“The so-called 'Left-Hand Path' - that of Kaulas, Siddhas and Viras - combines the... Tantric worldview with a doctrine of the Übermensch which would put Nietzsche to shame... The Vira - which is to say: the 'heroic' man of Tantrism - seeks to sever all bonds, to overcome all duality between good and evil, honor and shame, virtue and guilt. Tantrism is the supreme path of the absolute absence of law - of shvecchacarī, a word meaning 'he whose law is his own will'." ― Julius Evola, The Path of Cinnabar.

“It is necessary to have “watchers” at hand who will bear witness to the values of Tradition in ever more uncompromising and firm ways, as the anti-traditional forces grow in strength. Even though these values cannot be achieved, it does not mean that they amount to mere “ideas.” These are measures…. Let people of our time talk about these things with condescension as if they were anachronistic and anti-historical; we know that this is an alibi for their defeat. Let us leave modern men to their “truths” and let us only be concerned about one thing: to keep standing amid a world of ruins.” ― Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World: Politics, Religion, and Social Order in the Kali Yuga.

“We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who died at his post during the eruption of Vesuvius because someone forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one that can not be taken from a man.” ― Oswald Spengler, Man and Technics: A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life.

Monday, September 29, 2008

Michael Scheuer trounces Bill Maher

Former director of CIA's Bin Laden Unit interviewed on Real Time with Bill Maher (09-21-2007) asserts the State of Israel is not worth one American dollar or one American life.

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Exerpts from THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY by Norman G. Finkelstein

Note: Also read additional material in the comments section including comments from Raul Hilberg corroborating Finkelstein's expose of the shakedown of Swiss banks over allegations of hiding money stolen from Jews by the Nazis. Hilberg is considered to be the founding father of holocaust studies by mainstream historians. Also Hilberg speaks in defense of Finklestein being threatened with termination of his academic post for his politically incorrect scholarship on Israel. No "conspiracy theories" here....
Excerpts from the book The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering by Norman G. Finkelstein (Verso, 2000, paper):

The US is the corporate headquarters of the Holocaust industry.
American Jewish elites did not shrink from sacrificing fellow Jews on the altar of anti-Communism. Offering their files on alleged Jewish subversives to government agencies, the AJC and the ADL actively collaborated -. in the McCarthy-era witch-hunt. The AJC endorsed the death penalty for the Rosenbergs, while its monthly publication, Commentary, editorialized that they weren't really Jews.
Fearful of association with the political Left abroad and at home, mainstream Jewish organizations opposed cooperation with anti-Nazi German social-democrats as well as boycotts of German manufactures and public demonstrations against ex-Nazis touring the United States. On the other hand, prominent visiting German dissidents like Protestant pastor Martin Niemöller, who had spent eight years in Nazi concentration camps and was now against the anti-Communist crusade, suffered the obloquy of American Jewish leaders. Anxious to boost their anti-Communist credentials, Jewish elites even enlisted in, and financially sustained, right-wing extremist organizations like the All-American Conference to Combat Communism and turned a blind j eye as veterans of the Nazi SS entered the country.
Then came the June [1967] war. Impressed by Israel's overwhelming display of force, the United States moved to incorporate it as a strategic asset. (Already before the June war the United States had cautiously tilted toward Israel as the Egyptian and Syrian regimes charted an increasingly independent course in the mid-1960s.) Military and economic assistance began to pour in as Israel turned into a proxy for US power in the Middle East.
For American Jewish elites, Israel's subordination to US power was a windfall. Zionism had sprung from the premise that assimilation was a pipe dream, that Jews would always be perceived as potentially disloyal aliens. To resolve this dilemma, Zionists sought to establish a homeland for the Jews. In fact, Israel's founding exacerbated the problem, at any rate for diaspora Jewry: it gave the charge of dual loyalty institutional expression. Paradoxically, after June 1967, Israel facilitated assimilation in the United States: Jews now stood on the front lines defending America - indeed, "Western civilization" against the retrograde Arab hordes. Whereas before 1967 Israel conjured the bogy of dual loyalty, it now connoted super-loyalty. After all, it was not Americans but Israelis fighting and dying to protect US interests. And unlike the American GIs in Vietnam, Israeli fighters were not being humiliated by Third World upstarts.
Accordingly, American Jewish elites suddenly discovered Israel. After the 1967 war, Israel's military élan could be celebrated because its guns pointed in the right direction - against America's enemies. Its martial prowess might even facilitate entry into the inner sanctums of American power. Previously Jewish elites could only offer a few lists of Jewish subversives; now, they could pose as the natural interlocutors for America's newest strategic asset. From bit players, they could advance to top billing in the Cold War drama. Thus for American Jewry, as well as the United States, Israel became a strategic asset.
Norman Podhoretz in his memoir 'Breaking Ranks' remembered that after June 1967 Israel became "the religion of the American Jews."
For Israel's new American Jewish "supporters," however, such talk bordered on heresy: an independent Israel at peace with its neighbors was worthless; an Israel aligned with currents in the Arab world seeking independence from the United States was a disaster. Only an Israeli Sparta beholden to American power would do, because only then could US Jewish leaders act as the spokesmen for American imperial ambitions.
It was not Israel's alleged weakness and isolation, not the fear of a "second Holocaust," but rather its proven strength and strategic alliance with the United States that led Jewish elites to gear up the Holocaust industry after June 1967. However unwittingly, Novick provides the best evidence to support that conclusion. To prove that power considerations, not the Nazi Final Solution, determined American policy toward Israel, he writes: "It was when the Holocaust was freshest in the mind of American leaders the first twenty-five years after the end of the war - that the United States was least supportive of Israel . . . . It was not when Israel was perceived as weak and vulnerable, but after it demonstrated its strength, in the Six Day War, that American aid to Israel changed from a trickle to a flood" (emphasis in original)." That argument applies with equal force to American Jewish elites.
... after World War II, Jews rose to preeminence in the United States. According to Lipset and Raab [Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab, Jews arid the New American Scene (Cambridge: 1995)], per capita Jewish income is almost double that of non-Jews; sixteen of the forty wealthiest Americans are Jews; 40 percent of American Nobel Prize winners in science and economics are Jewish, as are 20 percent of professors at major universities; and 40 percent partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington.
What an American Jewish child inherits, according to novelist Philip Roth, is "no body of law, no body of learning and no language, and finally, no Lord . . . but a kind of psychology: and the psychology can be translated in three words: 'Jews are better.'
Israeli journalist Danny Rubinstein
"According to most of the people in the Jewish establishment the important thing is to stress again and again the external dangers that face Israel . . . . The Jewish establishment in America needs Israel only as a victim of cruel Arab attack. For such an Israel one can get support, donors, money. .
As American Jews enjoyed greater secular success, they moved steadily to the right politically. Although still left-of-center on cultural questions such as sexual morality and abortion, Jews grew increasingly conservative on politics and the economy." Complementing the rightward turn was an inward turn, as Jews, no longer mindful of past allies among the have-nots, increasingly earmarked their resources for Jewish concerns only.
Holocaust awareness," the respected Israeli writer Boas Evron observes, is actually "an official, propagandistic indoctrination, a churning out of slogans and a false view of the world, the real aim of which is not at all an understanding of the past, but a manipulation of the present."
Cuban President Fidel Castro ... accused the capitalist system of regularly causing deaths on the scale of World War II by ignoring the needs of the poor.
"The images we see of mothers and children in whole regions of Africa under the lash of drought and other catastrophes remind us of the concentration camps of Nazi Germany."
"We lack a Nuremberg to judge the economic order imposed upon us, where every three years more men, women and children die of hunger and preventable diseases than died in the Second World War."
The reparations issue provides unique insight into the Holocaust Industry... aligning with the United States in the Cold War, Germany was quickly rehabilitated and the Nazi holocaust forgotten. Nonetheless, in the early 1950s Germany entered into negotiations with Jewish institutions and signed indemnification agreements. With little if any external pressure, it has paid out to date some $60 billion.
Compare first the American record. Some 4-5 million men, women and children died as a result of the US wars in Indochina. After the American withdrawal, a historian recalls, Vietnam desperately needed aid. "In the South, 9,000 out of 15,000 hamlets, 25 million acres of farmland, 12 million acres of forest were destroyed, and 1.5 million farm animals had been killed; there were an estimated 200,000 prostitutes, 879,000 orphans, 181,000 disabled people, and 1 million widows; all six of the industrial cities in the North had been badly damaged, as were provincial and district towns, and 4,000 out of 5,800 agricultural communes." Refusing, however, to pay any reparations, President Carter explained that "the destruction was mutual." Declaring that he saw no need for "any apologies, certainly, for the war itself," President Clinton's Defense Secretary, William Cohen, similarly opined: "Both nations were scarred by this. They have their scars from the war. We certainly have ours."'
Apart from Holocaust memorials, fully seventeen states mandate or recommend Holocaust programs in their schools, and many colleges and universities have endowed chairs in Holocaust studies. Hardly a week passes without a major Holocaust-related story in the New York Times. The number of scholarly studies devoted to the Nazi Final Solution is conservatively estimated at over 10,000. Consider by comparison scholarship on the hecatomb in the Congo. Between 1891 and 1911, some 10 million Africans perished in the course of Europe's exploitation of Congolese ivory and rubber resources. Yet, the first and only scholarly volume in English directly devoted to this topic was published two years ago.
Given the vast number of institutions and professionals dedicated to preserving its memory, The Holocaust is by now firmly entrenched American life.
It is much easier deplore the crime: of other: than to look at ourselves. It is also true, however, that were the will there we could learn much about ourselves from the Nazi experience. Manifest Destiny anticipated nearly all the ideological and programmatic elements of Hitler's Lebensraum policy. In fact, Hitler modeled his conquest of the East on the American conquest of the West. During the first half of this century, a majority of American states enacted sterilization laws and tens of thousands of Americans were involuntarily sterilized. The Nazis explicitly invoked this US precedent when they enacted their own sterilization laws.' The notorious 1935 Nuremberg Laws stripped Jews of the franchise and forbade miscegenation between Jews and non-Jews. Blacks in the American South suffered the same legal disabilities and were the object of much greater spontaneous and sanctioned popular violence than the Jews in prewar Germany.'
To highlight unfolding crimes abroad, the US often summons memories of The Holocaust. The more revealing point, however, is when the US invokes The Holocaust. Crimes of official enemies such as the Khmer Rouge bloodbath in Cambodia, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and Serbian ethnic cleansing in Kosovo recall The Holocaust; crimes in which the US is complicit do not.
Just as the Khmer Rouge atrocities were unfolding in Cambodia, the US-backed Indonesian government was slaughtering one-third of the population in East Timor. Yet unlike Cambodia, the East Timor genocide did not rate comparison with The Holocaust; it didn't even rate news coverage.' Just as the Soviet Union was committing what the Simon Wiesenthal Center called "another genocide" in Afghanistan, the US-backed regime in Guatemala was perpetrating what the Guatemalan Truth Commission recently called a "genocide" against the indigenous Mayan population. President Reagan dismissed the charges against the Guatemalan government as a "bum rap." To honor Jeane Kirkpatrick's achievement as chief Reagan Administration apologist for the unfolding crimes in Central America, the Simon Wiesenthal Center awarded her the Humanitarian of the Year Award." Simon Wiesenthal was privately beseeched before the award ceremony to reconsider. He refused. Elie Wiesel was privately asked to intercede with the Israeli government, a main weapons supplier for the Guatemalan butchers. He too refused. The Carter Administration invoked the memory of The
Holocaust as it sought haven for Vietnamese "boat people" fleeing the Communist regime. The Clinton Administration forgot The Holocaust as it forced back Haitian "boat people" fleeing US-supported death squads.
Holocaust memory loomed large as the US-led NATO bombing of Serbia commenced in the spring of 1999. As we have seen, Daniel Goidhagen compared Serbian crimes against Kosovo with the Final Solution and, at President Clinton's bidding, Elie Wiesel journeyed to Kosovar refugee camps in Macedonia and Albania. Already before Wiesel went to shed tears on cue for the Kosovars, however, the US-backed Indonesian regime had resumed where it left off in the late 1970s, perpetrating new massacres in East Timor. The Holocaust vanished from memory, however, as the Clinton Administration acquiesced in the bloodletting. "Indonesia matters," a Western diplomat explained, "and East Timor doesn't."
Novick points to passive US complicity in human disasters dissimilar in other respects yet comparable in scale to the Nazi extermination. Recalling, for example, the million children killed in the Final Solution, he observes that American presidents do little more than utter pieties as, worldwide, many times that number of children "die of malnutrition and preventable diseases" every year." One might also consider a pertinent case of active US complicity. After the United States-led coalition devastated Iraq in 1991 to punish "Saddam-Hitler," the United States and Britain forced murderous UN sanctions on that hapless country in an attempt to depose him. As in the Nazi holocaust, a million children have likely perished.'* Questioned on national television about the grisly death toll in Iraq, Secretary of State Madeleine Aibright replied that "the price is worth ) it."
In late August 2000 the World Jewish Congress (WJC) announced that it stood to amass fully $9 billion in Holocaust compensation monies. They were extracted in the name of "needy Holocaust victims" but the WJC now maintained that the monies belonged to the "Jewish people as a whole" (WJC executive director, Elan Steinberg). Conveniently, the WJC is the self-anointed representative of the "Jewish people as a whole." Meanwhile, a black-tie Holocaust reparations banquet sponsored by WJC president Edgar Bronfman at New York's Pierre Hotel celebrated the creation of a "Foundation of the Jewish People" to subsidize Jewish organizations and "Holocaust education." (One Jewish critic of the "Holocaust-themed dinner" conjured this scenario: "Mass murder. Horrible plunder. Slave labor. Let's eat.") The Foundation's endowment would come from "residual" Holocaust compensation monies amounting to "probably billions of dollars" (Steinberg). How the WJC already knew that "probably billions" would be left over when none of the compensation monies had yet been distributed to Holocaust victims was anyone's guess. Indeed, it was not yet even known how many would qualify. Or, did the Holocaust industry extract compensation monies in the name of "needy Holocaust victims" knowing all along that "probably billions" would be left over? The Holocaust industry bitterly complained that the German and Swiss settlements allotted only meager sums for survivors. It is unclear why the "probably billions" couldn't be used to supplement these allocations.
Predictably, Holocaust survivors reacted with rage. (None was present at the Foundation's creation.) "Who authorized these organizations to decide," a survivor newsletter angrily editorialized, "that the 'leftovers' (in the billions), obtained in the name of Shoah victims, should be used for their pet projects instead of helping ALL holocaust survivors with their mounting health-care expenses?" Confronted with this barrage of negative publicity, the WJC did an abrupt about-face. The $9 billion figure was "a bit misleading," Steinberg subsequently protested. He also claimed that the Foundation had "no cash and no plan for allocating funds," and that the purpose of the Holocaust banquet was not to celebrate the Foundation's endowment from Holocaust compensation monies but rather to raise funds for it. Elderly Jewish survivors, not consulted in advance of, let alone invited to, the "star-studded gala" at the Pierre Hotel, picketed outside.
Among those honored inside the Pierre was President Clinton, who movingly recalled that the United States stood in the forefront of "facing up to an ugly past": "I have been to Native American reservations and acknowledged that the treaties we signed were neither fair nor honorably kept in many cases. I went to Africa ... and acknowledged the responsibility of the United States in buying people into slavery. This is a hard business, struggling to find our core of humanity." Notably absent in all these instances of "hard business" were reparations in hard currency.
... the pretexts invoked by the Holocaust industry to force a non-recoupable settlement on the Swiss banks were false, and that few actual survivors of the Nazi holocaust will directly - or, for that matter, indirectly benefit from the Swiss monies. A comparable analysis of other Holocaust industry settlements would presumably yield comparable results. Indeed, buried in the details of the Gribetz Plan is a nest egg for the Holocaust industry. Most of the Swiss monies probably won! be distributed until after all but a handful of survivors are dead. With the survivors gone, the monies will pour into the coffers of Jewish organizations. Small wonder that the Holocaust industry was unanimous in its praise of the Gribetz Plan.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

What to Expect on the Home Front during Cold War II

As things heat up with Russia, with proxy conflicts intensifying in Georgia, Ukraine, Bolivia, and Venezuela, expect there to be Cold War style clandestine and covert subversion within the USA using front organizations and collaborators. A recent bulletin from Stratfor included the following observations:
Another consideration is that ideological change in Russia could mean Moscow
will reach out to radical groups that the KGB traditionally did not deal with.
While many KGB officers didn’t completely buy in to communist ideology, the
Communist credo did serve as both a point of attraction and a limiting factor in
terms of whom the Soviets dealt with. Since the Russian state is no longer bound
by Soviet ideology — it is really all about power and profit these days — that
constraint is gone. The Russians are now free to deal with a lot of people and
do a lot of things they could not do in Soviet times.
For example, former Ku
Klux Klan leader David Duke is very popular in Moscow and very well-connected
there, as are a number of other American white nationalists. There are also
close contacts between various neo-Nazi, skinhead and nationalist groups in
Europe and their Russian counterparts. These contacts could be a very easy way
for the Russians to make contact with and support radical elements of the
far-right in places like the United States, Ukraine, the Baltic states and

During Cold War I, left wing groups were the most common collaborators with the USSR for obvious ideological reasons, and were reasonably the most frequently targeted by FBI for investigation and infiltration. If Communists were embedded in Right Wing groups it was as infiltrators or agents provocateur. Right Wing groups, even Racial Nationalist groups, were generally immune from suspicion at least as far as being Communist collaborators.

This is no longer true. Duke's documented activities in Russia along with Russia's new found freedom from Communist ideological restraints will provide a pretext for increased Federal monitoring, surveillance, and/or targeting of overtly anti-communist right wing Racial/Nationalist groups within the USA. Especially as the situation heats up... and the situation is going to heat up.

Now is the time to be very aware of where your publicly professed loyalties fall, and to be aware of where your name and address turn up on the membership rosters and subscription lists of various organizations and publications.

This is today's public service announcement.



Saturday, September 13, 2008

Rap Contest Translated Into English

Vietnam Special Operations

The Navy Seals and the Green Berets played critical roles during the lengthy Vietnam War. However, these Special Forces were not always allowed to fully coordinate their activities with the regular air, ground, and navy forces. As America's Central Intelligence Agency's interactions with the Special Forces are closely examined during this program, it becomes apparent that the agency failed to handle a number of operations effectively. Fortunately, the belated success of the "Phoenix" program proved that the CIA could design critical missions in Southeast Asia. Narrated by actor Charlton Heston, this program features footage of the Special Forces in action, and interviews with such noted individuals as Paul Beaver, Bui Tin, Dale Andrade, Phan Van Nhanh, Robert Marasco, and Nguyen Ngoc Hung.

Monday, September 8, 2008

Video of the Month!

The Great Gazoo busts out some hate on Fred and Barny...

Saturday, September 6, 2008

American Mercenaries: The Story of Mitch WerBell

This is the incredible true story of Mitch WerBell, the Wizard of Whispering Death, covert operations specialist, unconventional weapons expert and founder of SIONICS, a paramilitary training school in northern Georgia. For a price, anyone could learn to kill, or in some cases, kill more effectively. American Mercenaries documents an important chapter in history that will never be found in any book.

Thursday, September 4, 2008


For amusment I watched the GOP Convention speeches online last night and tonight. I looked up the main DNC speeches on youtube, just for comparison.

I'm not going to address the specific political points of any of these speeches because I don't put any weight on what politicians say on the campaign trail; they are all full of shit. Basically you can tell a politician is lying by the fact that their lips are moving, but I'm always interested in observing how people comport themselves, and to some degree it does reflect who they really are.

Most of these are readily found on youtube.

a. Democrats (DNC):

1. Barack Obama's convention speech basically confirmed my opinion of him; that he is a smooth talker but not much else. I do not particularly share the glowing opinions, even of his enemies, even of Pat Buchanan, that this was a monumental speech. It was basically what I expected, especially on the MLK speech anniversary; him contentiously saying exactly what he was expected to say. Nothing much to see here.

2. Michelle Obama's convention speech was the big surprise for me. I had never seen her speak or interviewed before, and I have to say I thought her speech was definately the best of the Democrats and among the best of both party speeches so far. I was actually impressed.

3. Al Gore. Seriously, why does anyone take this douchebag seriously? Someone should pull the plug on this babbling retard. Without a doubt among the most boring speeches, even more boring than the Amish Pretzel lady's speech at the GOP convention.

4. Joe Biden's speech was entirely unimpressive. I almost got the feeling it was someone else's speech, which based on his history it probably is. What little personality that came through was dislikeable.

5. Bill Clinton's speech was basically like every other Bill Clinton speech in the history of Bill Clinton speeches; kind of like seeing that same tired rerun of Gilligan's Island where you know every line and every plot twist because you've already seen it 100 times and never liked it in the first place.

6. Hillary Clinton did not refute her consistently strident shrewish rat bag persona, and maintained the smug bitterness one would expect after having lost the nomination to a big zero such as Obama. Amusingly enough she opened with a list of things she was proud of being; Proud mom, proud senator, etc. only conspicuously absent was "Proud Wife of Bill Clinton" which made me laugh out loud.

b. Republicans (GOP):

1. Fred Thompson gave possibly the best speech of the GOP convention, and definitely better than Obama in my opinion. I would have actually liked to see him wind up in front slot with Palin as his running mate, but it was obvious from his half-hearted campaign that he really did not want the nomination.

2. Mitt Romney. What a fucking creep. No wonder he lost. I'm amazed anyone took him seriously in the first place. He is a plastic hair Mormon cult pod person for sure. This was the first time I've ever watched him speak and I have to say, as a person who routinely watches as much disturbing shit as I can get my hands on, that Mitt Romney creeps me the fuck out. Someone please keep this person in Utah or wherever the fuck it is these people come from.

3. Mike Huckabee. Again, this was the first time I've ever seen him speak - I don't watch television, most of my info comes from text sources so I miss a lot of how these people actually comport themselves. I have to say I liked this guy, he was genuinely personable and witty. Not a great speech, but a good speech with lots of humor, and I ended up thinking this is someone I would probably like if I met him in person.

4. Rudy Guliani. Again I've never really watched a speech by him although I have seen him interviewed many times since his mob-busting days as NYC prosecutor. His sense of humor was surprising as well as the degree to which he went for the throat in attacking Obama. He really, and accurately, whittled Obama down to a useless sliver of shit. Good speech.

5. Sarah Palin. I'm really not surprised but she gave an excellent speech. Tie for best speech of all of the above would be between Palin and Thompson with Michelle Obama coming in third. Palin's character, confidence, and intelligence is 100% clear. She also gives the impression that she will not only feed off of negative media coverage but will come back swinging harder. Even if I'm not 100% with all of her political positions or religion, she is definitely the strongest personality presence in this race – at least as far as I'm impressed by any of them.

It will be interesting to see McCain's speech because again, I've never watched him speak.

None of these people are really representing MY interests to any remarkable degree, although I am strongly biased against the Democrats. I'm not strongly pro-Republican, they have too much shit going on that makes me want to puke, but I hope they FUCKING TROUNCE the Democrats this time around because words cannot really express how much I hate their lame hippy feel-good bullshit and fundamentally resent the air they breathe, on a molecular level.


Wednesday, September 3, 2008

How the Head Zionist hurt and the Kriegsmarine helped Jews

Weizmann prevents Salvation
from Freispruch für Deutschland by Heinrich Härtle (1965)
translated by Hadding Scott (2008)

While leading circles of German Jewry wanted to use this chance, the President of the World Jewish Congress, Chaim Weizmann, sitting in London, strongly opposed any Jewish emigration from Germany that did not have Palestine as its destination. The Jewish writer J.G. Burg reports in his book Schuld und Schicksal (Guilt and Destiny), uncontradicted and unrefuted since its publication (in 1962) three years ago, the following: the longtime advisor of the English General Allenby, Colonel Meinertzhagen, an expert on Palestine, was in Berlin in 1934 with Hitler trying to obtain facilitations for Jewish emigration. Hitler declared his agreement that Jews should be able to emigrate with 1000 English pounds or goods worth 20,000 reichsmarks. When however Meinertzhagen informed Chaim Weizmann of this opportunity, Weizmann made impossible counterdemands: they should be able to take along all Jewish wealth. The Englishman traveled again to Berlin for a further discussion with Hitler, Ribbentrop, and Hess. Ribbentrop assured him that the Reich Government was ready to agree with every reasonable proposal for Jewish emigration, but could not negotiate with Weizmann or other Jews. He suggested that some government should function as a trustee for the Jews.
When Meinertzhagen reported this to Weizmann, the Zionist leader flew into a rage and responded:

"It would bother me little if cholera or Bolshevism came over Germany. As far as I am concerned both plagues can come over the Germans.... I would sooner see the demise of the German Jews than the demise of the State of Israel for the Jews."

Burg deduces from this that Weizmann only wanted to realize his Zionist concept, without regard for the fate of the German Jews.

How strong the will of the Reich Government was even at the end of 1938, after the disastrous Kristallnacht, to actualize not the extermination but the emigration of the Jews, is proven by the dispatch of an international authority such as the Reichsbank president Dr. Schacht to London. Schacht had presented to Hitler the proposal to start an international board of trustees for control of the seized Jewish assets, into which Jews should be accepted. As security for this capital an international loan in U.S. currency should be issued, equivalent to 1.5 billion marks. From this pool every Jewish emigrant would receive an amount which would make it possible to build a new life outside of Germany.

Hitler approved the plan and authorized Dr. Schacht to begin negotiations in London. Reichsbank President Dr. Schacht informed the Governor of the Bank of England, [Montagu] Norman, and the American, [George] Rublee, from the Evian Committee*. Both agreed with the plan. The Reichsbank President however ran into the decisive rejection of his proposal by Chaim Weizmann. Burg comments:

"With that, one of the greatest chances for the salvation of German Jewry was squandered, mainly because Chaim Weizmann did not approve."

The German Government did not allow itself to become discouraged through these failures and the negative reports from Evian. On 31 January 1939 Goering wrote to Ribbentrop that Jewish emigration from Germany should be encouraged with all means, and a Reich Center for Jewish Emigration should be created. The Foreign Office inquired in all diplomatic agencies abroad about what possibilities for immigration existed in each country. The wealth should be transferred through German government bonds.

Madam Professor Arendt confirms that even in the first years of the war "the Hitler Government was still willing to let Jews go." Only two years later, she says, in Fall 1941, was emigration forbidden.

If it was not possible to have the majority of the remaining Jews emigrate before the broadening of the European War into the Second World War, the primary blame goes, after Chaim Weizmann, to the English Government. In March 1939 that government had decided that only another 75,000 more Jews total would be allowed to immigrate to Palestine for the next five years.

Even [David] Ben-Gurion himself could not ignore this fateful decision. In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot in April 1961, while the Eichmann Trial was still going on, he confirms that a heavy share of the guilt lies on the West**, since France, Great Britain, and the USA neglected to save Jews from annihilation. This applies especially to Britain, he said, since the governments of Chamberlain, Eden, and Churchill had been able to save Jews who were trying to escape to Palestine. (Palestine was at that time under the British Mandate administration, which however blocked immigration for Jewish refugees.)

Why were these harsh but humanly justifiable attempts to solve the Jewish Question through emigration suppressed at Nuremberg? And why, at least in the sentencing, were they calmly ignored? The harshness of those measures could not justify it: for these accusing and judging Powers at the same time not only tolerated but even demanded the expulsion, forced with the greatest brutality, of millions of Ostdeutscher.***

The efforts toward Jewish emigration, conducted without regard to the disadvantages for the national economy and monetary policy by a financial expert of the rank of Dr. Schacht, prove that in the pre-war period and in the first years of the war nobody seriously thought about the physical annihilation of German Jewry, or indeed of European Jewry. For the living witnesses of this evolving situation, the emigrations, which everybody could observe, were the incontrovertible confirmation that no murderous solution of the Jewish Question had been intended.

This is proven even more strongly however by the fact that the Reich Government with these emigration projects had taken upon itself an extremely dangerous political and public relations burden. For, every Jew who emigrated involuntarily, especially the strong of character among them, must become, from this moment on, an irreconcilable enemy of the Germans. With every Jew who emigrated, an enemy of the Reich entered those countries which prepared themselves more and more obviously for a clash of arms against the German superpower. If ever there was a fifth column**** against Germany, every Jewish emigrant surely strengthened it.

If one took such a risk upon oneself, it was proven that one wished to have Germany Jew-free at any price, but in no way was it proven that one had run wild with some crazy plan of extermination.

In a recently (1965) published historical inquiry by Juergen Rohwer over the sinking of the Jewish refugee-ships Struma and Mefkure in the Black Sea, it is proven that both Jew-ships had not been sunk by the German Navy as has been claimed until now.****

"After as before, Jews were able to leave the country from the Black Sea ports. Even more: the Supreme Commander of the Kriegsmarine, Grand Admiral Doenitz, even gave orders not to hinder the Jew-transports Bella Citta, Maritza, and Milka departing from Costanza (Romania) in March and April 1944, but to treat them as normal ships."******

The German Naval leadership instructed German U-boats to tow those three ships past the mine barrages.
The Struma and the Mefkure on the other hand were sunk by Soviet warships.

* The Evian Conference was an international conference convened 6-13 July 1938 in Evian, France to consider the question of how to deal with involuntary emigrants. The Evian Committee was set up at this conference. George Rublee, an important U.S. banker, was a member of the committee.

** The author Härtle does not directly challenge the assumption that Jews were exterminated; rather he argues that it resulted because other efforts to solve the Jewish Problem were blocked. Therefore he argues for spreading the blame, and he conveniently finds Israeli Prime Minister Ben-Gurion making that same argument quite logically. It has been in the Jewish interest to spread Holocaust-guilt because this guilt becomes a source of power for Jews, which they use to the detriment of the rest of the world. The Allies' endorsement of the Jewish attribution of guilt to the Germans has had adverse effects on many countries other than Germany, not least among them, the UK and the USA, which have tended to support the State of Israel and its causes rather mindlessly. Some of the other guilt-driven follies, like anti-racism, have been even more destructive. It is the fundamental premise of German guilt that has to be rejected. Härtle goes as far in that direction as the evidence available in 1965 allowed; he points out the extreme bias of the IMT version of history in many respects, and alludes toward the end of this section that there might be something wrong with the claim of Jewish extermination per se.

*** Ostdeutscher here means Germans who had lived in the parts of Germany that were given to Poland and Czechoslovakia in 1945. Germans from communities that had existed for centuries all over eastern Europe were forced to flee into what was left of Germany. What was called East Germany in the postwar period used to be the center of Germany.

**** Strange use of the term fifth column.
Fifth column usually means a sympathetic faction among one's enemies, but here it means a corrupting faction among people who should be friends. What both uses of the term denote is a minority faction with an interest in a conflict that runs counter to the interest of the society in which they live.

***** The Struma had actually reached Turkey, towed into port with a failed engine. But after nine weeks of negotiations with Britain about where the passengers should go and how they would get there, the Turks towed the ship and its passengers back out to sea and left them. Although registered in neutral Panama the Struma was sunk by the Soviet submarine SC 213 on 24 February 1942, killing 768 people, with only one survivor. The Turkish ship Mefkure was sunk by the Soviet submarine SC 215 on 5 August 1944, killing 345 people.

****** At this point, using the argument that Härtle has applied repeatedly hitherto, which is the logical incompatibility of Jewish emigration and a plan of extermination, we now get a hint that very late in the war, as late as April 1944, there still was no plan of extermination. Otherwise the German Government would not still have been facilitating the departure of Jews from Europe at that time.