Archive for the ‘Red Terror’ Category

Read Full Post »

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s “The 1920s.” Chapter 18 of 200 Years Together
Kevin MacDonald
July 5, 2010
Source: The Occidental Observer

The English translation of Chapter 18 of 200 Years Together, “The 1920s” is now available. (See here, and notice the link requesting donations.) It has a very different feel from Chapter 20, on the Gulag. Whereas Solzhenitsyn’s account of the Gulag stresses his own experiences, this chapter relies on a wide range of academic historical writing to paint his picture of the USSR during the critical decade of the 1920s. His account is therefore based on mainstream scholarship and overall is similar to other accounts, such as Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century. However, it goes beyond other accounts in several important ways and provides a great deal of new information for Western audiences. It is a very long chapter (26000 words). Here I summarize some of the main points and draw analogies to the current situation in the West.

Solzhenitsyn recounts the migration of Jews to the urban areas of the USSR—the centers of culture and of power. Well over 80% of ethnic Jews moved to urban areas, and they were represented in the government at around their percentage of the urban population and 6.5 times their representation in the population at large.

Russians commonly perceived Jews as dominating the Soviet government, a situation that resulted in anti-Jewish attitudes. A Jewish observer is quoted about the situation in 1923:

“The Jew is in all corners and on all levels of power.” “The Russian sees him as a ruler of Moscow, at the head of the capital on Neva [Leningrad], and at the head of the Red Army, a perfected death machine. He sees that St. Vladimir Prospect has been renamed Naumson Prospect… The Russian sees the Jew as judge and hangman; he sees Jews at every turn, not only among the communists, but among people like himself, everywhere doing the bidding of Soviet power… Not surprisingly, the Russian, comparing present with past, is confirmed in his idea that power is Jewish power, that it exists for Jews and does the bidding of Jews.

Jews also took full advantage of new opportunities for education, aided by the “social origins policy” in which non-Jews who were children of the pre-revolutionary middle and upper classes were expelled from the universities. Jews were not subject to exclusion based on social origins because they were classified as a “repressed nationality” under that Czar. The result was that the ethnic Russian intelligentsia was “pushed to the margins.” Jews were then competing for prestigious occupations with the children of proletarian Russians. Jews therefore came to be overrepresented in the intelligentsia even controlling for the percentage of the urban population. The Russian merchants and traders were also subjected to a much harsher fate than Jews in similar positions: “The Jewish bourgeoisie was not destroyed like the Russian bourgeoisie. The Jewish merchant, much less likely to be damned as a “man of the past,” found defenders. Relatives or sympathizers in the Soviet Apparatus … warned about pending arrests or seizures. And if he lost anything — it was just capital, not life.”

This is a speeded up version of what is happening via affirmative action in America and other Western societies now. There is discrimination against higher IQ Whites in favor of lower-IQ groups. Jews, however, continue to be overrepresented in elite academic institutions on the basis of IQ, so they are not suffering a similar level of discrimination. The only difference is that the beneficiaries are non-Whites, not the White working class. Indeed, the White working class is losing the most as a result of the multicultural revolution and, not surprisingly, this is where most of the White anger is coming from (see here and here).

The Russians were angry too. In 1926 a professor gave a “remarkable speech” in which he described the dispossession of the Russians:

We have isolated expressions of hooliganism…. Its source is hurt national feelings of Russians. The February Revolution established the equality of all citizens of Russia, including Jews. The October Revolution went further with the Russian nation proclaiming self-renunciation. A certain imbalance has developed with respect to the proportion of the Jewish population in the country as a whole and the positions they have temporarily occupied in the cities. We are in our own cities and they arrive and squeeze us out. When Russians see Russian women, elders and children freezing on the street 9 to 11 hours a day, getting soaked by the rain in their tents at the market and when they see relatively warm covered Jewish kiosks with bread and sausage they are not happy. These phenomena are catastrophic …. There is a terrible disproportion in the government structure, in daily life and in other areas….We have a housing crisis in Moscow — masses of people are crowding into areas not fit for habitation and at the same time people see others pouring in from other parts of the country taking up housing. These arrivals are Jews. A national dissatisfaction is rising and a defensiveness and fear of other nationalities. We must not close our eyes to that. A Russian speaking to a Russian will say things that he will not say to a Jew. Many are saying that there are too many Jews in Moscow. This must be dealt with, but don’t call it anti-Semitism.

Notice particularly the comment that Russians were supposed to engage in “self-renunciation” — precisely what we see now in the common expectation that Whites are expected to accept their dispossession without complaint because of their complicity in the pre-revolutionary, traditional culture of America. As would also happen in contemporary America, the speech was quickly denounced as nothing more than “anti-Semitism.” Those who opposed the dispossession of the Russians or criticized the position of the Jews were framed as counterrevolutionaries. “And for counter-revolutionaries there is 9 grams of lead — that much is clear.”

The result was that “the average person saw [quoting a Jewish author], ‘arrogant, self-confident and self-satisfied adult Jews at ease on ‘red holidays’ and ‘red weddings’…. ‘We now sit where Czars and generals once sat, and they sit beneath us.” “Judeophobia is everywhere in Russia today. It has swept areas where Jews were never before seen and where the Jewish question never occurred to anyone. The same hatred for Jews is found in Vologda, Archangel, in the towns of Siberia and the Urals.”

Solzhenitsyn cites a Jewish writer, Maslov:

“The expression ‘Kike Power’ is often used in Russia and particularly in Ukraine and in the former pale of settlement not as a polemic, but as a completely objective definition of power, its content and its politics.” “Soviet power in the first place answers the wishes and interests of Jews and they are its ardent supporters and in the second place, power resides in Jewish hands.”

As in his chapter on the Gulag, Solzhenitsyn stresses Jewish ethnic networking as a key to their success, again citing Maslov: the “tightly welded ethnic cohesion they have formed as a result of their difficult thousands-year-old history.” “This is particularly noticeable when it comes to selecting staff at institutions — if the selection process is in the hands of Jews, you can bet that the entire staff of responsible positions will go to Jews, even if it means removing the existing staff.” Jews were also aided by international Jewish charities throughout the 1920s, and during the New Economic Policy period (1921–1928), when capitalism was encouraged, Jews quickly came to dominate certain industries. Anger against Jewish success stemmed from the perception that “their commerce was routinely facilitated by their links and pulls in the Soviet apparatus.”

Not only did Jews favor their own, observers noted that they regarded the Russians with contempt. Solzhenitsyn again quotes Maslov: “The preference for their own is displayed in a sharp, discourteous manner which is offensive to others” (emphasis in text).

The Parisian Zionist journal Sunrise wrote in 1922 that Gorky essentially said that “the growth of anti-Semitism is aided by the tactless behavior of the Jewish Bolsheviks themselves in many situations. That is the blessed truth!” And Gorky wasn’t speaking of Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev — he was speaking of the typical Jewish communist who occupies positions in the collegiums, presidiums and petty and mid-level Soviet institutions where they come into contact with large swaths of the population. They occupy leading front-line positions which naturally multiplies their number in the mind of the public.

Russian concern about the overrepresentation of Jews at the highest levels of the party (e.g., 3 of 6 Politburo members) led to a plan for an anti-Jewish revolt in 1924 at a Party conference. It was thwarted when the leader died, “literally on the eve of the conference [as the result of] an unsuccessful and unnecessary operation for a stomach ulcer by the same surgeon who dispatched [Mikhail] Frunze with an equally unneeded operation a year and a half later” (see Wikipedia’s account of Frunze’s death.)

Solzhenitsyn makes the point that the Cheka held life and death power over all of the USSR: “Each of them with the flick of a finger could destroy anyone of us!” Seventy percent of its leadership positions during the Red Terror were non-Russian, but this fell to around 40–45% by the mid-1920s. However, Jews became an increasing percentage of the Cheka at this time; hence, Slezkine’s comment on Jews as “Stalin’s willing executioners.” “In the 20’s the inevitable question hangs in the air that was posed many year later by Leonard Schapiro: why was it ‘highly likely that anyone unfortunate enough to fall into the hands of the Cheka would go before a Jewish interrogator or be shot by a Jew.’”

Solzhenitsyn is emphasizing the ethnic angle to mass murder in the USSR: Russians were disproportionately victims, and non-Russians, and particularly Jews, were disproportionately perpetrators. He also emphasizes that a prime motive for Jews was revenge against the old order. Describing a family of Hasidic Jews who became prominent in the Cheka, he notes, “They thirsted for revenge on everyone — aristocrats, the wealthy, Russians, few were left out. This was their path to self realization.”

Again, the analogy is striking. As emphasized repeatedly on TOO, Whites can expect to be increasingly victimized by non-Whites with historical grudges as they sink to minority status and lose political power. The difference, of course, is that because the Bolsheviks had totalitarian control, they were able to carry out their war on ethnic Russians even though the Russians comprised a dominant majority of the population.

But the general Jewish reaction to this horror has been pride in accomplishment, not guilt for having perpetrated mass murder against their perceived ethnic enemies.

Often these Jewish authors thoughtlessly and meticulously comply and publish vast lists of the Jewish leadership of the time. For example, see how proudly the article “Jews in the Kremlin,” published in journal Alef, provides a list of the highest Soviet officials — Jews for 1925. It listed eight out of twelve directors of the state Central Bank. The same Jewish representation was found among top trade union leaders. And it comments: “We do not fear accusations. Quite the opposite — it is active Jewish participation in governing the state that helps in understanding why the affairs of state were better then than now, when Jews at top positions are as rare as hen’s teeth.” Unbelievably, it was written in 1989.

As usual, Jews themselves had self-serving and self-deceptive attitudes on the causes of anti-Jewish attitudes. For example, Yuri Larin prepared a report asserting that anti-Jewish attitudes were “dreamed up and spread among the masses by an underground organization of counter-revolutionaries!” The closest Larin comes to a reasonable interpretation is his assertion that the anti-Semitism of the Russian intelligentsia comes from competition with Jews for government jobs, but he denied that Jews in fact held an “excessive number” of government jobs.

The result was a government-led campaign against anti-Semitism: “The battle to create an atmosphere of intolerance of anti-Semitism was to be taken up in educational programs, public reports, lectures, the press, radio and school textbooks and finally, authorities were ‘to apply the strictest disciplinary measures to those found guilty of anti-Semitic practices.’”

Again, the analogies with the present are striking, although in the contemporary West there is a greater role for non-governmental entities, such as privately owned media and activist organizations, most notably the ADL and the SPLC. However, whereas current propaganda about anti-Semitism emphasizes Jewish suffering, particularly the Holocaust, in the USSR the ideology was that anti-Semitism was a cloak for anti-revolutionary activities: “The masses must regard anyone who shows sympathy to anti-Semitism as a secret counter-revolutionary or the mouthpiece of a secret monarchist organization.”

Solzhenitsyn alludes to a 1930 ruling that prevented the Draconian provisions of the law on anti-Semitism (prison, confiscation of property, and in some cases, death) from being used in cases of personal dispute. This suggests that at least prior to this ruling, Jews at times made accusations of anti-Semitism in order to win personal disputes with non-Jews.

Because Jews had assumed a position of power and influence in the USSR, the USSR was regarded quite highly in the West. Much of the West, including European and American Jews, maintained feelings of good will towards the Soviets. The Soviet Union was good for the Jews, and therefore received positive coverage in the West.

Positive relations with the Soviet regime were held not only because of European intellectuals’ sympathy for any socialist movement but, to a large degree, because world and American Jewry were satisfied with the status of Russian Jews. Undoubtedly things would be good for Jews under the Soviets and no pogroms threatened. Effective Soviet propaganda further publicized the positive outlook for Soviet Jews.

International good will and sympathy helped Soviet leaders obtain Western, particularly American, financial support. Without that support, the Soviet economy could not have escaped the damage of the “war communism” era.

The fact that the USSR was good for the Jews therefore had a major effect in bolstering and motivating the Jewish left which was the backbone of the left in the US and elsewhere in the West. This in turn had major implications well into the Cold War era. Jews were vastly overrepresented as targets of the McCarthy era, and Jewish intellectuals generally continued to have rosy views of the USSR throughout the 1950s. Most egregiously, the American Jewish Congress — by far the largest Jewish organization in terms of membership — continued to be associated with the far left and was formally affiliated with organizations listed as subversive by the US Attorney General. The CPUSA viewed members of the AJCongress as “democratic forces” in their attempt to create “democratic and anti-fascist” policies in the World Jewish Congress.

Writers like Yuri Slezkine and Jewish activist organizations like the ADL claim that the Jews who played such an important role in the USSR left their Jewish identity behind and completely assimilated to Soviet culture. Solzhenitsyn rejects this myth (see also here, p. 79ff). Despite government hostility toward all religion, Jewish ethnicity remained intact: “A remnant of Jewish self-awareness was preserved and remained. Even in the flood of the internationalism of the 20’s, mixed marriages (between Jews and Russians or Jews and any non-Jew), as measured from 1924–1926, were only 6.3% of the total marriages for Jews in the USSR, including 16.8% in RSFSR, but only 2.8% in Byelorussia and 4.5% in Ukraine (according to another source, on average in USSR, 8.5%; in RSFSR, 21%; in Byelorussia, 3.2%; and in Ukraine, 5%).

Solzhenitsyn makes the important point that the public face of the USSR in the West was Jewish, since such a large percentage of the diplomatic corps and embassy and trade officials were Jewish: A Jewish author notes that “‘In the publishing arm [of the People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs] there is not one non-Jew’ and further, with evident pride, the author ‘examines the staff in Soviet consulates around the world and finds there is not one country in the world where the Kremlin has not placed a trusted Jew.’”

This then fed into the public perception throughout the West among conservatives that Jews dominated the USSR, with far-reaching implications. Despite the fact that the left continued to see the USSR as the promised land, at least partly because of its treatment of Jews, this was not the case with a great many non-Jewish intellectuals and political leaders, including Winston Churchill, Woodrow Wilson, and the National Socialists in Germany (see here, pp. xxxix–xli). Hitler in particular saw Jews as being an elite in the USSR and as involved in mass murder of Russians.

Solzhenitsyn also presents an interesting discussion of the struggle for control of the Party between Stalin and Trotsky. Trotsky was joined by two other Jews, Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev. As a result, the “United Opposition” had a decidedly Jewish look, and many of its supporters, followers of Trotsky, were also Jewish. However, Stalin decided not to use the Jewish angle in his battle with the United Opposition because of the power of Jews within the Party and the need to preserve good relations with the West — a comment that says much about Jewish power in the West at that time. He also realized that he needed to continue to curry favor with Jews in his struggle with Russian nationalism and the collectivization of the Russian peasants. Nevertheless, there was an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in the opposition to Trotsky.

Particularly interesting is that Stalin continued to see the Jews as reliable allies in his opposition to Russian nationalism: “At the 26th Party Congress in 1930 Stalin declared ‘Great Russian chauvinism’ to be the ‘main danger of the national question.’ Thus, at the end of the 20’s Stalin did not carry out his planned purge of the party and government apparatus of Jews, but encouraged their expansion in many fields, places and institutions.”

This is a common theme in Jewish history from the ancient world into modern times—Jews as making alliances with oppressive elites in opposition to the great majority of the population. Stalin would continue this policy in post-World War II Eastern Europe, where Jews were often installed as a ruling elite in opposition to nationalist movements. (See, for example, the discussion of Poland here, p. 60ff). As ethnic outsiders, Jews had no allegiance to the native population and were “willing executioners” of the native peoples.

Solzhenitsyn makes clear the Jewish role as ethnic outsiders who could be counted on to carry out the war on the predominantly Slavic Russian peasants:

At the 25th Congress in December 1927, the time had come to address the looming “peasant question” — what to do with the presumptuous peasantry which had the temerity to ask for manufactured goods in exchange for their grain. Molotov delivered the main report on this topic and among the debaters were the murderers of the peasantry — Schlikhter and Yakovlev-Epstein (250). A massive war against the peasantry lay ahead and Stalin could not afford to alienate any of his reliable allies and probably thought that in this campaign against a disproportionately Slavic population it would be better to rely on Jews than on Russians. He preserved the Jewish majority in the Gosplan. The commanding heights of collectivization and its theory included, of course, Larin. Lev Kritzman was director of the Agrarian Institute from 1928. As Assistant to the President of the Gosplan in 1931–33 he played a fateful role in the persecution of Kondratev and Chayanov. Yakov Yakovlev-Epstein took charge of People’s Commissariat of Agriculture in 1929. … And thus he led the “Great Change,” the imposition of collectivization on millions of peasants with its zealous implementers on the ground. A contemporary writer reports: “for the first time ever a significant number of young Jewish communists arrived in rural communities as commanders and lords over life and death. Only during collectivization did the characterization of the Jew as the hated enemy of the peasant take hold — even in those places where Jews had never been seen before”

Solzhenitsyn acknowledges that Russians could have been found who would have done the same thing. Nevertheless, “Jewish communists participated efficiently and diligently” in collectivization. It was a war against the Russian people — a war that was carried out with “a certain enthusiasm among Jews.”

De-Kulakization was not a socio-economic measure, but a measure taken against a nationality. The strategic blow against the Russian people, who were the main obstacle to the victory of communism, was conceived of by Lenin, but carried out after his death. In those years communism with all its cruelty was directed mostly against Russians. It is amazing that not everything has perished during those days. Collectivization, more than any other policy of the communists, gives the lie to the conception of Stalin’s dictatorship as nationalist, i.e., “Russian.”

This was not only a war against Russians. It was a war against the concept of being a Russian. “The study of Russian history, archeology, and folklore was suppressed — the Russians could not have a past. … Even the word ‘Russian,’ as in ‘I am Russian’ sounded like a counter-revolutionary cry which I well remember from my childhood. But without hesitation everywhere was heard and printed “Russopyati” [an anti-Russian slur]! Thus a Jewish writer demands the removal of “history’s garbage” from the city square in Moscow — the removal of statues and other tokens of Russian historical memory.

Russian patriotism was abolished forever. But the feelings of the people will not be forgotten. Not how it felt to see the Church of the Redeemer blown up by the engineer Dzhevalkin and that the main mover behind this was Kaganovich who wanted to destroy St. Basil’s cathedral as well. Russian Orthodoxy was publicly harassed by “warrior atheists” led by Gubelman-Yaroslavsky. It is truthfully noted: “That Jewish communists took part in the destruction of churches was particularly offensive… No matter how offensive the participation of sons of Russian peasants in the persecution of the church, the part played by each non-Russian was even more offensive.”

This makes psychological sense because the actions of an outgroup member are always seen in a more negative light — an aspect of evolutionary psychology.

Despite all this, Jewish intellectuals and activist organizations have attempted to sanitize the Jewish role in the darkest days of the USSR. Solzhenitsyn notes that now there is a myth that

under Soviet power Jews were always second class citizens. … It’s very rare to hear an admission that not only did they take part, but there was a certain enthusiasm among Jews as they carried out the business of the barbaric young government. “The mixture of ignorance and arrogance which Hannah calls a typical characteristic of the Jewish parvenu filled the government, social and cultural elite. The brazenness and ardor with which all Bolshevik policies were carried out — whether confiscation of church property or persecution of ‘bourgeois intellectuals’ gave Bolshevik power in the 20’s a certain Jewish stamp” (263).

Solzhenitsyn closes with a comment that also has a very clear analogy to the present situation in the US and other Western nations.

In the 90’s another Jewish public intellectual, writing of the 20’s said: “In university halls Jews often set the tone without noticing that their banquet was happening against the backdrop of the demise of the main nationality in the country. … During the 20’s Jews were proud of fellow Jews who had brilliant careers in the revolution, but did not think much about how that career was connected to the real suffering of the Russian people… Most striking today is the unanimity with which my fellow Jews deny any guilt in the history of 20th century Russia”

A similar comment could be made about the role of Jews in the erection of the current multicultural, anti-White climate in the US, and especially their role in bringing about massive non-White immigration and the erection of the “proposition nation” idea in place of the historical American nation with a sense of White racial and cultural identity. In the USSR Jews actively participated in the destruction of the idea that there was any ethnic or national basis to the USSR and they were eager participants in the destruction of the older culture as well as in the mass murder of millions of ethnic Russians. But Jewish intellectuals deny any special role for Jews in these transformations, and this line is rigorously enforced by Jewish activist organizations.

White Americans must think long and hard about what this portends in a future America where Jews are already a major part of the elite and are already active in promoting alliances with non-White ethnic groups, many of which, like the Jews themselves, have historical grudges against the traditional people and culture of America.

Kevin MacDonald is editor of The Occidental Observer and a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. Email him.

Permanent URL: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Solzhenitsyn-200-Years-Together-18.html

Read Full Post »

In Defence of Germany
By G. E. O. Knight

The Golden Eagle Publishing Co., Fetter House, Fetter Lane, London E.C.4, © 1934
This digitalized version © 2009 by The Scriptorium.


It is a pleasure to me to write a few words to the twentieth Edition (20th thousand) of Mr. G. E. O. Knight’s most excellent brochure in its revised form. Mr. Knight has a perfect understanding of the difficulties confronting the new Germany, and, what is equally important, he possesses a fair and independent judgment. We Germans feel grateful to him, and to all our English friends who have taken the trouble, at no little expense and inconvenience to themselves, to study our revolution without prejudice. I hope sincerely that this pamphlet will be read all over England, and that it will help towards a better understanding between Great Britain and Germany.

Baronesse von der Goltz.
Rogzow, über Belgard/Pers,
Pom, Germany.

August 10th, 1934.

[4=blank] [5]
A Personal Note

For some time past, a handful of Englishmen and women, all pro-German, and each anxious to see a better and more intimate understanding between the two countries, have found themselves considerably handicapped in their work of reconciliation by the report of happenings in the German Reich which have gained impetus without any manifestation of disapproval from official German sources. Not that we wish it to be thought that it would redound to the dignity of the German or any other Government to go out of their way to refute statements which on the face of them are manifestly absurd and published to serve political ends. But the hard fact has to be faced that Germany to-day is culturally isolated from the rest of the world. In the main, this is due to the new form of government now found in Germany, obviously a matter that concerns the Germans alone, and no part of our business to discuss. But we do not think that Germany is giving of her best to-day. No doubt this is attributable to the fact that she has been torn by internal strife and the haunting fear that Communism and other subversive forms of government are even yet capable of doing the country infinite harm unless a strong hand is [6] used to keep them in check. Whereas German culture was formerly the admiration and inspiration of every thoughtful man and woman the world over, there has been a serious setback during the last two or three years in her contribution to letters. We think that this is but a passing phase. In the meanwhile, we can but work for the cause of Anglo-German amity, conscious of the fact that with the lifting of the clouds, we shall secure the aims we have in view – Justice for Germany and World Peace.

The Committee of the Friends of Germany.
July 6th, 1934.


Who is behind the present unparalleled anti-German campaign in this country? What are their motives? All the facts point to the existence in the principal cities of Europe and America of a world-wide organisation whose object is to bring discredit on a country which has suffered more during the last twenty years than can ever be recorded. The present orgy of calumny and abuse is pitiful, to use no stronger word. The most sinister aspect of the campaign is the attempt, through the Press of the world, to overthrow the existing European order and tradition and place the Communists in power. How often must it be repeated that there is no alternative to the Hitler regime in Germany but Communism. Once Communism gets control there it will speedily spread its evil influence to every country in Europe. I can scarcely believe there is a responsible Englishman who wishes to see the German Reich fall into the hands of Communists. Every article that appears in the London and Provincial Press to-day against Germany and its Government is a direct incitement to the Communists. If anyone questions the truth of this statement let him read the exulting Communist Press, [8] who boast of having every country on their side in so far as Germany is concerned. The British Press will one day realise the significance of what they are now doing and curse the day they countenanced the anti-German campaign. It is a double-edged weapon full of the gravest consequences, perhaps not so much to England for the time being, but certainly to Germany’s nearest neighbours, destined to become impregnated with the Communist theory of government once it establishes itself in the German Reich.

London, E.C.4. G. E. O. K.
July 5th, 1934.

In Defence of Germany


If one is to judge from the facts of history, it will be seen that Nations are not for long permitted to run their respective lives and affairs without outside interference. The last twenty years alone suffices to prove the truth of this much under-emphasised fact. Since the Armistice, the various European countries have adopted measures against Germany that aimed at the virtual ruin and degradation of the people and country. It is true that the policies pursued have brought economic havoc to the world at large, and created a situation the end of which is as yet difficult to determine. Just as Germany was blamed before the War for wanting a war, so was she blamed for the War itself. She had grown prosperous, and needed a strong navy to defend her economic and political interests. England watched her every movement as a cat watches a mouse. She saw, or fancied she saw, her markets threatened everywhere. Germany’s growing influence was a continuous source of anxiety to British statesmen and industrialists. A five year anti- [10] German newspaper campaign was inaugurated in London; this led to considerable bitterness and misunderstanding on both sides of the North Sea. The ground, it seems, was slowly being prepared for bigger things; the seeds of hatred and mutual mistrust among them. Parliament did not interfere with the “glorious and hard won liberties of the British Press.” The armaments racket was in full blast; war-mongers reaped no inconsiderable pecuniary gain for their patriotism. “We want eight and we won’t wait,” was the temper of the country in general. No one will ever forget it. The ex-Kaiser was caricatured everywhere and became the laughing-stock of Great Britain. The spy mania was rampant. When the War actually came, it needed little effort on the part of Whitehall to convince the British public that Germany, and Germany alone, was responsible for the outbreak of hostilities. No one but a lunatic thinks so to-day. While some of the more foolish among us are sighing for a return to the status quo ante bellum, others are clamouring for yet another war with Germany for some as yet unspecified act of atrocity she has committed, or will commit if she be permitted to re-arm. At the conclusion of the last war, the European nations had a glorious opportunity of shewing their mettle and vindicating their honour in the matter of disarmament. The question had been before the League of Nations for many years. Con- [11] ference after Conference has been held to no good purpose. The old double game of lying and shuffling so sickened the German Delegation that Germany left the last Conference and the League of Nations convinced that the European nations never had the slightest intention of disarming then or at any other time. Now, of course, Germany is blamed for the failure of the Conference.


A world-wide reorganisation of the political and economic systems of every country seems to be called for. The present cannot for long endure, the edifice is cracking most ominously and will soon be tumbling about our heads. Unless we are very careful, the forces against us will prove too much for statesmen, and not alone Europe, but the world in general, will be engaged in the greatest holocaust yet vouchsafed man to wage. The spectre of Communism stalks every land. The fact that we have no obvious solution to hand for our present overwhelming difficulties is enough to indicate the bankruptcy of Parliament and politicians. A change of heart may go a long way towards solving some of our problems, but will the on-coming tide abate its fury while men are thinking about things? The Germans are still a very great people, possessing an independent will, indomitable energy and courage, [12] with an undying love for their country, a people who, in their dynamics, occupy themselves more with kinetics than statics.


A casual glance at the columns of the Press of this country is disturbing, to say the least. Not a few of the old, wartime stories and their variants are again in evidence, and every conceivable device known to war-mongers in particular and their allies in general is being used to stir up the worst passions in the least intelligent portion of the population – men and women who have no opportunity, time, inclination or even money to combat anything that is being circulated. To find a parallel to the present newspaper talk, one has to go back to the years preceding the outbreak of hostilities in 1914. For long the yellow Press of Great Britain was conducting a newspaper campaign against Germany, clamouring for more battleships, more guns, and a bigger army, aye, even for conscription, to meet the “expansionist” policy of Imperial Germany.

There is scarcely a newspaper or review in this country that will open its columns to the realities of the German situation; indeed, anything that is favourable to the Hitler regime is turned down with the deepest scorn, while the contributor himself is roundly accused, or silently suspected of being in the pay of the Reich.


The British Press is virtually unanimous in agreeing that our erstwhile enemies are out for revenge, that the members of the Nazi Government are thugs, thieves, liars and even murderers; that nothing good can ever come out of the German Government; that it would be better to march into the country now and crush the Nazis rather than wait until they have re-armed. Almost every item of news is falsified and exaggerated to meet the exigencies of a lying campaign.


Politics are at the root of the evil. The ex-Allies and Associated Powers are naturally anxious to save their faces for the failure to carry out their part of the Treaty of Versailles. What better excuse for their not so doing than that Germany is re-arming? Germany, they tacitly argue, must not be allowed to rise from her ashes, or if she does, it must not be under the leadership of demagogues.

The principal Labour organ of London sees in the German “dictatorship” an attack on the “freedom” enjoyed by British “wageslaves” of this country. It damns every form of tyranny save that exercised by the Trades Union Congress. It hates the British Communists and expels them from membership of the National [14] Labour Party, but a German Communist is a brother, and his arrest and incarceration in a Concentration Camp a crime against civilisation! The Jews of Germany, no matter whether they be leaders of the German Communist Party or men engaged in “big business,” must on no account be touched by the brutal Nazis!


Before the revolution of March 1933, the Jews in the Reich overran many Government Departments, and enjoyed the highest privileges in every profession and calling. They were the principal organisers of the German Communist Party, and became identified with every one of the warring political sects in the country. In every way they proved themselves eminently capable business men and politicians. Many had grown very wealthy. Nearly every German war profiteer was a Jew; the native German seems to have regarded with feelings of shame and horror the idea of making money out of his country during times of great distress. It is not denied that the Jews are clever and amiable people, that they have contributed very materially to science, literature, art and music. That one per cent of the population of Germany should impose their rule and culture – however eminent that culture may be – on seventy million native-born Germans is un- [15] thinkable, to use no stronger word. Modern Germany will not have it. It is obviously inimicable to the best interests of the country, and if the reader objects, then he must ask himself whether a Government of Jews in the House of Commons would be tolerated in this country, and if so, for how long. So when the Nazi worm turned, and the services of many Jews were dispensed with, Jewry throughout the world rose in arms and through the medium of the Press and public meetings in London and the provinces, denounced the German Government in violent terms.

The Germans have assumed control of their country, and for weal or woe they mean to maintain their position. The German people are perfectly entitled to possess what form of government they please; it ill becomes us to dictate to them.


The time is drawing nigh when the position of foreign correspondents should be dispassionately reviewed by the Foreign Offices of all countries. Some sort of understanding or convention is necessary. It is notorious that foreign correspondents are not above abusing their privileges. The temptation to exaggerate the truth; the restrictions put upon them by representatives of their own countries, the harm done by news-editors who insist upon [16] “frightfulness,” and not faithfulness in telegraphic reports, are matters that need investigation. I would feel disposed to make it a legal offence for any foreign correspondent to send false or exaggerated accounts of happenings when his sole object is to do harm to that country because his own Government is pursuing a policy calculated to bring discredit upon it for political purposes.

The British Foreign Office is well aware that not a few men attached to newspapers in foreign countries are employed for purposes of espionage. In the course of my wanderings round the European capitals I have met newspaper men who openly boasted of having been employed in this and that country’s secret service, who have accepted the hospitality of people whom they later on wantonly betrayed. That, you will argue, is all part of the business. But it seems to me a pity that foreign correspondents should not be above suspicion and devote themselves to their specific jobs and to their specific jobs alone.


Recent happenings in Germany have not redounded to the prestige and interests of British foreign correspondents accredited to that country, and although Fleet Street has obscured the real issue, it is felt everywhere that irreparable damage has been done the call- [17] ing of a foreign correspondent by men whose sense of duty has been obscured by their insensate quest for sensation, wilful lying, and even espionage. If men want to pursue the role of a spy, it would be better and more honourable for them and their country if they carried on their work without camouflaging themselves as foreign correspondents. The British Government do not offer protection to the professional spy, although he is in the service of the State. He knows the conditions attached to his office and takes all risks. Columns of the most pathetic sob-stuff were recently printed and published in a well-known London morning daily when its Berlin correspondent was bundled out of Germany, lock, stock and barrel. Questions were asked in the House of Commons about the ” indignity and outrage,” and Sir John Simon was pretty hard put to it when called upon to reply. The Foreign Minister, of course, did his best for the deported man, but he also had Germany to consider – and satisfy.


British foreign correspondents at present in Germany have been placed in an invidious position, and there are few among us to-day who envy them their job, or who would like to accept it, were it offered. Never was the status of a British foreign correspondent in Germany [18] lower than it is to-day, and it will be many years, I fear, before the stigma attached to the profession is removed. If the innocent suffer with the guilty the fault lies with the employers of men quite unsuited to their posts. It is of international importance that only the very best and most trustworthy men shall be employed as foreign correspondents of newspapers.


International Jewry, at the moment, would seem to be destroying the best in British journalism, and that in a cause which is both worthless and futile. If British journalism is to sink to the level of the gutter, the fault will certainly be found at the door of the Jews.


Convinced that the Press of this country was conducting a political campaign against Germany, I resolved to go to Berlin and make free and independent investigations on the spot. I was determined to do pretty much as I pleased when I got there, and no one interfered with my movements. I found Germany, comparatively speaking, a free country, much freer than some of its neighbours. My own views were not always acceptable to my friends, among whom I can count Jews and Gentiles, Nazis and Com- [19] munists, Democrats and Socialists. I discovered that being a Nazi does not preclude one holding views that few Labour men of my own country would express to their “comrades ” of the National Labour Party! Young Germany is keenly interested in social and political questions; I wish to goodness the British working man showed the same interest and intelligence in matters that pertain to his welfare. My visits to the Concentration Camps were full of interest, and recalled the days of my own internment in the Dual Monarchy during the War. Consequently I felt I could regard myself as something of an authority on Concentration Camps in general. I was up to all the tricks of the Camp Commanders at Sonnenberg and Oranienburg, where I made free and personal contact with many of the prisoners, without any interference from the Camp Commanders or their assistants. Indeed, I let it be known to the responsible authorities that unless I was privileged to do as I liked within reason, I would not accept the invitation extended to me to visit the Camps. I was also much struck by the many Workers’ Lagers I visited, and the splendid efforts now being made by the German Government towards ameliorating the lot of the unemployed. I saw no murders of Jews or assaults upon their persons. Order and cleanliness were everywhere. Courtesy and kindness from all and sundry favoured me wherever I went. My private [20] conversations with Jews were illuminating. They did not bear out what the British newspapers suggested. Mountains had been made out of molehills, melodrama out of comic opera. The majority of the “assaults” were committed by over-zealous youths, and in nearly every instance they consisted of “ratting” unfortunate men who were not particularly respectful towards the new regime. Physical harm very little, mental, perhaps much. The laws relating to the freedom of movement of Jews are substantially the same as those of other people. Much of the trouble that has arisen has nothing to do with the domiciled German Jew, many of whom are still employed by the Government in various spheres of usefulness. There are about 80,000 undesirable Jews that Germany wants to get rid of for all time, and willingly would she deport them all to Great Britain or the United States of America if the request were made. These are the Jews who since the Armistice have penetrated the country and created a situation that has wrought considerable social and political harm in Germany. Among these undesirables are murderers, ex-convicts, potential thieves, fraudulent bankrupts, white slave traffickers, beggars of every description that beggar description, and political refugees. Many have come from the Baltic States, others from Poland, and not an inconsiderable number from Russia.

[21] The Jewish question in Germany, as indeed elsewhere, will naturally be settled sooner or later. The best possible solution to the present impasse is to treat all Jews as aliens, as indeed they are in tradition, race and culture, and to extend to them the same privileges, courtesy and consideration as those granted to all foreigners.


The Press of the world, speaking generally, has made no attempt to interpret the views of the German Government on the Jewish or any other question. The campaign of “assaults” had the effect of keeping thousands of tourists out of the country, and there was scarcely an hotel or pension in Berlin last summer that was not empty. The handful of British and American subjects who had been roughly treated by some Nazi youths in mistake for their own countrymen for not giving the Nazi salute was made the occasion for diplomatic protests, but not a word was printed here of the apologies offered by the German Foreign Office; one looked in vain for any such generous gesture from Fleet Street.

Things have cooled off a bit since I left Germany insofar as the Jewish question is concerned. The British public, ever slow to understand the truth, is now asking nasty questions. Was it all true? Who was behind the [22] “atrocity” stories? Is the British Press controlled by Jews? In whose hands lies the power of Fleet Street? Was the propaganda campaign a smoke screen to cover up the failures of the Disarmament Conference? Did the Jewish armament interests of Great Britain see an opportunity of scaring the public into believing that unarmed Germany was preparing for a war of revenge? Should the public be permitted to know that Germany is the only country that has honoured the Treaty of Versailles?


Of Herr Hitler’s peace policy I cull the following from an address given by the Reich Chancellor on October 14th, 1933, and which speaks for itself: –

I speak in the name of the entire German nation when I say that all of us most sincerely desire to root out an enmity whose sacrifices are out of all proportion to any possible gain.

“The German people are convinced that their honour has remained pure and unstained upon a thousand battlefields, just as they see in the French soldier only their ancient but glorious opponent. We, and the whole German nation, should all be happy at the thought that we could spare our children and our children’s children what we ourselves as honourable men have had to watch in the long and bitter years and have, [23] ourselves, had to suffer. The history of the last hundred and fifty years, with all its various changes and chances, should have taught both at least one lesson; that important and permanent changes can no longer be purchased by a sacrifice of blood. I, as a National-Socialist, and all my followers, absolutely refuse, however, by reason of our national principles, to acquire, at the cost of the life-blood of those who love and are dear to us, men and women of a foreign nation, who, in any case, will never love us. It would be a day of untold blessing for the whole of humanity if the two nations could once and for all banish the idea of force from their mutual relationships; the German nation is prepared to do this.

“While boldly asserting the rights which the treaties themselves give us, I will, however, declare equally boldly that in future there will be for Germany no more territory conflicts between the two countries.

After the return of the Saar Basin to the Reich it would be insanity to think of a war between the two States. For such a war there could no longer be, from our point of view, any reasonable or moral excuse.

For nobody could demand that millions of young lives should be destroyed in order to correct the present frontiers. Such a correction would be of problematical extent and even more problematical worth.”

Continuing his address, Herr Hitler said:

“Earlier German Governments trustfully joined the League of Nations in the hope that it would prove to be a forum for a fair adjustment of national interests, but, above all, for honest reconciliation between former opponents. But the prerequisite for this was the recognition of the final restoration of the equality of rights of the German nation. The German nation took part in the Disarmament Conference on the same condition. To be disqualified to the rank of a member without equal rights of such an institution or conference is an unbearable humiliation for a nation of sixty-five millions with a sense of honour, and for a Government with an equally strong sense of honour.

The German nation has more than fulfilled its obligations with regard to disarmament. It is now the turn of the highly-armed States to fulfil similar obligations to no less extent. The German Government does not take part in this Conference in order to haggle for a few guns or machine guns for the German nation, but to co-operate as a factor with equal rights in the general appeasement of the world. Germany has no less right to security than other nations. If the English Minister, Mr. Baldwin, represents it as obvious that, for England, disarmament can be understood only as the disarmament of the more highly-armed States simultaneously with an increase of England’s armaments up to a common level, then it would be [25] unfair to overwhelm Germany with reproaches if, as a member of the Conference with equal rights, she maintains the same view in her own case. Germany’s demand in this respect cannot constitute any menace to the other Powers. For the defensive works of other nations are constructed to withstand the most powerful offensive weapons, while Germany does not demand any offensive weapons but only those defensive weapons which are not forbidden even in future but sanctioned for all nations. And in this case, too, Germany is ready from the start to be satisfied quantitatively with a minimum which is out of all proportion to the gigantic stocks of offensive and defensive weapons of our former opponents. The intentional disqualification of our nation, however, contained in the fact that an obvious right is granted to every nation in the world and denied only to us, is felt by us to be the perpetuation of a discrimination that is intolerable for us. I already stated in my peace speech in May that under such conditions we should, to our regret, no longer be in a position to belong to the League of Nations or to take part in international conferences.”


If I were asked what is uppermost in the minds of the average man and woman in Germany to-day, I would unhesitatingly answer – [26] the fear of invasion. What have Germany’s neighbours done to dispel this fear complex? An unarmed Germany is an anachronism and the greatest danger to the peace of Europe.


There were some seven thousand political prisoners interned in the whole of Germany in August, 1933. Of this number, about seven hundred were Communists interned in Oranienburg. The site of this camp is that of a disused brewery; there is no question of the place being large enough for the men and their one hundred guards. Not more than one hundred of the seven hundred internees belonged to the intelligentsia class. The remainder were workers, not a few of whom were mentally deficient. Some had already served terms of imprisonment for offences other than political, among whom Jews predominated. The discipline in the camp was of the robust kind. Every man had some kind of work to do, but this was not always enforced. The camp rose at 6 a.m. and all lights were out at 9.30 p.m. The meals consisted of breakfast, dinner, supper with meat served daily except on Fridays. There was a dispensary attached to the camp and a German doctor was in charge. Severe cases of illness were sent to the local hospital. On an average, ten men reported themselves daily to the doctor, and it was generally found that of [27] this number only two or three needed treatment. Various trades were carried on within the camp, such as carpentry, tailoring and shoe-making. Part of the camp was set off for bathing. Shower baths and facilities for sun bathing were shown me. There was also a splendid sports ground. The sleeping apartments consisted of wooden beds and straw mattresses, with three blankets for each prisoner. The working hours were from 7 a.m. to 11.30 a.m., and from 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. A library was in course of being introduced. Visitors were allowed once a week, and were received in the dining room which accommodated some three hundred people. There were apartments set apart for music and dramatic performances. In addition to receiving free board and lodging, each of the prisoners was drawing Rm.10 to Rm.12 per week, which represented his unemployment allowance pay. Instruction in ethics, religion, the new form of Government in Germany, history, languages were given daily to those who desired to attend. There was little or no crime among the men in the camp. Good order prevailed among all classes. The guards ate the same food as the prisoners, and were subject to the same discipline as the internees, although they were Government officials. One of the guards was a Prince of the House of Hesse! Letters and parcels were subject to censorship. In not one case out of many thousands received had it been found necessary to [28] destroy any parcel or letter forwarded. Newspapers were permitted and smoking allowed. When a prisoner desired to light his pipe or cigarette, he had to go to a guard detailed off to supply lights for the prisoners, as no matches were permitted prisoners. Services were held every Sunday, and the majority of the prisoners availed themselves of the opportunity. No objection was raised by the authorities to me taking photographs of both camp and internees. The men looked in splendid physical condition. Having heard so many dreadful stories of brutal treatment being meted out to the Communists in this particular camp, I asked some of the men to confide in me and tell me the truth of these allegations. Not a few laughed “at the bloody capitalist liars of your country!” I took fifteen men at random and asked them to strip in my presence. I wanted to see if they bore any marks of violence about their persons. I saw nothing indicative of bad treatment. When I asked if I could help any of the prisoners in any possible way, a young Communist stepped forward and in pathetic tones enquired if England could now send raw materials to Germany to get work started once again in the Fatherland!


It is not necessary for me to give any details of my visit to the Concentration Camp at Son- [29] nenberg, for exactly the same conditions prevailed there as at Oranienburg.


Stories of starvation of prisoners in German Concentration Camps having been circulated throughout the world, I append herewith the diet of prisoners since the date of their internment. Both at Oranienburg and Sonnenberg I took occasion to make enquiries into the starvation reports, and found them lacking in truth. Save for the loss of personal liberty, no complaints were forthcoming, in spite of the fact that every opportunity was given the men to speak to me privately and without fear of being overheard by officials. Here is the daily prison menage: 1,000 grammes of bread, 500 grammes of potatoes, meat, except on Fridays, soup (Sauerkraut), tea or coffee, vegetables (cabbage or potatoes), fish (Fridays). Those on the sick list are dieted in accordance with the orders of the resident doctor. [For our readers not familiar with the metric system, Scriptorium notes: 1,000 grammes = 1 kilogram = 2.2 pounds, 500 grammes = just over 1 pound.]


The Workers’ Lagers are wonderful examples of what a Government can do for the unemployed. These are voluntary institutions run solely by the German Government, and the camps are scattered all over the country, about 5,000 all told. At the time I left Germany, [30] (August, 1933) there were more than 300,000 men and women working in various spheres of usefulness. At Bernau I was shown over a Lager that contained 276 men, all of whom were engaged in agricultural work. They had converted an old mill into a barracks which were to form the future headquarters of the workers. In addition to free board and lodging, each of the workers received 30 Pfennigs per day. All the men I saw were enjoying excellent health. The discipline, while strict, was not of a military character.

The object of these Workers’ Lagers is to raise the morale of the men who have known years of unemployment. In each camp the worker stays for 40 weeks, and the period will be renewed on application of the worker and with the permission of the Government. Preference is always given to those young men who are really likely to pursue the life of a farmer. What I saw of the Workers’ Lagers in various parts of Germany convinced me that the Government is doing an excellent work and one which the British Government could emulate with advantage to the community.


Everywhere one goes on the Continent one finds mistrust and disillusionment. The fear of invasion is rampant in France. It is common to Germany, Belgium, Poland, Russia; [31] it permeates the Balkan States, it is to be found as far afield as the Americas. No nation seems capable of ridding itself of this fear. It is not a product of Fascism, it is not peculiar to Democracy. It may be a symptom of our mechanical age, the fear of a rival inventing some easy and damnable lethal weapon that will destroy whole populations without reply. The malaise is briefly referred to by newspapers, who, in their turn, fear to let the public know the truth of things political and the possibility of a new war. It is everywhere taken for granted that our pro-French policy is the correct one, that the isolation and encirclement of Germany must be pursued at all costs. We seem to have learned nothing from past experience. France, the hysterical young lady of Europe, wants “security.” So does Germany and England, and Belgium, and Russia, and every nation in the world. Why French “security”? What about British security? Who is going to guarantee the security of Russia, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, Tibet, etc.?


It has become patent to the meanest intelligence that if the whole world were to support France and grant her all she demands in the way of security, that country would still insist on arms and ammunition in the last resort. France is well aware that she cannot now rely [32] upon the promises of nations to support her in her eagerness to keep intact the Treaty of Versailles. The security cry does not deceive the meanest intelligence. It is French armament interests that France demands Britain to guarantee. It needs little emphasis to say that France is the most powerful nation in the world just now, and she alone, if she felt so persuaded, could march into Germany at any moment and invoke the Treaty of Versailles for taking possession of every vantage point in the Reich, and England could not plead the Locarno Pact in reply to her action. To-day French ‘planes could lay waste Berlin, Munich, Hamburg, the Ruhr, Hanover and every city in the Reich with scarce a response from the German people. She could dictate her own terms; in a few words, France is so strong militarily that unaided she could crush Germany within twenty-four hours and emerge from her triumphs with no apparent loss to her power as the greatest military force in Europe.


When one begins to realise the manifold forces at work against Germany to-day, with that country insisting upon re-armament if others fail to disarm, one is appalled at the impudence of the claim that Germany will be responsible for a disturbance of the peace. Ever since the Peace treaties, France has pursued a [33] policy which in every respect is identical to that she followed before 1914 – a combination of formidable groups to support her own political ends. Pro-Jewish France has used all her influence to destroy the political and economic aspirations of anti-Jewish Germany. Germany left the League of Nations because that organisation can no longer be regarded as providing machinery for the preservation of peace. Its whole procedure, as events have proved, is too cumbrous and dilatory, it possesses no effective means of exercising its authority.


First and foremost, Germany wants peace and friendship with France in particular and the world in general. The concord she demands of France must be based on goodwill and understanding, there must be a sincere regard for each other’s interests, and an end put to the ancient feuds that have wrought such incalculable mischief in Europe. It was a thousand pities that France rejected the offer of a peace pact made by Germany. The accord with Poland may be the cause of the contemptuous tone of the French reply.

Germany has no need for the League of Nations at the present time, and in no circumstances will she rejoin that organisation until her demands are satisfied. Her abandonment of the League is the consequence of the refusal of equality implied in the attitude of the highly [34] armed powers in the Disarmament question. Germany’s demand for practical equality does not mean that Germany wants heavy tanks, heavy mobile guns, or bombers, or other arms which, according to the stipulations of the proposed Convention, will be abolished in the future. But it does mean that Germany wants at once those arms which, being of a defensive character, will be definitely retained under the Convention, and that she wants these arms from the beginning in quantities sufficient for her security.

It is quite clear that as long as this equality is not granted, international control of arms would be a one-sided affair, directed against Germany alone.


The question is being asked – Why was unarmed Germany invited to sit in consultation with the heavily armed powers? That she consented to do so must prove goodwill and a desire for a common understanding. Germany accepted because she thought she would be able to make her whole weight felt on the side of the Disarmament cause. It will be seen that Germany’s participation made it very difficult for the highly armed powers to get away without some appearance of disarmament. Germany’s reason for refusing to participate further in the deliberations was quite simple – [35] there had been a crisis in the Disarmament Conference in May, 1933. This crisis had been overcome by Germany granting a concession in regard to the reorganisation of the Reichwehr. After that, the Conference unanimously adopted the MacDonald plan as “a basis for the future Disarmament Convention” (June 8th, 1933). This resolution went much farther than the previous resolution, which was adopted soon after the MacDonald plan. During the recess of the Disarmament Conference, secret negotiations took place between the Governments of the highly armed powers in which Germany was not invited to take part. The results of these negotiations were the proposals made by Sir John Simon in his celebrated speech on October 14th, 1933. As is well known, these proposals introduced an entirely new element into the whole of the Disarmament question in the form of a trial period for Germany, and thereby constituted a vital modification of the MacDonald plan which only four months previously had been unanimously adopted by the Conference in all its main features. Faced by these questionable tactics, there was no option for Germany but either to capitulate and re-open negotiations on questions which had already been settled or to leave the Conference altogether in the conviction that such methods of negotiation would never lead to real Disarmament.

Germany left the Disarmament Conference.


Since all the above was written, events in Germany have greatly increased the political and economic uncertainties of Europe. The encirclement of Germany is almost a fait accompli. The country is now politically, economically, and culturally shut off from the rest of the world. Every conceivable issue has been confused and discussion now rages round not how to prevent Germany re-arming, for rearmament by the Reich is a foregone conclusion and the exercise of a legitimate right, but how more and more to spread the gospel of hate and restore pre-war anti-German alliances. We are back to the bad old days. Since the War, Germany has not been given even a dog’s chance to set her house in order. The gentlemen who made the Treaty of Versailles must now be thinking hard and furiously how best to get Germany out of the mess they themselves have created for that country. It requires little vision to see that nearly all of Germany’s present day troubles arise from the most objectionable clauses of the Treaty, and as a pro-German, I shall never cease shouting this from the house-tops until justice is done the German people. As I understand things at the moment, Germany is faced by the alternatives of standing aloof from the rest of the world if she can, and working out her own destiny by the strength of her own political and [37] economic systems – an Ishmaelite among the nations of Europe – or taking part in the future of the world and helping to bring order and peace into it. I doubt she can stand alone for long. I doubt any nation can hope to achieve anything worth while single handed. I am confident that Herr Hitler is aware that an insane nationalism leads the world nowhere. To my mind there is no greater crime than to fire a people with ideas of their own super-eminent superiority. Incalculable harm has been done the world in the promotion of the idea among the peoples. A magnified sentiment of national pride always despises humanity at large. We saw it in the last War, the doctrine involved every nation in the direst peril. No country to-day is free of the scourge. It is useless blaming Germany for this complex as some of her foes are too prone to do. Nationalities-by-mutual-rights obtain the world over, and while they dominate every issue, I can see little hope for the realisation of humanity’s emancipation. They forced themselves on the World Economic Conference, they smashed the Disarmament Conference. And they will smash every well-meant political and economic issue and lead to further bloodshed unless they are scotched in time.

Herr Hess, in a speech to a congress of East Prussian Nazis on July 8th, 1934, made an appeal for frankness. Inter alia, he said:

“I appeal to the front line comrades of the [38] war, on both sides. Be frank. We felt then we were real men; we sometimes had pleasure in a life which was in direct contrast to the effeminacy which civilisation and over-civilisation bring; we felt ourselves better men than those far behind the front; we felt ourselves the defenders of the nation, the guardians of its future. We sometimes had happy hours, and tried to live every minute of them double. But be frank. We felt the fear of death. We saw it probably in more powerful form than any men before us. We crouched in dug-outs, waiting for the disintegrating impact. We held our breath when our trained ears heard the grenades whistling, the trench-mortars rumbling through the air towards us. Our hearts beat fit to burst as we vainly sought cover against machine-gun fire. We thought to suffocate beneath our gas-masks. We struggled through sodden trenches, froze in shell holes. We were then nearly desperate. We heard the shrieks of the wounded, saw the gassed men writhing, met blinded men staggering along, heard the last rattle of the dying. Among the piled corpses of our comrades we lost our last hope of life. We saw the widows and orphans, the cripples, the sickly children, the starving women. Be frank. Did we not all ask ourselves: What is the use of it all? Must it be so? Cannot mankind be spared this in future? But we held out – on both sides.

“Now I take up this question, and call it [39] accusingly to the world – as front-line soldiers to front-line soldiers, as the leaders of a nation to the leaders of other nations. Must it be so? Can we not with good will spare mankind all this?

How shall we answer Herr Hess? With the usual lies of Germany’s bad faith? I hope not.

More from [The Scriptorium‘s] English Archive:

The Case for Germany

What the World Rejected: Hitler’s Peace Offers 1933-1939

Read Full Post »

Leon Trotsky, Barack Obama And The Black “Vanguard Of The Revolution”
By Raymond V. Raehn

Last summer, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, introduced Barack Obama at a San Francisco fundraiser as “a leader that God has blessed us with at this time.” (‘Blessed’ Barack Obama sounds a note of caution as the cash rolls in, by Tom Baldwin, London Times, August 19, 2008)

And just few days ago, the musician Sting echoed her: “In many ways, he’s sent from God, because the world’s a mess.” (Sting: Obama ‘Sent From God’ To Fix World’s Mess, WCCO, Oct. 30, 2009).

It took a lot of time and effort to establish the type of moral hegemony that permits such absurd claims about a black left-wing politician not merely to be made, but apparently to be entertained by a credulous, or at any rate cowed, public.

I believe it goes back to strategic decisions made by revolutionary intellectuals decades ago—adapting Marx’s original vision of a proletarian revolution to the apparently unfavorable political realities of the early twentieth century.

A key figure was Leon Trotsky (born Lev Davidovich Bronstein). His Leon Trotsky on Black Nationalism & Self-Determination, was posthumously published in 1967. Trotsky’s views on the American “Negro Question” were recorded in two discussions with American Marxists, the first held in Prinkipo, Turkey in 1933, the second in Coyoacan, Mexico in 1939.

In the second edition, published in 1977, editor George Breitman reported that it “had four printings and greater sales in the United States than any other Trotsky compilation in the last decade”. Breitman supplied some significant background—such as the fact that Malcolm X had read the book in 1963, before he spoke on “The Black Revolution” in 1964.

Breitman noted that after the Bolshevik Revolution on 1917, the Leninist doctrine of affirmative support for “oppressed peoples”—with special emphasis on the Negroes—began to be transmitted to the American Communist Movement. The Russians in the Communist International demanded that American Communists shake off their unspoken prejudices, pay attention to the special problems and grievances of the American Negroes, go to work among them, and champion their cause in the white community.

According to Breitman, Trotsky was a particularly strong advocate of this:

“To show his American comrades how he thought revolutionists should react to the oppression of the Negroes, he denounced the prejudiced white workers in more scathing, more bitter terms than any American Marxist, black or white, had ever done; even in his Black Muslim days Malcolm X never used harsher language. It is unrealistic, he said, to expect the Negro to reach ‘a class point of view’ ahead of the white worker; that can happen ‘only when the white worker is educated’ (class-conscious and anticapitalist), and understands his duty to his black brother. Despite that, the oppression of the Negroes is such that they can become revolutionary ahead of the white workers, furnish the vanguard of the revolution, and fight better for a new society than the white. But, he added, for that to happen, the revolutionary party must carry on ‘an uncompromising, merciless struggle not against the supposed national prepossessions [Black Nationalism] of the Negroes but against the colossal prejudices of the white workers and makes no concession to them whatever.’”

Trotsky’s attitude was reflected in a resolution adopted by the Socialist Workers Party Convention, an arm of the Trotskyite Fourth International, in New York City in July, 1939. It began:

“The American Negroes, for centuries the most oppressed section of American society and the most discriminated against, are potentially the most revolutionary element of the population. They are designated by whose historical past to be, under adequate leadership, the very vanguard of the proletarian revolution.” [The SWP and Negro Work]

What Leon Trotsky was apparently proposing for America was that, if white workers were stripped of “prejudices,” then they could be made to tolerate Negro leadership in a real social revolution. Such a social revolution would consist of a reversal of the former social status of the two races, i.e., the Negroes would end on top and the white workers on the bottom.

Did Trotsky and his followers really mean something like that? Appendix B of Leon Trotsky on Black Nationalism & Self Determination, a selection of Trotsky’s writings, indicates that he was, in fact, viscerally hostile to the white race—using emotive terms like “white chauvinism”; “white oppressors”; “domination by the whites is terminated”; “mutual struggle against the domination of the white exploiters”; and “closer to the proletarians of the colored races”—by which he meant he preferred the proletarians of the colored races.

Trotsky also wrote:

“It is impossible not to arrive at the conclusion that white missionaries, preachers of eternal morals, participated in the corruption of the Kaffirs… No, we prefer the Kaffirs to all missionaries… The worst crime on the part of the revolutionaries would be to give the smallest concessions to the privileges and prejudices of the whites… The movement of the colored races against their imperialist oppressors is one of the most important and powerful movements against the existing order and therefore calls for the complete, unconditional, and unlimited support on the part of the proletariat of the white race.” [Their Morals and Ours]

In talking with leaders of the Socialist Workers Party in June 1940, Trotsky stated:

“The white slaveholders accustom the Negroes not to speak first… We must approach them everywhere by advocating that for every lynching they should lynch ten or twenty lynchers.” [If “an eye for an eye leaves the world blind” — where does this logic lead?]

The Fourth International was Leon Trotsky’s attempt to duplicate the First International Workingmen’s Association, founded by Karl Marx in London in 1864, and envisioned as a global industrial army under his command. By founding the Fourth International, Trotsky aspired to command a global proletarian army of his own. His vicious attacks on the “prejudices” of white workers were his way of attempting to mobilize all of the world’s colored races under his banner—undoubtedly because the colored races outnumber the white race by far. Trotsky’s international Marxism had, as its effective goal, the elimination of the white race’s former domination of the world, so that its opposite, domination by the majority colored races, could be brought about. This required the submission of the white race through the elimination of “prejudices.”

Trotsky’s was a natural reaction for a fanatical Marxist who absorbed the dogma that the white Christian capitalist West was [rather singularly] guilty of imperialist oppression. But there is more to it. Trotsky was also a Leninist, who grasped Lenin’s strategy of destroying the colonial empires of the white West and then mobilizing those former colonies to enable the Third World to cut off energy and mineral resources vital for the white West’s industrial factories. In Lenin’s view, this would bring the white West to its knees. (This, of course, could still be accomplished by a combination of radical Muslims, the Red Chinese, and a Marxist South Africa, with or without the cooperation of post-Soviet Russia.)

Leon Trotsky and the Fourth International had much more influence on events in the U.S. than is commonly recognized. One example: the notorious Studies in Prejudice, supported by the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Labor Committee, in 1943. The ostensible purpose of Studies in Prejudice was to address anti-Semitism in America. The basis for Studies in Prejudice, according to Martin Jay in his book The Dialectical Imagination, was a 1939 essay by Max Horkheimer, the former director of the Marxist Institute of Social Research, entitled “The Jews and Europe”. This institute was founded in 1923 at Frankfurt University, Germany and came to be known as the Frankfurt School. Its original purpose was to bring Marxism to Germany, but with the advent of Hitler its members emigrated to America.

The most influential product of Studies in Prejudice was The Authoritarian Personality, published in 1950. This book was edited by Max Horkheimer and authored by Theodor Andorno, an original member of the Frankfurt School, together with other American Jewish social psychologists who referred to themselves as the Berkeley Public Opinion Study Group.

This work on prejudice against Jews, coupled with Trotsky’s hatred of white prejudice against blacks, can be seen as forming the ideological basis for what would become a massive national campaign against prejudice, bigotry and discrimination, eventually encompassing Betty Friedan’s feminist revolution, directed against white males, who would be charged with racism, sexism and anti-Semitism if they did not submit. This national campaign was greatly aided by the efforts of the Anti-Defamation League and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution was buttressed by something known as “Critical Theory”— in Horkheimer’s rendition, social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it. This destructive criticism was specifically [and quite openly] aimed and Christianity, capitalism, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, culture, sexual restraint, loyalties, patriotism, masculinity, heredity and ethnocentrism as well as conservatism.

Both these theories had revolutionary practice as their real objective. The campaign against prejudice, bigotry and discrimination directed against white males eventually led to what might be called the “Feminization of America,” whereby traditional gender roles would be totally obliterated in all sectors of American life so that women could be placed in every position that was formerly reserved for men. This is the visible face of the social revolution. In effect, women, along with blacks, were to be the vanguard of social revolution in America.

The key figure in the U.S. was Herbert Marcuse, another alumnus of the Frankfurt School. He adopted Trotsky’s ideas on the revolutionary potential of blacks as well as the matriarchal [more accurately described as anti-patriarchal] theory of the Frankfurt School. This became apparent when he became the most fashionable philosopher on American campuses in the 1960s.

In his book Soviet Marxism, Marcuse had argued that the USSR was no longer true to Marxism, and that since the proletariat had become integrated into bourgeois society and was no longer capable of revolution, other revolutionaries —such as university students, ghetto blacks, and the Third World—would take their place. (Klaus Mehnert reported in Moscow and the New Left a high level of Soviet interest in Herbert Marcuse, where writers accused Marcuse of making youth and the intelligentsia receptive to Trotskyism and Maoism.)

In a paper written for Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno in California in 1947, Marcuse “argued the case for a Soviet Republic and welcomed anarchy, disintegration and catastrophe as the only means through which, in an act of revolutionary freedom, change would be achieved in the class structure of the productive apparatus and in human needs.” [The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Significance, p 391]

Marcuse wrote:

“One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment; including the morality of existing society…there is one thing we can say with complete assurance. The traditional idea of revolution has ended. These ideas are old fashioned…what we must undertake is a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system.”[The Carnivorous Society, Sociedad Carnívora (Buenos Aires: Editorial Eco Contemporáneo, 1970).]

What Marcuse meant by “a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system” became apparent when he preached what he called the “Great Refusal”—a process whereby, through sexual liberation and black and feminist revolutions among the college students, they would be induced to hate their own white Western heritage. Marcuse sought, by reorienting the tender sensibilities of gullible students toward sympathy for the poor, oppressed colored peoples of the world, to incline them to support Trotsky’s permanent revolution without realizing what the game was really about.

For all practical purposes, the social revolution promoted by Leon Trotsky and Herbert Marcuse has been successfully executed in America. There is no sphere of American life that has been left untouched.

But whether the revolution is Karl Marx’s scheme for the overthrow of the bourgeois middle class by criminalizing it in the eyes of the proletarian lower class—or Trotsky’s scheme for a revolution of the colored races on a global scale—or Marcuse’s scheme for revolution among American women and racial minorities to destroy the white male power structure—the same thing must occur first: the moral and mental submission of those in power to the will of the social revolutionaries.

This amounts to a psychological submission to the demands of the lower orders, enabling them to replace the higher orders. It is a true revolution, but [allegedly] by non-violent means.

The Marxist social revolutionaries in modern America who strive to promote the disintegration of the white male power structure not only know all of this, but write about it and put it into practice as part of their grand scheme. They have a tremendous advantage: a body of literature dealing with social revolution that has accumulated over the past one hundred and fifty years. This literature includes the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Antonio Gramsci, George Lukacs, Ernst Bloch, and that of the Frankfurt School revolutionaries such as Horkheimer, Adorno, Erich Fromm, Wilhelm Reich, Leo Lowenthal, Frederick Pollock, Franz Neumann as well as Marcuse [Jews, each and all]. The Frankfurt School group added a new dimension to revolutionary theory with the addition of psychology. Transformation of the subconscious mind became their main focus. They aimed to create a “New American Man”, emasculated and rendered passive in the face of the provocations of the social revolutionaries.

In the name of combating Fascism and Nazism in America, this body of destructive criticism was employed by the Marxist social revolutionaries to bring about the disintegration of the prevailing American system of beliefs, attitudes and values. Millions of Americans would come to believe and value the opposite of what they formerly believed and valued. It was a revolution in thinking. It applied to the moral order itself.

The first law of nature is survival—survival of the group—the racial group. The second law of nature is procreation—procreation of the species—the species group—the racial group. But revolutionaries convinced millions that these laws of nature no longer had force or effect. They propagated an opposite first law—that of equality. Differentiation was to be outlawed by depicting racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism as moral evils. Equality became the only moral good—and was to be enforced by law.

The disintegration of the moral order brought about by the social revolutionaries was accompanied by the disintegration of the psychological order. This consisted of deprecating the worth of the white race in general, and white males in particular, while simultaneously increasing the worth of everyone else, especially in school textbooks and in the media. The social revolutionaries were diabolically clever in declaring that white males were guilty of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, xenophobia as well as oppression of the lower orders. They evoked emotions of compassion, sympathy and pity for the “victims” in the lower orders that placed white males in a psychological iron cage. This caused most white males to adopt passive neutrality, while others sought psychological refuge by identifying with the oppressed victims. [Not to mention, it has legitimized hostility toward the alleged oppressor.]

The net effect has been a gradual shift away from the cultural customs and traditions devised and enforced by authoritative white males that heretofore governed higher order thinking and behavior, toward the virtual adoption of lower order thinking and behavior by untold millions of both youthful and adult Americans. No end to this disintegration is in sight.

Concurrent with the disintegration of the moral and psychological order at the hands of the social revolutionaries is their intentional destruction of the biological order. Employing appeals such as liberation, freedom and choice, the social revolutionaries advocated and encouraged abortion, contraception, divorce, homosexuality, career women, drug use, racial intermarriage and unlimited immigration of the colored races together with the destruction of “patriarchal family.” This reflects the second law of the social revolutionaries: white procreation is evil; that which retards white procreation is good. This is, of course, the opposite of the second law of nature.

Most Americans will probably have great difficulty accepting that a small band of foreign social revolutionaries purposely set out decades ago to change a whole nation’s system of beliefs to set in motion a process that leads to social disintegration. Nevertheless, this is what was done.

Americans will have great difficulty curing their domestic ills unless this reality is commonly recognized.

Raymond V. Raehn is a former Navy fighter pilot and real estate developer who now ranches in south Texas. He was the founder of the United States Global Strategy Council, (See A Global Strategy Council? By Gregory D. Foster, Parameters, the quarterly journal of the U.S. Army War College, Spring 1986), which led to the Goldwater- Nicholls Act requiring the United States government to prepare and issue a formal National Security Strategy.

Read Full Post »

Solzhenitsyn: Death of a Titan
By international syndicated columnist & broadcaster Eric Margolis
11 August 2008
Source http://www.bigeye.com

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who died this week aged 89, will rank with literary immortals Tolstoy and Dostoevsky as a great chronicler of Russia’s soul and its profound suffering.

Solzhenitsyn’s epic works ‘Ivan Desinovich’ and ‘The Gulag Archipelago’ are literary monuments for all mankind. After years as a political prisoner in the Soviet gulag, Solzhenitsyn declared, “a writer’s goal is to fight the lie” – meaning propaganda, historical distortion, and perversion of facts.

Thanks in good part to Solzhenitsyn and fellow dissident writers, the world finally learned the Soviet Communists had murdered over 30 million people and imprisoned millions more.

At the 1945 Yalta Conference, Stalin boasted to Winston Churchill that Commissar Lazar Kaganovitch, who had supervised the murder of at least seven million Ukrainians and sent 2 million to concentration camps, “is my Adolf Eichmann,” referring to the Nazi official [allegedly] responsible for killing millions of Jews.

In 1945, the Soviet Union – the close wartime ally of Britain, Canada and the United States – had 5.5 million prisoners in its prison system, the gulag, of whom 25% died annually from cold, hunger, exhaustion and disease.

Though Stalin’s worst crimes were committed before World War II, the full horror of his system of industrialized murder and slave labor were barely known outside Russia until the 1980’s. To this day, the world is constantly reminded of Germany’s crimes during the National Socialist era. But Stalin’s victims, who surpassed those of Hitler by a factor of [more than] three times, are almost forgotten. Why?

History is the propaganda of the victors. Few photographs of the gulag have survived, evidence was destroyed, and witnesses have died. Churchill and Roosevelt could not admit they were allied to the greatest mass killer since Genghis Khan, and were complicit in his crimes. Or reveal that Communist agents of influence had shaped White House policy. The feeble-minded Roosevelt even hailed Stalin as ‘Uncle Joe.’

The world’s Communist and Socialist parties managed to suppress the full scope of Stalin’s crimes even after Nikita Khrushchev denounced him in 1956. Solzhenitsyn warned that socialism, and big sister communism, inevitably led to totalitarian states.

Many Western liberal intellectuals were infatuated with Stalin’s brute power but didn’t want to know about their idol’s crimes. The French leftist thinker Jean-Paul Sartre even refused to admit the gulag existed.

Revealing the truth about the Allies’ role in supporting Stalin and his crimes would undermine the whole bogus mythology of World War II that has become the state religion for the political right in North America, Britain and Australia. [If only the list ended there…]

Those who considered the Jewish Holocaust a unique historical crime were not eager to bring attention to Stalin’s genocide lest it diminish or dilute their own people’s suffering.

The Soviet Union punished Solzhenitsyn by making him into a ‘non-person.’ He was exiled to the United States, where he was at first hailed as a hero. But the uncompromising Solzhenitsyn, ever the prophet, fulminated against the ‘soulless capitalist system’ and ‘mindless western consumerism.’

Then he published a book (200 Years Together: The Russian-Jewish History 1795-1916) about a hitherto taboo subject, the prominent role of Russian Jews in the Communist party and secret police. The book provoked a storm of criticism in North America. Solzhenitsyn was branded anti-Semitic and quickly became a ‘non-person’ for the second time.

Solzhenitsyn returned to the new Russia after the fall of Communism and became the leading exponent of the revived cult of reactionary 19th-century pan-Slav nationalism. He championed Russia’s Orthodox Church as guardian of the nation’s soul, proclaimed Russia’s manifest destiny, and advocated a form of modern czarism that looks remarkably like today’s Kremlin run by Vladimir Putin and Dimitri Medvedev.

Being a prophet in the wilderness is a hard, thankless profession. But Solzhenitsyn’s dauntless courage and tenacity shone the light into some of the darkest cellars of Russia’s tortured history. He influenced a generation of writers, including this humble one, whose goal, like his, has always been to ‘fight the lie.’

Read Full Post »


The first version I found of the John F. Kennedy speech below was from the documentary film Zeitgeist. I was going to post this version of the speech earlier this afternoon, but I wanted to check the source first. After searching for the official transcript of the speech, however, I found that the original differed in certain respects from the Zeitgeist version. I considered the possibility that Kennedy might have given different versions of the same speech as sometimes occurs on a speaking tour, but I have yet to find a single alternate version of the official transcript. The Zeitgeist version is abbreviated, thus highlighting the segments they wished to emphasize (which is normal for documentaries), but a number of sentences are also broken here and there and pieced back together in ways which contrast with the original. Although I don’t imagine the producers of Zeitgeist sought to intentionally distort the ultimate meaning of the speech, I think it is only right to post the original transcript here alongside the revised version in order to preserve context. Both versions of the speech are worthy of review, I believe, and although the changes made in Zeitgeist were subtle and relatively harmless (debatable), we should remember that historical speeches such as this can also be abbreviated and re-arranged to strategically betray the public. If that were one’s purpose, it would be a simple affair. It happens all the time — ask Ahmadinejad. Whereas the original version was delivered with regard to the Soviet conspiracy and the responsibility of exercising discretion in the media in the early years of the Cold War, the Zeitgeist version appears to focus more specifically on “secret societies.” Vague term. The problem with alternate versions of such a speech (and there are a number of variations out there) is that context is largely lost, and interpretations of who and what even constitutes a “secret society” is left open to the viewer’s (often uninformed) interpretation. Since the vast majority of those posting on “secret societies” via Youtube and Google tend to have little understanding of who and what Kennedy was even referring to, they often (either through ignorance or conscious intent) divert attention from the true conspirators through clumsy allusions to, say, the Freemasons, the Skull and Bones fraternity, the Illuminati, etc. If they halted there, it would be one thing, but these self-styled experts like to link these shadowy societies with historical movements which had nothing to do with them — namely, the National Socialist movement — which was, in actuality, locked in existential conflict with the very conspirators which Kennedy was ultimately referring to, and who apparently took his young life only two years after this speech. It is no coincidence that the Zionist Power Configuration has gained the most from Kennedy’s assassination. Anyone chasing oil barons or digging up Prescott’s business receipts with I.G. Farben after all these years has a weak understanding of the cut-throat business ethics, past or present, of the real conspirators. Dig deeper than Prison Planet and the seemingly endless sea of packaged dissent across the transitory “Left”/”Right” spectrum and you just might begin to better understand the world around you. Truth empowers. To dare is to know. -W.
The President and the Press: (Zeitgeist’s revision) Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association

President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
New York City, April 27, 1961

Ladies and gentlemen […]

The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings […] For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice.

[…] It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned […] no secret is revealed. […] That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy.

[…] I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people […] confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.
Never mind the title here.

The President and the Press: (official transcript) Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association
Source: www.jfklibrary.org

President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
New York City, April 27, 1961

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the “lousiest petty bourgeois cheating.”

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight “The President and the Press.” Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded “The President Versus the Press.” But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one’s golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future–for reducing this threat or living with it–there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security–a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President–two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.


The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.

Today no war has been declared–and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions–by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security–and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said–and your newspapers have constantly said–that these are times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: “Is it news?” All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of the national security?” And I hope that every group in America–unions and businessmen and public officials at every level– will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.


It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation–an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people–to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well–the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers–I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed–and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment– the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants”–but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news–for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security–and we intend to do it.


It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world’s efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press–to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news–that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

Read Full Post »

For sixteen years now, we have heard next to nothing in the mainstream media — particularly here in the United States — concerning the plight of South Africa’s white population. This is a conscious, deliberate, and dare I say strategic suppression of the truth. It is apparently more important to serve political correctness than to inform and thus protect whites. The message becomes increasingly clear. What whites in South Africa are experiencing ought to serve as a warning for the rest of the world. Wake or perish. -W.


Black Racists Vow to “Rape and Kill” White World Cup Fans

7th April 2010
Source: express.co.uk

A VILE Facebook campaign to incite race hate ahead of the World Cup in South Africa in June is being investigated by police.

The official probe was launched into a group set up by alleged supporters of firebrand politician Julius Malema.

One entry, emailed to football fans around the world, calls for the “rape and slaughter” of whites and the murder of President Jacob Zuma.

In a chilling message a Malema “fan” called Thato Mbateti Mbateti warns: “Every trespasser, namely white whores, we will rape them and kill them… White kids will be burned.”

The campaign comes amid growing tensions in South Africa after the murder of white separatist Eugene Terreblanche.

Yesterday angry crowds clashed outside a court in Ventersdorp, near Johannesburg, as two black farm workers, aged 15 and 21, appeared accused of killing the 69-year-old who had campaigned for separatist within South Africa.

Bitter memories of the apartheid era were evoked when 2,000 people gathered and police used razor wire to separate the factions. The case was adjourned until next week.

South African leaders, including President Zuma, have called for calm after the killing of Terreblanche. But right-wing supporters have vowed vengeance.

Malema, who leads the youth wing of Zuma’s African National Congress party, was reportedly under police guard after alleged death threats against him. The Facebook page, which attracted more than 15,000 followers, has been shut down. Malema and the ANCYL insisted it was not an official supporters’ page.

Lawrence Schlemmer, vice president of the South African Institute of Race Relations, said: “There is no reason why these things, as tragic as they are, should affect the safety of fans or players at the World Cup. The World Cup and sport, as it is supposed to, channels passions and reconciles conflict.”
White slaughter in South Africa? Plans made to conduct campaign of genocide after Mandela’s death
Source: World Net Daily

While former South African President Nelson Mandela, [93], scoffs at rumors of ill health, plans are being made by the nation’s Communist Party to slaughter all whites in the country upon his death, G2B sources say.

One of the operations planned entails 70,000 armed black men “being transported to the Johannesburg city center within an hour” in taxicabs to attack whites.

The plans are variously dubbed “Operation Vula,” “Night of the Long Knives,” “Operation White Clean-up,” “Operation Iron Eagle” and “Red October campaign.”

Operation “Our Rainy Day” was to be carried out after the death of Nelson Mandela and would have entailed blacks being transported to the largest cities in taxis.

The assailants were expected to “take over” fuel points and massacre whites. The attacks would lead to a coup.

Sources say most blacks in the country are aware of the plans. When racial disputes occur, blacks often tell whites, “Wait until Mandela dies.”

“White people in South Africa can deny it to the end of the earth, but we are in real danger,” one resident said. “This is no joke and any person with half a brain can see that this rumor has spiraled out of control.”

Many whites are now convinced a vicious campaign of ethnic cleansing will follow Mandela’s death whenever it comes. Some are making preparations for retreats.

“I have prepared myself and we have a gathering place where we can fortify for four weeks after Mandela’s death,” said one white South African. “If nothing happens, it will be a miracle.”

The Red October campaign is allegedly a Communist plot to oust President Thabo Mbeki. Mbeki would be replaced by Cyril Ramaphosa.

“I was starting to think I was going nuts!” said another white South Africa resident. “‘Operation Uhuru’ or ‘Operation White Clean-up’ is definitely no rumor. I spoke to someone who told me that some blacks in Zimbabwe have also confirmed that this ‘event’ will take place. My cousin stays on a farm in Mpumalanga, not too far from Johannesburg. A black police officer in that district told his white colleague that they are going to kill us like flies, and there is nothing we can do about it. And that they also don’t care if we know.”

Meanwhile, Mandela, obviously aware of the growing rumors, last week assured the public he is well.

“My health is all right,” he told reporters in Cape Town. “I’m doing very well. Others have gone further and said I am on the eve of going to my grave. If that day comes, I will go and knock at the door of heaven. … They will look at the list and say: ‘Your name is not here … can you try next door?'”

Concern about Mandela’s health surfaced last month when he canceled a scheduled meeting with visiting German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. The former president was at the time relaxing on the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius.

Mandela joked that when his time comes, “I will look for a branch of the ANC (the ruling African National Congress) in that world (and) I’ll join it.”
What they mean by “equality.”

South African farm attacks
From Wikipedia

The South African farming community has suffered from attacks for many years.[1] The majority of the victims have been Afrikaner farmers, with claims of death tolls of up to 3,000 cited in the national and international media[2][3] The independent South African Human Rights Commission, set up by former President Mandela’s government, quantifies the number at about 2,500[4], while farmers’ organisations state the figure to be closer to 3,000.[4] The Commission’s report found that the rate of murders had increased by 25% since 2005[4].The victims’ ages have ranged from infant to 87 years old.

According to the South African Human Rights Commission there have been 9,400 farm attacks.

In 2010, the issue garnered greater international attention in light of the murder of the far-right political figure Eugene Terre’Blanche on his farm.[5]


* 1 Terminology and definition
* 2 Committee of Inquiry
* 3 Criticism
* 4 References

Terminology and definition

South African statutory law does not define a “farm attack” as a specific crime. Rather, the term is used to refer to a number of different crimes committed against persons specifically on commercial farms or smallholdings.

According to the South African Police Service National Operational Coordinating Committee:

“Attacks on farms and smallholdings refer to acts aimed at the person of residents, workers and visitors to farms and smallholdings, whether with the intent to murder, rape, rob or inflict bodily harm. In addition, all actions aimed at disrupting farming activities as a commercial concern, whether for motives related to ideology, labour disputes, land issues, revenge, grievances, racist concerns or intimidation, should be included.”[1]

This definition excludes “social fabric crimes”, that is those crimes committed by members of the farming community on one another, such as domestic or workplace violence, and focuses on outsiders entering the farms to commit specific criminal acts. The safety and security MEC for Mpumalanga, Dina Pule, has disagreed with this definition and has stated that a farm attack is “when the sole motive is to take the life of the person who resides on the farm and nothing else.”[6] Human Rights Watch has criticised the use of the term “farm attacks”, as they suggest this is “reinforcing, through the use of the word ‘attack’, the idea that there is a military or terrorist basis for the crimes, rather than a criminal one.”[7]

Committee of Inquiry

A Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks was appointed in 2001 by the National Commissioner of Police. The purpose of the committee was to “inquire into the ongoing spate of attacks on farms, which include violent criminal acts such as murder, robbery, rape, torture, etc, to determine the motives and factors behind these attacks and to make recommendations on their findings.”[1] The Committee used the definition for farm attacks as that supplied by the SAPS. The findings were published on 31 July 2003, and the main conclusions of the report were that:

* Perpetrators tended to be young, unemployed black men overwhelmingly from dysfunctional family backgrounds
* Only a small proportion of attacks involved murder [Of the officially reported 9,400 attacks, over 3,000 were murdered. Is that really such a “small proportion”?]
* Theft was committed in almost all cases [simply not true] – in cases where no theft appeared to take place, it was usually because the attackers had been disturbed
* White people were not targeted exclusively; in 2001 61% of farm attack victims were white

The Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU), however, questioned a number of the report’s findings, claiming that theft and desire for land did not adequately explain some of the attacks.[8]


The South African government has been criticised both for not doing more to prevent farm attacks, and for giving the issue a disproportionate amount of attention:

* Gideon Meiring, chairperson of the TAU’s safety and security committee, criticised the South African Police Service for failing to prevent farm attacks, stating that the police “are not part of the solution but part of the bloody problem“.[9] Meiring has assisted farming communities in setting up private armed patrols in their area.

* Kallie Kriel of AfriForum accused politicians, including Agriculture Minister Lulu Xingwana and her deputy Dirk du Toit, of inciting hatred against farmers [i.e. whites], saying “Those who inflame hate and aggression towards farmers have to be regarded as accomplices to the murders of farmers.” In particular, Kriel condemned claims that violence against farm workers by farmers was endemic. Kriel also highlighted a court case in which ANC MP Patrick Chauke publicly blamed the white community for murders and at which ANC demonstrators displayed slogans such as “One settler, one bullet!”, “Kill the Boer, kill the farmer!” and “Maak dood die wit man” (Kill the white man). Simple theft could not be used to explain the full motive of the attacks as it was not necessary to torture or murder victims in order to rob them.[10]

* Human Rights Watch criticised the government for placing too much emphasis on protecting farmers, at the expense of protecting farm workers from abuse by farm owners. They suggest that “farm attacks” are given a disproportionately high media and political focus. “Murders on farms are given an individual attention that many other killings are not.”[7] [How’s that for “human rights”?]

* In 2004, former South African journalist Jani Allan appeared on the Jeff Rense radio show to 7 million listeners. She denounced the attacks and accused the South African government of a genocidal campaign. She encouraged Americans to sponsor the emigration of poor Afrikaner families. Ronnie Mamoepa, the spokesperson for the South African foreign affairs department, said the department would not respond to Allan’s claims, as this would give her “undue attention she does not deserve”. Afrikaner intellectual Hermann Giliomee has also slammed Allan. He said Allan should not be taken seriously. While there had been large numbers of farm murders, there was no evidence to prove that the killings were an orchestrated political campaign, he said.[11]


1. ^ a b c Criminal Justice Monitor (2003-07-31). Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks. http://www.issafrica.org/CJM/farmrep/index.htm. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
2. ^ White farmers ‘being wiped out’ Sunday Times. 28 March 2010
3. ^ Adriana Stuijt (2009-02-17). “Two more S.African farmers killed: death toll now at 3,037”. Digital Journal. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/267463. Retrieved 2009-04-124.
4. ^ a b c South Africa World Cup 2010… and the shooting’s already started Daily Mail. 14 June 2009
5. ^ White supremacist Eugene Terre’Blanche is hacked to death after row with farmworkers The Guardian. 4 April 2010
6. ^ Nkosana ka Makaula (2006-09-28). “Farm attack is ‘only if fatal'”. News24. http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2005223,00.html. Retrieved 2006-10-09.
7. ^ a b Bronwen Manby (August 2001). Unequal Protection – The State Response to Violent Crime on South African Farms. Human Rights Watch. ISBN 1-56432-263-7. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/safrica2/. Retrieved 2006-10-28.
8. ^ “TAU welcomes farm report, but…”. News24. 2003-09-25. http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1421369,00.html. Retrieved 2005-12-31.
9. ^ Sheena Adams (2006-09-23). “Farmer armies in the killing fields”. Saturday Star. http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=vn20060923084851300C598779. Retrieved 2006-10-27.
10. ^ Gcina Ntsaluba (2008-04-29). “Anti-farmer hate speech slated”. news24.com. http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,9909,2-7-1442_2314200,00.html. Retrieved 2008-06-04.
11. ^ “Whites are facing genocide, says Jani Allan”. IOL. 2004-06-20. http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20040620111324523C719376.
The Price Of Free Speech In South Africa
By Jani Allan

Jan Lamprecht’s website (http://www.AfricanCrisis.org) has the greatest cyber library of Southern African horror on the internet. His site features ugly photographic and video evidence of the brutal farm murders that are happening in South Africa with increasing sadism and regularity.

This week, after a campaign of intimidation by the ANC government Jan Lamprecht announced his decision to take his site down.

The closing of the http://www.AfricanCrisis.org website this week, is a sinister signal of what lies ahead for South Africa under ANC rule.

For four years Jan Lamprecht, a white ex-Zimbabwean, has been running one of the most hard-hitting hard-news sites out of Africa. Lamprecht’s news items included not only what was happening in South Africa, but also the crucial and terrible events in Zimbabwe and Namibia. Apart from CensorBugBear.com (which covers mainly SA) http://www.AfricanCrisis.org was of major significance.

As a prominent British journalist puts it:

“AfricanCrisis.org is an historic document, a work – or disaster – in progress. Reading African Crisis is like watching a nation going off its head, en masse.”

The site is uncompromising. The stories of rape, torture, corruption, political abuse and murder made the site compelling reading.

Agony is always rivetting viewing.

Lamprecht’s site became internationally recognized as the site of choice for those wanting information, not the Disneyland version – the real information – about what is happening in South Africa. As evidenced by his postings, he was drawing forumites of the highest calibre from Canada to Belgium.

Jan Lamprecht, who lives in South Africa, ran AfricanCrisis unpaid and as a sideline. Journalist and webmaster, his sole purpose has been wanting to get the truth out to the world about what is happening in South Africa.

In addition to running the site Jan Lamprecht fearlessly authored a book called ‘Government by Deception’ (Tiger Maple Press.) The book provides a damning insight into the psychopolitics employed by the Marxist-Communist ANC and its brothers to the North.

Lamprecht, known for his blunt, editorial comments, developed an extensive following internationally. His contacts and range of influence embrace people of great influence and all walks of life. One supporter and close friend is Jeff Rense, the legendary American Talk Show host whose show boasts 17 million listeners. Jan was a regular guest on Rense who is known to be sympathetic to the plight of white South Africans and virulently opposed to Mugabe’s Marxist regime.

Six weeks ago Jan Lamprecht set up a web page forum for this writer.

“Since I gave Jani, a household name in South Africa, a voice on my site the problems started,” says Lamprecht.

“Her forum was immediately inundated with people expressing tremendous HATRED of her, trying in every way possible to hurt her. When Jani Allan was interviewed by Jeff Rense in the USA with his huge, huge listenship – that was the turning point.

The ANC went so far as getting someone from the Sunday Times (the paper on which she was the leading columnist for a decade) to discredit Jani and what she had said on Rense. Meanwhile, the audio tape of the interview found its way on to hundreds of websites all over the world, including, ironically, Pravda.

A friend of Lamprecht who holds a senior position in TAU (Transvaal Agricultural Union), wrote to him saying “By giving Jani a platform you have angered the movers and shakers… WATCH YOUR BACK!”

For the past two weeks, Jan has been subjected to personal Intimidation and threats to close his website.

Lamprecht and his close colleagues have proof that an ANC/Govt propagandist/s were assigned to his website to cause trouble and make suggestions that could result in the website being labelled as a “terrorist” site.

Ten days ago, Jan warned that he would not tolerate his site being abused by people engaging in ‘war talk’ or spewing racial hatred.

‘My site is the only site in the world which allows people from opposing sides of the political spectrum to exchange views and hopefully learn from each other.’

However on the 8th July Jan Lamprecht informed his closest colleagues and associates in an encrypted message that he had decided to freeze the website. ANC spies have been monitoring the http://www.AfricanCrisis.org website, his private e-mails and telephone calls.

“They are letting me know, via the posts, that they know where I live, who is close to me…they even have my cell-phone number. I have been receiving threatening phone calls,” he said.

Jan Lamprecht is still wondering “Is it Jani Allan that they want gone from my site?”

“All this heat that has come my way, from all these angles, have occurred one after the other in only the last few weeks since I gave Jani Allan a forum on my site and since she was interviewed by Jeff Rense. The things that came from that interview have unquestionably angered powerful people.’ Obviously I’ve done something to truly piss them off in a big way – methinks its getting Jani on my site, and that interview that finally ticked them off enough.”

A former Special Forces contact outside South Africa said that he feared the worst for Jan Lamprecht. ‘He could be taken out any day.’

The South African Constitution claims to ensure Freedom of Speech, but clearly there is nothing free about speech in Southern Africa.

In a country where the media are craven ANC lap-dogs. Jan Lamprecht’s was the only site courageous and responsible enough to give the world the information that the ANC is so intent on concealing.

Yesterday, Larry Pratt, an influential voice in American politics for the past 30 years and founder and director of Gun Owners of America had this to say.

“It seems to me that Zimbabwe II is but a short time away. The duplication of the firearms laws is too similar. The farm attacks are already escalating. Business is tanking, but all of this is of no concern to socialists who want control. They will be wealthy even while 99.9% of the rest of the population are totally impoverished.”

Please post your messages of support to Jan Lamprecht on the http://www.AfricanCrisis.org website on the Jani Allan Forum Page.

Jani Allan writes:

I know the hell that Jan Lamprecht must be going through.

I have had personal experience of the SA government’s methods of dealing with the voices of dissent i.e. those who are intent on telling the truth. My flat was bombed. After doing some radio shows with Jan Lamprecht in which we discussed Mugabe’s reign of terror and the Zimbabwe land grabs, I was held up at gun-point with a Magnum .44 and fired from the radio station because ‘there is no place for the likes of Jani Allan in the New South Africa.” Finally I was forced to flee South Africa.

It is my fervent hope that the death of AfricanCrisis will make the world sit up and notice. I implore all readers of this story to e-mail it to your friends, post messages of support on my page for this fearless warrior of the spirit whose crime was to tell the truth about South Africa.

White Afrikaners Face Genocide
Jan Lamprecht, AfricanCrisis.Org, Rense.com, Jun. 18

“Afrikaners must be welcomed as political refugees to America.”—Jani Allan, Journalist

A top American radio commentator and a South African journalist are calling on Americans to start sponsoring the emigration of white Afrikaner families as political refugees—to save them from the ethnic cleansing campaign they are being engulfed in under South African president Mbeki’s ANC government.

See: http://www.genocidewatch.org/BoersSlain01.htm

This call was made during the Jeff Rense radio program in the US—which has millions of listeners coast-to-coast—on Thursday, June 17. (Note—You can hear this important broadcast by going to the Archives at Rense.com)

The comments were made during Mr. Rense’s hour-long interview with South African journalist Jani Allan—who recently fled from the violence there and is now attempting to obtain her green card in the US.

Ms Allan warned that the 4.5 million Afrikaners are being ’ethnically-cleansed’ by the Mbeki regime and that their plight was growing increasingly desperate each week.

“More than 1,500 white South Africans have already been slaughtered just since the start of the current American war in Iraq,” she pointed out. “That’s more than twice as many as the number of Iraqi civilians officially said to have been killed in the war so far.”

She warned that SA President Mbeki has “a total obsession with race,” that he hates Afrikaner people and that he’s obsessed with what he terms “colonial oppression.”

Ms Allan pointed out, however, that the Afrikaners aren’t colonials—they are indigenous to South Africa, having been there some 350 years—three and a half CENTURIES—and that they are “totally trapped on the continent of Africa, and have no means of escaping” without the help of America.

Jeff Rense: “America must open its borders to the Afrikaner people. Imagine living in a place over 300 years and then be told that you have no right to live there because of your skin colour. The slaughter of thousands has already commenced and these people must be given political refugee status by the United States.”

Miss Allan said the Afrikaners who do manage to flee from the continent with their families find it extremely painful, as they leave behind the only country they have ever known and loved, and in many cases, extended family and other loved ones.

“It is very difficult for an entire family to have to uproot itself and move to a country of which they have no knowledge,” she said.

Rense called on his American listeners to contact the US Immigration Service to find out how they could sponsor an Afrikaner family and help legally bring them to the US. He said because of their work ethic and dedication to freedom, Afrikaners would be self-sufficient in no time—unlike most of the 20 plus million illegals who have been permitted and encouraged to invade America by the last two US administration.

“Afrikaners are hard-working people and would not be a liability to their sponsors or the United States,” said Rense.

“These people are true political refugees who are being slaughtered because of their ethnic origin,” he pointed out.

Miss Allan said there are Americans who have noted the plight of the Afrikaner people and have launched letter-writing campaigns to try and help them, such as Don Pengelly of Texas.

She said she was very moved by a letter he had written her in which he described having attended the funeral of a murdered Afrikaner farm woman and seeing the looks on the faces of her Afrikaner relatives.

“They looked like cattle being taken into a slaughterhouse, with the same stricken looks on their faces. They know they will be next.”

Said Allan: “Communism is alive and well and living in Africa, and as a result, Afrikaners are being ethnically-cleansed. They aren’t even granted the right to their own small piece of land. The ANC refuses to talk with Afrikaner leaders about creating a homeland for them, not even a tiny piece of desert.”

“My heart goes out to the plight of the Afrikaner people. America should open its doors to them, as their suffering is incredible.”

Miss Allan also explained that under the ANC’s ’Black Economic Empowerment’ (BEE) laws, Afrikaners can’t even keep their own businesses any more, because owners are being forced to open even family-owned businesses to “black shareholders.”

“A business woman wrote me this week that she is now being forced to take black strangers off the street and turn them into co-owners of her family business just to satisfy the demands of BEE.”

“I don’t see any future for the Afrikaner people—especially due to this ’black economic empowerment’ policy of the ANC government.”

She also said that crime had gone completely out of control in South Africa, and that there were no safe havens left.

Shortly before she left South Africa for the United States, Allan had been held up at gun-point in Cape town in one of the most upscale, most protected shopping centres in the country. She said her black assailants had put a .44 to her forehead during the robbery.

“Nobody is safe anywhere from the devastating crime wave. People have a defeatist attitude and even wear t-shirts with these horrendous crime statistics printed on the front, but with slogan on the back, “South Africa, I love it . . .”

Meanwhile, honest journalists in South Africa have no platforms to report the truth, she noted.

She said she was hounded out of her job as a major radio journalist because she asked too many questions. “For instance, I questioned why Mandela has this saint-like status, and I questioned what was happening to the millions of dollars being donated to the Mandela Funds.”

“South Africa—just like all of Africa—has now also fallen prey to the one-party state, where no criticism is tolerated against the ruling party at all.”

She pointed out that Mbeki wholeheartedly supports the outrageously racist Mugabe doctrine which has announced that all the “whites” must be out of Zimbabwe by 2005.

“That same ethnic cleansing template is also being applied to South Africa. In Zimbabwe, there are now only about 30,000 whites left and most of them can flee to other countries.

“But in South Africa, the 4.5 million Afrikaners are indigenous to the country and are physically trapped on the African continent.” And they are being tortured and slaughtered by blacks at a horrible rate.

“My heart goes out to the Afrikaner people who are trapped on the African continent. There must be a way in which Americans can give political asylum to these people.”

“There is a silent genocide going on in South Africa.” said Ms. Allan.

“There are a few lone voices speaking up against this in other countries. There is, for instance, a woman in Holland who tried to show the video documentary about the black murders of white farm families called ’A Bloody Harvest.’

“She was attacked and demonised by a violent group of left-wing activists and called a right-wing racist.”

Jeff Rense has long been the only high-profile US journalist to consistently cover the tragic, racist downward spiral of Zimbabwe and now South Africa. He has offered to do all he can with his program and highly-respected worldwde internet news site to assist in establishing and helping guide a program to rescue as many Afrikaners as possible by seeing that they are permitted to be sponsored by Americans to emigrate to the US.

“These people are truly political refugees who are being murdered and persecuted at an ever-increasing rate. It’s time to act. This kind of compassion is what made America the great nation it once was . . . and still might be again.”

“If anyone doubts what is happening over there, go to http://www.AfricanCrisis.org and look at the horrific black racist slaughter of white farm famiilies—men, women, children and little babies—for themselves.”

He called for immediate legislation to formally declare white Afrikaners political refugees facing certain genocide and establishing a system to immediately allow Americans to personally sponsor their emigration to the US.

He added, “If these were Blacks being slaughtered by Whites, you would see the entire world outraged . . . but that’s not happening because the victims are white.”

South Africa’s Coming Race Wars
From Jan Lamprecht

This is a MUST-READ for South Africans. Take the time, and read it to the end – the kicker is right at the end. If any of you get the chance to talk to any blacks, you must please try and question them about this – and please let me know what you hear. I would like to encourage you ALL to do some digging. I want to try to establish how widespread this is and how long it has been going on.

I was stunned today when my mother told me of a discussion she had with the gardener who works for us. He’s a nice old black guy. We never talk politics with him.

However, Mum told me that she was talking to him the other day when he mentioned that on the African radio stations they have been hearing them saying this:

“A time is coming when the blacks will take the white’s furniture, their houses and their cars.”

The gardener told Mum that the blacks were talking among themselves about this, and they were saying they don’t know how this is going to happen, but they believe that the Government knows better and they will wait to see what the Government does…

That sent chills down my spine. That’s just like what that old prophet Van Rensburg spoke of.

In fact, what I’m now going to do is try to see if I can get more information out of blacks everywhere regarding this. There have long been suspicions that the news the blacks hear, in their native language, is different to what we hear. They are told other things.

There have been rumours of this for a long time, but, it looks like this really is going to happen to us. This is chilling stuff… please let me know what you find out.

South Africa’s Coming Race Wars
By Jan Lamprecht pbs@iafrica.com 2-10-1

Many people are fooled by words. It is ironic that words, which are normally used to communicate with, can also be used to deceive and fool people or to convey subtle messages. Most people are completely surprised by this because most people are, for the most part, straight-forward and honest. Lawyers, for example, are a group of people who are very skilled at this misuse of language. Many lawyers then go on to become politicians where they excel at this abuse!

But, words can be used as weapons. The military use of propaganda is both an art and a science of the highest order. A great deal of work has gone into this. Words can be used to excite one group of people to foment hatred and anger while cowing another group of people down and lulling them into a false sense of security. This is the art of Psychological Warfare and Propaganda.

Here in Southern Africa, all the “Liberation Movements” which were sponsored by the Russians and Chinese have gone on to become the Governments of the day. These Liberation Movements have all been schooled in the art of propaganda and psychological warfare. They know how to say things and also how not to say things.

In fact, even the word “Liberation” is an example of propaganda. These people are portrayed as “Freedom Fighters” and “Liberators” when in fact their aims are to feed everyone, black and white alike, a good dose of socialism and centralised control. Overtly they claim to be in favour of freedom but, covertly, the opposite is true.

These people are skilled at portraying themselves to the world as reasonable men, when in fact, they have much blood on their hands and won’t hesitate to murder their own or their enemies at the drop of a hat. It may seem ironic, but these “Liberators” killed more black people than the whites ever did.

Bit by bit people outside Africa are starting to realise that this new generation of Black Liberators are not sincere people. Slowly, people in Western countries are realising that something is amiss. One day they will realise that they’ve been lied to.

The Black Leaders talk of creating a prosperous multiracial society when in fact they have no interest in such a thing. On the quiet they tell their supporters to murder the whites, make things hot for them and encourage them to flee the country. At a Governmental level, the Government turns a blind eye to crime and in fact makes rules which will cause crime to increase. These Marxists would never DARE say so in public, but they are sick of the whites and want them to leave the country.

When leaders such as Thabo Mbeki speak of the “transformation” of society – what does he really mean?

Let me quote from the book: “PROPAGANDA & PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE”, written by T. H. Qualter of the University of Waterloo. On page 106 we read this: “In its actual operation Russian propaganda has been characterised by a distinctive use of language described with fair accuracy as ‘semantic warfare’. The language of Communism… is not so much a means of explaining to the unbeliever what Communism means, BUT AN ARMOURY OF WEAPONS AND TOOLS INTENDED TO PRODUCE SUPPORT OR DISSOLVE OPPOSITION TO COMMUNIST POLICIES ON THE PART OF PEOPLE EITHER HOSTILE OR INDIFFERENT TO THEM. THE MEANING OF A COMMUNIST WORD IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT SAYS, BUT WHAT EFFECT IT IS INTENDED TO PRODUCE.” (My emphasis)

Qualter continues:- “In addition to their characteristic ‘special’ vocabulary… Communists also use familiar words and phrases, but they use them in a particular way, often distorting their reference to confuse both home and foreign opinion. ‘Peaceful Coexistence’, for example, carries to western minds the connotation of toleration and mutual respect, an attitude of ‘live and let live’. IN MARXIST TERMINOLOGY HOWEVER, PEACE DEMANDS THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE CAUSE OF THE CLASS STRUGGLE, SO THAT ‘PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE’ IMPLIES A WORLDWIDE ‘CLASSLESS’ COMMUNIST SOCIETY. When eighty one Communist parties met in Moscow in December 1960, they publicly announced that ‘Peaceful Coexistence’ meant “THE INTENSIFICATION OF THE STRUGGLE OF THE WORKING CLASS FOR THE TRIUMPH OF SOCIALIST IDEAS”, rather than “the conciliation of bourgeois ideologies’.” (My Emphasis).

The above simple example should show that the Marxist definition of “peace”, for example, is not peace in the terms in which we think. “Peace”, in their view, can only occur when they defeat us. It is in this manner that one must take a closer look at Marxist pupils, such as Mugabe, and Mbeki (who used to be a card carrying member of the South African Communist Party). These people are highly skilled at “Communist speak”. They use words in a very deliberate, and yet misleading way. Only their true followers understand exactly what they are getting at. These are not sincere people.

A word that is over-used in South Africa, Africa and indeed the world is “democracy.” Everyone believes that “democracy” is good and must be striven for. All countries, it is felt, should aspire to “democracy.” Only “democracy” is good. Everything else is bad. “Democracy” is the buzz-word of today, and yet, Qualter had this to write about the propagandistic use of the word “democracy” by Marxists:-

“Again, ‘democracy’ is a prestige word; so the Soviet satellites become ‘democracies’, but ‘People’s Democracies’ to distinguish them from the ‘decadent bourgeois democracies’ of the West.”


From the above, it should be obvious that “democracy” in the terms of our “National Liberators”, like Mugabe, and Mbeki, EXCLUDES US WHITES WHO HAVE CAPITALIST VALUES AND ASPIRATIONS. “Democracy”, in the Marxist view, is more than just voting. It is a whole new society. Note, in the above, the mention of Colonialism and how it too is capitalist – and therefore there is no place for it.

Just because the ANC has never murdered us in our beds does not mean it will never happen. Until last year, whites in Zimbabwe had not been driven off their land by masses of black thugs – and yet, it happened out of the blue. As far as Mugabe is concerned, its not over yet. He wants to drive all the whites off the farms even if it means national starvation and suicide. Remember, South Africa’s history has a number of parallels and similarities to that of Zimbabwe. The two countries have a lot of things in common. Things that have happened in Zimbabwe have yet to happen in South Africa. People used to say South Africa would never be ruled by blacks, and yet it is now ruled by Marxist blacks. One should never say the blacks will not attack us. The only reason they probably have not is because too many of us are armed and they aren’t strong enough – but give them time. They keep on changing the gun laws and are working overtime to disarm us. The key issue is to discern whether the leadership of this country is hell-bent on engaging in attempted white genocide at some point in the future. Are they hostile enough towards us to try that?

When the ANC uses soft words like the “transformation of society” then we should beware – these words sound soft, but they mean something else completely different. These words really mean: “We must continue moving towards a black-dominated Marxist/Socialist system.”

It has long been the view in South Africa, across the spectrum of black and white public opinion, that Nelson Mandela is more trustworthy than Thabo Mbeki. Indeed, when Mbeki was still the Vice President, there were many rumours that he was something of a dark horse, and that in fact he was a dangerous man with a hidden hostility to whites.

A biography of him written some time ago stated that even within the ANC he was ruthless and that he had climbed to his present position by knifing others in the back.

My personal opinion of Mbeki was formed many years ago when the ANC was first unbanned. I watched with great fascination when he first appeared in an SABC TV interview. I was very impressed with Mbeki’s smoothness. The honey was dripping from his lips as he described a wonderful future for blacks and whites under ANC rule. His descriptions were so flowery and beautiful that I felt he was describing heaven on Earth for all of us. In fact, the ANC has continued with this view by campaigning under the slogan: “A better life for ALL.” They always keep telling us that the better life is not just for the blacks, but in fact also for the whites too!!

However, underneath this facade of friendliness, lies something else. Mbeki is a man who says one thing, but does another. If one looks closely at him, there is indeed a hidden hostility to the whites which I personally find very frightening.

Take for example Robert Mugabe’s campaign against the white farmers in Zimbabwe in 2000. While the world was condemning Mugabe, Mbeki’s ANC was strangely quiet. In fact, he even went to Zimbabwe to open a Trade Fair there during that time. He never criticised Mugabe and was in fact seen being very friendly to Mugabe. Not only that, but Mbeki praised him saying that the most important thing he learnt from Mugabe was how crucial BLACK UNITY was. In this one cannot fault either of the two. Both Mugabe and Mbeki have worked hard over the years to unite the blacks under them, by hook or by crook. They have used both the carrot and the stick. At times they have used force, murder and terror, but at other times they have also given the blacks who oppose them important positions in government.

For example, Dr Buthelezi, the leader of the Zulus, used to be aligned with the whites. Buthelezi was pro-Western, and supported the whites, as well as having many whites in the ranks of his political party. Buthelezi used to be a critic of the ANC. However, as a conciliatory gesture, he was sworn in as the Acting State President one time when the President was not in the country. He was also given a token position inside the Government. These gestures have softened Buthelezi. Nowadays he tows the line quite happily. I have also noticed that a number of ANC “defectors” have entered Buthelezi’s politcal party where they have made themselves at home and are slowly transforming his political party into something more acceptable to the ANC.

Similarly, a black man from the small, radical, AZAPO party was given a ministerial position recently, even though this is actually illegal. This should be seen for what it is: the ANC making a magnanimous gesture towards other blacks.

What nobody in South Africa has noticed is how the ANC is moving to bring ALL the blacks under their wing while excluding the whites. Here we see sheer racism in action.

The ANC’s biggest political opposition is the Democratic Alliance which is white-dominated. The DA does not get the same magnanimous treatment which the black parties get, even though, constitutionally and legally it is entitled to such. In fact, the DA should be the first in line for such actions since it is the official opposition.

Mugabe did a similar thing in Zimbabwe. He tried to crush his black political opposition. When murdering entire villages and throwing people down wells did not work, he gave them a carrot. He made their leader, Joshua Nkomo, the vice president. In this way Mugabe finally achieved the black unity he sought.

Mbeki and Mugabe are out to form a front against a “common enemy” – the white man.

Let it be said that the average black person in the street, in both Zimbabwe and in South Africa, does not truly comprehend the evil intentions of the Marxists they have chosen as their leaders. The average blacks are, for the most part, not filled with intense hatred or bitterness. However, their leaders spend much time sowing the seeds of race hatred among them. These common people do not realise the crimes to which they are being led by the leaders they have chosen and trust.

In a WorldNetDaily article some months ago, I recorded how Mbeki tried to use the AIDS situation in South Africa as a means of trying to foment new race hatred. Mbeki came out and supported Professor Duesberg’s controversial theories and then immediately used this as a pretext to say that the reason AIDS was so prevalent in South Africa was because of the terrible treatment the blacks had received at the hands of the whites! Mbeki’s embarrassing foray into the world of AIDS and the science behind it had nothing to do with a desire to find the truth. Behind the facade science lurked a desire to promote race hatred and to find ever more reasons to blame the whites for all the ills of the blacks.

Mugabe has been on a similar kick for the last 20+ years. Even after handing over power to him, and in spite of experiencing heinous taxes, the whites nevertheless keep the country afloat. The whites manage, against great odds, to keep the country going even though Mugabe is a Marxist who is trying to destroy them at every opportunity. It therefore came as a great embarrassment to him when the whites began winning credibility among the black populace. Most blacks in Zimbabwe state openly that Mugabe must not blame the whites for the ills of the country because it is a lie.

Here in South Africa, one never hears the end of the word “Apartheid” even though it disappeared more than 10 years ago. These people never miss an opportunity to blame the whites for something. They keep referring to 400 years of development as 400 years of “destruction.” This is nonsense as any casual glance at a history book will show.

Prince Charles, in England, once referred to “Political Correctness” as “Intellectual Communism” – which is what it really is. In the PC world, it is completely frowned upon to call a black man “racist”. And yet, if one looks at Mugabe, he must indeed be the most racist black man on the planet. Mbeki, very grudgingly, says a few things to placate the whites, but one can see that he does it only out of sheer necessity and nothing else.

In his opening of parliament speech the other day, Mbeki said that the whites still have too many jobs and the blacks too few. The whites owned too much and the blacks too little. This “imbalance” would have to be “corrected”. Clearly, Marxism and socialism lies at the heart of his economic policies.

That Mbeki has no real interest in the economic progress of South Africa is evidenced by his remarks at an economic congress at Davos in Switzerland recently. This was Mbeki’s big chance to produce a “blue print” for saving Africa. Yet, when he got there he had nothing concrete to propose. He merely stated that peace and “democracy” (a code word for Marxism) first had to be brought to Africa. Only then, once the political system had been stabilised, could there be economic development. These were strange words for a major leader in a continent which is a virtual cesspool of crime, corruption, poverty, etc. Mbeki, and the leaders of other Marxist states, like Tanzania, had no real interest in the economic welfare of their own people. All they are really concerned about is that their Marxist buddies, like Kabila and Mugabe, are firmly entrenched in power.

One would have expected these leaders to be falling over themselves begging for investment from the West and making new rules so that investment in Africa could occur more easily. And yet, the leaders of this continental cess-pool only paid lip-service to this.

Why don’t these leaders care? What’s going on?

Its class warfare pure and simple. Take a look at Mugabe. Mugabe prefers to murder the successful white farmers and to force them off their farms. He encourages and whips up hatred against them and encourages vandals to destroy their property, rape their wives and murder them. When Mugabe addresses black crowds in their native African languages he PRAISES these criminals and ENCOURAGES them. But, when TV cameras are focussed on him and the world waits to hear what he has to say, he speaks in English and CONDEMNS these people. As a native of Africa, I have OFTEN heard that these black Marxist leaders say one thing to the international community and to journalists, but, when they address their own people in their own language, they say something completely different. To the world at large, they pretend to be reasonable, peaceful people, but, to their own followers they say something else. Obviously, they are lying to someone – but to whom?

Mbeki and the ANC officials do exactly the same here in South Africa. ANC officials have long told the black people that white South Africans invented AIDS so as to murder them! Many, if not most blacks actually believe this. The ANC constantly puts out a stream of anti-white propaganda. ANC officials have said some dreadful things but these things NEVER reach the international media. It was once mentioned, by the journalist, Jani Allen, that an ANC official told blacks to kill the whites. Not long ago, the ANC Secretary General, gave a speech wherein he told the blacks to prepare for the struggle against CAPITALISM!

For decades now, I have heard that the blacks have been instructed to IGNORE what their leaders say in English, but to follow whatever they tell them in their own language…

Just as Mugabe was holding news conferences condemning the violence and murder of white farmers, the Zimbabwe Army was loading truck-loads full of thugs and transporting them to farms to start more violence! Such is the hypocrisy!

Mbeki is a close friend of Mugabe, and I believe he supports him 100% in what he did against the white farmers. When the Europeans sent election monitors to monitor the Zimbabwean elections they found extensive intimidation and many irregularities. The Europeans believed the election was stolen. But then Mbeki sent a South African team and they came back and declared (after some wrangling) that the Zimbabwean elections were free and fair! Thus we can see how Mbeki props up and helps Mugabe where he can. There was another instance, in 2000 where Mbeki “gave” Mugabe money. It was done in a strange way. South Africa “ordered” a great deal of produce from Zimbabwe. South Africa paid over tens of millions. Then, suddenly, the order was “cancelled” but Zimbabwe kept the money – and nothing further was said about it.

An ANC official then declared that there would not be the same problems with farmers here in South Africa because all the white farmers would be DEAD by then!

There is an ongoing and clandestine war against farmers in South Africa on a scale that is unbelievable. I have never obtained the exact statistics but thousands of farmers and their wives have been murdered – often in horrific ways. The international media say nothing about it – but its been going on ever since the ANC came into power and it keeps on getting worse.

It is common knowledge that South Africa’s crime rate is the highest in the world. But then a year ago, the ANC suddenly put a moratorium on the public release of all crime statistics. Mbeki falsely claimed recently that crime had gone down. It turns out that only the murder rate has dropped slightly. All other crimes have exploded by anything from 20% upwards. To date, no new statistics have been released. It was announced that soon, new statistics would indeed be made available. However, the ANC stated that the manner in which these statistics were compiled was “wrong” and that now they would be counting them “correctly!” So it would seem that we are about to have newer, Government fudged figures… Smells like a rat doesn’t it?

Well, there are lots of such things going on these days in the ANC dominated Government. Ministers tell outright lies, and this includes Mbeki himself. When Judge Heath obtained information that high-level government officials were involved in massive corruption in South Africa’s huge arms purchase, Mbeki went on TV and told the nation that he had fired Heath. Apparently, his action was illegal because Judge Heath had been appointed for a certain period of time. Furthermore, it turns out that a diagram, used by Mbeki, which he claimed originated from Heath, had actually been drawn by a journalist. The journalist owned up to this afterwards. The ANC has been engaging in a massive coverup of corruption over this questionable arms deal totalling R43 billion – the biggest arms purchase in South African history. No one knows why the ANC has spent this tremendous amount of money on arms we have no need for. What does the ANC know that we do not?

These Marxists, Mugabe & Mbeki, are making long-term preparations for a race war which they intend winning.

I do not believe that either of them were ever truly interested in a multiracial society unless the whites just kept their mouths shut. I believe that both Mbeki and Mugabe are irked by the ongoing white criticism of their (incompetant and corrupt) rule. The whites, being capitalist and westernised by nature, are constantly resisting black moves towards socialism and communism. This is irritating to these leaders. They are tiring of the whites.

I believe that the whites have also proven to be tougher than they ever believed. I believe these Marxists HOPED that the whites would flee the continent en masse when the blacks took over. But the whites did not. Many whites remain in spite of tremendous taxes and the most intrusive laws in the world. For example, all banks, stock brokers, employers, etc MUST report all payments of salaries, dividends, etc directly to the Revenue Service. If you have a bank account and earn interest on it, and do not declare it, then the Revenue Service will know about it and take legal steps against you. The Revenue Service has also begun monitoring EVERYTHING we own. If we buy a car or a house, they know about it. They are coming after us to strip us of what little we have.

I believe that the Government has deliberately created lax laws to encourage crime and to make it “hot” for the whites so that they would flee. They have succeeded to a great extent because whites have been fleeing from Africa since the 1960’s and these black leaders seem to have little interest in reversing the trend. I believe it is because they actually want the whites to leave. They would never dare admit this publicly, but I believe they quietly rejoice at this.

It has come to light that now South Africa is one of the foremost stop-overs for drug-trafficking in the world. Billions of rands worth of drugs pass through South Africa to North America and other destinations.

It has been said that white South Africans have the FASTEST FALLING STANDARD OF LIVING IN THE WORLD. This is because these Marxists are coming after us to strip us of all that we own.

Clearly, these Marxists, Mugabe and Mbeki have no idea how to actually fix the economy or to encourage investment so that black and white may live and prosper together. (This is also true of Sam Nujoma in Namibia). Their failed ideologies therefore leave them with only one option – to play the role of the Red Robin Hood. Since they are incapable of producing anything new they must therefore steal from the “rich” to give to the poor.

Land has been redistributed to blacks on big scale in both South Africa and Zimbabwe, and land claims are processed regularly. Whites have been fired from their jobs and racial quotas instituted. Companies pay huge fines if they do not have the right racial quota. Experienced people are sacked to make way for the inexperienced or even the downright incompetant merely because of racial quotas.

Nowadays in South Africa one finds whites sitting on street corners begging. Such is the lot we are heading for. Our hard times are coming.

This week I heard something else that really struck home to me. My Mother and I were chatting and she remarked that she heard something interesting from the old black man who helps in the garden from time to time. My Mother never discusses politics with him. However, last week he remarked that blacks have been hearing on the radio that the time is coming when the blacks will be able to take all the whites’ furniture, their houses and their cars! He remarked that the blacks have been talking among themselves and wondering how this is going to be achieved. He says that they are not exactly sure how it is going to happen, but they have faith that the Government knows what its doing.

Having heard of this, I will continue digging into it to try to find out how long the blacks have been told this. This is clearly happening on the black radio stations which are in their native languages. It seems as if Mbeki is sowing the seeds and preparing them for the big “Redistribution of White Wealth” – when, as before, the Red Robin Hood comes to steal from us to “give to the poor.”

As a final, and chilling thought, some months ago I wrote an article for WorldNetDaily describing the prophecies of the old Boer prophet, Van Rensburg. Van Rensburg died in 1926, but he predicted that the day would come when the blacks would rule South Africa. He predicted that all the whites would be driven out of Zimbabwe and they would flee to South Africa. He also predicted that the blacks in South Africa would eventually take EVERYTHING from us and try to kill us all. But, Van Rensburg predicted that they would not succeed and that we, the whites, would eventually take complete control of South Africa. According to him all these events will happen in an election year. The next election year in South Africa is: 2004.

Its all food for thought…


Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »