Germany’s political parties and the recent furor over Hermann Dierkes
The German “constitution”
The meaning of “nationalism”
Guenter’s new book [see below for info]
About Günter Deckert
Günter Deckert is a well-known German nationalist from the historic Heidelberg area of Baden-Württemberg, he led the National Democratic Party of Germany from 1991 to 1996. In April 1995, after being persecuted with political trials, he was sentenced to two years in prison without probation. While in prison, he was charged with “incendiarism” again because of a letter he wrote from prison and was sentenced to two more years, plus 3 months. Thus, he knows well the judicial system of Germany.
Info on new book
German title: Die Mannheimer Ketzerprozesse (§ 130 – Volksverhetzung / Holo…) gegen Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf und Sylvia Stolz 2005 – 2009.
[English translation: The Mannheimer Heretical Trials (§ 130 German penal code: incitement to public uproar / Holo...) against Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf and Sylvia Stolz, 2005–2009]
The documentation also contains an update of § 130 (latest High Court decision of November 2009), the text of § 130, a press review, some pages (158 – 161) in English, TBR March/April 2007, pp. 46-49, “warrant” of Günter Deckert / English translation can be gotten from James M. Damon (JamesMDamon@yahoo.com)
To order: Write Guenter.Deckert@gmx.de or send money (Euros or sum in USD) to Guenter Deckert at Pf. 100 245, (D) 69442 Weinheim/B. (Pf = Postfach or P.O.Box)
Has the Web already overtaken TV for White folks? Today’s show keys off a news item indicating the good news that it has. A study shows that Canadians, for the first time, spent more time (18.1 hours per week) on the Web than watching TV (16.9 hours). It gets better: Canadian Web time increased 21.5% from last year’s 14.9 hours online each week. Host Jamie Kelso’s curiosity is piqued by blatant effort in The Montreal Gazette to spin this story so as to hide the rise of the Web and the fall of monopoly TV. The explanation for the spin appears when we learn that The Montreal Gazette is one of 60 Israel Asper (succeeded by Leonard Asper) newspapers in Canada as part of the huge media and TV cartel called CanWest. We even learn that the list of bad guys involved in CanWest’s control of news in Canada includes Goldman Sachs as a principal. What started as a simple news item on the good news that the Web has overtaken TV in Canada (and likely in many White nations therefore) expands into an object lesson in media control.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s decision to vote “yes” in Sunday’s House action on the health care bill, although he had sworn to oppose the legislation unless there was a public option, is a perfect example of why I would never be a politician. I respect Kucinich. As politicians go, he is about as good as they get, but he is still a politician. He has to run for office. He has to raise money. He has to placate the Democratic machine or risk retaliation and defeat. And so he signed on to a bill that will do nothing to ameliorate the suffering of many Americans, will force tens of millions of people to fork over a lot of money for a defective product and, in the end, will add to the ranks of our uninsured.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, accompanies President Barack Obama as they arrive at Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport before the congressman decided to switch his vote and help pass a health care reform bill he had staunchly opposed.
The claims made by the proponents of the bill are the usual deceptive corporate advertising. The bill will not expand coverage to 30 million uninsured, especially since government subsidies will not take effect until 2014. Families who cannot pay the high premiums, deductibles and co-payments, estimated to be between 15 and 18 percent of most family incomes, will have to default, increasing the number of uninsured. Insurance companies can unilaterally raise prices without ceilings or caps and monopolize local markets to shut out competitors. The $1.055 trillion spent over the next decade will add new layers of bureaucratic red tape to what is an unmanageable and ultimately unsustainable system.
The mendacity of the Democratic leadership in the face of this reality is staggering. Howard Dean, who is a doctor, said recently: “This is a vote about one thing: Are you for the insurance companies or are you for the American people?” Here is a man who once championed the public option and now has sold his soul. What is the point in supporting him or any of the other Democrats? How much more craven can they get?
Take a look at the health care debacle in Massachusetts, a model for what we will get nationwide. One in six people there who have the mandated insurance say they cannot afford care, and tens of thousands of people have been evicted from the state program because of budget cuts. The 45,000 Americans who die each year because they cannot afford coverage will not be saved under the federal legislation. Half of all personal bankruptcies will still be caused by an inability to pay astronomical medical bills. The only good news is that health care stocks and bonuses for the heads of these corporations are shooting upward. Chalk this up as yet another victory for our feudal overlords and a defeat for the serfs.
The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care—$7,129 per capita—although 45.7 million Americans remain without health coverage and millions more are inadequately covered, meaning that if they get seriously ill they are not covered. Fourteen thousand Americans a day are now losing their health coverage. A report in the journal Health Affairs estimates that, if the system is left unchanged, one of every five dollars spent by Americans in 2017 will go to health coverage. Private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume 31 cents of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $400 billion per year, enough, Physicians for a National Health Plan points out, to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans. Check out www.healthcare-now.org. It has some of the best analysis.
This bill is not about fiscal responsibility or the common good. The bill is about increasing corporate profit at taxpayer expense. It is the health care industry’s version of the Wall Street bailout. It lavishes hundreds of billions in government subsidies on insurance and drug companies. The some 3,000 health care lobbyists in Washington, whose dirty little hands are all over the bill, have once more betrayed the American people for money. The bill is another example of why change will never come from within the Democratic Party. The party is owned and managed by corporations. The five largest private health insurers and their trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans, spent more than $6 million on lobbying in the first quarter of 2009. Pfizer, the world’s biggest drug maker, spent more than $9 million during the last quarter of 2008 and the first three months of 2009. The Washington Post reported that up to 30 members of Congress from both parties who hold key committee memberships have major investments in health care companies totaling between $11 million and $27 million. President Barack Obama’s director of health care policy, who will not discuss single payer as an option, has served on the boards of several health care corporations. And as salaries for most Americans have stagnated or declined during the past decade, health insurance profits have risen by 480 percent.
Obama and the congressional leadership have consciously shut out advocates of single payer from the debate. The press, including papers such as The New York Times, treats single payer as a fringe movement. The television networks rarely mention it. And yet between 45 and 60 percent of doctors favor single payer. Between 40 and 62 percent of the American people, including 80 percent of registered Democrats, want universal, single-payer not-for-profit health care for all Americans. The ability of the corporations to discredit and silence voices that represent at least half of the population is another sad testament to the power of our corporate state to frame all discussions.
Change will come only by building movements that stand in fierce and uncompromising opposition to the Democrats and the Republicans. If they can herd Kucinich and John Conyers, the sponsors of House Resolution 676, a bill that would create a publicly funded National Health Program by eliminating private health insurers, onto the House floor to vote for this corporate theft, what is the point in pretending there is any room left for us in the party? And why should we waste our time with gutless liberal groups such as Moveon.org, which felt the need to collect more than $1 million to pressure House Democrats who had voted “no” on the original bill to recant? What was this purportedly anti-war group doing anyway serving as an obsequious recruiting arm of the Obama election campaign? The longer we tie ourselves to the Democrats and these bankrupt liberal organizations the more ridiculous and impotent we appear.
“I’m ready to listen to the White House, if the White House is ready to listen to the concerns about putting a public option in this bill,” the old Kucinich said on the “Democracy Now!” radio and television program before he flipped. “I mean, they can do that. You know, they’re still cutting last-minute deals. Put the public option back in. Make it a robust public option. Give the people a chance to really negotiate rates with the insurance companies … from the standpoint of having a public option. But don’t just tell the people that you’re going to call this health care reform, when you’re giving insurance companies an even more powerful monopoly status in our economy.”
In 1995, Ernst Lobethall gave his testimony as a survivor of “The Holocaust” to the Survivors of the Shoah Foundation for their video library, as thousands of others have done. In it, he had some words to say about a British soldier he met while interned at Auschwitz III (Monowitz) who had done him a favor.
Lobethall records that the soldier he called Ginger “gave me a letter and 10 packs of cigarettes, and a bar of chocolate from my sister. Ten packs of English cigarettes – it’s like being given Rockefeller Center.” He also said, “I had no heavy socks to put on my boots; for two packs of Players cigarettes, (pause) and that, later on, came, again, to save my life on the death marches that took place in 1945.” This clip from the video was shown on the BBC Online News Magazine on November 29, 2009. The article says that
Mr Lobethall traded two packs of Players cigarettes in return for getting his shoes resoled. It helped save his life when thousands perished or were murdered on the notorious death marches out of the camps in winter in 1945.
Lobethall’s testimony was at some point taken under consideration by the Yad Vashem Memorial Museum’s “Commission for the Designation of the Righteous,” a rather pompously-named committee, headed since 2005 by Israel Supreme Court Justice Jacob Tuerkel, that examines candidates before bestowing upon them the equally grandiose title of “Righteous Among the Nations.”
Yad Vashem, Israel’s official institution for Holocaust research and propaganda, set up this commission in 1963 with the intent, according to their website, to “single out within the nations of perpetrators, collaborators and bystanders, persons who bucked the general trend and helped the persecuted Jews.” (my emphasis)
As I understand this, to Yad Vashem — the highest Holocaust authority for not only Israel’s Jews but all Jews — every country that had “perpetrators” and “bystanders” are included in “the nations.” Thus, only Israel, which did not exist at the time, is separate, or above, “the nations” (something I will get back to later).
According to the website, this “Commission for the Designation of the Righteous” is made up of volunteers, most of them holocaust survivors, each of whom are “expert in the history of the Holocaust in a certain region of Europe. They receive cases for evaluation and present their recommendations to the Commission to discuss.” Then the final decision is made by the Chairman, always a Supreme Court Justice. The “righteous” are defined as non-Jews who risked their lives to save a Jew(s) during the Holocaust. Yad Vashem has now given over 22,000 people this title. They come mainly from the greater European area, but with several from beyond, such as from Chile, Japan, Vietnam and the USA.
Currently there are six who did their “righteous” duty at Auschwitz; Denis Avey will apparently be the seventh. Thus, we want to look into Mr. Avey’s conduct at the Auschwitz camp and how he saved the life of a Jew to find what the standards for this award really are.
* * * * *
Denis Avey came into the picture because Ernst Lobethall, a German Jew originally from Breslau, in his testimony referred to above, remembered a British soldier who had befriended him — whom he called “Ginger” due to his red hair. He said this soldier had managed to send a letter to Lobethall’s sister in England asking her to send him cigarettes and other items that he, Avey, would be able to get to her brother Ernst. He said she sent 10 packs of Player’s cigarettes, a bar of chocolate and a letter, which Mr. Avey smuggled to Lobethall.
Lobethall claimed in his Survivors of the Shoah interview that trading the cigarettes enabled him to have his boots resoled, which saved his life on the “death march” later on when Auschwitz was abandoned. A Times article says Lobethall purchased boots and also scraps of food, which helped him to survive the “death march.”
Apparently, Yad Vashem searched among the British POW’s, with the help of the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) , and came upon Denis Avey. At this point, the details are unclear. Did the BBC approach Avey? Did Avey just spontaneously begin “telling his story” at this time? Nothing is said of this in any of the three UK news articles. It’s only said that Avey opened up and told his incredible story after 65 years of silence only last October, when he was also “reunited” with Lobethall’s sister Susanna Timms, 86, after she was traced to Solihull, West Midlands. The result is that Yad Vashem had another candidate for their “Righteous Among the Nations” award.
Here is what Yad Vashem says: “For obvious reasons this honour cannot be based on Avey’s word alone,” says Susan Weisberg, spokeswoman for Yad Vashem. “Each case must be substantiated by eyewitness testimonies and archival documents of the period.” (my emphasis) This process is now ongoing, so let’s look at the news articles about Denis Avey and see if there are eyewitnesses and archival documents.
* * * * *
The prestigious Times did their own tribute to Denis Avey in a Feb. 25, 2010 article , written by Jacob Wallis Simons. Some of the details change and one has to wonder whether it’s the writer Simons, the Times staff, or Avey himself who made the changes from the BBC version. It begins with a description of Avey as “a formidable figure, even at the age of 91. More than 6 ft. tall, with a severe short back and sides (?) and a piercing glare, he combines the pan-ache (sic) of Errol Flynn with the dignity of age.”
Denis Avey, who currently lives in Derbyshire with his wife of seventy-some years, looks relaxed, but says he has remained traumatized for 65 years. (The Mail Online)
Simons also tells us that Avey has a glass eye.
I ask him about it. He tells me that in 1944, he cursed an SS officer who was beating a Jew in the camp. He received a blow with a pistol butt and his eye was knocked in.
This is unlikely because the SS guards were under strict rules forbidding the beating of prisoners, let alone a British Prisoner of War who was under the authority of the Wehrmacht. The guard would have been severely punished, possibly even given a death sentence. Do Avey’s records say he was then hospitalized and had his eye removed? You can be sure there aren’t any such records.
Avey grew up on an Essex farm, describing himself as living a rough-and-tumble lifestyle. “I had a shock of red hair and a temperament to match.” In 1939 he volunteered for the Army — because he was too impatient to wait a week for the RAF (my emphasis). “I ended up in the 7th Armoured Division, the original Desert Rats,” he says. “We operated behind enemy lines in Egypt. In 1942 we were ambushed. I was wounded and taken prisoner by the Germans.”
For all his bravery, Avey told The Mail reporter, Andy Dolan, the reason he took so long to speak about his experience was because “I was so traumatised at my whole experience of the Auschwitz camps it took me 60 years to be able to recount the horrors I saw.” We will see that Avey’s experience of the regular “Auschwitz camps” consisted of two nights supposedly spent in an Auschwitz barracks.
Denis Avey with his sister Winifred in 1940, before going off to war. (The Mail Online)
Avey at Auschwitz
The Times article continues:
Avey was a troublesome prisoner. In the summer of 1943 he was deported to Auschwitz, in Poland, and interned in a small PoW camp on the periphery of the IG Farben factory. The main Jewish camps were several miles to the west. “I’d lost my liberty, but none of my spirit,” he says. “I was still determined to give as good as I got.”
By “main Jewish camps,” Simons means Auschwitz (I) and Birkenau (Auschwitz II). The “main Jewish camp” by the IG Farben plant was named Monowitz (Auschwitz III). The British POW camp was near the construction site of the Farben Buna plant and several hundred meters west of the Monowitz workers’ camp. The first 200 British POWs arrived in September 1943. The barracks for the Monowitz camp were built in 1942 and all the prisoners who worked at the Farben industrial complex were moved into them. No Farben workers remained housed at Auschwitz or Birkenau after that.
Auschwitz Complex: Auschwitz I is the tiny orange rectangle in the center; Birkenau is on the left; Monowitz is the orange rectangle on the far right.
Avey says he “immediately” knew the situation at Monowitz:
“The Stripeys — that’s what we called the Jewish prisoners — were in a terrible state. Within months they were reduced to waifs and then they disappeared. The stench from the crematoria was appalling, civilians from as far away as Katowice were complaining. Everybody knew what was going on. Everybody knew.”
The POW camp was separate from the “Jewish camp” and administered by the Wehrmacht, not the SS, so how does he know what state they were in? The Poles from the area say they did not know what was going on. The part about the stench cannot be true; nowhere is it said there were crematoria in Monowitz, and it is at least 10 km from Birkenau where the crematoria were. The city of Katowice is approximately 50 km away, and is a highly industrialized area that could be considered to have “polluted” air. Same with the Buna synthetic rubber plant—some odors would probably have come from there.
Remarkably, for a “hothead,” Avey was able to think beyond the war.
I knew in my gut that these swine would eventually be held to account. Evidence would be vital. Of course, sneaking into the Jewish camp was a ludicrous idea. It was like breaking into Hell. But that’s the sort of chap I was. Reckless.
Simons tells us that
Avey’s audacious plan was made possible by Ernst Lobethall, a German Jew from Breslau, who worked alongside Avey at the Farben factory. Although fraternising was forbidden on pain of death, the two men became friends. “We spoke out of the corner of our mouths,” Avey says, “a difficult thing to do in German.”
Avey’s plan was made possible by Lobethall? How so? Lobethall says nothing about “Ginger” trading places with a Jewish prisoner in his testimony; he only spoke of getting cigarettes. It’s Avey who’s filled in all the rest. And did POW’s and Jewish prisoners “work together?” Sometimes, no doubt, but it’s rare to hear about it. If “fraternizing was forbidden on pain of death,” what would compel them to take the chance? And when did Avey learn to speak German, growing up on a farm in Essex and clearly disliking Germans, whom he called swine?
Lobethall revealed to Avey he had a sister living in England, so Avey says he
“wrote to my mother, who told Susana that Ernst was alive. She posted 200 cigarettes to me via the Red Cross. Miraculously, four months later, they arrived. The cigarettes were worth a king’s ransom. Ernst suddenly became rich.”
The problem here is that if Lobethall knows his sisters address in England, he could have written to her himself. She could have sent a package with cigarettes and chocolate directly to her brother and the Red Cross would have delivered it. Dennis Avey is superfluous in this instance. This is Giveaway No. 1 that the story is fake. The BBC article even tells us that Avey contacted his mother with a “coded letter.” Why? There was nothing he was saying that was against the rules, except that he was “fraternizing” with an inmate from the labor camp. Maybe careful wording is what he meant by “coding.”
Avey’s “meticulous plan” turns out to be this:
(He) found a Dutch Jew with a similar physique and persuaded him to exchange places for a day. Avey knew that they marched past each other at the same time every week. “The Nazis were rigid, you see,” he says. “To them orders were orders, to be carried out exactly. That was what allowed me to find a way round them.”
Once again, in spite of the Nazis’ rigidity, he manages to persuade a Jew to risk his life in order to get one night outside his own barracks. The BBC article said,
He arranged to swap for one night at a time with a Jewish inmate he had come to trust.
Who was this inmate? The BBC article doesn’t tell us. The article in the Daily Mail says the inmate was Lobethall:
The pair met while being used as slave labour at a nearby synthetic rubber factory. At the end of their shift one night, Mr Avey changed into Mr Lobethall’s stripy uniform, took his ID card and returned with the Jewish prisoners to Birkenau, also known as Auschwitz II.
Apart from Lobethall never saying anything in his Survivors of the Shoah video testimony about trading places with Denis Avey, or going into the British POW camp, the prisoners did not carry ID cards. That’s what the tattoos were for, to keep track of them. Where did Andy Dolan get such an idea?
The Times continues:
Avey shaved his head and blackened his face. At the allocated time, he and the Dutch Jew sneaked into a disused shed. There they swapped uniforms and exchanged places. Avey affected a slouch and a cough, so that his English accent would be disguised should he be required to speak.
Try to imagine this, if you can. The POW’s and the Jewish prisoners are marching in different directions and pass each other. Time stops; everyone else goes into suspended animation while the two men leave the ranks and go into a shed nearby. They change into each other’s uniforms and return to take each other’s place in the ranks. Time resumes and so does the marching.
In addition to this, the British Prisoner of War has shaved his head, while the Jew with a shaved head is pretending to be a British Prisoner of War. And the rigid, order-bound SS guards don’t notice anything wrong. This is Giveaway No. 2.
Avey then tells Simons:
“I joined the Stripeys and marched into Monowitz, a predominantly Jewish camp. As we passed beneath the Arbeit Macht Frei sign, everyone stood up straight and tried to look as healthy as they could. There was an SS officer there, weeding out the weaklings for the gas. Overhead was a gallows, which had a corpse hanging from it, as a deterrent. An orchestra was playing Wagner to accompany our march. It was chilling.”
Avey is really warming up to his subject now. But he doesn’t know Monowitz from Auschwitz where the Arbeit Macht Frei sign is. Auschwitz had very few Jews in it; they were all at Birkenau and Monowitz. Giveaway No. 3.
The BBC article said:
He fully intended to get as far as Birkenau, where the gas chambers and crematoria were constantly in operation, belching acrid fumes. He only made it as far as Auschwitz III, (Monowitz) where he spent the night on two occasions.
So where was he? Since he doesn’t know, we can conclude he was never in these places. Especially when he describes it this way:
They were herded through the camp, carrying the bodies of those who had died that day. “I saw the Frauenhaus — the Germans’ brothel of Jewish girls—and the infirmary, which sent its patients to the gas after two weeks. I committed everything to memory. We were lined up in the Appellplatz for a roll call, which lasted almost two hours. Then we were given some rotten cabbage soup and went to sleep in lice-infested bunks, three to a bed.”
Here he is definitely describing Auschwitz I, 7 km from Monowitz where they worked. But he’s incorrect in everything he says. The brothel was called Die Puff, and didn’t have Jewish girls working in it, but Polish women from outside the camp. Jews could not use the brothel at all, following the Nuremberg laws of racial purity. The infirmaries would not care for patients for two weeks only to then send them to the gas chamber. The camp administration was constantly fighting lice in the barracks and on the inmates. That’s what the Zyklon B was for.
I wonder what happened in the British POW camp when the “Dutch Jew” brought his lice-infested body (according to Avey) into it and spent the night?! What about when Avey returned there after spending the night in a lice-infested bed? Here’s Avey’s description of the night:
The night was even worse than the daytime. “As it grew dark, the place was filled with howls and shrieks. Many people had lost their minds. It was a living hell. Everyone was clutching their wooden bowls under their heads, to stop them getting stolen.”
Only enamel covered metal bowls were used at all camps, so Avey reveals he’s making it up when he specifies wooden bowls. He also doesn’t tell us which barracks he stayed in. Giveaway No. 4.
Lobethall had bribed Avey’s bedfellows with cigarettes. “They gave me all the details,” he says, “the names of the SS, the gas chambers, the crematoria, everything. After that, they fell asleep. But I lay awake all night.”
Where is Lobethall? If Avey traded places with the Dutch Jew, can we assume he spent the night in Lobethall’s barracks? Again, I repeat that Lobethall didn’t mention anything about his friend Avey’s “prisoner exchange” in his testimony. If he “bribed Avey’s bedfellows with cigarettes,” he was a part of it. But why would suffering Jewish prisoners need to be bribed to talk about their sufferings? They wanted to get the information out to the rest of the world, as I understand it. And what good were the names of the SS to Avey; has he ever reported any crimes by guards whose names he got that have resulted in action taken? Also, the alleged gas chamber had not operated in Auschwitz I since 1942; now it was 1944. In spite of the shrieks and howls in this “living hell,” his bedfellows fell right to sleep. In the morning, after roll call and breakfast, they were marched back out of the camp.
“When we passed the shed again, I slipped in to meet the Dutch Jew,” he says. “That was hair raising. Although I trusted him, I couldn’t be sure that he’d turn up. And if an SS officer had looked in the wrong direction at the wrong time,
that would have been it.”
Amazing how the SS cooperated with his plan.
The changeover went smoothly, and Avey returned to the PoW camp. “The Dutch Jew perished, but I’m certain that this short reprieve prolonged his life by several weeks,” he says. “Whether that was a good thing, I don’t know.”
Returned to his camp with his shaved head? How many of his fellow POW’s knew what he was up to? And how convenient that the nameless Dutch Jew died, so there is no one, including relatives, alive today to corroborate Avey’s story… or not. In these far-out holocaust tales, the essential characters always die early, and are usually nameless. Giveaway No. 5.
Here would be a good place to show you what the British POW’s at their camp at Monowitz looked like. This is a picture of their soccer team, wearing matching team sport shirts, looking healthy, well-treated, and on friendly terms with their benign-looking Wehrmacht guards.
Football team in British POW camp near Monowitz, probably in 1944
British Prisoners of War at E715 POW camp near Monowitz (Photo Credit: Alan Howitt, whose father is in the picture)
The Times article continues:
In 1945, as the Soviet Army closed in, the Nazis abandoned the camp and herded 60,000 prisoners in the direction of Germany, in what would become known as one of the Death Marches. Avey, who by then was suffering from tuberculosis, was among them. Around 15,000 prisoners died on the way. “The road was littered with corpses,” he says. “I saw a chance to escape and seized it.”
Giveaway No. 6. The POW’s didn’t go with the 60,000 regular prisoners. They didn’t leave until January 21, while the regular prisoners began their march on January 18. This is very important because it shows that Avey could not have been there if he didn’t know what kind of a march he was on. He’s saying things off the top of his head, depending on what he has read or heard. He knows about the “death march” of the 60,000 but not that the POW’s left later on a separate march.
He found his way to Allied lines and was transported back home. Two days before VE Day, he arrived at his parents’ Essex farm half-dead with exhaustion and sickness. They had not expected to see him again.
I think it’s certain the British or American Army would have hospitalized him right there if he had TB, not transported him “sick” and “half-dead” to his parents home, where he arrived on May 6. This arrival date to his parents in England may be documented, but Avey doesn’t say how long his March lasted or anything else about it. Again, this is typical of false stories. I would like to see the official military record for Mr. Avey!
Simons now reveals even he knows this story doesn’t make sense.
If Avey’s story still sounds implausible, there is no doubt about the help he gave to Lobethall. Last year the BBC screened a moving documentary, during which Avey learnt for the first time that his old friend had survived the war and died in New York in 2001. Before his death, Lobethall recorded a video testimony for Steven Spielberg’s Shoah Foundation, during which he emotionally recounts how his life was saved by Avey’s (actually Ginger’s – he never says he knew the soldier’s name) initiative and Susana’s cigarettes. This is the only moment that I see Avey’s steely façade falter.
In other words, if you can’t believe Avey, then at least believe Lobethall!
“I was hospitalised for two years after the war,” Avey continues. “In 1947, I went to the military authorities to submit my information about Auschwitz. Their eyes glazed over. I wasn’t taken seriously. I was shocked, especially after the risks I’d taken. I felt completely disillusioned, and traumatised as well. So from then on I bottled it up, and tried to piece my life back together.”
This may just be his way of explaining why he waited 65 years to speak of this—until Yad Vashem and the BBC came looking for a red-haired British POW.
Readjusting to normal life was hard. Avey became addicted to adrenalin, racing fast cars, travelling to Spain for the running of the bulls. He was plagued by nightmares and flashbacks. Even today he shows signs of trauma. He always carries an expensive gold watch, so that “if ever I find myself in a fix again, I’ve got something to fall back on”.
Two nights spent in an Auschwitz barracks (assuming that it really happened) would not create such Post Traumatic Stress in a tough, ready-for-anything Desert Rat, as he describes himself. This is Giveaway No. 7. Avey is clearly a man who has always had a myriad of psychological problems. His reckless nature leads him to take advantage of this opportunity for a claim to fame as a “Righteous Among the Nations.” But what does it say about Yad Vashem that they appear to be on the verge of accepting Avey’s preposterous account? Why is Yad Vashem so anxious to confer this designation upon as many Gentiles as possible?
How Yad Vashem gains from their “Righteous” program
Let’s look further into the meaning of this honor bestowed by Jews upon Gentiles. Yad Vashem says: Each case must be substantiated by eyewitness testimonies and archival documents of the period.
Signed and notarized testimonies by survivor and other witnesses of the rescue attempt. Testimonies should include all known personal data on rescuers and survivors, a detailed account of the rescue attempt (how the contact with the rescuer was made; the form of rescue; places and dates of rescue; what arrangements or agreements were made between rescuers and survivors; how did the danger to the rescuers manifest itself; any other details that may shed light on the nature of rescue.) 
Where are the testimonies for Avey and Lobethall? They come only from Avey, Lobethall and Lobethall’s sister, a rather ingrown group. There are no outside neutral parties. The BBC tells us that Avey briefly met Susana Lobethall in 1945, when he came home from the war, traumatized by what he’d witnessed and endured. They both thought Ernst was dead. But where are the witnesses to this meeting? Susana lost touch with Avey and thus never told him the good news when she found out Ernst was alive.
Is it because all Avey did was to smuggle cigarettes to Lobethall (according to Lobethall) that they needed to build up a grander picture of him as risking his life? Yad Vashem and the British news media go to great lengths always to keep the “horror” of Auschwitz alive in the public consciousness. Denis Avey serves this purpose for them, in spite of the unbelievability of his story. As we can see from the comments from readers to these three articles, they accept what he says without question.
As for Yad Vashem, they have an even more sinister purpose for their “Righteous Among the Nations” than just pushing holocaust horror stories. This program has created for Israel a moral high-ground for Jews, from whence they look down upon and reward Gentiles who have put their own lives in danger to save Jews. This is a subtle, or not so subtle statement that good Gentiles defend and protect Jews. Do they ever say it is the responsibility of Jews to protect Gentiles? Never — this is never brought up at all. Because in their Jewish universe, Gentiles can only be “perpetrators” or silent “bystanders,” while Jews are perpetual victims of Gentiles. No matter what kind of murderous behavior Jews exhibit, this never changes.
Elie Wiesel, that personification of everything that is wrong with the “holocaust industry,” speaking at the 2005 opening of the new Yad Vashem Museum in Jerusalem, made this statement:
The Holocaust was not man’s inhumanity to man. It was man’s inhumanity to the Jews.
This sums up the ethnocentric view of world Judaism, of religious Judaism and Zionism both — it’s all about us, and we are working to make that the legal framework of this planet. Watch out, Gentiles!
It’s instructive to look at the situation of the Roman Catholic Church and the path to sainthood of one of their beloved Popes, Pius XII. Jewry is doing everything in its power to stop the canonization of Pius XII because, in their estimation, he didn’t do enough to “help the Jews” during their holocaust. Therefore, in their eyes he is not Righteous. Wrongly, they make it his responsibility, not their own, to look out for Jews. This is the message that’s being transferred to the rest of us by constant barrage of Jewish outrage and interference in Gentile affairs. While some of us can see through it, most cannot.
But what if the tables were turned and concerned Gentiles were to do everything in their power to stop the “Righteous Among the Nations” from being conferred on Denis Avey, on the basis that he is unworthy of it? He is certainly lying about his exploits back in the camps; what was his status there exactly? The Jews are demanding all documents relating to Pius XII during the war years be released to them; we should likewise demand to see Denis Avey’s military records, at the very least. We should make it our business, just as they make the Church’s sainthood process their business.
In closing, I’d like to quote from a recent article  by Steven Walt (co-author of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy). “Challenging Orthodoxy Is a Form of ‘Asymmetric Conflict’: You Win By ‘Not Losing.’ As long as you remain part of the debate, you’re winning. Minds don’t change overnight, and it is difficult to know how well an intellectual campaign is going at any particular point in time—some days you might think you’re winning big, while other days the deck will appear to be stacked against you. But the real question is: are you still in the game?”
Summary: Imperial collapse may come much more suddenly than many historians imagine. A combination of fiscal deficits and military overstretch suggests that the United States may be the next empire on the precipice.
By Niall Ferguson
Foreign Affairs, March/April 2010 Edition — There is no better illustration of the life cycle of a great power than The Course of Empire, a series of five paintings by Thomas Cole that hang in the New-York Historical Society. Cole was a founder of the Hudson River School and one of the pioneers of nineteenth-century American landscape painting; in The Course of Empire, he beautifully captured a theory of imperial rise and fall to which most people remain in thrall to this day.
Each of the five imagined scenes depicts the mouth of a great river beneath a rocky outcrop. In the first, The Savage State, a lush wilderness is populated by a handful of hunter-gatherers eking out a primitive existence at the break of a stormy dawn. The second picture, The Arcadian or Pastoral State, is of an agrarian idyll: the inhabitants have cleared the trees, planted fields, and built an elegant Greek temple. The third and largest of the paintings is The Consummation of Empire. Now, the landscape is covered by a magnificent marble entrepôt, and the contented farmer-philosophers of the previous tableau have been replaced by a throng of opulently clad merchants, proconsuls, and citizen-consumers. It is midday in the life cycle. Then comes Destruction. The city is ablaze, its citizens fleeing an invading horde that rapes and pillages beneath a brooding evening sky. Finally, the moon rises over the fifth painting, Desolation. There is not a living soul to be seen, only a few decaying columns and colonnades overgrown by briars and ivy.
The Savage State
Conceived in the mid-1830s, Cole’s great pentaptych has a clear message: all empires, no matter how magnificent, are condemned to decline and fall. The implicit suggestion was that the young American republic of Cole’s age would be better served by sticking to its bucolic first principles and resisting the imperial temptations of commerce, conquest, and colonization.
For centuries, historians, political theorists, anthropologists, and the public at large have tended to think about empires in such cyclical and gradual terms. “The best instituted governments,” the British political philosopher Henry St. John, First Viscount Bolingbroke, wrote in 1738, “carry in them the seeds of their destruction: and, though they grow and improve for a time, they will soon tend visibly to their dissolution. Every hour they live is an hour the less that they have to live.”
Idealists and materialists alike have shared that assumption. In his book Scienza nuova, the Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico describes all civilizations as passing through three phases: the divine, the heroic, and the human, finally dissolving into what Vico called “the barbarism of reflection.” For Hegel and Marx, it was the dialectic that gave history its unmistakable beat. History was seasonal for Oswald Spengler, the German historian, who wrote in his 1918-22 book, The Decline of the West, that the nineteenth century had been “the winter of the West, the victory of materialism and skepticism, of socialism, parliamentarianism, and money.” The British historian Arnold Toynbee’s universal theory of civilization proposed a cycle of challenge, response, and suicide. Each of these models is different, but all share the idea that history has rhythm.
Although hardly anyone reads Spengler or Toynbee today, similar strains of thought are visible in contemporary bestsellers. Paul Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers is another work of cyclical history — despite its profusion of statistical tables, which at first sight make it seem the very antithesis of Spenglerian grand theory. In Kennedy’s model, great powers rise and fall according to the growth rates of their industrial bases and the costs of their imperial commitments relative to their GDPs. Just as in Cole’s The Course of Empire, imperial expansion carries the seeds of future decline. As Kennedy writes, “If a state overextends itself strategically . . . it runs the risk that the potential benefits from external expansion may be outweighed by the great expense of it all.” This phenomenon of “imperial overstretch,” Kennedy argues, is common to all great powers. In 1987, when Kennedy’s book was published, the United States worried that it might be succumbing to this disease. Just because the Soviet Union fell first did not necessarily invalidate the hypothesis.
The Arcadian or Pastoral State
More recently, it is Jared Diamond, an anthropologist, who has captured the public imagination with a grand theory of rise and fall. His 2005 book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, is cyclical history for the so-called Green Age: tales of past societies, from seventeenth-century Easter Island to twenty-first-century China, that risked, or now risk, destroying themselves by abusing their natural environments. Diamond quotes John Lloyd Stevens, the American explorer and amateur archaeologist who discovered the eerily dead Mayan cities of Mexico: “Here were the remains of a cultivated, polished, and peculiar people, who had passed through all the stages incident to the rise and fall of nations, reached their golden age, and perished.” According to Diamond, the Maya fell into a classic Malthusian trap as their population grew larger than their fragile and inefficient agricultural system could support. More people meant more cultivation, but more cultivation meant deforestation, erosion, drought, and soil exhaustion. The result was civil war over dwindling resources and, finally, collapse.
Diamond’s warning is that today’s world could go the way of the Maya. This is an important message, no doubt. But in reviving the cyclical theory of history, Collapse reproduces an old conceptual defect. Diamond makes the mistake of focusing on what historians of the French Annales school called la longue durée, the long term. No matter whether civilizations commit suicide culturally, economically, or ecologically, the downfall is very protracted. Just as it takes centuries for imperial overstretch to undermine a great power, so, too, does it take centuries to wreck an ecosystem. As Diamond points out, political leaders in almost any society — primitive or sophisticated — have little incentive to address problems that are unlikely to manifest themselves for a hundred years or more.
Did the proconsuls in Cole’s The Consummation of Empire really care if the fate of their great-great-grandchildren was destruction? No. Would they have accepted a tax increase that would have financed a preemptive strike against the next millennium’s barbarian horde? Again, no. As the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen last December made clear, rhetorical pleas to save the planet for future generations are insufficient to overcome the conflicts over economic distribution between rich and poor countries that exist in the here and now.
The current economic challenges facing the United States are also often represented as long-term threats. It is the slow march of demographics — which is driving up the ratio of retirees to workers — and not current policy, that condemns the public finances of the United States to sink deeper into the red. According to the Congressional Budget Office’s “alternative fiscal scenario,” which takes into account likely changes in government policy, public debt could rise from 44 percent before the financial crisis to a staggering 716 percent by 2080. In its “extended-baseline scenario,” which assumes current policies will remain the same, the figure is closer to 280 percent. It hardly seems to matter which number is correct. Is there a single member of Congress who is willing to cut entitlements or increase taxes in order to avert a crisis that will culminate only when today’s babies are retirees?
Similarly, when it comes to the global economy, the wheel of history seems to revolve slowly, like an old water mill in high summer. Some projections suggest that China’s GDP will overtake the United States’ GDP in 2027; others say that this will not happen until 2040. By 2050, India’s economy will supposedly catch up with that of the United States, too. But to many, these great changes in the balance of economic power seem very remote compared with the timeframe for the deployment of U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan and then their withdrawal, for which the unit of account is months, not years, much less decades.
Yet it is possible that this whole conceptual framework is, in fact, flawed. Perhaps Cole’s artistic representation of imperial birth, growth, and eventual death is a misrepresentation of the historical process. What if history is not cyclical and slow moving but arrhythmic — at times almost stationary, but also capable of accelerating suddenly, like a sports car? What if collapse does not arrive over a number of centuries but comes suddenly, like a thief in the night?
When good systems go bad
Great powers and empires are, I would suggest, complex systems, made up of a very large number of interacting components that are asymmetrically organized, which means their construction more resembles a termite hill than an Egyptian pyramid. They operate somewhere between order and disorder — on “the edge of chaos,” in the phrase of the computer scientist Christopher Langton. Such systems can appear to operate quite stably for some time; they seem to be in equilibrium but are, in fact, constantly adapting. But there comes a moment when complex systems “go critical.” A very small trigger can set off a “phase transition” from a benign equilibrium to a crisis — a single grain of sand causes a whole pile to collapse, or a butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazon and brings about a hurricane in southeastern England.
Not long after such crises happen, historians arrive on the scene. They are the scholars who specialize in the study of “fat tail” events — the low-frequency, high-impact moments that inhabit the tails of probability distributions, such as wars, revolutions, financial crashes, and imperial collapses. But historians often misunderstand complexity in decoding these events. They are trained to explain calamity in terms of long-term causes, often dating back decades. This is what Nassim Taleb rightly condemned in The Black Swan as “the narrative fallacy”: the construction of psychologically satisfying stories on the principle of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Drawing casual inferences about causation is an age-old habit. Take World War I. A huge war breaks out in the summer of 1914, to the great surprise of nearly everyone. Before long, historians have devised a story line commensurate with the disaster: a treaty governing the neutrality of Belgium that was signed in 1839, the waning of Ottoman power in the Balkans dating back to the 1870s, and malevolent Germans and the navy they began building in 1897. A contemporary version of this fallacy traces the 9/11 attacks back to the Egyptian government’s 1966 execution of Sayyid Qutb, the Islamist writer who inspired the Muslim Brotherhood. Most recently, the financial crisis that began in 2007 has been attributed to measures of financial deregulation taken in the United States in the 1980s.
In reality, the proximate triggers of a crisis are often sufficient to explain the sudden shift from a good equilibrium to a bad mess. Thus, World War I was actually caused by a series of diplomatic miscalculations in the summer of 1914, the real origins of 9/11 lie in the politics of Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, and the financial crisis was principally due to errors in monetary policy by the U.S. Federal Reserve and to China’s rapid accumulation of dollar reserves after 2001. Most of the fat-tail phenomena that historians study are not the climaxes of prolonged and deterministic story lines; instead, they represent perturbations, and sometimes the complete breakdowns, of complex systems.
To understand complexity, it is helpful to examine how natural scientists use the concept. Think of the spontaneous organization of half a million ants or termites, which allows them to construct complex hills and nests, or the fractal geometry of water molecules as they form intricate snowflakes. Human intelligence itself is a complex system, a product of the interaction of billions of neurons in the central nervous system, or what Charles Sherrington, the pioneering neuroscientist, called “an enchanted loom.”
The political and economic structures made by humans share many of the features of complex adaptive systems. Heterodox economists such as W. Brian Arthur have been arguing along these lines for decades. To Arthur, a complex economy is characterized by the interaction of dispersed agents, a lack of central control, multiple levels of organization, continual adaptation, incessant creation of new market niches, and the absence of general equilibrium. This conception of economics goes beyond both Adam Smith’s hallowed idea that an “invisible hand” causes markets to work through the interactions of profit-maximizing individuals and Friedrich von Hayek’s critique of economic planning and demand management. In contradiction to the classic economic prediction that competition causes diminishing returns, a complex economy makes increasing returns possible. In this version of economics, Silicon Valley is a complex adaptive system; so is the Internet itself.
Researchers at the Santa Fe Institute, a nonprofit center devoted to the study of complex systems, are currently looking at how such insights can be applied to other aspects of collective human activity, including international relations. This effort may recall the futile struggle of Edward Casaubon to find “the key to all mythologies” in George Eliot’s novel Middlemarch. But the attempt is worthwhile, because an understanding of how complex systems function is an essential part of any strategy to anticipate and delay their failure.
Whether the canopy of a rain forest or the trading floor of Wall Street, complex systems share certain characteristics. A small input to such a system can produce huge, often unanticipated changes — what scientists call “the amplifier effect.” A vaccine, for example, stimulates the immune system to become resistant to, say, measles or mumps. But administer too large a dose, and the patient dies. Meanwhile, causal relationships are often nonlinear, which means that traditional methods of generalizing through observation (such as trend analysis and sampling) are of little use. Some theorists of complexity would go so far as to say that complex systems are wholly nondeterministic, meaning that it is impossible to make predictions about their future behavior based on existing data.
When things go wrong in a complex system, the scale of disruption is nearly impossible to anticipate. There is no such thing as a typical or average forest fire, for example. To use the jargon of modern physics, a forest before a fire is in a state of “self-organized criticality”: it is teetering on the verge of a breakdown, but the size of the breakdown is unknown. Will there be a small fire or a huge one? It is very hard to say: a forest fire twice as large as last year’s is roughly four or six or eight times less likely to happen this year. This kind of pattern — known as a “power-law distribution” — is remarkably common in the natural world. It can be seen not just in forest fires but also in earthquakes and epidemics. Some researchers claim that conflicts follow a similar pattern, ranging from local skirmishes to full-scale world wars.
What matters most is that in such systems a relatively minor shock can cause a disproportionate — and sometimes fatal — disruption. As Taleb has argued, by 2007, the global economy had grown to resemble an over-optimized electrical grid. Defaults on subprime mortgages produced a relatively small surge in the United States that tipped the entire world economy into a financial blackout, which, for a moment, threatened to bring about a complete collapse of international trade. But blaming such a crash on a policy of deregulation under U.S. President Ronald Reagan is about as plausible as blaming World War I on the buildup of the German navy under Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz.
Empire state of mind
Regardless of whether it is a dictatorship or a democracy, any large-scale political unit is a complex system. Most great empires have a nominal central authority — either a hereditary emperor or an elected president — but in practice the power of any individual ruler is a function of the network of economic, social, and political relations over which he or she presides. As such, empires exhibit many of the characteristics of other complex adaptive systems — including the tendency to move from stability to instability quite suddenly. But this fact is rarely recognized because of the collective addiction to cyclical theories of history.
Perhaps the most famous story of imperial decline is that of ancient Rome. In The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, published in six volumes between 1776 and 1788, Edward Gibbon covered more than 1,400 years of history, from 180 to 1590. This was history over the very long run, in which the causes of decline ranged from the personality disorders of individual emperors to the power of the Praetorian Guard and the rise of monotheism. After the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180, civil war became a recurring problem, as aspiring emperors competed for the spoils of supreme power. By the fourth century, barbarian invasions or migrations were well under way and only intensified as the Huns moved west. Meanwhile, the challenge posed by Sassanid Persia to the Eastern Roman Empire was steadily growing.
But what if fourth-century Rome was simply functioning normally as a complex adaptive system, with political strife, barbarian migration, and imperial rivalry all just integral features of late antiquity? Through this lens, Rome’s fall was sudden and dramatic — just as one would expect when such a system goes critical. As the Oxford historians Peter Heather and Bryan Ward-Perkins have argued, the final breakdown in the Western Roman Empire began in 406, when Germanic invaders poured across the Rhine into Gaul and then Italy. Rome itself was sacked by the Goths in 410. Co-opted by an enfeebled emperor, the Goths then fought the Vandals for control of Spain, but this merely shifted the problem south. Between 429 and 439, Genseric led the Vandals to victory after victory in North Africa, culminating in the fall of Carthage. Rome lost its southern Mediterranean breadbasket and, along with it, a huge source of tax revenue. Roman soldiers were just barely able to defeat Attila’s Huns as they swept west from the Balkans. By 452, the Western Roman Empire had lost all of Britain, most of Spain, the richest provinces of North Africa, and southwestern and southeastern Gaul. Not much was left besides Italy. Basiliscus, brother-in-law of Emperor Leo I, tried and failed to recapture Carthage in 468. Byzantium lived on, but the Western Roman Empire was dead. By 476, Rome was the fiefdom of Odoacer, king of the Goths.
What is most striking about this history is the speed of the Roman Empire’s collapse. In just five decades, the population of Rome itself fell by three-quarters. Archaeological evidence from the late fifth century — inferior housing, more primitive pottery, fewer coins, smaller cattle — shows that the benign influence of Rome diminished rapidly in the rest of western Europe. What Ward-Perkins calls “the end of civilization” came within the span of a single generation.
Other great empires have suffered comparably swift collapses. The Ming dynasty in China began in 1368, when the warlord Zhu Yuanzhang renamed himself Emperor Hongwu, the word hongwu meaning “vast military power.” For most of the next three centuries, Ming China was the world’s most sophisticated civilization by almost any measure. Then, in the mid-seventeenth century, political factionalism, fiscal crisis, famine, and epidemic disease opened the door to rebellion within and incursions from without. In 1636, the Manchu leader Huang Taiji proclaimed the advent of the Qing dynasty. Just eight years later, Beijing, the magnificent Ming capital, fell to the rebel leader Li Zicheng, and the last Ming emperor hanged himself out of shame. The transition from Confucian equipoise to anarchy took little more than a decade.
In much the same way, the Bourbon monarchy in France passed from triumph to terror with astonishing rapidity. French intervention on the side of the colonial rebels against British rule in North America in the 1770s seemed like a good idea at the time — a chance for revenge after Great Britain’s victory in the Seven Years’ War a decade earlier — but it served to tip French finances into a critical state. In May 1789, the summoning of the Estates-General, France’s long-dormant representative assembly, unleashed a political chain reaction that led to a swift collapse of royal legitimacy in France. Only four years later, in January 1793, Louis XVI was decapitated by guillotine.
Although several narrative fallacies suggest that the Hapsburg, Ottoman, and Romanov empires were doomed for decades before World War I, the disintegration of the dynastic land empires of eastern Europe came with equal swiftness. What was impressive, in fact, was how well these ancient empires were able to withstand the test of total war. Their collapse only began with the Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917. A mere five years later, Mehmed VI, the last sultan of the Ottoman Empire, departed Constantinople aboard a British warship. With that, all three dynasties were defunct.
The sun set on the British Empire almost as suddenly. In February 1945, Prime Minister Winston Churchill was at Yalta, dividing up the world with U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin. As World War II was ending, he was swept from office in the July 1945 general election. Within a decade, the United Kingdom had conceded independence to Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma, Egypt, Eritrea, India, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Libya, Madagascar, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. The Suez crisis in 1956 proved that the United Kingdom could not act in defiance of the United States in the Middle East, setting the seal on the end of empire. Although it took until the 1960s for independence to reach sub-Saharan Africa and the remnants of colonial rule east of the Suez, the United Kingdom’s age of hegemony was effectively over less than a dozen years after its victories over Germany and Japan.
The most recent and familiar example of precipitous decline is, of course, the collapse of the Soviet Union. With the benefit of hindsight, historians have traced all kinds of rot within the Soviet system back to the Brezhnev era and beyond. Perhaps, as the historian and political scientist Stephen Kotkin has argued, it was only the high oil prices of the 1970s that “averted Armageddon.” But this did not seem to be the case at the time. In March 1985, when Mikhail Gorbachev became general secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, the CIA estimated the Soviet economy to be approximately 60 percent the size of the U.S. economy. This estimate is now known to have been wrong, but the Soviet nuclear arsenal was genuinely larger than the U.S. stockpile. And governments in what was then called the Third World, from Vietnam to Nicaragua, had been tilting in the Soviets’ favor for most of the previous 20 years. Yet less than five years after Gorbachev took power, the Soviet imperium in central and Eastern Europe had fallen apart, followed by the Soviet Union itself in 1991. If ever an empire fell off a cliff — rather than gently declining — it was the one founded by Lenin.
Over the edge
If empires are complex systems that sooner or later succumb to sudden and catastrophic malfunctions, rather than cycling sedately from Arcadia to Apogee to Armageddon, what are the implications for the United States today? First, debating the stages of decline may be a waste of time — it is a precipitous and unexpected fall that should most concern policymakers and citizens. Second, most imperial falls are associated with fiscal crises. All the above cases were marked by sharp imbalances between revenues and expenditures, as well as difficulties with financing public debt. Alarm bells should therefore be ringing very loudly, indeed, as the United States contemplates a deficit for 2009 of more than $1.4 trillion — about 11.2 percent of GDP, the biggest deficit in 60 years — and another for 2010 that will not be much smaller. Public debt, meanwhile, is set to more than double in the coming decade, from $5.8 trillion in 2008 to $14.3 trillion in 2019. Within the same timeframe, interest payments on that debt are forecast to leap from eight percent of federal revenues to 17 percent.
These numbers are bad, but in the realm of political entities, the role of perception is just as crucial, if not more so. In imperial crises, it is not the material underpinnings of power that really matter but expectations about future power. The fiscal numbers cited above cannot erode U.S. strength on their own, but they can work to weaken a long-assumed faith in the United States’ ability to weather any crisis. For now, the world still expects the United States to muddle through, eventually confronting its problems when, as Churchill famously said, all the alternatives have been exhausted. Through this lens, past alarms about the deficit seem overblown, and 2080 — when the U.S. debt may reach staggering proportions — seems a long way off, leaving plenty of time to plug the fiscal hole. But one day, a seemingly random piece of bad news — perhaps a negative report by a rating agency — will make the headlines during an otherwise quiet news cycle. Suddenly, it will be not just a few policy wonks who worry about the sustainability of U.S. fiscal policy but also the public at large, not to mention investors abroad. It is this shift that is crucial: a complex adaptive system is in big trouble when its component parts lose faith in its viability.
Over the last three years, the complex system of the global economy flipped from boom to bust — all because a bunch of Americans started to default on their subprime mortgages, thereby blowing huge holes in the business models of thousands of highly leveraged financial institutions. The next phase of the current crisis may begin when the public begins to reassess the credibility of the monetary and fiscal measures that the Obama administration has taken in response. Neither interest rates at zero nor fiscal stimulus can achieve a sustainable recovery if people in the United States and abroad collectively decide, overnight, that such measures will lead to much higher inflation rates or outright default. As Thomas Sargent, an economist who pioneered the idea of rational expectations, demonstrated more than 20 years ago, such decisions are self-fulfilling: it is not the base supply of money that determines inflation but the velocity of its circulation, which in turn is a function of expectations. In the same way, it is not the debt-to-GDP ratio that determines government solvency but the interest rate that investors demand. Bond yields can shoot up if expectations change about future government solvency, intensifying an already bad fiscal crisis by driving up the cost of interest payments on new debt. Just ask Greece — it happened there at the end of last year, plunging the country into fiscal and political crisis.
Finally, a shift in expectations about monetary and fiscal policy could force a reassessment of future U.S. foreign policy. There is a zero-sum game at the heart of the budgetary process: if interest payments consume a rising proportion of tax revenue, military expenditure is the item most likely to be cut because, unlike mandatory entitlements, it is discretionary. A U.S. president who says he will deploy 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and then, in 18 months’ time, start withdrawing them again already has something of a credibility problem. And what about the United States’ other strategic challenges? For the United States’ enemies in Iran and Iraq, it must be consoling to know that U.S. fiscal policy today is preprogrammed to reduce the resources available for all overseas military operations in the years ahead.
Defeat in the mountains of the Hindu Kush or on the plains of Mesopotamia has long been a harbinger of imperial fall. It is no coincidence that the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan in the annus mirabilis of 1989. What happened 20 years ago, like the events of the distant fifth century, is a reminder that empires do not in fact appear, rise, reign, decline, and fall according to some recurrent and predictable life cycle. It is historians who retrospectively portray the process of imperial dissolution as slow-acting, with multiple overdetermining causes. Rather, empires behave like all complex adaptive systems. They function in apparent equilibrium for some unknowable period. And then, quite abruptly, they collapse. To return to the terminology of Thomas Cole, the painter of The Course of Empire, the shift from consummation to destruction and then to desolation is not cyclical. It is sudden.
A more appropriate visual representation of the way complex systems collapse may be the old poster, once so popular in thousands of college dorm rooms, of a runaway steam train that has crashed through the wall of a Victorian railway terminus and hit the street below nose first. A defective brake or a sleeping driver can be all it takes to go over the edge of chaos.
Niall Ferguson is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University, a Fellow at Jesus College, Oxford, and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His most recent book is The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World.
Jamie discusses an excellent recent article appearing on Prof. Kevin B. MacDonald’s Occidental Observer written by Christopher Donovan on “what can be done?” entitled “All Pro-White and Nowhere to Go.” Prof. MacDonald is one of the Directors of the new American Third Position political party.
Will delusional Zionist pastors and televangelists give us, as Yogi Berra would say, “deja vu all over again” with a repeat of the brainwashing that led to the U.S. attack against Iraq in 2003? A huge amount of evidence has alarmed patriot news analysts that the very same Neocons, Israel Lobby, and delusional Zionists who launched an illegal attack against Iraq based on nothing but intentional lies may succeed in repeating their crime to launch a totally illegal, immoral attack against Iran, an attack that would be devastating to White interests. Jamie Kelso traces the frightening history of the largest delusional Zionist network, Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), from a tiny cable access station in Costa Mesa, California in 1973 to the world’s largest religious broadcaster, reaching 95% of American homes, with an estimated $200 million dollars in revenues in 2005. Patriots ignore the worldwide household TBN names of Paul and Jan Crouch, Benny Hinn, Rod Parsley, Pat Robertson, Creflo Dollar, Paula White, and Kenneth Copeland at their own hazard. Sadly, these lapdogs of the Neocons reach many more millions of White folks than all patriot media combined.
Tom Sunic interviews Thomas Robb, a pastor at the Christian Revival Center. Topics include:
The theology of Christian Identity
How compassion and empathy are both strengths and weaknesses of White people
The importance of home-schooling
Mainstream Christianity’s sycophantic acceptance of multiculturalism, white guilt and Political Correctness
The need for White advocates to support organizations stick their necks out for all Whites
About Thomas Robb
To learn more about Pastor Robb, his ministries and his prolific writings please check out his church’s main website here and his quarterly journal The Torch. You can also request a copy of his latest book The Last Church with a donation sent to the address below:
Thomas Robb Ministries
PO Box 354
Bergman, AR 72615
Carolyn talks with World War II Wehrmacht veteran and Luftwaffe bomber pilot Wilhelm Kriessmann about the political climate in Austria during his youth in the 1920s and ’30s; then his wartime and post-war experiences. Kriessmann was incarcerated in the British concentration camp for political prisoners at Wolfsberg for nine months after his return to his family home in Sept. 1945; then for a further eight months at Camp Wetzelsdorf before being released in 1947 and continuing his education.
About Wilhelm Kriessmann
Listeners can learn more about Wilhelm Kriessmann’s WWII experiences here and here.
Dr. Kriessmann became Austrian Trade Commissioner for the U.S. west coast in 1953, which led to his eventual move to California. In more recent years he turned to writing, publishing many, many articles and features in German-American periodicals. He has always been an avid sportsman, with an especial fondness for the ski slopes, long biking trips and tennis.
Jamie takes as his theme the reality that full access to our people’s documents and history provided by the incredibly fortunate appearance of an Internet and Web full of institutions like Google News Archive offer us limitless opportunities to educate our kinsmen. One example is the 1896 Supreme Court decision of Plessy v. Ferguson, which affirmed that enforced segregation of facilities, even public facilities, was PERFECTLY Constitutional and natural. That was a 7 to 1 decision written by Henry Billings Brown. In a case argued 100 years later, Printz v. United States (1997), Justice Antonin Scalia would again affirm the 10th Amendment when by a closer vote (5 to 4) the Supreme Court affirmed that the soveignty of America’s more-than 3,000 County Sheriffs (and all other State and local sovereignties) is NOT subordinate to the Federal government. This is the case (also called Mack v. United States) won by patriot Sheriff Richard Mack (ret.) of Graham County, Arizona. And it’s the wide-open World Wide Web that preserves such gems of Constitutionalism (whether in 1896 or 1997) for us today.
Back in 2007 the notorious American Jewish right-wing organization, the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) announced that it recognised the events in which an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were massacred as “genocide.” The ADL’s national director, Abraham Foxman, insisted that he made the decision after discussing the matter with ‘historians’. For some reason he failed to mention who the historians were, nor did he refer to their credibility or field of scholarship. However, Foxman also consulted with one holocaust survivor who supported the decision. It was Elie Wiesel, not known for being a leading world expert on the Armenian ordeal.
Back in 2007 the notorious American Jewish right-wing organization, the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) announced that it recognised the events in which an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were massacred as “genocide.” The ADL’s national director, Abraham Foxman, insisted that he made the decision after discussing the matter with ‘historians’. For some reason he failed to mention who the historians were, nor did he refer to their credibility or field of scholarship. However, Foxman also consulted with one holocaust survivor who supported the decision. It was Elie Wiesel, not known for being a leading world expert on the Armenian ordeal.
The idea of a Zionist organization being genuinely concerned, or even slightly moved, by other people’s suffering could truly be a monumental transforming moment in Jewish history. However, this week we learned that the ADL is once again engaged in the dilemma of Armenian suffering. It is not convinced anymore that the Armenians suffered that much. It is now lobbying the American congress not to recognize the killings of Armenians as ‘genocide. This week saw the ADL “speaking out against Congressional acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide, and is, instead, advocating Turkey’s call for a historical commission to study the events.”
How is it that an event that took place a century ago is causing such a furor? One day it is generally classified as ‘genocide’, the next, it is demoted to an ordinary instance of one man killing another. Was it an ‘historical document’ that, out of nowhere, popped out on Abe Foxman’s desk? Are there some new factual revelations that led to such a dramatic historical shift? l don’t think so.
The ADL’s behaviour is a glimpse into the notion of Jewish history and the Jewish understanding of the past. For the nationalist and political Jew, history is a pragmatic tale, it is an elastic account. It is foreign to any scientific or academic method. Jewish history transcends itself beyond factuality, truthfulness or correspondence rules with any given vision of reality. It also repels integrity or ethics. It by far prefers total submission, instead of creative and critical thinking. Jewish history is a phantasmic tale that is there to make the Jews happy and the Goyim behave themselves. It is there to serve the interests of one tribe and that tribe only. In practice, from a Jewish perspective, the decision whether there was an Armenian genocide or not is subject to Jewish interests: is it good for the Jews or is it good for Israel.
Interestingly enough, history is not a particularly ‘Jewish thing’. It is an established fact that not a single Jewish historical text has been written between the 1st century (Josephus Flavius) and early 19th century (Isaak Markus Jost). For almost 2 thousand years Jews were not interested in their own or anyone else’s past, at least not enough to chronicle it. As a matter of convenience, an adequate scrutiny of the past was never a primary concern within the Rabbinical tradition. One of the reasons is probably that there was no need for such a methodical effort. For the Jew who lived during ancient times and the Middle Ages, there was enough in the Bible to answer the most relevant questions to do with day-to-day life, Jewish meaning and fate. As Israeli historian Shlomo Sand puts it, “a secular chronological time was foreign to the ‘Diaspora time’ that was shaped by the anticipation for the coming of the Messiah.”
However, in the mid 19th century, in the light of secularisation, urbanisation, emancipation and due to the decreasing authority of the Rabbinical leaders, an emerging need of an alternative cause rose amongst the awakening European Jews. All of a sudden, the emancipated Jew had to decide who he was and where he came from. He also started to speculate what his role might be within the rapidly opening Western society.
This is where Jewish history in its modern form was invented. This is also where Judaism was transformed from a world religion into a ‘land registry’ with some clearly devastating racially orientated and expansionist implications. As we know, Shlomo Sand’s account of the ‘Jewish Nation’ as a fictional invention is yet to be challenged academically. However, the dismissal of factuality or commitment to truthfulness is actually symptomatic of any form of contemporary Jewish collective ideology and identity politics. The ADL’s treatment of the Armenian topic is just one example. The Zionist’s dismissal of a Palestinian past and heritage is just another example. But in fact any Jewish collective vision of the past is inherently Judeo-centric and oblivious to any academic or scientific procedure.
When I was Young
When I was young and naïve I regarded history as a serious academic matter. As I understood it, history had something to do with truth seeking, documents, chronology and facts. I was convinced that history aimed to convey a sensible account of the past based on methodical research. I also believed that it was premised on the assumption that understanding the past may throw some light over our present and even help us to shape a prospect of a better future. I grew up in the Jewish state and it took me quite a while to understand that the Jewish historical narrative is very different. In the Jewish intellectual ghetto, one decides what the future ought to be, then one constructs ‘a past’ accordingly. Interestingly enough, this exact method is also prevalent amongst Marxists. They shape the past so it fits nicely into their vision of the future. As the old Russian joke says, “when the facts do not conform with the Marxist ideology, the Communist social scientists amend the facts (rather than revise the theory)”.
When I was young, I didn’t think that history was a matter of political decisions or agreements between a rabid Zionist lobby and its favorite holocaust survivor. I regarded historians as scholars who engaged in adequate research following some strict procedures. When I was young I even considered becoming an historian.
When I was young and naive I was also somehow convinced that what they told us about our ‘collective’ Jewish past really happened. I believed it all, the Kingdom of David, Massada, and then the Holocaust: the soap, the lampshade*, the death march, the six million.
As it happened, it took me many years to understand that the Holocaust, the core belief of the contemporary Jewish faith, was not at all an historical narrative for historical narratives do not need the protection of the law and politicians. It took me years to grasp that my great-grandmother wasn’t made into a ‘soap’ or a ‘lampshade’*. She probably perished out of exhaustion, typhus or maybe even by mass shooting. This was indeed bad and tragic enough, however not that different from the fate of many millions of Ukrainians who learned what communism meant for real. “Some of the worst mass murderers in history were Jews” writes Zionist Sever Plocker on the Israeli Ynet disclosing the Holodomor and Jewish involvement in this colossal crime, probably the greatest crime of the 20th century. The fate of my great-grandmother was not any different from hundreds of thousands of German civilians who died in an orchestrated indiscriminate bombing, because they were Germans. Similarly, people in Hiroshima died just because they were Japanese. 1 million Vietnamese died just because they were Vietnamese and 1.3 million Iraqis died because they were Iraqis. In short the tragic circumstances of my great grandmother wasn’t that special after all.
It Doesn’t make sense
It took me years to accept that the Holocaust narrative, in its current form, doesn’t make any historical sense. Here is just one little anecdote to elaborate on:
If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein - free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war? I have been concerned with this simple question for more than a while. I eventually launched into an historical research of the topic and happened to learn from Israeli holocaust historian professor Israel Gutman that Jewish prisoners actually joined the march voluntarily. Here is a testimony taken from Gutman’s book
“One of my friends and relatives in the camp came to me on the night of the evacuation and offered a common hiding place somewhere on the way from the camp to the factory. …The intention was to leave the camp with one of the convoys and to escape near the gate, using the darkness we thought to go a little far from the camp. The temptation was very strong. And yet, after I considered it all I then decided to join (the march) with all the other inmates and to share their fate “ (Israel Gutman [editor], People and Ashes: Book Auschwitz – Birkenau, Merhavia 1957).
I am left puzzled here, if the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? Why didn’t the Jews wait for their Red liberators?
I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start to ask the necessary questions. We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws. We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place
65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should reclaim our history and ask why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their next door neighbours? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history? If they genuinely planned to do so, as the early Zionists claimed, why did they fail? Why did America tighten its immigration laws amid the growing danger to European Jews? We should also ask for what purpose do the holocaust denial laws serve? What is the holocaust religion there to conceal? As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionists and their Neocons agents’ plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes against humanity.
As devastating as it may be, at a certain moment in time, a horrible chapter was given an exceptionally meta-historical status. Its ‘factuality’ was sealed by draconian laws and its reasoning was secured by social and political settings. The Holocaust became the new Western religion. Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, no nuke, to wipe, to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. It made vengeance and revenge into a Western value. However, far more concerning is the fact that it robs humanity of its heritage, it is there to stop us from looking into our past with dignity. Holocaust religion robs humanity of its humanism. For the sake of peace and future generations, the holocaust must be stripped of its exceptional status immediately. It must be subjected to thorough historical scrutiny. Truth and truth seeking is an elementary human experience. It must prevail.
*During WWII and after it was widely believed that soaps and lampshades were being mass produced from the bodies of Jewish victims. In recent years the Israeli Holocaust museum admitted that there was no truth in any of those accusations.
Nigel Farage fined for verbal attack on EU president; Ukip MEP who launched European parliament broadside against Belgian Herman Van Rompuy refuses to apologise.
[Article from Mar. 2, 2010 continues -- see videos below]
Nigel Farage has been fined 10 days’ MEP allowances – about £2,700 – following his attack on the credentials of the European council president, Herman van Rompuy, last week.
The Ukip MEP was today summoned to see the European parliament’s president, Jerzy Buzek, who demanded that he apologise to Belgium, its people and its former prime minister for his remarks.
When Farage refused, Buzek said he was considering sanctions, including possible suspension from the chamber, against him.
Farage used his Twitter page to declare: “Sentence passed, letter from parliament. President: Maximum allowable fine 2,980 euros. Free speech is expensive in Brussels.” He said he would appeal against the fine.
“I have been called a great many things in my time – that’s politics,” he said.
“I am not going to apologise to Mr Van Rompuy, and I am not going to apologise to the people of Belgium.
“Surely I am entitled to have a dig at a man representing 500 million people, who is paid more than the US president and who has not been elected by us?
“As for apologising to the Belgian people – look, I’m not going to do that for what I said about their country, which doesn’t have proper political parties.”
Asked whether he had been blunt with Buzek during their 15-minute meeting, Farage said: “No, I was very polite.
“But I did explain that perhaps his definition of democracy and freedom of speech is different from mine.”
Buzek said he defended “absolutely Mr Farage’s right to disagree about the policy or institutions of the union, but not to personally insult our guests in the European parliament or the country from which they may come”.
“His behaviour towards Mr Rompuy was inappropriate, unparliamentary and insulting to the dignity of the house,” he added.
He said that, as a former member of the Polish Solidarity movement, he had fought for free speech as the “absolute cornerstone” of a democratic society.
However, he added: “With freedom comes responsibility – in this case, to respect the dignity of others and of our institutions.
“I invited him to apologise, but he declined to do so. I have therefore, as an expression of the seriousness of the matter, rescinded his right to 10 days’ daily allowance as a member.”
The remarks, which upset most MEPs, came during Rompuy’s first address to MEPs after resigning as the leader of Belgium to take the recently-created EU role.
Rompuy was listening to MEPs’ response to his speech on the economy when Farage said: “We were told that when we had a president, we’d see a giant global political figure, a man who would be the political leader for 500 million people.
“Well, I’m afraid what we got was you … the question I want to ask is: who are you? I’d never heard of you – nobody in Europe had ever heard of you.
“I can speak on behalf of the majority of British people in saying that we don’t know you, we don’t want you and the sooner you are put out to grass, the better.”
Afterwards, the Socialist leader in the parliament, Germany’s Martin Schulz, condemned Farage for “trampling on the dignity of the house”.
This new decade has gotten off to a rough start for Christians living in the Islamic world. Just this week, hundreds of Nigerian Christians were killed by Muslims, though the religious dimension of that event is disputed. Just yesterday, in Manshera, Pakistan, suspected Islamists attacked the World Vision office, killing at least five people using bombs, hand grenades and guns. World Vision is the world’s largest Christian overseas relief and development agency, and its employees murdered yesterday — all Pakistanis — were assisting those still suffering from the Kashmir earthquake in 2005.
There was a massacre of Christians in Mosul, Iraq, on Jan. 2, and targeted killings of Christians throughout January and February. The “targeted killing” is an especially effective form of anti-Christian terror. A Christian — either a man or woman will do — is simply grabbed off the street by Islamists while walking to work or school, killed and the body dumped. No one can feel safe. When a Christian leaves home in the morning, he does not know if he will be killed that day solely for being a disciple of Jesus Christ.
There was a targeted killing of a Christian businessman on Jan. 17, the very day the city of Mosul received its new Catholic archbishop, Emil Shimoun Nona. Why the need for a new archbishop for Mosul? Islamists murdered the last one, Paulos Faraj Rahho, just two years ago.
Amid the general decline of Christians in the Middle East, the breakdown of order in Iraq has allowed Islamists to unleash constant violence against Iraq’s Christians. The goal is to drive Christians out from lands in which they have worshipped God since the early Christian centuries.
The figures show the general trend, and the acceleration due to recent violent persecution by Islamist bandits, unrestrained by the Iraq security forces. In 1932, Christians were 20% of the Iraqi population. By 1979, when Saddam came to power, they were 10%. After the first Iraq War in 1991, they were down to 5%. Since 2003 and the second Iraq War they are fewer than 3% and dropping rapidly.
There were some one million Iraqi Christians in 2003, and it is estimated that over half have fled since. Those who remain in Iraq have often fled their homes in the cities to live in the north, without homes or jobs. Hundreds of thousands have fled into neighbouring countries — Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Turkey.
Even if the slaughter was to stop, most of these people could not return home safely. In order to flee Iraq without being killed en route, many Christian refugees have to pay for protection — a nasty combination of religious persecution, organized crime and rapacious banditry. The refugee family likely has no home, no property, no car — nothing to return to. All of it has been given over to the extortion racket, often with an explicit proviso that if the Christian family seeks to return, all will be killed.
It appears that little can be done to stop the Islamist drive to de-Christianize Iraq. But something can be done for some Iraqi Christians, and Canada is leading the way.
In February 2009, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney increased from 1,200 to 2,500 the annual number of privately sponsored refugees that Canada would accept for three years through the Damascus office, where the largest number of Iraqi refugees are. In addition to the privately sponsored places, there are 1,400 annual places in the government-assisted resettlement program for Damascus. Such places are not for Christians alone, but are an undeniable help to Christians seeking refuge.
Yet refugees have to be sponsored and helped once they arrive in a strange land. Canadian Christian churches had extensive refugee sponsorship programs during the Cold War to accommodate those fleeing communist persecution. Over the years, those programs atrophied, as happily there were fewer Christians fleeing religious persecution. Now with the rise of the Islamist threat, those networks have to be reconstituted. It is not an easy task, but an impressive lead is being taken by Archbishop Thomas Collins of Toronto, whose city will likely be a principal place of resettlement. He has been encouraging his fellow Catholic bishops to intensify their efforts as well, and similar initiatives are being encouraged in other Christian communities.
The possible end of the Christian presence in Iraq — the land of Abraham — is an unspeakable sadness. Writing about this two years ago, I prayed that “fearsome justice” would be visited upon those who slaughter our fellow Christians in Iraq. That does not appear to be imminent. So while justice is delayed in Iraq, solidarity and charity in Canada is the best we can do.
Primary schoolchildren were in tears after they were told they would be removed from families as part of Holocaust ‘game’.
A group of stunned primary schoolchildren began crying when their teacher told them during a bizarre Holocaust game that they were to be taken away from their families.
The pupils, aged 11, became upset after a number of them were segregated and told they were being sent away or might end up in an orphanage.
The ordeal was meant to give the youngsters at the Lanarkshire school an insight into the horrors faced by Jewish children during World War II.
The exercise was intended to give the pupils at St Hilary’s Primary School an insight into the horrors faced by Jewish children during World War II
But the exercise, which was sprung without warning on the children at St Hilary’s Primary School in East Kilbride last Thursday morning, reduced several to tears.
Deputy head teacher Elizabeth McGlynn segregated nine pupils and told them they were to be sent away. After 15 minutes they were told it was all an act but that the role play would carry on up to lunchtime.
One angry parent, who has lodged an official complaint about the exercise, told how the ‘barbaric’ role play upset the children.
In a letter sent to council bosses, the unnamed mother said: ‘Mrs McGlynn told the children they would probably have to be sent away from their families and that their parents had been informed about this and knew all about it.
‘When one child asked if that meant they might have to go to an orphanage, they were told that might be a possibility.
‘At that point many of the children became very distressed.
‘One boy kicked his chair over, one was angry and demanded to speak to someone in charge but most were crying on a scale ranging from mildly to severely.
‘Their ordeal lasted between 12 and 15 minutes before the children were informed that it was all an act but that the role play would continue until lunchtime.’
One girl said her classmates began crying when Mrs McGlynn told them she had a letter from the Scottish Executive saying nine children had to be separated from their classmates.
She told the shocked youngsters those who were born in January, February and March had lower IQs than other children, ‘due to lack of sunlight in their mother’s womb’, and that they had to put yellow hats on and be sent to the library.
The mother added: ‘When I asked why on earth they thought it was appropriate to deliver a role play situation to the children in this way, Mrs Stewart informed me that they didn’t inform the children beforehand.
‘This was because they wanted the children to experience an “accurate emotional response” to this scenario in order for it to be reflected in their story writing.
‘Mrs Stewart then invited me to come up to the school and see the excellent work that had been produced as a result of the exercise.
‘I declined and my position and opinion on the method used to extract emotive story writing from the children was cruel, barbaric, traumatic and totally, totally unethical.
‘My daughter and indeed no child needs to feel the terror, fear, panic, segregation and horror that a child of the Holocaust experienced during one of the worst atrocities in history to be able to empathise with them in order to produce good story writing.’
A South Lanarkshire council spokeswoman, who confirmed that a role play activity took place, said: ‘The council can confirm that a parent handed in a letter to Education Resources on Monday, March 8, 2010, and this will be responded to shortly.’
An estimated six million Jews died in the Holocaust. Jewish children in Nazi Europe had to wear yellow Star of David badges during World War II.
Jews also had to live apart from the rest of the population in ghettos.
Finally they were taken to concentration camps, where most were separated from their parents then killed.
The Voice of Reason Broadcast Network is pleased to announce a new program, The Stark Truth, hosted by Robert Stark. The show will run weekly Wednesday 9 to 10 PM, Eastern U.S. time.
Robert Stark will bring you news, analysis and guest interviews dealing with American politics, demographics, culture, and history.
About Robert Stark
Robert Stark is an artist, as well as a journalist and political commentator from Los Angeles. He is a strong defender of the American Constitution and American national sovereignty, while supporting other peoples’ nationalist aspirations as well. He rejects partisan politics and Political Correctness.
He is the host of 15 Minutes of Freedom, a political talk show on the Freedom Broadcast Network.
Robert also writes opinion pieces as “LA Nonpartisan Examiner” on Examiner.com, where he is known for taking a critical approach towards AIPAC, the ADL, the Federal Reserve, the New World Order, and other controversial topics.
The launch of the program is delayed for approximately two weeks due to unforeseen computer problems. The date of inaugural show will be re-announced when replacement equipment arrives.
Former U.S. Congressman (1985-2002) James Traficant is the subject of today’s show. Jim Traficant was targetted by AIPAC and the Israel Lobby in 2002 for federal persecution on completely phony charges, prosecuted with false testimony by corrupt Department of Justice officials. Traficant, who was very popular as a man of the people in the White Democratic industrial Mahoning Valley around Youngstown, Ohio, along the Pennsylvania state line, was railroaded in a “bribery and tax evasion” trial that sent him to harsh, dangerous, and inhumane imprisonment for seven years. Traficant got out of federal prison in September 2009. He believes that those seven years were intended to both break and kill him. But Traficant is made of very tough stuff, and is now launched on a nationwide effort to pick up the fight for taking back America right where he left off.