I’ve noticed how Jews seemed to see other people in this way. A person was either a “friend of Jews” or he was “anti-Semitic” or “enemy of Jews.” Since Jews are typically suspicious of anyone not known to be either “a friend” or “an enemy,” Jews are probably inclined to give them a temporary designation of “not known yet to be an enemy.” For Jews “being persecuted” is an important condition to maintain, as it provides them with leverage to quash unwanted analysis and/or investigation into their history, their present condition, and the trend of the future largely shaped by their hands.

It has been stated by an influential rabbi that any negative commentary against the Jews, even if true and factual, was anti-Semitic because its purpose was to make Jews look bad. Why else would the negative comment about Jews be made? He asked.

Needless to say, in regard to Jewry being a “loyal opposition” translates “enemy” in the citadels of Jewish power. This citadel of Jews has become immense. It is the forbidding castle overlooking the village. One could mention that at least three members of the present Supreme Court are Jews. One could mention that every head of the Federal Reserve Board since Mr. Volcker has been a Jew. One could mention that two out the first three heads of Homeland Security have been Jews. The first one was not but was a “Zionist Christian” and was mentored by the second, Michael Chertoff. In his administration Billy Jeff Clinton appointed nearly 52% of his high appointive position to Jews. During the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, all the top five spots were held by Jews, and all the important commissariats were between 30-80% Jews. Throughout the Soviet Union’s communist existence, the influence of Jews remained high – 30-40% - in key party positions. Further, many influential Soviet leaders, such as Joseph Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev, were married to Jews. The United States presently entertains similar statistics indicative of Jewish power in America.

National curiosities now exist in America. The late Armand Hammer was considered an excellent example of capitalism in action. However, his father co-founded the Communist Party in America. Armand Hammer was styled the “Capitalist Prince” by Soviet officials who dealt in trade matters. “Prince” has a peculiarly Jewish meaning, besides its standard one. He mentored the Albert Gore, Sr. family in Tennessee, helping “The Gray Fox” become a Tennessee U.S. senator. He also helped them financially. Albert Gore, Jr. was also helped politically, and he, too, eventually became a U.S. senator and was on a presidential ticket for the Democrats, after serving as Vice President in the Clinton Administration. Junior Gore’s daughter married the great grandson of Jacob Schiff, whose ancestral family shared a duplex with Meyer Amschel Bauer (Rothschild) and whose family stayed connected to the Rothschild family dynasty. When Jacob Schiff migrated to America, he joined the Kuhn Loeb merchant banking house, along with fellow German banking family scion, Felix Warburg. Warburg was the brother of Paul Warburg, leading founding father of the Federal Reserve System central bank in America, whose Manhattan Bank was merged with John D. Rockefeller’s Chase Bank to form Chase Manhattan Bank. Jacob Schiff was a primary financial adviser to Standard Oil Trust.

Parenthetically, while watching a documentary on Vladimir Lenin on the History Channel, the death of Lenin was included. A video of his funeral was shown. One of the end pole bearers for Vladimir Lenin was Jacob Schiff. I’ve seen pictures of Schiff in past research, and there could be no doubt that it was Jacob Schiff, who had an easily identifiable face. The wealthy clothes of the financier stood out. Hence, the Jewish foe of Capitalism and the Jewish incarnation of finance once again were united in common purpose. Once again? Jacob Schiff’s son, or nephew, stated that he had given $20 million in gold to Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky to help buy the Russian Revolution unto successful conclusion. [John D. Rockefeller was said to have given Leon Trotsky $10,000 in cash at his departure from N.Y.C.]

Parenthetically, since about 3 pennies at the turn of the 20^th Century had about the same purchasing power as a 1990 dollar, the gifts of Schiff and Rockefeller were astonishing and generous, respectively.

From this one can glean that although Jews may belong to different schools of thought and vie with one another on that basis, against the other people of the world Jews tend to be surprisingly together. They are most comfortable with other Jews. They do not like outside interference. They are hostile to pointed criticisms. They may be the original inventors of the “enemies list.”

Binjamin Netanyahu stated that he didn’t worry about America because 80% of Americans supported him. I belong to the 20%. If there is a Jewish “enemies list,” I reckon that I’m on it. It is my fate to be dominated by the Neocortex, while the powerful Jews are dominated by the Archicortex. C’est la vie!

FNP: UNITED NATIONS DENOUNCES ANTI-SEMITISM

Faux News Press (FNP)_Washington, DC:

 

NEWS BRIEFS

At a meeting of the U.N. Security Council today, urged by Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, an open and frank discussion of alleged anti-Semitism was entered upon. The topic had been entered as lead agenda discussion point by United States Permanent Ambassador Samantha Power in consultation with the Honorable Mr. Ki-Moon. United Kingdom Permanent Ambassador Sir Mark Lyall Grant and French Permanent Ambassador Francois Delattre were co-signatories for the discussion topic.

United States Ambassador Samantha Power had urged Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to introduce the topic by allowing Mr. Eliezer “Elie” Wiesel to read an on-point notation on the topic by famed musician, Mr. Daniel Barenboim. This was agreed to by all members, as Ambassador Power had noted that Elie Wiesel had miraculously survived 43 Nazi “Death Camps” and written 57 books about his suffering under anti-Semitism. Moved by his pain and suffering, tears trickled down the cheeks of Ambassador Power as she spoke to the members of the Security Council, according to FNP sources close to this affair. Other eyes there wetted at her words.

Mr. Wiesel stood before the gathered dignitaries and spoke the moving words of Daniel Barenboim by heart. He said:

“Anti-Semitism has no history, political or cultural in origin. Anti-Semitism is simply a disease which we must all fight.”

The Ambassador from Chad, Cherif Mahamat Zene, confirmed that such diseases could be defeated, as mosquito-borne disease in his country had been eradicated.

Other members of the Security Council nodded their heads in solidarity.

Francois Delattre of France opined that perfidious Albion must bear much of the responsibility for anti-Semitism. He noted that the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli had written a book entitled CONINGSBY, which had suggested that many – perhaps all - European nations were secretly guided by Jews. “This suggesting of undue power by an alien minority must be denounced as incendiary,” he said. Mr. Ambassador Delattre assured all members present that France had always stood with the Rothschild family and deplored bigotry.

According to sources high in the Security Council, the U.K. Permanent Ambassador to the Security Council, Sir Mark Lyall Grant, interjected, “See here, Delattre! You Frogs don’t fool anyone by your ‘More friend to the Jew than thy’ attitude. The recent carnage in Paris speaks to your Gallic sickness!”

According to FNP’s usually reliable source, the Ambassador of New Zealand, James “Jim” McLay, also observed that “New Zealand has been said to be ‘more British than the U.K.’ and the point has been well made. Sir, anti-Semitism has always been utterly alien to the soul of the Englishman. You Frogs had better watch your disgusting tongues!”

“Just so, Jim,” replied Sir Mark Grant. “We, the English people, have always stood by the British Rothschilds, and, frankly, we put you Frogs to shame on this point.”

“You lie!” shouted Ambassador Delattre.

“See, here, Ambassador! Our beloved Amschel Rothschild was ‘suicided’ in Paris! Where were the French patrons of the Jews then?”

“Where were the British?” asked Francois Delattre acidly.

The Chinese Ambassador, Liu Jieyi, interrupted the riled ambassadors from France and U.K., stating: “Comrade Ambassadors! Let us straighten our red kerchiefs! The dignity of the Security Council demands it.”

“I, as Permanent Ambassador of Russia, must agree with Ambassador Jieyi,” said the Honorable Mr. Vitaly Churkin. “I would like to point out that the recent events in Croatia confirm that an outbreak of the anti-Semitic disease threatens Europe. This disease must be our focus. We must quarantine Croatia and then eradicate the disease.”

According to FNP sources, at this time Ambassador Power of the United States Mission to the United Nations suggested that exposure to the Japanese nuclear disaster at Fukushima Daiichi might be one way to irradiate the problem. She observed the salubrious effect of Chernobyl nuclear disaster on diminishing anti-Semitism.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon reminded the gathered ambassadors that they sought to eradicate anti-Semitism – not irradiate it.

The Ambassador of Jordan, the Honorable Madame Dina Kawar, suggested that anti-Semitism might die out, if the Jews were given a homeland of their own. This idea was seconded by Ambassadors Cherif Mahamat Zene of Chad, Ramlan Bin Ibrahim of Malaysia and Uche Joy Ogwu of Nigeria.

Continuing with her thought, Ambassador Kawar suggested that Spain might be a suitable new homeland for the Jews.

At this point, according to usually reliable sources, the Russian Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, shared with the gathered dignitaries an old Russian proverb: “Scratch a Spaniard and find a Kike.”

In response the Ambassador of Spain, H.E. Mr. Roman Oyarzun, agreed that the new Spanish law making Sephardic Jews eligible for citizenship in Spain as “dual citizens” opened the door for the Jews to return to Spain, bringing their family, possessions and wealth. He observed that the American principle of allowing relatives, friends and bribing strangers of new immigrants to also immigrate to the United States might apply as well to Spain, depending on the final decision of the Spanish courts on this point. An unfavorable opinion might require the Spanish legislature to enact laws that clarify Spanish immigration policy. “Certainly,” said Ambassador Oyarzun, “if we welcome the Sephardic Jews, we should welcome the Ashkenazi Jews as well. Otherwise, we would appear to welcome one group of Jews but to discriminate against another group of Jews.”

The Ambassador of Venezuela, the Honorable Senorita Maria Gabriela Chavez observed that Jews residing in Venezuela were free to return to their native homeland, Spain, but they would be limited to the removal of no more than 30% of their liquid wealth. She proclaimed the principle of “national rental fee,” similar to the tax placed on “cashed in” securities in the United States, would absorb 70% of the wealth of El Departees.

The Russian Ambassador Churkin agreed that such an “exit rent” would be normal, and a similar rent would be required of Russian Jews wishing to return to their Spanish homeland.

Speaking in behalf of the Israeli nation, which nation was not present at this Security Council meeting, United States Ambassador Power stated that the policy of Israel in regard to the rent issue, which it might place on Israeli Jews who wanted to return to their Spanish homeland, was that the United States must pay the rent fee for such Jews. Ambassador Power stated that President Obama and both Houses of Congress had agreed to this stipulation, should the occasion arise.

FNP sources have unanimously agreed that at this point, Elie Wiesel screamed and fainted to the floor. When he was revived, he charged that he had been victimized by an anti-Semitic symbol. He pointed to a halved portion of a bagel which he had quietly ordered, along with a goblet of vintage Mogen David Wine. When the bagel had arrived, in accordance with his request, it was smeared with creamed cheese. He pointed to the smear of cheese hysterically.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon hastened to the bagel to observe it. He saw what appeared to be an alphabetical “r”-like slash of creamed cheese on top of the body of creamed cheese that covered most of the surface of the face of the half-bagel. Puzzled, he looked at the other gathered ambassadors who were observing the bagel, while a physician attended to the Nobel Prize-winning writer, Eliezer Wiesel.

The Ambassador of Lithuania, the Honorable Madame Raimonda Murmokaite, observed audibly, “It could be an ‘r.’”

A puzzled ambassador of Angola, the honorable Ismael Gaspar Martins, wondered to his fellow ambassadors where the offense resided in the mark.

U.S. Ambassador Power offered an explanation. She said, “It may be an abbreviation for ‘red.’ The original leaders of communism were overwhelmingly Jewish. Someone may have meant to obliquely attack Elie as a Jew by indicating that he was a ‘Red.’” She continued, “I am offended and disgusted by this attack on a ‘holocaust survivor.’”

An obviously annoyed Russian Ambassador Churkin objected: “Your analysis was strained – even fantastic. Our intelligence has unearthed an American plot to defame the Jews by calling them ‘Edomites.’” “‘Edom,’” he continued, “is ‘red.’ The use of the ‘r’ form on the bagel – made with creamed cheese – was to insult the celebrated Jewish writer, Wiesel, by calling him a descendant of Esau, brother of Jacob. For a Jew such a label is a great insult.”

Sir Mark Lyall Grant, U.K. Ambassador to the United Nations concurred. “This makes me very angry,” he said.

 

The fully revived Elie Wiesel begged of the gathered dignitaries a word. “The real meaning of the ‘r’ symbol is the ‘swastika.’ If you place four of these ‘r’ symbols so that their bases form a square shape, you will have made a swastika. Dears,” he said to the dignitaries, looking wisely yet sadly at each, “Nazis have infiltrated the United Nations and are now pursuing an anti-Semitic agenda. May G_d preserve us from such hate!”

“I am filled with outrage!” blurted Ambassador Power. “The President and Congress must know. The American people must know! The disease of hate has invaded our homeland!”

Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon asked the members of the Security Council, “Should the United Nations quarantine the United States? Can the disease be limited to the United Nations building only? Do we have a pandemic threat here?”

According to FNP sources, a decision to meet again on Friday to decide what course the world community must take was passed and the meeting adjourned.

“Heavy rests the heads that rule the world,” opined Drat Johnson from his FNP station in the Levant.

Just so, Drat! FNP will keep an eye on this situation.

DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE OF DUTY?

 

Recently, in writing about the martial nature of the United States and the proliferation of monuments to honor American wars, conflicts and warriors, I mentioned the planned monument to Dwight David Eisenhower on The Mall in Washington, D.C. A squabble in regard to its design had erupted, and the construction of the monument has been delayed. 

General Dwight David Eisenhower had been the Supreme Commander Allied Expeditionary Force (SCAEF) during World War 2. Later, he was officially designated Supreme Allied Commander of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) and served in these roles at least until May, 1945. Concurring with the advice of General George Marshall, Franklin D. Roosevelt, president of the United States, passed over senior officers, General Douglas MacArthur and General George Patton to appoint General Eisenhower. Apparently, the success of Eisenhower’s North African campaign was a factor in his selection. There is evidence that other factors of a less pertinent nature may have had undue weight in affected FDR’s decision. 

As World War 2 has been publicized as perhaps America’s finest moment in approximately two centuries of existence as a republic, General Eisenhower has been lionized as well. While General MacArthur and the American troops fighting in the Pacific Theater have received considerable praise, the war effort in the European Theater has garnered the greater attention. I believe that this was due to the magnified importance this Theater had for Jewry. Indeed, World War 2 has been called the “Jewish War for Survival in Europe.” 

All the fighting troops, sailors and airmen, as well as their supporters at home, have won the praise of media and academia as America’s greatest generation. They have been credited with saving the world from unprecedented evil. 

Why was all this so? It was because of the primary enemy – Nazi Germany.  

Most Americans living today are not aware that a majority of Americans in the 1930s were not in favor of getting involved in another European war. However, a very influential group in America – small in numbers – were working very hard to get the United States to join Great Britain and France, et al, in a confrontation with the Hitler regime in Germany. This influential group was led by Jews. 

Since several Jews were advisors to President Roosevelt, Jewish influence stretched beyond finance, media, and academia directly into the White House. Even so, Jewish influence had not been able to completely win over America to making war on Germany.  

What really tipped the scales in America so that its citizens were ready to go to war? A treaty did it. 

Since about 1937-38 Winston Churchill and FDR had been discussing ways that might be used as a pretext for getting the U.S.A. into WW2. The obstinate American majority had to be neutralized, if war against Nazi Germany was to ensue. Initially, plans must have primarily involved American maritime vessels or – better yet – U.S. Navy vessels. The United States has a long history of involvement in battles and wars due to an enemy attack on an American warship or maritime vessel. The Israeli state has been a rare exception to this rule, when it tried to sink the U.S. Liberty in the Mediterranean Sea. 

Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had signed a treaty to go to each other’s defense in the case of an attack from another nation. These kinds of treaties were and are the sine qua non of world wars.  

In the United States treaties have been secured by the U.S. constitution as “the Law of the Land.” That’s why American “statesmen” carefully insist on signing treaties with other countries, rather than “agreements,” “accords” or “understandings.” They want to bind the United States – not the other signer or signers. For this reason the United States signs treaties on environmental issues, economic issues, weapon issues, weather issues, et cetera. However, there is one treaty that it has never signed – a peace treaty with Germany at the end of World War 2. 

It is a fact that many nations, including the United States, have arranged for the appearance of “brutality toward a minority” within a given country to provide a humane and/or righteous pretext for invading the said country to save. Adolf Hitler used this technique on Czechoslovakia and Poland. Perfidious attacks on a country’s ships (“Remember the Maine!”, “Tonkin Gulf”, etc.) provide another pretext. Undoubtedly, there are others which might be cited, for humans are inventive in these matters. The term “false flag” was coined to describe some such clandestine operations. 

The Japanese were hemmed in through economic warfare by the United States and basically lured to attack the United States. By stacking naval ships at Pearl Harbor, FDR presented the Japanese high command with what appeared to be a golden opportunity to seriously wound United States naval forces in the Pacific arena and provide the Japanese with precious time to organize for a “fight-to-the-death” war with America.  

Even the top officers in Japan did not think that Japan had a chance against the United States. If there was any hope for Japan, it must be by means of a crushing sneak attack. However, the United States had broken the Japanese code and were monitoring their naval activities. That did not mean that the Department of the Navy generally were aware of this intelligence break-through.  

FDR basically accepted the military losses – perhaps akin to Mohammed Ali’s “rope-a-dope” – so that America could declare war on Japan, knowing that war with Germany would then be inevitable. Due to the Japanese-German treaty, declarations of war soon followed between the Germans and Americans. The United States began to mobilize its mighty potential for war, and Allied victory became a matter of time.  

In a way the world war commenced in 1933 when the Zionist leadership declared war on Germany, beginning with economic pressure. Media pressure began “beating the drums” for a war against Hitler and what he stood for, as they defined and emphasized it. National Socialism had to be stopped. Entertainers competed to make Adolf Hitler and Nazism appear to be insane, absurd and/or evil. This was part of the conditioning of the American people. 

Yet, Americans could see a miracle in Germany, as Hitler’s programs began to revitalize it, putting people back to work. Americans watching newsreels at theaters, as an entertainment prologue before a movie, could see that, despite all the criticism of Hitler and National Socialism (“Nazism”), the German people seemed to be doing better and to be increasingly enamored of him. Adolf Hitler was clearly popular in Germany. As Americans were still suffering from the Great Depression with no end in sight, what Hitler was achieving in Germany might well be deemed admirable and desirable. For this reason there was effort made by America’s media to put a bad spin on events in Germany. The German economy and a better lifestyle were de-emphasized in favor of the martial displays and mass gatherings, which Americans might see with growing apprehension. 

Although Adolf Hitler was a man who undoubtedly believed in the use of military force, if diplomacy showed no sign of bearing fruit, he was also a visionary. He had lived through poverty and war, firmly convinced in the capacity of Germans to build what LBJ in America would one day dub “The Great Society.” His vision was not the same as LBJ’s, to be sure. Unlike Americans, French, and British, Adolf Hitler did not believe that German destiny required the considered advice of Jews. He envisioned a “Greater Germany” which included German lands lost in the Allied dictations at Versailles, traditionally German lands, according to demography, and German-speaking Austria. 

In this he was not so wildly different from the Jews occupying Palestine today, who dreamed of Eretz Israel (Greater Israel), sprawling across the Levant.

One of the singularities of Jews is their belief that G_d gave them the world to “manage.” Hence, it is their duty to take control of it, for how else could they effectively manage it? I believe that that has something to do with the fact that Jews migrate to all richer countries, where they attempt to garner power. (Too, a little wealth is not a bad thing!) 

Naturally, Adolf Hitler’s vision and the G_d-given imperative to the Jews meant that the two were on a collision course. However, the Jews’ use of a triangular structure in government, where disproportionate numbers of Jews appear at the top of the pyramid insured broad influence wherever Jews were allowed to operate freely. 

Increasingly, such a situation obtained in the United States. Can that Jewish influence have had any bearing on the rise of Dwight D. Eisenhower?  

Dwight Eisenhower was promoted to full colonel in March, 1941. He was appointed to brigadier general in February, 1942, after he became a favorite of General George Marshall. Delano Roosevelt introduced her new acquaintance to “poppa.” FDR saw in Dwight Eisenhower a man who would not fight or sabotage his plans. In order to appoint Dwight David Eisenhower to the position of Chief of Operations Division, War Department General Staff in March, 1942, FDR bypassed many officers who outranked Eisenhower and who were better qualified. Next stop for Dwight Eisenhower was Commander European Theater of Operations in June, 1942. This was followed by appointment to be Allied Commander in Chief for the invasion of North Africa in 1942. Then, Allied Commander for the invasion of Sicily in May, 1943. Then, Allied Commander for the invasion of Italy in September, 1943. Finally, Dwight D. Eisenhower was appointed Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force for the invasion of Europe. 

This rapid series of promotions over better qualified officers might be a function of the sharp understanding of human nature by FDR, joined with the sage advice of General Marshall. Or it might be something quite different. 

According to Lt. Col. Gordon “Jack” Mohr, AUS retired, in 1945, during the post-World War 2 period, American foreign policy was largely in the hands of powerful Zionists based in Washington, D.C. This secret, invisible government was then headed by Sen. Herbert Lehman, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, and Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau. They drew up the plan for austerity and division of Germany, which informed observers likened to “genocide.” Interestingly, Mr. Fred Smith, a senior aide of Morgenthau’s, indicated that the Morgenthau Plan was Eisenhower’s idea. Further, Dwight Eisenhower made certain that the Morgenthau Plan book was circulated among Eisenhower’s troops in Europe. 

Incidentally, post-dissolution of the U.S.S.R. afforded the opportunity for scholars to view old Soviet documents; one disclosed that Felix Frankfurter was an agent of the communist regime in the ‘40s & ‘50s. 

According to Gordon Mohr, Henry Morgenthau credited Dwight D. Eisenhower with the austerity plan for Germany, which Morgenthau suggested to FDR. Mr. Fred Smith, one of Henry Morgenthau’s senior aides, indicated that the Morgenthau Plan was Eisenhower’s idea. Eisenhower made certain that the Morgenthau Plan book was circulated among his troops in Europe. Further in 1944 Eisenhower told the British ambassador to Washington that 3,500 German officers should be “exterminated.” He was said to also favor the liquidation of perhaps 100,000 prominent Germans. He was reported to have told his wife, Mamie, that “God, I hate Germans! Why? Because the German is a beast!” 

Given the apparent Germanic last name of Dwight D. Eisenhower and given the fact that perhaps two-thirds of European American soldiers in the U.S. military were Germanic, does not this hatred seem curious? Eisenhower’s allusion to “beasts” seemed entirely at one with media propaganda in sectors of Great Britain and the U.S.S.R. Did Eisenhower hate his own heritage or was there another related aspect? 

Although it is not commonly known, West Point’s Howitzer (1915) issue began, “This is Senor Dwight David Eisenhower, gentlemen, the terrible Swedish Jew, as big as life and twice as natural….” According to one source, Dwight David Eisenhower was the sixth generation descended from Hans Nicholas Eisenhauer, who arrived from Sweden in 1741. [He may have been originally a resident of Germany who felt compelled to journey expeditiously to America, and Sweden was a first step for him.] Further, just as Bernard Baruch had taken Winston Churchill under his financial wing, after Churchill had lost a great part of his money in the stock market arena in the ‘30s, so he had also guided Eisenhower’s career – probably using General Marshall’s assistance. 

It might be added that the name “Roosevelt” is the Dutch variant of “Rosenfeld,” which is typically Jewish.

It was not and is not unusual for Jew and non-Jew to marry, and many of the British and American elite “discover” that they have Jewish ancestors. The same applies to journalists, media reporters, politicians, et cetera. The British Prime Minister Cameron recently spoke of his Jewish ancestors. The late David Brinkley, Newt Gingrich, and Rudolph Giuliani all married Jews at least once. In both countries a part-Jewish elite has evolved to run affairs of state, foreign and domestic. 

Three communist agents worked for Henry Morgenthau at the Department of the Treasury, and they were the ones who largely devised policy 1067 of the Chiefs of Staff. It specified the procedures that Eisenhower must adopt. Treasury Deputies Frank Coe, Harold Glasser, and Harry Dexter White were all Jews. 

Therefore, at the tip of America’s power triangle in the late ‘30s were a disproportionate and very influential group of Jews, putting aside the matter of FDR’s heritage aside. 

Why is any of this important? The cruel treatment of the German people at the end of formal hostilities and during the next few years of the post-World War 2 period was arguably a war-crime- stained exercise in Allied – and especially Jewish – revenge. It was shameful. 

Since the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 that toppled the remnant of Tsarist Russia, the leadership of the U.S.S.R. has been substantially under the effective control of Marxist-Leninist Jews. The Stalinist years did not change that. Hence, the drive of “International Communism” to spread across the globe was alive and well. For the “dictatorship of the proletariat” was the same ancient Jewish concept of G_d-ordained management of the world but with G_n deleted. 

From the Jewish perspective Adolf Hitler’s National Socialism was akin to blasphemy. It was like a large wart – or even tumor – that had to be destroyed. 

Further, in Europe over the middle ages, Jews had been booted out of country after country. Jews would slowly return, only to be booted out again. Although Jewish apologists like to explain these expulsions as prejudice-based, they were primarily economically-related events. King Edward expelled Jews from England in 1290, stating that they had “gnawed England to the bone” (paraphrased). This undoubtedly referenced usury by Jews which made money too painfully scarce, making even the king’s position possibly threatened by peasant discord. Clipping coins was another practice that tended to enrich Jews at the price of the kingdom’s well-being. Today, lawyers and others clip the wealth of citizens who are forced to use them, but today the currency is largely abstract. 

Therefore, world Jewry had developed a desire to once-and-for-all end the expulsion of Jews from any given country in which they might dwell. Hitler’s idea of a Germany “of, by and for the German people” was, therefore, unacceptable. Jews did not want a “country of our own” situated “who knows where.” They were charged with managing the Earth – a kind of collective Adam managing the global “Worker’s Paradise.” 

The Jews did not merely want to stop Adolf Hitler and Nazism, but they wanted to make an example of them to teach the world a lesson all should heed. They wanted to avenge every slight that they have ever felt from Germans and others. 

Besides the immediate revenge upon the Germans and their allies, the Jews wanted to create a new world government to enforce their ideas. During the FDR Administration, preparations were being made for the post-war world government of the United Nations. References popped up in the FDR Administration papers to the “United Nations,” even though it had not been created. It was treated as if it had been established in their planning papers. 

Parenthetically, once the constitutional framework for the United Nations had been created, laws were enacted to deal with “genocide” and “refugees.” The latter was crucial to developing the American and European laws and regulations which accord with the United Nations rules, allowing for a constant flow of alien people from very different religio-cultural homelands to migrate. Thus, all European-derived nations have become substantially diverse communities heading to their new status as “mixed multitudes.” 

However, at the period of the surrender of Nazi Germany, American leadership was basically working with the U.S.S.R. leadership to wreak terror upon the defeated German people. Neither nation felt obliged to limit their wrath with the National Socialist political and military leadership. 

In Casablanca, January, 1943, FDR had announced at his meeting with Churchill that the terms to be offered to Germany and Japan were simply “unconditional surrender,” which meant the abolition of the German government, meaning the loss of treaty rights such as the protection of prisoners under the Geneva Convention. That the U.S.A. planned to punish the Germans can be perceived by the FDR comment to Henry Morgenthau, “We have got to be tough with Germany, and I mean the German people, not just the Nazis. We either have to castrate the German people, or you have got to treat them in such a manner that they can’t just go on reproducing people who want to continue the way they have in the past.” [Presidential Diary, Morgenthau Papers, vol. 6, 19 August, 1944, Hyde Park.] In Teheran, November, 1943, Marshal Josef Stalin stated his desire to round up 50,000 German officers after the war and shoot them. Clearly, Stalin was more direct than FDR, but FDR was obviously more ambitious, seeking a sort of soft genocide of the Germans. Later, in Warm Springs, Georgia, April 11, 1945, not many days from his death, FDR told Henry Morgenthau, “Henry, Truman took over,” and affirmed that Truman would continue Morgenthau’s ‘Carthaginian Peace’ toward the conquered Germans. 

Parenthetically, Carthaginian Peace referred to the harsh conditions imposed on Carthage by Rome after the Second Punic War, as well as the utter destruction of Carthage by Rome after the Third Punic War. 

What were the short term consequences of this “Carthaginian Peace?” 

A series of concentration camps were set up in the American post-war sector. They were often open-air stretches of land which had been fenced in and guarded by armed soldiers. The Germans confined were older men, boys, and many surrendered/captured soldiers. The German women were confined in a separate vast holding-pen. All were poorly fed and clothed. Medical help was spotty. Some internees lived in holes in the ground, largely exposed to the elements. They found few sympathetic people amongst the Americans. 

Consider: “In April, 1945, …one inmate at Rheinberg was over 80 years old, another was age nine… Nagging hunger and agonizing thirst were their companions and they died of dysentery. …amputees slithered like amphibians through the mud, soaking and freezing.” [U.S. Colonels Mason & Beasley in “The Medical Surgeon,” vol. 107, no.6, (December 1950), page 437] 

Red Cross food was turned away by order, basically, of Dwight Eisenhower command. Food stored and going to waste in facilities controlled by the U.S. Army might have been made available to the starving German inmates. Since they were deprived of “prisoners of war” status by the Eisenhower command, they were literally “without a country.” [On August 4, 1945, a terse order went forth from SHAEF under Eisenhower’s name that “Effective immediately all members of the German forces held in US custody in the American zone of occupation in GERMANY will be considered as disarmed enemy forces (DEF) and not as having the status of prisoners of war.”] In effect American Jews had booted them out of their own country. 

The British under Churchill released their German prisoners rather promptly. General Patton had done so as well, discharging half a million men in 27 days. General Bradley tried, but he was countermanded by Eisenhower at SHAEF. 

I believe that notice should be given to the words of General George Patton regarding General Dwight Eisenhower’s handling of affairs at SHAEF. In his diary he wrote: “After lunch General Eisenhower talked to us very confidentially on the necessity for solidarity in the event that any of us are called before a Congressional Committee.” The Ike rationale for this solidarity may be found in another entry in Patton’s diary: [Eisenhower was using] “practically Gestapo methods” against Germany. Without doubt Patton represented a much higher degree of military virtue than Eisenhower. General Patton stated his opinion that “What we are doing is to utterly destroy the only semi-modern state in Europe so that Russia can swallow the whole.” 

Another timely voice should be noted at this time. Marshal Alphonse Juin, Chief of Staff for General Charles De Gaulle, told General Patton at dinner in Paris [Diary of George S. Patton, 18 August, 1945] that “It is indeed unfortunate that the English and Americans have destroyed the only sound country in Europe – and I do not mean France – therefore, the road is now open for the advent of Russian communism.” 

The policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Henry Morgenthau, and Dwight David Eisenhower toward the defeated Germans were not merely criminal actions, but they were strategically worse than a crime – they were supremely unwise. 

Personally, I believe that the FDR Administration saw the leadership of the U.S.S.R. as people who “think like us.” They were family.

Orders went out of SHAEF under the name “Eisenhower” that interdicted shipments of food and other mail to the German interns. The Red Cross was barred. Orders went forth to American prison guards to shoot anyone helping the Germans in American sector concentration camps. Further, “The youthful commandant calmly told us he had kept the inmates on starvation diet, explaining, ‘These Nazis are getting a dose of their own medicine.’” [Robert Murphy, civilian political adviser to Eisenhower] 

General Marshall let Eisenhower know that “there is no longer any protecting power representing German interests. Hence matters pertaining to German prisoners of war cannot be forwarded.” [The State Department informed the Swiss that their services were no longer recognized.] The effect of this was to block ICRC assistance to surrendered Germans under the Geneva Convention for POWs. As late as February, 1946, the ICRC, as well as other relief agencies, was still being prevented by the U.S.A. command from “bringing help to German children and sick persons in the US zone.” 

In contrast in both the French and British zones, the ICRC and the local German Red Cross were operating. 

Colonel Philip Lauben later said that the American and French camps in the Vosges region were so bad that “the Vosges was just one big death camp.” In the late summer of 1945, Jean-Pierre Pradervand of the ICRC in France journeyed to Thoree les Pins – a French camp – which was already locally known by villagers as “Buchenwald” for an inspection. On July 10, 1945, a French army unit commanded by Gen. Rousseau took over the Dietersheim camp, previously under American zone oversight. He found 32,000 men and women of all ages in a moribund state, i.e. near death. Seventeen days later, his fellow officer Julien took command. He found a vast human sty. He noted that “people were living skeletons huddling under scraps of wet card board.” The horrified Julien wrote, “This is just like the photographs from Dachau.” 

Meanwhile, on August 30, 1945, Max Huber, boss of the ICRC, wrote a sharp letter complaining about American interference in efforts to save starving Germans. As Washington and SHAEF (under Eisenhower) were resolutely opposed to allowing the “disarmed enemy forces” to receive a “care package” of food, the food, now beginning to decay, was returned to Geneva and the ICRC in trains with thousands of laden cars.  

The interdiction by an authority of food, medicine and clothing meant for desperately deprived and suffering people is hardly uncommon. In Israel in recent years, armed Israeli military were sent forth into international waters to halt a “care package” armada intending to bring food & medicine to the Palestinian people. As with the American military command in Europe under General Dwight David Eisenhower, the Israelis successfully deprived “enemies” from receiving desperately needed help. 

General Everett S. Hughes, who had been with Dwight Eisenhower at the staff college at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, was named Eisenhower’s special assistant. His concerns in this position related to manpower replacements, prisoner of war rations and logistical matters, especially relating to the aforementioned concerns. In Marseilles, France, on March 19, 1945, Hughes had stated: “Naples all over again. More stocks than we can ever use stretch as far as eye can see.” Contrary to assertions made by Dwight David Eisenhower, there was available food to keep the German inmates alive. The British were in a worse position than Americans by far, yet were able to set a daily meal for their numerous German inmates. In the U.S.A. farm production had been booming. Any American planner could see the end of German war-making not far ahead. They knew that prisoners would be taken. There was ample time to prepare to feed them. Yet, they did not! Perhaps even prior to the ghastly final days of Nazi Germany, the unspoken word “genocide” had been selected as a possible solution to the “German Problem.” 

Vladimir Lenin had opined that Jews made better revolutionaries than Slavic Russians do because they had a greater capacity to be cruel.   

The FDR/Truman Administrations may also have had this capacity. In 1973 Julius Epstein published his book, OPERATION KEELHAUL: The Story of Forced Repatriation (1973). In this book Epstein detailed how American authorities forced hundreds of thousands of anti-Communists who had fought or fled from the U.S.S.R. and its comrade nations to return to them at the outset of the Cold War. Many of the returned people were hung in the presence of American soldiers, who were undoubtedly ordered not to interfere. This event was unknown to any Americans in the 1940s, other than the few in the Truman Administration and the American military command in Europe. The media was silent. Although Dwight Eisenhower was no longer in command in Europe, someone very much like him must have been appointed to oversee such a potentially politically-charged operation. It also indicated that another America was being born. The days of American warriors with virtuous characters that allowed the glimmer of gallantry and nobility to be observed had passed.  

General Douglas MacArthur had called Colonel Eisenhower incompetent. Subsequently, he declared Ike to be “The Best damn clerk I ever had.” On the other hand General George Patton had termed Ike “a wimp.” However, FDR and General Marshall saw something in Ike that they could use. Did they think that he’d be their “good little German?” Or did they see a hint of cruelty underneath the amiable appearance? 

In OTHER LOSSES James Bacque made the claim that 700,000 to perhaps as many as 1 million Germans died of neglect (exposure, unsanitary conditions, disease and starvation) in the confines of the American-run concentration camps. Others have disputed this, claiming only a few score thousand had died. One of these, Stephen Ambrose, a biographer of Dwight David Eisenhower, had actually been given Bacque manuscript to criticize, but, rather than finding fault, Ambrose extolled James Bacque’s manuscript as historically important. None have those critics have denied that the German prisoners had been grossly mistreated. The “why” of it remains an open question. Was it merely unbridled hatred by a gaggle of powerfully positioned men which led to the Carthaginian Peace? 

It goes beyond mistreatment. A war crime was committed by the American leadership. General Dwight David Eisenhower was a central figure in this crime. At the very least he was the spear-point cast by Jewry to impel the German people for embracing Hitler’s idea of a Greater Germany rather than the Judeo-American principle of an “Open Door Nation,” where diversity and Jewish hegemony characterized the land. 

Dwight D. Eisenhower has positive things which might be placed on his ledger; however, war crimes and plain meanness do not warrant a nation’s gratitude in the form of a monument on The Mall in his name. He does not belong on the same sward with Abraham Lincoln, whose magnanimous approach to opponents in war was unprecedented in America and, unfortunately, never copied thereafter.  

In America George Orwell’s paradox seemed to prevail: What the people knew was not true; what was true was not known.