Bret Stephens, a deputy editorial page editor and the foreign affairs columnist for The Wall Street Journal, wrote an article entitled Born on the Fourth of June, which appeared in the July/August issue of Commentary. For those unfamiliar with the article, here is a link to it on the Commentary website. This blog entry began as a letter to the editor of Commentary, but is now of unpublishable length. Thus, I am publishing the letter here (with minor additions, due to the extra possibilities afforded by online publishing).
To the Editor:
Bret Stephens’s article, Born on the Fourth of June, which appeared in the July/August issue of Commentary, suffers from huge inaccuracies in the service of a polemic that simultaneously inflates and trivializes June 4.
First of all, Solidarity was a trade union, albeit Catholic rather than atheistic. The Polish Communist leadership was disenchanted with the brutality of the Soviet model of socialism, rather than with socialism itself, and was thus reluctant to engage in the degree of repression desired by Moscow, in addition to fearing a mass uprising. It imposed martial law on the condition that Soviet forces would not participate. Poles have always identified with Western Europe and have traditionally considered Russia to be a Tatar-dominated backwater, while admiring France, the land of the Jacobins, on whom Lenin modeled the Bolsheviks. According to The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, the standard history of the KGB’s foreign-intelligence operations, once Mikhail Gorbachev removed the prospect of Soviet military assistance to threatened satellite regimes, hoping they would be replaced with more cosmetically appealing Communist governments that would provide the Soviet Union with a makeover (which the KGB defector, Major Anatoliy Golitsyn, predicted in New Lies for Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation, and which he later emphasized in The Perestroika Deception: Memoranda to the Central Intelligence Agency was not of Gorbachev’s own invention, but was rather part of a decades-old long-range policy, which involved temporarily liberalizing the East while communizing the West, ultimately leading the two to converge on Soviet terms), with General Wojciech Jaruzelski refusing to re-implement martial law in Poland, instead entering negotiations with the still-”illegal” Solidarity, it was only a matter of time before the Soviet Bloc collapsed. And so it was that Poland switched from Bolshevism to Menshevism. Is this what American “capitalists” and “conservatives” consider a moral and/or strategic victory? The Soviet Bloc collapsed due to the failure of the Soviet strategists to perceive the fragility of their system, yet the special services live on, and Europe (as well as the West in general) today is dominated by an ideology of Marxist revisionism (so that EU leaders speak of “racism and xenophobia“, including “anti-Semitism“, as well as of “homophobia“, “Islamophobia“, and their desire for “political union“, pathologizing normality and normalizing pathology, rather than speaking of the supposed need for “the vanguard of the working class” to overthrow capitalism and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat) and militarily impotent, moving towards ridding herself of nuclear weapons, just as the CPSU would have wanted, and just as the Russian special services still want. The Polish Military Intelligence Services (WSI) exercised tremendous influence over all aspects of Polish national life in the post-Soviet era, and were liquidated in 2006 due to their high degree of penetration by the KGB and GRU, as shown in the Macierewicz Report. Despite the brave efforts of some Poles, especially the League of Polish Families, Poles have submitted themselves to the destruction of their nation at the hands of the Marxist Brussels mafia (especially popular with the Eurocrats are Cultural Marxists such as Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School, whose attempts to weaken Western civilization to the point where it could be Communized opened a Pandora’s Pithos of social and economic pathologies), convinced that the KGB-like Europol (which is immune from prosecution, unlike the KGB), the Gosplan-like economic system of the EU, and the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership that promises to fully Islamize Europe (see here, here, here, and here) are not cause for concern, protesting only when something offensive to their religious sensibilities is thrust upon them (e.g., EU homosexual propaganda in Polish schools), as though the simultaneous appearance of the various factors were an accident. Poles’ vision of America as their great defender against Russian Communism (as exemplified by their hope that the Obama Administration would keep the promise of the Bush Administration to place a missile shield in Poland) is a relic, when in reality Obama and the American foreign-policy establishment are friends of Communism, and would like to see it reinstated in Russia, even having supported the Presidential candidate of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Gennady Zyuganov, over Vladimir Putin for the Russian Presidency. Zyuganov praised Obama during Obama’s 2009 visit to Russia, especially his “anti-crisis program”, saying that it was “socially oriented and primarily aimed at supporting poor people and enhancing the state’s role”, expressing his satisfaction with Obama’s plan to backtrack on American plans to expand NATO into Eastern Europe, and with Obama’s advocacy of lifting the American embargo on Cuba. Zyuganov has since stated during an interview with Russia Today: “Let’s face it. The liberal-speculative model that the United States has forced upon the world after the War… the financial and economic model, it has failed, hitting Wall Street and centuries-old banks. You can’t plug that hole with more money. Obama has failed to do it, and so has Europe. It was flourishing only yesterday, and they cannot even bail out Greece, and they have crises in Portugal and possibly Spain and Italy coming up. This means they need a different approach. Government needs to play a bigger role, social policies need to be smarter. Regulation in various areas, including the finance market, needs to improve. Bankers object to that naturally. Obama is trying to deal with them, but he can’t. Europe can’t do anything either. Speculating and blowing financial bubbles is not only dangerous, capitalism has had twelve crises over its 150-year history. The last two global crises resulted in World Wars. It is still unclear how the current crisis will end, with the second wave coming up, already sweeping across the US.” He went on to say that the Occupy movement “looks like a new stage of class struggle. In order for a revolution to happen, the lower classes need to be no longer willing to live as before, and the upper classes need to be no longer able to control the situation. You also need a social force - a strong, smart, well-organized Party capable of carrying it out. We are not quite at that point yet, but we have to keep in mind that both the East and the West do not have much time left. Every fourth person on earth today is suffering from the [sic] shortage of bread and water. They will not remain patient for long. Food riots have recently occurred in forty countries over [sic] the world.” Gorbachev shares the American establishment’s distaste for Putin (who is a neo-Eurasianist gangster with a vendetta against the United States), as well as sharing Zyuganov’s at-least-former admiration for Obama.
With respect to the Tiananmen protest, a family friend from Beijing told us that when he tried to protest at Tiananmen, he was denied entry because he lacked Party ID. He said the leaders of the protest were, at least for the most part, children of high-ranking Party leaders. This fits precisely with Major Golitsyn’s analysis in The Perestroika Deception, which was that the protest was a provocation that got out of control, and that the uncontrolled elements were quickly crushed. Is it an accident that the leaders of this great “dissident movement” who came from rich, Communist backgrounds escaped punishment? I asked a Chinese woman who was in Beijing during the Tiananmen protest what she thought about the whole incident, and she said it was a bunch of rich kids causing traffic congestion. When the army was finally sent in to clear the square, the democracy protesters — acting in the spirit of today’s Occupy protesters (for whom Gorbachev, a Greenie and an Obamite, has expressed his support) — started throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails, burning innocent bystanders and soldiers to death in their vehicles. Of course, all we Westerners are ever told is that the soldiers opened fire, not that they were provoked into opening fire. Major Golitsyn mentioned the possibility that the Chinese Communists were deliberately sending the signal to Gorbachev, whose arrival in Beijing coincided with the staging of the demonstrations, that they were unwilling or unable to proceed with a staged democratization, as was being attempted in the Soviet Bloc. Gorbachev expressed his sympathy with the Chinese Communist authorities in a document copied illicitly from the Kremlin archives by the Russian dissident Pavel Stroilov, although of course Gorbachev is portrayed in the West as having been a liberal reformer, as are the leaders of the Tiananmen protest.
Stephens claims: “And, as with any lie, it is undone the moment one person—whether that’s Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn or Natan Sharansky or Václav Havel or Liu Xiaobo or Ayaan Hirsi Ali—stands up and says: It is not so.” Neither Alexander Solzhenitsyn nor Natan Sharansky destroyed the Soviet Union.
Solzhenitsyn could not be persuaded to praise Communism, but the Russian government (with the KGB — divided into several agencies, chief among which were the FSK, now FSB, supposedly responsible for domestic counterintelligence, and the SVR, which is simply the renamed First Chief Directorate — lurking in the shadows) was able to earn his enduring support by espousing the present Stalinist form of Russian pseudo-Orthodoxy peddled by the Moscow Patriarchate, in which collaboration with the Russian special services is a prerequisite for promotion to positions of power. I have attended Bible Study run by a disciple of Solzhenitsyn’s confessor prior to Solzhenitsyn’s expulsion from the USSR, the late Fr. Alexander Myen (who was murdered with an ax, apparently by the Soviet special services), and this disciple of Fr. Myen told me that “America is the only country in the civilized world that does not take care of its poor”, that “Home ownership is a right”, and that “America needs Obama because America needs socialism.” Within this context, it bears mentioning that Fr. Myen, although anti-Chekist, was theologically liberal to the point of being accused of heresy by traditional Russian Orthodox Christians. Solzhenitsyn was also supportive of the present Russian state ideology of Neo-Eurasianism – a smorgasbord of Traditionalism (especially the ideas of Julius Evola), and the ideologies of the interwar German Conservative Revolutionaries and geopoliticians, the Classical Eurasianists (Classical Eurasianism having been founded by the White emigre, Prince Nikolai Sergeyevich Trubetskoy, as an anti-Western European reaction to the Conservative Revolutionary ideas of Oswald Spengler), and the contemporary European New Right –, which is promoted by the Russian special services, involving, as usual, Russians ruling over their neighbors, attacking the United States through Central and South America, freeing them from American influence, and ultimately destroying the United States, where Solzhenitsyn had sought refuge during Soviet times. According to The Sword and the Shield, when the Soviet authorities became concerned about Solzhenitsyn’s potential influence within the USSR after he won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1970, Leonid Brezhnev’s interior minister, Nikolai Shchelokov, saw the potential for such a reconciliation in the autumn of 1971, when he wrote: “One of the higher-ups needs to sit down and talk with him, to remove the bitter taste that persecution has, no doubt, left in his mouth.” According to The Sword and the Shield, Brezhnev underlined — apparently approvingly — some additional comments Shchelokov made concerning Solzhenitsyn and his fellow dissidents in a memorandum: “In resolving the Solzhenitsyn question we must analyze past mistakes made in dealing with people in the arts… The ‘Solzhenitsyn Problem’ was created by literary administrators who should have known better… In this case what needs to be done is not to execute our enemies publicly but smother them with embraces.” Apparently, the KGB was clever enough to employ such a strategy; it clearly worked.
As for Natan Sharansky, he is a liberal Zionist who thinks the cure for everything is more “democracy”. It is remarkable that, after his public and failed prediction that democratizing the Palestinian territories would lead to peace between Israel and the Palestinians, anyone still takes him seriously. For readers who would like to be exposed to the work of real Russian dissidents, I recommend they read EUSSR: The Soviet Roots of European Integration, by Vladimir Bukovsky — who was imprisoned and tortured in the Soviet Union for his conservative political beliefs — and Pavel Stroilov, as well as this recent interview with Bukovsky, this article about a blacklisted former KGB officer, Victor Kalashnikov, and this recent two-part interview (Part I, Part II) with the famous GRU defector to Britain, Viktor Suvorov. I also recommend watching a 2003 documentary, The Hero of Our Time, directed by Andrei Nekrasov, which is devoted to the story of a former KGB/MBR/FSK/FSB investigator, Mikhail Trepashkin, who became an attorney and represented victims of the Nord-Ost Siege and the Russian Apartment Bombings, both of which appear to have been FSB provocations. Readers of Commentary may also be interested in the works of dissident poets such as Nikolai Gumilev and Osip Mandelstam, who were murdered by the Communists.
As revealed in Robert Buchar’s 2010 book, And Reality Be Damned… Undoing America: What media didn’t tell you about the end of the Cold War and the fall of communism in Europe, Vaclav Havel was an agent of the Communist secret police, in particular the Czechoslovak StB, as were nearly all the leaders of the so-called “Velvet Revolution”. The only notable exception was Petr Cibulka, who denounced the purported “revolution” as a fraud aimed at placing state assets in the hands of politically reliable people (as happened in Russia with the oligarchs), and was subsequently persecuted by Havel and his “former”-Communist allies for publishing online the names of the members of the StB and its collaborators. Havel was, in the words of former StB agent Ludvik Zifcak, “a one-of-a-kind prisoner”: He was allowed to receive gifts and he received preferential treatment. Petr Cibulka has explained that Havel was brought up on charges as a “dissident”, imprisoned, and subsequently elected President with the understanding that he would remain loyal to the secret police, which he did. The case of Vladimir Hucin (see here, here, here, here, and here) revealed Havel’s continued loyalty to his old bosses in the “post-Communist” Czech Republic. Lieutenant General Ion Mihai Pacepa, chief of the Romanian foreign intelligence service (DIE) under Nicolae Ceausescu and the highest-ranking intelligence defector from the Soviet Bloc, stated in the Frontpage Magazine symposium From Russia with Death: “[W]e should admit that Putin is a dictator brought to power by a KGB putsch. Every Soviet bloc intelligence service had a ‘survival plan’ in case Communism would collapse. Romania’s, which I wrote out by hand (typewriters were considered insecure), was christened with the pedestrian name ‘Plan M’ and stated that a couple of hundred undercover Securitate officers (named in an attachment) should take over the government. Their task was to abolish the Communist Party, remove ‘Socialist Republic’ from the name of the country, restore the old Romanian national flag, re-baptize the Securitate with a Western-sounding name, simulate privatization by secretly transferring state enterprises into their own hands, and introduce Romania to the world as a democratic country. The plan of East Germany’s Stasi was called OibE (Offiziere im besonderen Einsatz, ‘officers on special assignment’), and was registered as Top Secret Document 0008-6/86 of March 17, 1986. Plan OibE, published on June 27, 1990 by the German newspaper Der Morgen under the title ‘The Most Secret of the Secret,’ was identical to my Plan M but provided for a much larger number of intelligence officers (2,587) assigned to take over the government. The speed of Eastern Europe’s collapse did not allow for plans M and OibE to become operational, although quite a few politicians who rose to prominence in those countries after Communism collapsed had been secretly affiliated with the Securitate and the Stasi in the past. Russia’s ‘democratization’ looks like an operation staged by my Plan M.” General Pacepa’s subsequent analysis of Putin’s rise to power is worth reading.
With respect to Liu Xiaobo, he won the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize, which signified him as the heir to Leftist political figures including, but not limited to, MLK (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), Henry Kissinger/Le Duc Tho, Barack Obama (see here and here), Andrei Sakharov, and Desmond Tutu (as well as Gunnar Myrdal, who won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974) and the Soviet-backed terrorists Yasser Arafat and Nelson Mandela (see here and here). Liu Xiaobo, an advocate of transforming China into a multiparty democracy, was President (2003-2007) of the deceptively named Independent Chinese PEN Center, which is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, which, in turn, is funded — lock, stock, and barrel — by the US Congress. Thus, it is no accident that Liu Xiaobo was arrested on suspicion of, charged with, and convicted of “inciting subversion of state power” when he co-authored and signed the Charter 08, since he had historically acted as an agent of a foreign power. Liu Xiaobo is currently incarcerated as a political prisoner in China, which — last time I checked — was still run by the Communists, despite Stephens’s claims.
As for Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Her proposed cure for what ails Holland, during her career as a Dutch MP, was more of the compulsory, atheistic, government-school brainwashing that got Holland (and the West in general) into this mess, and she claims the West should embark on a feminist holy war in the Islamic world, using the successful holy war against apartheid — which is leading, predictably enough, to the virtually unpublicized genocide of white South Africans at the hands of the liberated black majority — as a model. In a January 2012 interview with Newsweek Magazine, Hirsi Ali said of Geert Wilders, the most prominent anti-Islamic politician in Europe: “His weakness is that he plays the renegade, he still wants to position himself as being outside the establishment. [...] Once upon a time it was necessary for him to distinguish himself by saying, ‘I take a stand, and I am a man of clarity.’ [...] He has to move to the middle. [...] He has to distinguish between violent Islamists and nonviolent Muslims. You know, there are so many shades of Muslims right now, and he could use some of them as his allies.” Hirsi Ali criticized Wilders again in May 2012, this time on the WNL program Eva Jinek on Sunday: “Wilders has a good sense of what is going on. But he works in a populist manner that cannot be translated into policy.” In fact, it is Wilders’s willingness to risk his life to voice the legitimate concerns of ordinary, indigenous Dutch people that has led to his success as a politician, while Hirsi Ali’s political career ended when she was forced to resign from the Dutch Parliament after it became public knowledge that she had lied on her asylum application. Hirsi Ali also stated in an address to the AJC Westchester that “Western societies need not fear Islam” and that “The West is more powerful that [sic] the fanatics.” In a 2006 interview with the Jerusalem Post, Hirsi Ali also claimed to believe ultra-Orthodox Jewish “fanatics” would cause a “demographic problem” in Israel, although she did not comment on the high birthrate and increasing jihadism of Israeli Moslems. Has Hirsi Ali’s claim that Islam is a religion of backwardness founded on lies stopped jihadists from pursuing their goals? Are writers and politicians such as Lawrence Auster, Ann Barnhardt, Andrew Bostom, Steven Emerson, Hugh Fitzgerald, Fjordman, Thomas Fleming, Oskar Freysinger, Mark Gabriel, Julia Gorin, Nick Griffin, Raymond Ibrahim, Alexander Ignatenko, James George Jatras, Stella Jatras, Soeren Kern, Andrew C. McCarthy, Ilana Mercer, Konstantin Preobrazhensky, Walid Shoebat, Robert Spencer, Paul Sperry, René Stadtkewitz, Mark Steyn, Heinz-Christian Strache, Wafa Sultan, Srdja Trifkovic, Ibn Warraq, Paul Weston, Geert Wilders, and Bat Ye’or fabricating their evidence for the advance of the global jihad and the intrinsic despotism and expansionism of Islam?
“The Mexicans of San Antonio, San Diego, and Santa Fe” are bad examples of “history’s losers” not being “given a second bite at the apple”. By choosing them, Stephens — who was born to a Mexican-born father of American-Jewish parentage in Mexico City, and who thus probably carries Mexican citizenship, which is awarded on a jus soli basis — suggests he is sympathetic or indifferent to the goals of the present reconquista. Of course, Stephens’s employer, The Wall Street Journal, is generally supportive of mass Third World immigration, dismissing all opposition as “nativist“, and going so far as to print propaganda from the National Council of La Raza. Does Commentary share this position?
If Stephens thinks hanging Saddam was such a great idea, he should at least have the decency to be consistent by supporting Iran, whose rise was the inevitable consequence of the de-Sunnification of Iraq, of which his vaunted Saddam hanging was emblematic. Stephens clearly has an ax to grind against the Ba’athists, perhaps because of their National Socialist roots. Based on Born on the Fourth of June (and on Stephens’s recent demonization of Bashar al-Assad in The Wall Street Journal, entitled Remember Bashar Assad, ‘Reformer’? The dictator’s American apologists owe Syria’s people an apology), it seems safe to conclude that Stephens will be jubilant when Assad is hanged or worse, and that he is blissfully indifferent to the rise of the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood in the wake of Assad’s relatively secular government, a danger that has not escaped the Israeli authorities, who have warned of an “Islamic empire” (i.e., a renewed caliphate, which will soon encompass Eurabia, Russia, and possibly the United States). Even worse, Stephens writes that “Syria is bleeding”, as though the US should help the poor children trying to overthrow their teacher-oppressor; haven’t enough American soldiers been murdered in pointless wars in the Islamic world? Ba’athists have treated Christians relatively well, which the “democratic” forces in the Middle East generally haven’t; Bashar al-Assad has even set up an institute to revive interest in Aramaic, the language of Christ, while the Western-backed jihadists in Syria have already initiated the genocide of Syrian Christians, for whom there will probably be no escape, unlike for Iraqi Christians in the past, some of whom could flee to Syria. (The American government prefers Iraqi-Moslem “refugees” to Iraqi-Christian “refugees”, although it is Iraqi Christians who are on the verge of extinction, not Iraqi Moslems. The Swedish government has complained about the excess of refugees from Iraq in the wake of Iraqi church bombings, going so far as to deport Christian refugees back to Iraq along with Iraqi Moslems.) Thus, Stephens’s professed agonizing over President Clinton’s alleged failure to save the supposedly-innocent Bosnian Moslems of Srebrenica from the supposedly-evil Bosnian Serbs (who, in the words of then-President of the Republika Srpska, Radovan Karadzic, “wanted to live with Muslims, but not under Muslims”), while going to great lengths to portray the suffering of Jews at the hands of jihadists in the most sympathetic terms possible (which is not in itself wrong), is part of an anti-Christian pattern. In this context, it bears mentioning that Hakija Meholjic, Srebrenica’s wartime chief of police, stated in an interview with the Bosnian-Moslem magazine Dani that the Bosniak Convention, of which Meholjic was then a member, was told by the jihadist and then-Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic that President Clinton had recommended to Izetbegovic that the Bosnian-Moslem soldiers who had been under siege in Srebrenica for three years should abandon their wives and children to the Bosnian Serbs, with the understanding that the Bosnian Serbs would kill 5,000 Bosnian Moslems in the process, thereby allowing Clinton to intervene; the Bosniak Convention went ahead with the plan, and Srebrenica fell roughly two days later. Since Izetbegovic was a close colleague of Osama bin Laden, and even granted him Bosnian citizenship as a gesture of appreciation for bin Laden’s followers’ assistance in creating an Islamic state in the Balkans, it places Clinton’s refusal to capture or kill bin Laden, mentioned elsewhere by Stephens in Born on the Fourth of June, in a more sinister light than the one in which it is presented – especially as US intelligence was aware of bin Laden’s terrorist ties in Bosnia by 1994.
Why does Stephens claim to think “the Allies” — led by Churchill, Churchill’s master, FDR, who forced Churchill to initiate the demolition of the British Empire by accepting the decolonization provisions in the Atlantic Charter in order to gain American support in WWII, and FDR’s master, Stalin, to whom FDR, a scant two months from death and often incoherent, and Churchill handed Eastern Europe on a silver platter at Yalta (with the GRU agent Alger Hiss acting as one of only two advisors to FDR at Yalta, the other being then-Secretary of State Edward J. Stettinius, Jr., over whose mental processes Hiss was said by the State Department’s then-security director, Anthony J. Panuch, to have exercised “Svengali-like influence”), with the Chinese Communists and Nationalists cooperating on the Allied side as well — deserved to win? Why does he think they were the underdog in 1942, when the Japanese always knew they had little chance of winning a protracted war with the United States, due to their economic and geographic disadvantages, and when Germany, similarly lacking access to oil (hence the Wehrmacht’s disastrous Operation Edelweiss before its failed attempt to take Moscow in the dead of Russian winter), had a navy and economy inferior to those of Britain, let alone the United States? Once the United States entered WWII on the Allied side, the fate of the Axis was sealed. FDR’s motivation (see here and here) for entering WWII was probably largely his desire to save the Soviet Union, not to save the Jews, to whom he was not kindly disposed. (Charles Lindbergh pointed out, in his Des Moines speech of September 11, 1941, that the Communists had, until a few weeks before the time of the speech, opposed American intervention. He claimed that the main lobbies in favor of American intervention — aside from the Roosevelt Administration, which, probably unbeknownst to Lindbergh, was filled with Communist agents — were the British and the Jews.) As Viktor Suvorov has shown, based on his study of the Soviet arsenal on the eve of Operation Barbarossa, Stalin expected Hitler to overrun Western Europe, and that he would then go to war with Germany, which he believed would be destroyed easily by the Allied war machine; this has not been refuted by the Soviet or Russian government. Lending further credence to Suvorov’s analysis is Lenin’s tactical support for the National Socialists’ early incarnation as the Kappists, whom Lenin described in the Political Report of the Central Committee RKP(b) to the Ninth All-Russian Conference of the Communist Party as members with the Kornilovites of “a bloc of consistent and extreme patriots and Communists, who consciously acknowledged a bloc with Soviet Russia”. Lenin further elaborated: “So there came into being such a bloc that only two forces exist in world politics: one is the League of Nations, which produced the Versailles Treaty, and the other is the Soviet republic, which undermined this Versailles treaty, and the unnatural German bloc was on our side.” He also stated in the report in question that a civil war in Germany would ultimately be necessary in order to bring about Bolshevik rule there, that the Kornilovite generals were “politically illiterate”, desiring war against France at all costs without foreseeing the consequences, and that “thus it happened that [the Bolsheviks] had power, and significant power, against the Entente”. Thus, it appears that the strategy of supporting the Kappists/National Socialists for as long as necessary to obliterate the Imperial powers, then destroying the Kappists/National Socialists and replacing them with Communists, was advocated by Lenin; its continuation under Stalin should come as no surprise. With respect to the common American misperception that FDR wanted to save the Jews, the diary of then-Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long, who testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee against the creation of a commission to help save Jews from Hitler, shows FDR was personally sympathetic to the State Department’s refusal to admit refugees from the Third Reich, due to a shared fear of German Fifth Columnists masquerading as refugees; although Long was concerned also with the danger of Communist spies lurking amongst Jewish refugees, it is unlikely FDR shared this concern, given that he was well aware the United States government (including his own Cabinet) was filled with Soviet moles and yet he did nothing about it. FDR’s indifference to Jewish refugees from the Third Reich is further borne out by his complete lack of response to the cables he received from some of the refugees aboard the MS St. Louis, most of whom were German Jews, and whose plight had become a media sensation in the United States. Thus, the curiously late — considering FDR’s purported goal of rescuing “the victims of enemy oppression” — establishment of the War Refugee Board by Executive Order 9417 was no accident. As Professor David S. Wyman explained in his illuminating May 1978 Commentary essay, Why Auschwitz Was Never Bombed, FDR’s War Department refused to order the bombing of Auschwitz and the rail lines leading to it, on the grounds that it would require diversion of forces, even though the U.S. Fifteenth Air Force was conducting operations nearby, and even though the United States government was fully aware of the genocide underway. Further, when FDR told Stalin at Yalta that he had three kings waiting for him in the Near East, including Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia, Stalin asked FDR whether he intended to offer any concessions to Ibn Saud. FDR replied that there was only one concession he thought he might offer, and that was to give Ibn Saud the six million Jews in the United States. Stalin replied that the Jewish problem was a very difficult one — that his government had tried to establish a national home for the Jews in Birobidzhan, but that the Jews had only stayed there two or three years and then scattered to the cities. He said the Jews were natural traders, but that much had been accomplished by putting small groups in some agricultural areas. FDR then told Stalin that he was a Zionist and asked if Stalin was one. Stalin replied that he was one in principle, but that he recognized the difficulty. When FDR met Ibn Saud, he asked him for his advice regarding the Jewish refugees in Europe. Ibn Saud replied that, in his opinion, the Jews should be allowed to return to the lands from which they had been driven, and that the Jews whose homes had been completely destroyed and who had no chance of livelihood in their homelands should be given living space in the Axis countries which oppressed them. Ibn Saud made it clear that the Arabs could never cooperate with the Jews in Palestine or in any other country. He further stated that the existence of the Arab people was already threatened, and called attention to the crisis which had resulted from continued Jewish immigration and the purchase of land by the Jews, further stating that the Arabs would choose to die rather than yield their lands to the Jews. Ibn Saud stated that the hope of the Arabs was based on the word of honor of the Allies and the well-known sense of justice of the United States, and upon the Arabs’ expectation that the United States would support them. FDR replied that he wished to assure Ibn Saud that he would do nothing to assist the Jews against the Arabs and would make no move hostile to the Arab people. He reminded Ibn Saud that it was impossible to prevent speeches and resolutions in Congress or the press which may be made on any subject. His reassurance concerned his own future policy as Chief Executive of the United States Government. Despite Stephens’s claims that the Allies were the underdog in 1942 and that they were the moral victors, neither claim is true. Stephens shares his anti-White, anti-Christian attitudes with much of the predominantly pro-Moslem (but also pro-Israel) American-Jewish community, whose political leadership is exemplified by David Axelrod, Senator Barbara Levy Boxer, Rahm Emanuel (currently using Louis Farrakhan’s Fruit of Islam to police the streets of Chicago), Abraham Foxman (see here, here, and here), Congressman Barney Frank (see here, here and here), DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and George Soros (who funds the Center for American Progress, which, for all intents and purposes, formulates President Obama’s policies); such attitudes are antithetical to the survival of both Jews and Christians.
Another thing Stephens shares with the American-Jewish political leadership is his characterization of America as having given only half-hearted, reluctant support to Israel during the 1967 war, in which he portrays Israel’s victory as a military and moral triumph, without mentioning the vicious Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, which flew the American flag as she conducted reconnaissance on Arab and Soviet forces in the Sinai Peninsula, including the Israeli use of machine guns on severely wounded American sailors at close range in their life rafts, and although those tasked with investigating the attack (e.g., then-CIA director Richard Helms, then-Secretary of State Dean Rusk, then-Chairman of the US-Atlantic Fleet Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, then-NSA Deputy Director Louis W. Tordella, then-NSA Deputy Director for Operations Oliver R. Kirby) generally believed the attack was deliberate. A former Director of the NSA under Ronald Reagan, Major General William E. Odom, stated that on the strength of intercept transcripts of pilots’ conversations during the attack, the question of the attack’s deliberateness “just wasn’t a disputed issue” within the Agency. Oliver R. Kirby, the godfather of the USS Liberty and USS Pueblo intercept programs and the first civilian Deputy Director for Production of the NSA, as well as the Deputy Director for Operations of the NSA at the time of the attack on the Liberty stated, based on transcripts of Israeli communications he saw during the attack: “I can tell you for an absolute certainty that they knew they were attacking an American ship.” Kirby participated in the NSA’s investigation of the attack and reviewed translations of intercepted communications between pilots and their headquarters. One Israeli informant even told the CIA that then-Israeli Defense Minister General Moshe Dayan had personally ordered the attack with full knowledge the ship was American, and there were reports that Israeli soldiers who refused to participate in the attack were imprisoned for 18 years. Hours before the attack, an Israeli aircraft had flown close to the Liberty, with the co-pilot and a Liberty crew member waving to each other. Further, the hull markings of the Liberty were freshly painted and clearly recognizable, the Israelis shot down one American flag flown by the Liberty, then left the one put up as a replacement during the attack riddled with bullets, and, according to the late Captain Ward Boston, Jr., JAGC, USN, a WWII Navy fighter pilot and former FBI agent who served as the legal counsel to the Navy Court of Inquiry that was convened to investigate the Israeli attack on the Liberty, American intelligence officers had “received real-time Hebrew translations of Israeli commanders instructing their pilots to sink ‘the American ship’”. Despite this, the United States supported Israel in the 1967 war; in fact, according to Captain Boston, President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara personally ordered Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, President of the Court of Inquiry, to conclude that the attack was accidental, despite the murder of 34 crew members and the wounding of 172 crew members, including through use of torpedoes and napalm, resulting in 70% casualties, in what was the worst naval attack on an American ship since WWII. The Court of Inquiry was given one week to conduct its investigation, although Admiral Kidd and Captain Boston estimated that a thorough investigation would require at least six months. Admiral Kidd told survivors of the attack: “You are never, repeat never, to discuss this with anyone, not even your wives. If you do, you will be court-martialed and will end your lives in prison or worse.” Admiral Kidd was just following orders; Captain Boston stated in a 2004 sworn affidavit that Admiral Kidd had referred repeatedly to the Israeli forces responsible for the attack repeatedly in his presence as “murderous bastards”. None of this has elicited any comment from Stephens, much less his gratitude as a vocal supporter of Israel. Although it is clear that Israel was trying to sink the Liberty, a neutral ship in international waters, and to leave no survivors, the Israeli attack on the Liberty was never investigated by Congress. The Captain of the Liberty, Captain William L. McGonagle, was, according to Former Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, the only man ever to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor in secret; the ceremony took place in the Washington Ship Yard instead of at the White House, and his medal was presented by the Secretary of the Navy instead of by the President. According to Admiral Moorer, six of the dead from the Liberty were buried under a tombstone in Arlington National Cemetery that described them as having “died in the eastern Mediterranean”, as though disease, rather than the Israeli government, had caused their deaths. Admiral Moorer wrote that the attack was probably carried out to delay American discovery of the then-imminent Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights — which Israel knew would draw American disapproval, including that of President Johnson — until it was too late to start negotiations. Admiral Moorer blamed the subsequent cover-up on President Johnson’s fear of angering the Israel lobby. In any case, retired Rear Admiral Merlin H. Staring, who was asked to review the Liberty case before going on to become the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, founded the USS Liberty Alliance, which counted among its members, as of its founding a decade ago, Admiral Moorer, now deceased, and two Marine Medal of Honor recipients, General Ray Davis and Colonel Mitchell Paige. The group wanted a full Congressional investigation into the attack and lobbied military organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion, in the hope of garnering support among their members. Yet the political mainstream, led by the bankruptcy judge and author Ahron Jay Cristol, tells us such patriotic stalwarts are merely anti-Semitic, Saudi-funded “conspiracy theorists”.
As for the notion that Hitler wanted to destroy America, the National Socialists had considered bombing the Eastern Seaboard of the United States, but not invading her. As discovered recently by divers, and contrary to Allied war propaganda and in accordance with German claims, the RMS Lusitania was carrying weapons supplies in her hold from the United States, whose leaders were intent on embroiling the United States in WWI (as exemplified by the House-Grey Memorandum), to Britain, and was thus a legitimate military target of Imperial Germany. Further, although the American government and media sensationalized the sinking of the Lusitania and the resultant deaths of her American passengers, and although the incident is often used to demonstrate the supposed belligerence of Imperial Germany, the Imperial German Embassy in Washington, D.C. had issued the Lusitania Warning Notice in numerous American newspapers on the morning of April 22, 1915, the day the Lusitania set sail on her fateful voyage. The United States supported Germany’s archenemy, Britain, while attempting to claim the privileges of neutrality. The government of Imperial Germany saw through this charade, so Imperial Germany decided to begin unrestricted submarine warfare, which she predicted would bring the United States into the war, although the Imperial German government sought to preserve official American neutrality; the German Foreign Minister, Arthur Zimmermann, sent the Zimmermann Telegram to the German Minister to Mexico, Heinrich von Eckardt, suggesting that Germany help Mexico recover the territory she had lost during the Mexican-American War, in exchange for supporting Imperial Germany, in the event the United States should enter the War. Mexico decided the offer was useless, and initially ignored the proposal; upon the entry of the United States into WWI, she officially rejected it. Although the Zimmermann Telegram, which was intercepted by the British and revealed to the American government, was used to stoke American support for war, then-President Woodrow Wilson waited nearly a month before convening a meeting of his Cabinet to discuss declaring war on Germany, further suggesting there was no clear and present danger to American national security from Imperial Germany. Indeed, the United States had told Germany to disarm or face American entry into the war. By leading the United States into WWI, the American leadership hoped to pave the way to global disarmament and a one-world government in the form of the projected League of Nations. According to The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline by James Perloff, Woodrow Wilson’s supporters on Wall Street had made him promise, back when he was seeking their support for his Presidential aspirations in 1912, to support the projected federal income tax and the projected Federal Reserve, to lend an ear to their advice should war break out in Europe, and to lend an ear to their advice concerning who should occupy his Cabinet. Thus, the destructiveness of his Presidency was no accident. Wilson’s supporters included the guardian angel of the Federal Reserve Act, Paul Warburg, numerous founding members of the Council on Foreign Relations (including Warburg), and prominent financiers of the Bolshevik Revolution, especially J.P. Morgan, Jr., John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and William Boyce Thompson. Further contributing to German anti-Americanism was the United States’s contribution to the Allied Blockade of Germany (1915-1919), which resulted in the starvation deaths of hundreds of thousands of Germans. If the December 1918 estimate of the German Board of Public Health is to be believed, German starvation deaths then numbered 763,000. The Blockade continued until 12 July 1919, after Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles, and when restrictions on desperately needed food imports were lifted. Civilian casualties other than those caused by the famine (e.g., by the Spanish flu) were not included in the 763,000. A subsequent academic study funded by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace estimated the casualties from the Blockade at 424,000, with an additional 200,000 from the Spanish flu. For the German people, these were the most devastating months of the blockade because, according to C. Paul Vincent writing in The Politics of Hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915-1919, “in the weeks and months following the armistice, Germany’s deplorable state further deteriorated”; at the time, estimates for the eight-month period were of approximately 100,000 deaths, although current scholars claim there are no statistical data available for Germany during that period. The second time the United States declared war on Germany, FDR neutralized the Neutrality Acts so he could ship weapons to foreign powers — including to the USSR, then led by Stalin — and embroil the United States in another World War. The Congress repealed the Neutrality Acts on November 13, 1941, and FDR then forced Germany to declare war on the United States first, which he had been preparing to do at least since the summer of 1941, by maneuvering to force the collapse of the pro-American cabinet of Japanese Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoye, and which he achieved by provoking the new, anti-American Japanese administration into bombing Pearl Harbor (on December 7, 1941), where the Pacific Fleet was denied advance warning of the attack, of which FDR had foreknowledge, and into declaring war on the United States, knowing full well that Germany was bound to defend Japan because of the Tripartite Pact. For more on this, I recommend the decorated American WWII veteran Robert Stinnett’s Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor (although Stinnett appears to be unaware that Operation Sea Lion was postponed indefinitely, so that there was no imminent threat of a German takeover of Britain) and former President Herbert Hoover’s recently released memoir, Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath (see here, here and here), Thomas Fleming’s The New Dealers’ War: FDR And The War Within WWII, as well as John T. Flynn’s classic, The Roosevelt Myth. In any case, the National Socialists gave up their plans to bomb America because they considered the projected Amerika-Bomber too expensive. The “American Rocket” or “New York Rocket” could theoretically have caused damage, but it was never used, and there is no evidence the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) desired, much less was able, to mount an invasion of the United States. According to Joseph Goebbels, writing in his diary on 8 May 1943: “The Führer gave expression to his unshakable conviction that the Reich will be the master of all Europe. We shall yet have to engage in many fights, but these will undoubtedly lead to most wonderful victories. From there on the way to world domination is practically certain. Whoever dominates Europe will thereby assume the leadership of the world.” Thus, it appears that the National Socialists considered control of Europe to be synonymous with world domination, a variation on the Heartland Theory of Halford Mackinder, a founding father of geopolitics and geostrategy, whose theories formed part of the basis of Major General Professor Dr. Karl Haushofer’s geopolitical theories, which, in turn, influenced National Socialist strategy. Although Karl Haushofer’s wife’s father was Jewish, and his wife and two sons were therefore classified as mischlinge under the Nuremberg Laws, Karl Haushofer’s friendship with his onetime scientific assistant, Rudolf Hess, who in turn became Hitler’s deputy, and Hess’s subsequent friendship with one of Haushofer’s sons, Albrecht, led to Albrecht Haushofer’s being granted a German Blood Certificate. However, Karl Haushofer was never a member of the NSDAP, and his son Albrecht was executed for his involvement in the failed 1944 bomb plot against Hitler, while Karl Haushofer himself was interned for eight months in the Dachau concentration camp. Karl Haushofer’s other son, Heinz, was imprisoned for eight months as well, and was exonerated by the Allies during the de-Nazification process, as was Karl Haushofer. Karl Haushofer’s ideas were especially influential in the Left wing of the NSDAP led by Hitler’s rival Gregor Strasser, who advocated a German-Russian socialist alliance, and who was assassinated by the Berlin Gestapo, on Hitler’s personal order, during the Night of the Long Knives. Joseph Goebbels was originally a Strasserite, and became a Hitlerite only when it became clear the Strasserites would not prevail within the struggle for control of the NSDAP. Karl Haushofer’s ideas endure in the form of Neo-Eurasianism, whose creator (although Eurasianism had long been popular with, and eventually promoted by, the Soviet authorities), Alexander Dugin, is an admirer of Gregor Strasser and his younger brother Otto, and who was a major influence on former United Russia chief ideologist and current Deputy Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation (as well as former Young Guard leader and television personality), Ivan Demidov. Otto Strasser was expelled from the NSDAP for his Leftist positions (e.g., having opposed the Kapp Putsch), and subsequently formed the Black Front, a group of anti-Hitler German expatriates, which admitted Jews such as Helmut Hirsch, who was executed for attempting to assassinate Hitler. Dugin has written of the need for Russia to destroy America by political means, rather than by initiating a “hot war”. Although Americans should worry about what Russia would do to a weakened America, in view of Russia’s current burgeoning military ties with China and the two countries’ ongoing modernization of their respective nuclear arsenals – in addition to China’s plans to expand her nuclear stockpile — while we let our nuclear arsenal rot and even entertain thoughts of unilaterally dismantling it, and especially in view of the revelations by the GRU defector to the United States, Colonel Stanislav Lunev, concerning post-Soviet Sino-Russian plans for the joint destruction of the United States — initially using Russian nuclear weapons, which Colonel Lunev said were to be followed by the use of Chinese ground troops in the projected invasion of the Lower 48, with various Third World nations being given looting rights, and with Russian troops occupying Alaska and parts of Canada –, United Russia’s predecessors in the NSDAP, also inspired by Karl Haushofer, had no intention of mounting an invasion of the United States.