TBR News January 30, 2017

Jan 30 2017

The Voice of the White House 

Washington, D.C. January 30, 2017: “The attack on the Canadian mosque is disgusting but it is the direct result of the Saudi government’s raising of IS, the terrorist group, to bring about a Greater Muslim Empire. This project was facilitated by certain American intelligence and military groups in cooperation with Saudi Arabia. Why has the US been engaged in arming and training Muslim terrorists? Because the oil-rich Saudis asked for it. Note that there have been no IS terrorist attacks on Americans nor any acts within the United States. If the US has a falling-out with Saudi Arabia, trust it, IS attacks would immediately be launched. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel are the Spanish Fly in the ointment of the Middle East.”

Descending into Darkness: The Making of a Wartime President

By Brian Harring

www.amazon.com  kindle ebooks $3.99


Published for the first time ever, Descending Into Darkness shows the actual, as opposed to the propaganda, background to the upheavals in the Middle East and the reasons for the 9/11 attacks. It also includes the complete, as contrasted with the false, official (at the time this book went to press) DoD listings of U.S. Military casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Also in Prelude to Disaster:

  • Events leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom
  • War in Iraq – Russian Military Intelligence Reports & Assessment [March 17-April 8, 2003]
  • The “Nazi” Neocons – Who are they?
  • The Secret Downing Street Memo – Setting the Stage for 9/11
  • Israeli Espionage Against the United States


Table of Contents

  • Focus on ISIS, not starting WWIII’: Trump blasts Senators McCain & Graham
  • ‘Thirty-six million hearts are breaking’: Terrorist attack at Canadian mosque leaves a nation shaken
  • Spare Us the Theatrics
  • About 40 Turkish NATO soldiers request asylum in Germany-media
  • The Science of Abrupt Climate Change: Should we be worried?
  • The Zipper Documents and the Assassination of Kennedy- Part 4
  • ‘Mein Kampf’: Murphy translation: Part 21

 Focus on ISIS, not starting WWIII’: Trump blasts Senators McCain & Graham

January 30, 2017


The latest targets of US President Donald Trump’s ire are fellow Republican Senators John McCain & Lindsey Graham, who Trump says should focus on important issues “instead of always looking to start World War III.”

The president tweeted the rebuke in response to a joint statement by veteran GOP legislators who criticized Trump’s executive order placing a temporary travel ban on seven predominantly Muslim countries. McCain and Graham said the move was hasty and “not properly vetted,” and may ultimately work contrary to the stated goal of improving national security.

“This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security,” the statement said.

The Republican hawks joined the loud chorus of largely left-wing condemnation of the executive order, commonly known as the ‘Muslim ban’ by critics. McCain and Graham have criticized Trump on a number of issues, including his plans to work alongside Russia in fighting terrorism in Iraq and Syria. The senators consider Russia a major threat to America.

In addition to accusing McCain and Graham of being warmongers, Trump issued a statement defending his decision to impose the travel ban.:

Statement Regarding Recent Executive Order Concerning Extreme Vetting

“America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border. America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave.

We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say. My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting.

This is not about religion – this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days.

I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria. My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as President I will find ways to help all those who are suffering.”

Donald J. Trump

“The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting,” the statement said.

“This is not about religion – this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days,” it added.

Critics accuse President Trump of hypocrisy for citing the 9/11 terrorist attacks as an example of what he hopes to prevent with the travel ban. The perpetrators of the plane hijackings were nationals of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebanon, but none of the countries were affected by the executive order.

‘Thirty-six million hearts are breaking’: Terrorist attack at Canadian mosque leaves a nation shaken

January 30, 2017

by Alan Freeman, Lindsey Bever and Derek Hawkins

The Washington Post

QUEBEC CITY — Gunmen attacked a suburban Quebec City mosque as worshipers were finishing their prayers Sunday night, killing six people and wounding 19 others, five of them critically — a horrific assault that put Canadians on edge, and that government officials quickly labeled an act of terrorism.

The Sûreté du Québec, the Quebec provincial police, said two men were arrested Sunday night, though authorities said Monday that only one of the men is now a suspect in the mass shooting at the Quebec Islamic Cultural Center.

Police provided no possible motive as they began their investigation of the attack in one of Canada’s safest cities.

But government officials wasted no time in calling it terrorism.

“This was a group of innocents targeted for practicing their faith,” Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in an address at the House of Commons, hours after condemning the attack in a statement. “Make no mistake: This was a terrorist attack.”

“These were people of faith and of community,” Trudeau added, “and in the blink of an eye, they were robbed of their lives in an act of brutal violence.”

Nineteen people were hospitalized at l’Hôpital de l’Enfant-Jésus. Five victims remained in critical condition Monday morning, hospital officials said, noting that 14 others had been treated and released.

Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard also called the shooting a “terrorist act,” saying at an overnight news conference that he reacted with “horror and incredulity” when he learned about the attack. He promised increased police protection for mosques and Islamic centers across the province of Quebec.

“We are with you,” Couillard said, addressing the province’s Muslim community. “You are at home. You are Quebecois.”

At a subsequent news conference with Muslim leaders, Couillard said he could not theorize why members of the mosque were gunned down — but he acknowledged that they were the targets.

“This community was targeted, that’s true,” he told reporters. “The individuals who were attacked were attacked because they were part of this community.”

But, he added: “All Quebecers have been the victims of this attack.”

While mosques in Canada and the United States have been the targets of numerous acts of vandalism and other hate crimes in recent years, the Quebec City attack appears to be one of the first mass shootings at an Islamic house of worship in North America.

Witnesses said a gunman in a hood or ski mask opened fire on congregants at the mosque shortly before 8 p.m.

Police said the six people killed were between 35 and 60 years old, all men. Mosque officials said the victims were all Canadian citizens, and included men of Tunisian, Moroccan and Algerian descent.

One man was arrested close to the mosque, according to police.

A second man called 911 about 20 minutes later, police said, and told a dispatcher that he wanted to talk. That person gave the dispatcher his location and waited for police about 14 miles east of the mosque along the shore of the St. Lawrence River on the approach to a bridge leading to the Island of Orleans. He surrendered without incident and has been cooperating with investigators, police said.

Authorities have not publicly identified either of the two men who were arrested — and police said midday Monday that one of them is now considered a witness, not a suspect.

Authorities have not described the ethnicity or religious identity of the perpetrator. Neither of the two men who were detained was previously known to police, authorities said.

Charges are still being sorted out, police said at the news conference Monday morning. Authorities did not provide information about the type of firearms used in the attack.

Officials at the mosque urged followers not to spread rumors about Sunday’s mass shooting.

Still, the context of the attack was inescapable, coming after a rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric, behavior and vandalism in the United States and Canada, amid a heated debate about President Trump’s executive order temporarily shutting U.S. borders to refugees and migrants from seven mostly Muslim countries.

While debate has raged in the United States over whether to accept refugees from war-torn Syria and elsewhere, the Canadian government has become more open to people fleeing conflict in the Middle East. Trudeau has personally greeted some refugees who have entered the country, and on Sunday said he welcomed people who were rejected from the United States under Trump’s order.

Ahmed Hussen, Canada’s minister of immigration, refugees and citizenship, announced Sunday that he would grant temporary residence permits to people there who were affected by Trump’s travel ban.

“Canada is a country of immigrants,” Hussen said, according to the Globe and Mail. “Canadians are proud of our long history of acting with compassion and humanitarianism to those seeking refuge for themselves and their families.”

Trudeau called Canada’s diversity “our strength,” and noted that “religious tolerance is a value that we, as Canadians, hold dear.”

Still, Muslims in both Canada and the United States have reported a surging number of hate crimes in recent years, including vandalism, assault and arson at their places of worship.

The Quebec Islamic Cultural Center, one of several mosques in the area, was the target of an apparent hate crime in June, when someone left a bloody pig’s head wrapped in cellophane at the front door, along with a note reading, “Bonne appétit.” The consumption of pork is banned by Islam. Concerned about that kind of incident, the mosque installed several closed-circuit cameras around the building.

“All our thoughts are with the children, whom we must tell about the death of their fathers,” the mosque said Sunday on its Facebook page. “May Allah give them patience and endurance.”

Through tears, Mohamed Labibi of the Quebec Islamic Cultural Center called the mass shooting a “very, very big tragedy,” and pleaded with reporters to “personify” those who had lost their lives — businessmen, shopkeepers and a university professor, though he did not name them.

“We cannot express our sadness,” he said.

The president of Laval University confirmed Monday afternoon that Khaled Belkacemi, a professor at the school of agriculture and food sciences, was among the dead.

There are more than 1 million Muslims in Canada. About 6,000 live in Quebec City, according to Canada’s 2011 National Household Survey.

Addressing the nation’s Muslims, Trudeau said in his televised House of Commons speech: “I want to say directly: We are with you. Thirty-six million hearts are breaking with yours. And know that we value you. You enrich our country in immeasurable ways. It is your home.

“Last night’s horrible crime against the Muslim community was an act of terror committed against Canada and against all Canadians. We will grieve with you, we will defend you, we will love you and we will stand with you.”

Interim Conservative Leader Rona Ambrose called the attack “a sad reminder that our country is not immune to terrorism” and said it violated one of the country’s most cherished freedoms: “to worship without fear.”

Imam Sikander Hashmi, of Ottawa, said there has been a rise in the number of reported anti-Muslim hate crimes in Canada, which the National Council of Canadian Muslims has documented.

“Unfortunately,” Hashmi said in an interview with The Washington Post, “it has come to this — to what we saw last night.”

The imam, who said he was born and raised in Canada, said the idea that an attack such as this could occur in Canada has crossed his mind, but he — and other Canadians — have had some sense of security.

In recent years, however, he said Muslims in Canada have been paying close attention to the political climate both in Canada and the United States. Specifically, he said, many were concerned about Quebec’s proposed “Charter of Values” bill that would have prohibited government employees from wearing religious symbols, such as head coverings. He said Muslims in Canada watched the U.S. presidential campaign, Trump’s inauguration and the controversial executive orders that the president pushed during his first few days in office.

“Muslims — we live in a global village,” Hashmi said.

The imam said that although he cannot say whether there is a link between the current political climate and the brutal attack Sunday night in Quebec City, many Muslims might make that connection.

“Canadians and people around the world won’t be seeing this is isolation,” he said. “They’ll be seeing it in this context.”

But, he said, the Muslim community will stand firm.

“We’re going to go through this together, and stand against anyone who tries to spread hatred and fear,” Hashmi said.

Couillard, the Quebec premier, told reporters: “We are obviously in a world where people tend to divide themselves rather than unite themselves. This is why our country … has to remain a beacon, a landmark of tolerance and openness in this troubled world.”

Police said a joint task force of terrorist specialists from the Quebec provincial police, the City of Montreal Police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was deployed to the site, with explosives experts and canine teams among them.

The Quebec Islamic Cultural Center is located near Laval University, which has a large community of international students, many from French-speaking Africa and the Maghreb.

The mass shooting was a particular shock for Quebec City, a quiet white-collar community that has one of the lowest violent crime rates in Canada. The city, whose metropolitan area is home to about 806,000 people, reported just two killings in all of 2015.

Samer Majzoub, the president of the Canadian Muslim Forum, a Muslim advocacy group in Quebec, said that he knows people who attend the Quebec City mosque, but that he and other area Muslim leaders were still trying frantically to find out who had been shot.

“People that we know, we are not sure if they’re alive right now,” he told The Washington Post. “It is shocking. It never came to our mind that we’d have a terrorist act as such, especially in Canada.”

“This act of wanton murder must be punished to the fullest extent of the law,” Ihsaan Gardee, director of the National Council of Canadian Muslims,said in a statement.

“We are heartened by the overwhelming support from fellow Canadians in this time of deep crisis,” he added. “We must unite together against divisive forces that seek to harm our communities.”

Majzoub, Canadian Muslim Forum president, said Canada has seen increasing anti-Muslim hostility over the past year, but still nowhere near the level witnessed in the United States and Europe. He said the area near the mosque has appeared to be particularly prone to anti-Muslim sentiments.

“This masjid has witnessed a lot of issues before — threats and vandalism, and some Islamophobic graffiti,” he said, using the Arabic word for mosque. “It’s not the first time.”

Majzoub said the mosque has a small congregation of about a hundred people and attracts a lot of students because it’s near a university. He said many of its attendees are of North African descent.

“We never thought it could happen,” he said. “It was a slaughter.”

Trump called Trudeau to express his condolences, according to the prime minister’s office — the first condolence call Trump has made for a terror attack since taking office on Jan. 20. In an afternoon news briefing, White House spokesman Sean Spicer confirmed that the president had offered his support to the Canadian prime minister.

“This is another senseless act of violence that can not be tolerated,” Spicer told reporters.

Spicer called the attack “a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant, and why the president is taking steps to be proactive rather than reactive when it comes to our nation’s safety and security.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin offered his condolences, as well, sending a telegram to Trudeau.

“This murder of people who had gathered at a mosque to pray is staggering in its cruelty and cynicism,” Putin said, according to the Kremlin.

French President François Hollande denounced the attack, and Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo announced Monday that the lights on the Eiffel Tower will be turned off to send a message of solidarity.

Pope Francis met Monday with Quebec Archbishop Cardinal Gerald Cyprien Lacroix and said he was praying for the victims and their families, explaining “the importance of remaining united in prayer, Christians and Muslims,” according to the Vatican.

Said Couillard, the premier: “Today if you see someone from the Islam community, stop and say hello.”

Bever and Hawkins reported from Washington. Marissa Miller in Quebec City, David Filipov in Moscow and Ben Guarino, Abigail Hauslohner and Bastien Inzaurralde in Washington contributed to this report, which has been updated numerous times.

Spare Us the Theatrics

Trump’s Fortress America is rooted in the Obama years

January 30, 2017

by Justin Raimondo


The Trump administration has the media and its political opponents (or do I repeat myself?) in a lather as the White House continues to fire executive orders in quick succession, demolishing the old order and enraging both liberals and their newfound neoconservative allies. Amid all the virtue-signaling hysterics, the most significant aspects of what is occurring are being overlooked – and it’s my job to point them out.

While the blue-state crowd is protesting President Trump’s order banning travel to the US by citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia, what gets lost in all the shouting is that the legal and political basis of his order was laid down by President Barack Obama. These people don’t care to recall that, in 2013, Obama banned all refugees from Iraq for six months, and his action was hardly noticed: Trump is only proposing a ninety-day pause. What prompted Obama’s action, as ABC News reported at the time, was “the discovery in 2009 of two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists living as refugees in Bowling Green, Kentucky — who later admitted in court that they’d attacked U.S. soldiers in Iraq.”

Two years later, Congress passed a law, the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act, that restricted travel visas for citizens of “states of concern,” i.e. Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Iran and “any other country or area of concern.” Obama promptly signed it. In early 2016, the Department of Homeland Security unilaterally extended these restrictions to Yemen, Libya, and Somalia. What this meant was that the visa waiver program did not apply to citizens of these countries: travelers had to apply for a visa at US embassies, a highly problematic matter (Syria, for one, has no such facility) and were very unlikely to be successful in their efforts. I don’t recall any protests at the time.

In short, the legal and political basis of Trump’s executive order – which is being denounced as an unprecedented attack on our allies (Iraq), civil liberties, and decency itself – was laid during the previous regime. Trump has simply dispensed with the fiction that these travelers are welcomed by our government, and issued an ostensibly temporary outright ban.

Aside from the hypocrisy underscored in that history, however, a larger point needs to be made: this all follows from our bipartisan foreign policy of perpetual war. Regardless of one’s views on immigration, the idea that we can invade the world and then proceed to invite the world is worse than naïve – it’s dangerous. As Garet Garrett, that prophet of the Old Right, put it more than half a century ago:

“How, now, thou American, frustrated crusader, do you know where you are?

“Is it security you want? There is no security at the top of the world.

“To thine own self a liberator, to the world an alarming portent, do you know where you are going from here?”

Where, indeed.

After fifteen years of rampaging throughout the world, that the US is now retreating to Fortress America comes as a shock only to the clueless. That this is being done with the crudity we have come to expect from Trump – green card holders were handcuffed at the airports, and immigration officials told the hapless detainees to complain to the President – is likewise not surprising. Someone who has been a resident of the United States for years, albeit not a citizen, being treated in this manner is an outrage – but what else has the history of the post-9/11 been but one outrage after another? (The inclusion of green card holders is now being walked back by the White House.)

And as for those who are now gathering at airports with placards denouncing Trump – where were they when the countries on the no-go list were being bombed by their hero, Obama? The answer is that they were nowhere to be found. Oh, but now they’re up there on their high horses, lances lowered and ready to do battle with the “fascist” Trump. Spare us the theatrics, my liberal friends, and contemplate your own sins, for they are many.

Our endless “war on terrorism” – which continues under President Trump, even as I write, with a dawn raid on the headquarters of the Yemeni branch of al-Qaeda – has been fulsomely supported and extended by both parties. The Obama regime aided and abetted Saudi Arabia’s invasion of Yemen, making it possible for al-Qaeda to gain a foothold as Saudi troops and Riyadh’s puppet Yemeni government carried out a vicious war of attrition against Shi’ite rebels – while leaving al-Qaeda largely alone to consolidate its gains.

Where were the NeverTrumpers while atrocities against the Yemeni people were being committed with our tax dollars?

Furthermore, under President Obama, the US pursued a policy of “regime change” in Syria, the goal of which was to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad and install a theocracy run by Islamist “rebels” allied with al-Qaeda and ideologically indistinguishable from ISIS, our purported enemy.

The very same media outlets and blue-state virtue-signalers who are howling about the “cruelty” of Trump’s rejection of Syrian refugees have been telling us for years that we haven’t been aiding the Syrian rebels enough, and that the US must intervene more strenuously in that country’s civil war. Do these people not realize that our policy caused the refugee exodus?

As the anti-Trump brouhaha continues, two very pertinent facts about this series of executive orders is getting lost in the shouting.

First, as I wrote about in my last column, the initial draft of the executive order entitled “Protecting the Nation From Attacks From Foreign Nationals” contained a section raising the possibility of creating “safe zones” in Syria. The final version omits this dangerous plan. This is significant: what it means is that the Trump administration is going to resist calls by the interventionist media to “do something” about the Syrian civil war and is opting instead to keep its footprint in the region lighter than the War Party would prefer. “Safe zones” are off the table, at least for now.

Yes, I did urge our readers to call the White House and urge them to drop this loopy idea, but it would be equally loopy to take any credit for it. My guess is that our newly-minted Secretary of Defense, in tandem with the Pentagon, talked him out of it, as I thought they would. But, hey, pressure from the public may have been a factor – you never know!

Secondly, a presidential memorandum outlining Trump’s “plan to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria” contains one fascinating little section that reads as follows:

“The Plan shall include … identification of new coalition partners in the fight against ISIS and policies to empower coalition partners to fight ISIS and its affiliates.”

While Russia is not named, it is clearly the intent of the Trump administration to involve Moscow in our operations against ISIS, at least in the Syrian theater. And while this doesn’t mean that we’re about to withdraw from the region, it does mean that our footprint will be much smaller. Trump is clearly leery of getting bogged down in another Middle Eastern war: thus his vows to “eradicate” ISIS “quickly.” That may be a pipedream, but the fact remains that if he can farm out much of the fight against ISIS to the Russians and Assad, our own involvement is effectively lessened.

This also augurs a new era of cooperation between the United States and Russia, which both parties in Congress bitterly oppose. Citing Russian assistance in Syria is going to be one of Trump’s major talking points in opposing the new cold war that so many in the liberal media and both wings of the War Party have been frantically ginning up.

The hysterical response to Trump has blinded the left to what is really going on: they are so busy working themselves up into a fit of self-satisfied outrage that they have lost the ability not only to reason but to see what is right in front of their eyes. Much of this is due to partisanship, but the rest we can attribute to a cognitive disability: when emotions are substituted for thought over an extended period, the result is a permanent impairment. If what we are seeing at the end of the first week of the Trump administration is indicative of the next four years, the fate of American liberalism promises to be sad indeed.

Update: Here’s a new development: there are reports that Iraq is retaliating against the travel ban by banning all travel to Iraq by Americans. If this includes US soldiers traveling to Iraq to help its hapless government fight off its many enemies, then one can only ask: who says Trump isn’t the antiwar President?! One wonders if this ban will also include a ban on American tax dollars traveling to Iraq: somehow, I don’t think so.


From the FAS Project on Government Secrecy

Volume 2017, Issue No. 8

January 30, 2017


National security directives are among the most important tools the President has for managing his administration and for conducting U.S. policy on national defense, foreign relations, intelligence, nuclear weapons and other matters of consequence.

At the end of last week, President Trump publicly issued his first three national security directives, designated National Security Presidential Memoranda (NSPMs).

NSPM-1 is entitled “Rebuilding the U.S. Armed Forces.” It requires a “readiness review”, and calls for a new Nuclear Posture Review and a Ballistic Missile Defense Review. In a nod towards legal and fiscal reality, it says “This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”

NSPM-2 is devoted to the “Organization of the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council.” It modifies the NSC structure towards something resembling a compromise between or a hybrid of the Obama and Bush NSC structures, and borrows language from the Bush directive. Notably, however, it elevates “the Chief Strategist,” i.e. Stephen K. Bannon of Breitbart News, to membership in the NSC Principals Committee. This is a striking departure from past practice that injects an extreme political perspective into the national security policymaking process. At the same time, the Trump directive diminishes the NSC role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence.

NSPM-3 calls for a “Plan to Defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.”

The directives include a certain amount of sloganeering and chest thumping that is familiar in electoral campaign documents, but somewhat unusual in presidential directives. So, President Trump writes, in order to achieve “peace through strength,” US Armed Forces must be “rebuilt.” And “there can be no accommodation or negotiation” with the Islamic State.

But what is even more unusual is that the Trump White House released all of these directives and ordered publication of each of them in the Federal Register.  It is, one might say, an act of unprecedented transparency.

It is technically true that “any presidential determination or directive can be published in the Federal Register, regardless of how it is styled,” as a 2000 opinion from the Justice of Department Office of Legal Counsel stated.

But for the past several decades, national security directives “were not required to be published in the Federal Register, were usually security classified at the highest level of protection, and were available to the public [only] after a great many years had elapsed, usually at the official library of the President who had approved them,” the Congressional Research Service said in a 2008 report.

Likewise, the Government Accountability Office said in 1992 that national security directives “are… not required to be published in the Federal Register or any other public document.”

In fact, no national security presidential directive seems to have ever been published in the Federal Register. Even unclassified directives have only inconsistently been released or published on the White House website. The Bush Administration’s first National Security Presidential Directive became public through a leaked version sent anonymously through the U.S. mail and was never published by the White House. In the Obama Administration, former NSC records access manager John Ficklin tried to get authorization to publish a list and compilation of unclassified national security directives, but was unsuccessful.

So why, by contrast, are the first three Trump national security directives public documents that will, furthermore, be incorporated in the Federal Register?

One possibility is that this is the result of a drafting error.

An earlier version of NSPM-1 obtained by the Washington Post was captioned as a “presidential memorandum,” which is a familiar type of issuance that is often published in the Federal Register, and not as a “national security presidential memorandum”. In other words, whoever drafted the new Trump directive may have been using a template for an ordinary “presidential memorandum” rather than for a national security directive. (Further blurring longstanding distinctions, the new Trump directives NSPM-2 and NSPM-3 — but not NSPM-1 — are also included in the “presidential memoranda” section of the White House website. And each of them is confusingly labeled on the index page as a “presidential memorandum,” not an NSPM.)

Another possible explanation for the serial publication of these frequently unpublished documents is that public dissemination of the new Trump national security directives is a kind of performance. It may be that President Trump does not only want to wield the power of his office, but also to be seen doing it.


Last month, outgoing Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper issued new guidance on how the U.S. intelligence community should pivot in response to a crisis.

A “crisis” is defined here as “An event or situation, as determined by the DNI, that threatens U.S. national security interests and requires an expedited shift in national intelligence posture, priorities, and/or emphasis.”

The new guidance explains how that shift in intelligence posture is to be executed.

See Intelligence Community Crisis Management, Intelligence Community Policy Guidance 900.2, December 23, 2016.


Presidential authority to seek modifications to NAFTA independent of Congress was addressed by the Congressional Research Service last week in Renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): What Actions Do Not Require Congressional Approval?, CRS Legal Sidebar, January 26, 2017.

Jordan’s King Abdullah II is visiting Washington today. See Jordan: Background and U.S. Relations, updated January 25, 2017.

Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.

Cross-Border Energy Trade in North America: Present and Potential, January 24, 2017

Clean Air Act Issues in the 115th Congress: In Brief, January 24, 2017

President Trump Freezes Federal Civil Service Hiring, CRS Legal Sidebar, January 26, 2017

Keystone Revival: Executive Memorandum Paves Way for Possible Approval of Keystone XL Pipeline, CRS Legal Sidebar, January 26, 2017

Dakota Access Pipeline: Siting Controversy, CRS Insight, updated January 26, 2017

House Office of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures, updated January 24, 2017

Affordable Care Act Executive Order: Legal Considerations, CRS Legal Sidebar, January 24, 2017

Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law and Policy, updated January 24, 2017

The First Responder Network (FirstNet) and Next-Generation Communications for Public Safety: Issues for Congress, updated January 26, 2017

National Special Security Events: Fact Sheet, updated January 25, 2017

About 40 Turkish NATO soldiers request asylum in Germany-media

January 28, 2017

by Andrea Shalal


About 40 mostly high-ranking Turkish soldiers who worked at NATO facilities in Germany but were suspended after the failed coup in Turkey in July have requested asylum in Germany, news magazine Der Spiegel and broadcaster ARD reported on Saturday.

A spokeswoman for the German interior ministry confirmed that asylum applications had been received from Turkish military personnel, but had no comment on the exact numbers. She said each application would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

No comment was immediately available from NATO officials.

The reports of the asylum applications filed by Turkish soldiers in Germany came as Chancellor Angela Merkel prepared to travel to Turkey to meet President Tayyip Erdogan.

Ties between the two NATO partners have been strained over issues including alleged spying by Turkish clerics in Germany, German concerns about Turkey’s crackdown on dissidents, and Ankara’s accusation that Berlin is harboring militants from the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and far-leftists of the DHKP-C.

The report quoted officials of the German federal migration office and the interior ministry as saying that the asylum applications would be handled as all others.

Norbert Roettgen, head of the parliamentary foreign affairs committee, told Spiegel that political considerations could not play a role in asylum cases.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told a conference in November that some Turkish military officers posted to NATO in Europe had requested asylum but gave no specific numbers.

Reuters reported in October that Turkey had fired hundreds of senior military staff serving at NATO in Europe and the United States after the coup.

Most were recalled to Turkey, but some chose not to return, fearing reprisals.

Greece’s Supreme Court ruled this week against the extradition of eight Turkish soldiers who fled to Greece in July after the abortive coup.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Ralph Boulton)

 The Science of Abrupt Climate Change: Should we be worried?

by Jeffrey Masters, Ph.D.



We generally consider climate changes as taking place on the scale of hundreds or even thousands of years. However, since the early 1990s, a radical shift in the scientific understanding of Earth’s climate history has occurred. We now know that that major regional and global climate shifts have occurred in just a few decades or even a single year. The most recent of these shifts occurred just 8200 years ago. If an abrupt climate change of similar magnitude happened today, it would have severe consequences for humans and natural ecosystems. Although scientists consider an abrupt climate change unlikely in the next 100 years, their understanding of the phenomena is still a work-in-progress, and such a change could be triggered instantly by natural processes or by human-caused global warming with little warning.

The National Academy of Sciences–the board of scientists established by Congress in 1863 to advise the federal government on scientific matters–compiled a comprehensive report in 2002 entitled, Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises. The 244-page report, which contains over 500 references, was written by a team of 59 of the top researchers in climate, and represents the most authoritative source of information about abrupt climate change available. Most of the material that follows was taken from this report.

The Greenland Ice Sheet: The Key to Understanding Earth’s Climate Record

Ice cores hold an amazingly detailed record of Earth’s climate. Each year, snow falling on glacial areas accumulates, piling on top of thousands of years of past snow, compressing the snow into yearly layers of ice, like rings inside a tree trunk. Preserved in the ice are tiny bubbles of ancient air that tell us the composition of the atmosphere at that time. The amount of dust in the snow tells us how windy the climate was. The thickness of the layer tells how much precipitation fell that year. Most importantly, the amount of the “heavy” isotope of oxygen, 18O, lets us infer the average atmospheric temperature, since water vapor with “heavy” 18O molecules condenses out of clouds more readily at cold temperatures.

Accessing this treasure-trove of climatic information is a huge undertaking–cores of ice must be drilled miles deep in some of the most inhospitable places on Earth. In 1989 the National Science Foundation funded the $25 million Greenland Ice Sheet Project II (GISP2) to drill an ice core through the entire two mile depth of the Greenland ice sheet. At the same time, a separate European project (GRIP), drilled through the ice just 20 miles away, providing a crucial independent check of the GISP2 data. By 1993, both the GRIP and GISP2 drills had hit bedrock, and two miles of ice cores, preserving 110,000 years of climate history in year-by-year layers, were taken to laboratories for analysis.

What the scientists found was surprising and unnerving. They had known from previous ice core and ocean sediment core data that Earth’s climate had fluctuated significantly in the past. But what astonished them was the rapidity with which these changes occurred.

Ocean and lake sediment data from places such as California, Venezuela, and Antarctica have confirmed that these sudden climate changes affected not just Greenland, but the entire world. During the past 110,000 years, there have been at least 20 such abrupt climate changes. Only one period of stable climate has existed during the past 110,000 years–the 11,000 years of modern climate (the “Holocene” era). “Normal” climate for Earth is the climate of sudden extreme jumps–like a light switch flicking on and off.

Temperatures in Greenland over the past 100,000 years

Average Yearly Temperatures in Greenland over the past 100,000 Years as inferred from Oxygen isotope analysis of the GISP2 Greenland ice core. Source: Cuffey, K.M., and G.D. Clow, “Temperature, accumulation, and ice sheet elevation in central Greenland throughout the last deglacial transition”, Journal of Geophysical Research, 102, 383-396, 1997.

The ice core record showed frequent sudden warmings and coolings of 15°F (8°C) or more. Many of these changes happened in less than 10 years. In one case 11,600 years ago, when Earth emerged from the final phase of the most recent ice age (an event called the Younger Dryas), the Greenland ice core data showed that a 15°F (8°C) warming occurred in less than a decade, accompanied by a doubling of snow accumulation in 3 years. Most of this doubling occurred in a single year.

What causes abrupt climate change?

Current theories on the cause of abrupt climatic change focus on sudden shut downs and start-ups of the Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) (also referred to as the thermohaline circulation), which is a global network of density-driven ocean currents. The Meridional Overturning Circulation transports a tremendous amount of heat northward, keeping the North Atlantic and much of Europe up to 9°F (5°C) warmer, particularly in the winter. A sudden shut down of this current would have a ripple effect throughout the ocean-atmosphere system, forcing worldwide changes in ocean currents, and in the path of the atmospheric jet stream. Studies of North Atlantic Ocean sediments have revealed that the Meridional Overturning Circulation has shut down many times in the past, and that many of these shut downs coincide with the abrupt climate change events noted in the Greenland ice cores.

How does one shut down the Meridional Overturning Circulation? First, one must examine the MOC itself. The MOC, or Great Ocean Conveyor Belt , is a system of interconnected ocean currents that girdle the planet.

Great Ocean Conveyor Belt

The Great Ocean Conveyor Belt Source: IPCC

At the surface, warmer ocean currents are driven by the winds, and so move parallel to the wind direction, except where continental land masses block the way.

Water can also move vertically in the ocean. High density water sinks, and low density water rises. Salty water is more dense than fresh water, and cold water is more dense than warm water, so that wherever we find cold, salty water, it tends to sink. Colder currents are deeper and have higher salinity.

In the tropical Atlantic, the sun’s heat evaporates large amounts of water, creating relatively warm, salty ocean water. This warm, salty water flows westward toward North America, then up the East Coast of the U.S., then northeastward toward Europe, forming the mighty Gulf Stream current. As this warm, salty water reaches the ocean regions on either side of Greenland, cold winds blowing off of Canada and Greenland cool the water substantially These cool, salty waters are now very dense compared to the surrounding waters, and sink to the bottom of the ocean. Thus, the oceanic areas by Greenland where this sinking occurs are called “deep-water formation areas”. This North Atlantic deep water flows southward toward Antarctica, eventually making it all the way to the Pacific Ocean, where it rises back to the surface to complete the Great Ocean Conveyor Belt. It takes about 1000 years for the water to make a complete circuit around the globe.

Since the Great Ocean Conveyor Belt is driven in part by differences in ocean water density, if one can pump enough fresh water into the ocean in the key areas on either side of Greenland where the Gulf Stream waters cool and sink, this will lower the ocean’s salinity (and therefore its density) enough so that the waters can no longer sink. As a result, the Atlantic conveyor belt and Gulf Stream current would shut down in just a few years, dramatically altering the climate.

How much fresh water is needed to shut down the MOC?

It is unknown precisely how much fresh water is needed to shut down the MOC. Scientists are fairly certain that the last two abrupt coolings seen the Greenland ice core, the “Younger Dryas” event and the “8200 years before present” event,both occurred when huge North American glacial melt-water lakes flooded down the St. Lawrence River into the North Atlantic when the ice dams restraining the lakes broke. The sudden addition of low-density fresh water presumably partially or totally stopped the sinking of ocean waters in the North Atlantic, slowing or completely stopping the Meridional Overturning Circulation. Once the fresh water got into the North Atlantic, it stayed, puddling on top of the ocean and freezing in winter. The Meridional Overturning Circulation stayed shut off for about 1100 years during the Younger Dryas event, then suddenly restarted, for reasons scientists don’t understand. Current computer models of the climate cannot reproduce the observed sudden shut-down or start-up of the Meridional Overturning Circulation at the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas period.

Other sudden shut downs of the Meridional Overturning Circulation observed in ice core and ocean sediment records are not thought to be due to sudden melt-water floods into the North Atlantic. These events may have happened simply because Earth’s climate system is chaotic, or perhaps because some critical threshold was crossed when increases in precipitation, river run-off, and ice melt put enough fresh water into the ocean to shut down the Meridional Overturning Circulation.

How likely is it that global warming will trigger abrupt climate change?

Global warming will increase precipitation, river run-off, melting of the Greenland ice sheet, and melting of polar sea ice, all of which will increase the amount of fresh water flowing into the critical deep-water formation areas by Greenland. In the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers it states that, based on current model simulations, it is very likely (90-99% confidence) that the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the Atlantic Ocean will slow down during the 21st century. It also confirms the scientific consensus that is very unlikely the MOC will undergo a large abrupt transition during this century. Today’s science is such that any long-term assessments of the MOC cannot be made with confidence. A 2012 paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences used computer modeling to show that abrupt climate events in the past occurred as a result of a change in ocean currents due to the Bering Strait closing off because of low sea levels. The Bering Strait is the 50-mile-wide gap that separates Siberia from Alaska. “As long as the Bering Strait remains open,” said lead author Aixue Hu, a climate modeler at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), in a telephone interview posted at Climate Central, “we will not see an abrupt climate event.” With global sea levels rising due to melting icecaps, closure of the Bering Strait is not likely in the foreseeable future.

How would the climate change if the Meridional overturning circulation shut down?

A shut down of the Meridional overturning circulation would suddenly decrease the amount of heat in the North Atlantic, leading to much colder temperatures in Europe and North America. A 2003 report prepared for the Department of Defense outlines what would happen if an abrupt climatic change similar to the 8200 years before present event were to recur today:

  • Annual average temperatures would drop up to 5° F in North America, and up to 6° F in northern Europe. This is not sufficient to trigger an ice age, which requires about a 10° F drop in temperature world-wide, but could bring about conditions like experienced in 1816–the famed “year without a summer”. In that year, volcanic ash from the mighty Tambora volcanic eruption in Indonesia blocked the sun’s rays, significantly cooling the globe. Snow fell in New England in June, and killing frosts in July and August caused widespread crop failures and famine in New England and northern Europe.
  • Annual average temperatures would warm up to 4° F in many areas of the Southern Hemisphere.
  • Multi-year droughts in regions unaccustomed to drought would affect critical agricultural and water resource regions world-wide, greatly straining food and water supplies.
  • Winter storms and winds would strengthen over North America and Europe.

Dr. Wally Broecker of Columbia University, the scientist who first pointed out the link between the Atlantic’s conveyor circulation and abrupt climate change, wrote a letter in March 2004 to Science magazine, accusing the authors of the study of making exaggerated claims that “only intensify the existing polarization over global warming”. Broecker argued that a global-warming induced abrupt climate change is not likely to occur until 100 years or so into the future, by which time Earth’s temperature will have warmed sufficiently to offset much of the abrupt cooling a Meridional overturning circulation shut down would trigger. Broecker added: “What is needed is not more words but rather a means to shut down carbon dioxide emissions.” The authors of the study defend their scenario thusly: “We have created a climate change scenario that although not the likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately”.

On the freezing of the UK and Europe

The possibility of the freezing of the UK and Europe will be determined by a “tug-of-war” of sorts, between the amount of greenhouse gases and the speed with which the MOC slows down. Greenhouse gases may have more of an impact than a slowing of the MOC, simply because they are more abundant today than ever in the earth’s record. (CO2 levels were at 380 ppm as of 2007, and were never above 300 ppm during the 400,000 years studied in Antarctic ice cores).

Ocean experts see the MOC as having three levels: “faster”, “slower”, or “off.” A 2005 comparison of eleven climate models showed that the MOC will likely be slowed by 10-50%, however, because the levels of carbon dioxide are so elevated, any cooling produced by the MOC slowing would be modest because the greenhouse gases would more than compensate. As a result, a net warming is still shown by these models for the UK and surrounding countries. Improving our measurements to monitor the MOC will allow for better predictions and reduce uncertainty of the amount of warming or cooling these areas of northern Europe will encounter.\

What is being done about abrupt climate change?

The immediate obvious needs are for accurate, long-term measurements of the temperature, salinity, and flow rates of the major ocean currents in the North Atlantic Ocean. An expedition set sail from Great Britain on Feb. 13 2004, to provide just that. The voyage was part of a joint US/UK research project called Rapid Climate Change, which began in 2001. In the U.S., Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) sponsored bill S.1164 to authorize $60 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to study abrupt climate change. On March 9, 2004, the Senate Commerce Committee approved the bill. It defines abrupt climate change as “a change in the climate that occurs so rapidly or unexpectedly that human or natural systems have difficulty adapting to the climate as changed.” The bill would create a research program within NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research to determine what causes sudden climate changes and using computer models to predict climate change events. This bill did not pass, and there is little chance for revival. The NTSC Joint Subcommittee On Ocean Science and Technology authored an Ocean Research Priorities Plan in January 2007, providing five key elements for reducing our vulnerability to abrupt climate change. These include: daily monitoring of ocean currents, temperature, and carbon, now-casting, model development, past-climate-change reconstructions, and additional climate-impact assessments.


The historical records shows us that abrupt climate change is not only possible–it is the normal state of affairs. The present warm, stable climate is a rare anomaly. It behooves us to learn as much as we can about the climate system so that we may be able to predict when the next abrupt shift in climate will come. Until we know better when this might happen, it would be wise to stop pouring so much carbon dioxide into the air. A nasty surprise might be lurking just around the corner. In the words of Dr. Wally Broecker, “the climate system is an angry beast, and we are poking it.”

One of the most astonishing finds was the Berezovka Mammoth discovered in 1901 next to the Berezovka River in northern Siberia.  This perfectly preserved creature was found in the upright position with fresh grass and tropical plants still in its mouth.  It had been frozen and entombed in tons of ice so quickly that it didn’t have time to swallow and its mouth was full of tropical plants and grasses.  The weight of the ice was so great that its pelvis and legs were crushed while it was still alive!  Scientists believe that the preserved food in its stomach is proof that the temperature plummeted to at least -175F in a moment of time.  It was frozen in the eating position . . . not in panic or a running position.

Nearby were an assortment of other animals . . . JUNGLE and TROPICAL animals including rhinoceroses, tigers and lions! Warble fly larvae were found in the stomach and intestines of the mammoth and these insects grow only in extremely warm climates.  You can see the Berezovka Mammoth on display at the Zoological Museum in St Petersburg, Russia.  Of special interest was a 90 foot fruit tree also found nearby – proof that the vast northern region of our planet was once a tropical paradise.

These few examples are NOT just isolated and rare cases of a few animals found above the Arctic Circle.  In one 600 mile stretch along the Siberian coast of the Arctic Ocean, it is estimated that over 5 million mammoths once lived along with other tropical animals.  The remains of huge tropical trees are still being freed from the ice every year and washing up on the coasts of the New Siberian Islands  Oil drilling rigs in Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay have brought up many tropical plants including parts of palm trees, pine trees, and tropical plants of huge size and many varieties.

The Zipper Documents and the Assassination of Kennedy- Part 4

January 230, 2017

by Gregory Douglas

Jack Rubenstein (“Ruby”)

Soviet Intelligence Study (translation)

  1. Two days after the shooting of the American President, the alleged assassin, Oswald was shot to death in the basement of the Dallas Police Department while he was being transferred to another jail. On the day of the assassination, November 22, FBI Chief Hoover notified the authorities in Dallas that Oswald should be given special security.
  2. This killing was done in the presence of many armed police officers by a known criminal and associate of the American Mafia named Jack Rubenstein, or “Ruby” as he was also known. “Ruby” had a long past of criminal association with the Mafia in Chicago, Illinois, a major area of gangster control in America. “Ruby” had once worked for the famous Al Capone and then for Sam Giancana. This man was head of the Chicago mob at the time of the assassination.
  3. “Ruby” was the owner of a drinking establishment in Dallas that specialized in dancing by naked women and was also a close friend of many police officers in Dallas. “Ruby” had been seen and photographed in the Dallas police department while Oswald was being interrogated. It should be noted here that suspect Oswald was very often taken by Dallas police out into the completely unguarded hallways of the building and in the presence of many persons unknown to the police. This is viewed as either an attempt to have Oswald killed or a very incompetent and stupid breach of basic security.
  4. The timing by “Ruby” of his entrance into the guarded basement was far too convenient to be accidental. Also, the method of his shooting of Oswald showed a completely professional approach. “Ruby” stepped out from between two policeman holding a revolver down along his leg to avoid detection. As he stepped towards the suspect, “Ruby” raised his right hand with the revolver and fired upwards into Oswald’s body. The bullet severed major arteries and guaranteed Oswald’s death.
  5. Although “Ruby” subsequently pretended to be mentally disturbed, his actions showed professional calculation to a degree. This play-acting was continued into his trial and afterwards. “Ruby” was convicted of the murder of Oswald and sentenced to death. He died in prison of cancer in January of 1967 after an appeal from his sentence had been granted by the court judge. Information indicates that he was given a fatal injection.
  6. “Ruby’s” statements should not be confused with his actions. He was a professional criminal, had excellent connections with the Dallas police, had been involved with activities in Cuba and gun running into that country and some evidence has been produced to show that he and Oswald had knowledge of each other.
  7. Like Oswald, “Ruby” too had homosexual activities and one public witness firmly placed Oswald in “Ruby’s” club prior to the assassination.
  8. In view of later developments and disclosures, the use of a Chicago killer with local Mafia connections to kill Oswald is not surprising. Stories of “Ruby’s” eccentricity were highlighted by American authorities to make it appear that he, like suspect Oswald, was an eccentric, single individual who acted out of emotion and not under orders.
  9. As in the case of Oswald, there was never a proven motive for “Ruby’s” acts. Oswald had no reason whatsoever to shoot the President, had never committed any proven acts of violence. Although he was purported to have shot at a fascist General, it was badly presented and in all probability was a “red herring” to “prove” Oswald’s desire to shoot people. “Ruby”, a professional criminal with a long record of violence, claimed he shot Oswald to “protect” the President’s wife from testifying. This statement appears to be an obvious part of “Ruby’s” attempt to defend himself by claiming to be mad.
  10. It is obvious that “Ruby” killed Oswald to silence him. Since Oswald was not involved in the killing of the President, continued interrogation of him leading to a court trial would have very strongly exposed the weakness of the American government’s attempt to blame him for the crime.
  11. Silencing Oswald promptly was a matter of serious importance for the actual killers.
  12. That Oswald could not be convicted with the evidence at hand, his removal was vital. He could then be tried and convicted in public without any danger.

The Warren Commission Report

Concerned that there might be an attempt on Oswald’s life, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover sent a message to [Dallas Police] Chief Curry on November 22 through Special Agent Manning C. Clements of the FBI’s Dallas office, urging that Oswald be afforded the utmost security. Curry does not recall receiving the message. [WCR, p. 225]

Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald at 11:21 a.m., on Sunday, November 24, 1963, shortly after Ruby entered the basement of the Dallas Police Department. Almost immediately, speculation arose that Ruby had acted on behalf of members of a conspiracy who had planned the killing of President Kennedy and wanted to silence Oswald. [WCR, p. 333]

Ruby is known to have made his way, by about 11:30 p.m., to the third floor of the Dallas Police Department where reporters were congregated near the homicide bureau. [WCR, p. 340]

(A photograph of Ruby taken in Dallas Police Headquarters about midnight November 22, 1963 is Commission Exhibit 2424)

Video tapes confirm Ruby’s statement that he was present on the third floor when Chief Jesse E. Curry and District Attorney Henry M. Wade announced that Oswald would be shown to the newsmen at a press conference in the basement. [WCR, p. 342]

Sunday morning trip to police department—Leaving his apartment a few minutes before 11 a.m., Ruby went to his automobile taking with him his dachshund, Sheba, and a portable radio. He placed a revolver which he routinely carried in a bank moneybag in the trunk of his car. [WCR, p. 354]

Ruby parked his car in a lot directly across the street from the Western Union office. He apparently placed his keys and billfold in the trunk of the car, then locked the trunk, which contained approximately $1,000 in cash, and placed the trunk key in the glove compartment. He did not lock the car doors. [WCR, p. 357]

Ruby entered the police basement through the auto ramp from Main Street and stood behind the front rank of newsmen and police officers who were crowded together at the base of the ramp awaiting the transfer of Oswald to the county jail. As Oswald emerged from a basement office at approximately 11:21 a.m., Ruby moved quickly forward and, without speaking, fired one fatal shot into Oswald’s abdomen before being subdued by a rush of police officers. [WCR, p. 357]

The assembly of more than 70 police officers, some of them armed with tear gas, and the contemplated use of an armored truck, appear to have been designed primarily to repel an attempt of a mob to seize the prisoner. [WCR, p. 227]

If Oswald had been tried for his murders of November 22, the effects of the news policy pursued by the Dallas authorities would have proven harmful both to the prosecution and the defense. The misinformation reported after the shootings might have been used by the defense to cast doubt on the reliability of the State’s entire case. [WCR, p. 238]

The DIA Analysis

  1. The use of Jack Ruby to kill Oswald has been explained by the official reports as an aberrant act on the part of an emotional man under the influence of drugs. The Warren Commission carefully overlooked Ruby’s well-known ties to the Chicago mob as well as his connections with mob elements in Cuba.
  2. Ruby’s early Chicago connections with the mob are certainly well documented in Chicago police files. This material was not used nor referred to in the Warren Report.
  3. Ruby’s close connection with many members of the Dallas police infrastructure coupled with a very strong motivation to remove Oswald prior to any appointment of an attorney to represent him or any possible revelations Oswald might make about his probably knowledge of the actual assassins made Ruby an excellent agent of choice. If Oswald had gained the relative security of the County Jail and lawyers has been appointed for him, it would have proven much more difficult to remove him.
  4. The Warren Commission was most particularly alarmed by attempts on the part of New York attorney Mark Lane, to present a defense for the dead Oswald before the Commission. Lane was refused this request. A written comment by Chief Justice Earl Warren to CIA Director Allan Dulles was that “people like Lane should never be permitted to air their radical views…at least not before this Commission…”
  5. Ruby had been advised by his Chicago mob connections, as well as by others involved in the assassination, that his killing of Oswald would “make him a great hero” in the eyes of the American public and that he “could never be tried or convicted” in any American court of law.
  6. Ruby, who had personal identity problems, accepted and strongly embraced this concept and was shocked to find that he was to be tried on a capital charge. Never very stable, Ruby began to disintegrate while in custody and mixed fact and fiction in a way as to convince possible assassins that he was not only incompetent but would not reveal his small knowledge of the motives behind the removal of Oswald.
  7. In the presence of Chief Justice Warren, Ruby strongly intimated that he had additional information to disclose and wanted to go to the safety of Washington but Warren abruptly declared that he was not interested in hearing any of it.
  8. A polygraph given to Ruby concerning his denial of knowing Oswald and only attempting to kill him as a last minute impulse proved to be completely unsatisfactory and could not be used to support the Commission’s thesis.
  9. During his final illness, while in Parkland Hospital, Ruby was under heavy sedation and kept well supervised to prevent any death bed confessions or inopportune chance remarks to hospital attendants. An unconfirmed report from a usually reliable source states that Ruby was given an injection of air with a syringe which produced an embolism that killed him. The official cause of Ruby’s death was a blood clot.
  10. It was later alleged that Ruby had metastated cancer of the brain and lungs which somehow had escaped any detection during his incarceration in Dallas. It was further alleged that this terminal cancer situation had existed for over a year without manifesting any serious symptoms to the Dallas medical authorities. This is viewed by non-governmental oncologists as highly unbelievable and it appears that Ruby’s fatal blood clot was the result of outside assistance.

Author’s comments

Although the American public was badly shaken by the events of November 22, 1963, the killing of Oswald two days later was a matter that brought into serious question the entire developing official explanation of the assassination.

The Katzenbach letter is an excellent indication of which way the official wind was blowing. At the same time, Director Hoover wrote similar letters, one to President Johnson about cutting off debate and clearly defining Oswald as the sole assassin.

Oswald was not the sole assassin. In point of fact, Lee Harvey Oswald had nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination of John Kennedy. Oswald was a very convenient scapegoat for the murder and was set up for it by the real killers.

The question has been asked that if the FBI had been entrusted with the investigation, would they not have found evidence of a conspiracy, assuming there was one?

The answer would be affirmative. If there had been a conspiracy, the FBI would certainly have discovered it. That having been said, consider several important factors.

Oswald had been employed by a number of official U.S. agencies: the ONI,  the CIA, and, finally, the FBI. Given the intense, and growing, public concern over the stunning act in Dallas, it would have been political suicide for Hoover to acknowledge that an FBI paid informant had killed the President of the United States.

Hoover had found his position very insecure during the Kennedy administration. The President’s brother, Robert Kennedy, had been Attorney General and detested Hoover, calling him “an old faggot” and trying to find some way to leverage him out of his office.  It was only the fact that Hoover had enormous files on all the important personalities in Washington, including the President and members of his family, that kept him in office. Hoover’s files on the President included information on the illegal and socially outrageous activities of John Kennedy and his father Joe.

The apparent ease with which Oswald’s killer had been able to penetrate a heavy screen of Dallas police officers was addressed by Hoover in his memo of November 29:

“The President asked if we have any relationship between the two (Oswald and Rubenstein) as yet. I replied that at the present time we have not; that there was a story that the fellow had been in Rubenstein’s nightclub but it has not been confirmed. [… Ruby] knew all of the police officers in the white light district; let them come in and get food and liquor, etc.; and that is how I think he got into police headquarters. I said if they ever made any move, the pictures did not show it even when they saw his approach and he got right up to Oswald and pressed the pistol against Oswald’s stomach; that neither officer on either side made any effort to grab Rubenstein—not until after the pistol was fired. I said, secondly, the chief of police admits he moved Oswald in the morning as a convenience and at the request of the motion picture people who wanted daylight.”

The truth of the Kennedy assassination is not to be found in the deliberate obfuscations, untruths, and omissions of the Warren Report but in the files of the Director of the FBI and, more especially, in the files of the CIA.

If, as postulated here, Kennedy was not killed by a lone, disgruntled societal misfit, who then did kill him and why?

The answers are to be found in both the Soviet intelligence report and the DIA commentary. Additional answers can be found in current FBI and CIA files, but as these are not available for public viewing, nor are ever likely to be, it is to these other papers that one must look.

Files aside, the most important tool that a historian can use is logic. A very complex series of theories, postulations, and presentations may simply be reduced to a very common denominator. By not multiplying entities beyond necessity, the truth quickly becomes evident to the investigator. Cutting away the concealing jungle growth brings the stalking tiger into full view.

As the Warren Commission Report obviously has nothing to say about any reasonable suspects other than the unfortunate Lee Harvey Oswald and his friends, its comments are not included in the final chapters of the drama.

Persons with an interest in going into government service are encouraged to read the Warren Commission Report to learn how to conceal their mistakes in a matrix of literary and historical nonsense. The Brothers Grimm with their classic fairy tales were doubtlessly the first governmental spin doctors, but then, no one ever was expected to take them seriously.

‘Mein Kampf’: Murphy translation: Part 21

January 30, 2017

There have been a number of translations of Hitler’s seminal book. Most have been heavily edited so as to promulgate disinformation about Hitler’s views and remove passages that might offend the sensitive.

The Murphy translation is considered to be the most accurate and is being reprinted in toto here.

Our next publication of this work will be the unexpurgated original German edition.

German officially- approved historians have recently released a highly doctored edition of ‘Mein Kampf’ that is selling very well in Germany.

Perhaps a free copy of the unredacted original work would do better in the same marketplace. Ed




After we had laid down our arms, in November 1918, a policy was adopted which in all human probability was bound to lead gradually to our complete subjugation. Analogous examples from history show that those nations which lay down their arms without being absolutely forced to do so subsequently prefer to submit to the greatest humiliations and exactions rather than try to change their fate by resorting to arms again.

That is intelligible on purely human grounds. A shrewd conqueror will always enforce his exactions on the conquered only by stages, as far as that is possible. Then he may expect that a people who have lost all strength of character–which is always the case with every nation that voluntarily submits to the threats of an opponent–will not find in any of these acts of oppression, if one be enforced apart from the other, sufficient grounds for taking up arms again. The more numerous the extortions thus passively accepted so much the less will resistance appear justified in the eyes of other people, if the vanquished nation should end by revolting against the last act of oppression in a long series. And that is especially so if the nation has already patiently and silently accepted impositions which were much more exacting.

The fall of Carthage is a terrible example of the slow agony of a people which ended in destruction and which was the fault of the people themselves.

In his THREE ARTICLES OF FAITH Clausewitz expressed this idea admirably and gave it a definite form when he said: “The stigma of shame incurred by a cowardly submission can never be effaced. The drop of poison which thus enters the blood of a nation will be transmitted to posterity. It will undermine and paralyse the strength of later generations.” But, on the contrary, he added: “Even the loss of its liberty after a sanguinary and honourable struggle assures the resurgence of the nation and is the vital nucleus from which one day a new tree can draw firm roots.”

Naturally a nation which has lost all sense of honour and all strength of character will not feel the force of such a doctrine. But any nation that takes it to heart will never fall very low. Only those who forget it or do not wish to acknowledge it will collapse. Hence those responsible for a cowardly submission cannot be expected suddenly to take thought with themselves, for the purpose of changing their former conduct and directing it in the way pointed out by human reason and experience. On the contrary, they will repudiate such a doctrine, until the people either become permanently habituated to the yoke of slavery or the better elements of the nation push their way into the foreground and forcibly take power away from the hands of an infamous and corrupt regime. In the first case those who hold power will be pleased with the state of affairs, because the conquerors often entrust them with the task of supervising the slaves. And these utterly characterless beings then exercise that power to the detriment of their own people, more cruelly than the most cruel-hearted stranger that might be nominated by the enemy himself.

The events which happened subsequent to 1918 in Germany prove how the hope of securing the clemency of the victor by making a voluntary submission had the most disastrous influence on the political views and conduct of the broad masses. I say the broad masses explicitly, because

I cannot persuade myself that the things which were done or left undone by the leaders of the people are to be attributed to a similar disastrous illusion. Seeing that the direction of our historical destiny after the war was now openly controlled by the Jews, it is impossible to admit that a defective knowledge of the state of affairs was the sole cause of our misfortunes. On the contrary, the conclusion that must be drawn from the facts is that our people were intentionally driven to ruin. If we examine it from this point of view we shall find that the direction of the nation’s foreign policy was not so foolish as it appeared; for on scrutinizing the matter closely we see clearly that this conduct was a procedure which had been calmly calculated, shrewdly defined and logically carried out in the service of the Jewish idea and the Jewish endeavour to secure the mastery of the world.

From 1806 to 1813 Prussia was in a state of collapse. But that period sufficed to renew the vital energies of the nation and inspire it once more with a resolute determination to fight. An equal period of time has passed over our heads from 1918 until to-day, and no advantage has been derived from it. On the contrary, the vital strength of our State has been steadily sapped.             Seven years after November 1918 the Locarno Treaty was signed.

Thus the development which took place was what I have indicated above.

Once the shameful Armistice had been signed our people were unable to pluck up sufficient courage and energy to call a halt suddenly to the conduct of our adversary as the oppressive measures were being constantly renewed. The enemy was too shrewd to put forward all his demands at once. He confined his duress always to those exactions which, in his opinion and that of our German Government, could be submitted to for the moment: so that in this way they did not risk causing an explosion of public feeling. But according as the single impositions were increasingly subscribed to and tolerated it appeared less justifiable to do now in the case of one sole imposition or act of duress what had not been previously done in the case of so many others, namely, to oppose it. That is the ‘drop of poison’ of which Clausewitz speaks. Once this lack of character is manifested the resultant condition becomes steadily aggravated and weighs like an evil inheritance on all future decisions. It may become as a leaden weight around the nation’s neck, which cannot be shaken off but which forces it to drag out its existence in slavery.

Thus, in Germany, edicts for disarmament and oppression and economic plunder followed one after the other, making us politically helpless.             The result of all this was to create that mood which made so many look upon the Dawes Plan as a blessing and the Locarno Treaty as a success.             From a higher point of view we may speak of one sole blessing in the midst of so much misery. This blessing is that, though men may be fooled, Heaven can’t be bribed. For Heaven withheld its blessing. Since that time Misery and Anxiety have been the constant companions of our people, and Distress is the one Ally that has remained loyal to us. In this case also Destiny has made no exceptions. It has given us our deserts. Since we did not know how to value honour any more, it has taught us to value the liberty to seek for bread. Now that the nation has learned to cry for bread, it may one day learn to pray for freedom.

The collapse of our nation in the years following 1918 was bitter and manifest. And yet that was the time chosen to persecute us in the most malicious way our enemies could devise, so that what happened afterwards could have been foretold by anybody then. The government to which our people submitted was as hopelessly incompetent as it was conceited, and this was especially shown in repudiating those who gave any warning that disturbed or displeased. Then we saw–and to-day also–the greatest parliamentary nincompoops, really common saddlers and glove-makers—not merely by trade, for that would signify very little–suddenly raised to the rank of statesmen and sermonizing to humble mortals from that pedestal. It did not matter, and it still does not matter, that such a ‘statesman’, after having displayed his talents for six months or so as a mere windbag, is shown up for what he is and becomes the object of public raillery and sarcasm. It does not matter that he has given the most evident proof of complete incompetency. No. That does not matter at all. On the contrary, the less real service the parliamentary statesmen of this Republic render the country, the more savagely they persecute all who expect that parliamentary deputies should show some positive results of their activities. And they persecute everybody who dares to point to the failure of these activities and predict similar failures for the future. If one finally succeeds in nailing down one of these parliamentarians to hard facts, so that this political artist can no longer deny the real failure of his whole action and its results, then he will find thousands of grounds for excuse, but will in no way admit that he himself is the chief cause of the evil.

In the winter of 1922-23, at the latest, it ought to have been generally recognized that, even after the conclusion of peace, France was still endeavouring with iron consistency to attain those ends which had been originally envisaged as the final purpose of the War. For nobody could think of believing that for four and a half years France continued to pour out the not abundant supply of her national blood in the most decisive struggle throughout all her history in order subsequently to obtain compensation through reparations for the damages sustained. Even Alsace and Lorraine, taken by themselves, would not account for the energy with which the French conducted the War, if Alsace-Lorraine were not already considered as a part of the really vast programme which French foreign policy had envisaged for the future. The aim of that programme was: Disintegration of Germany into a collection of small states. It was for this that Chauvinist France waged war; and in doing so she was in reality selling her people to be the serfs of the international Jew.

French war aims would have been obtained through the World War if, as was originally hoped in Paris, the struggle had been carried out on German soil. Let us imagine the bloody battles of the World War not as having taken place on the Somme, in Flanders, in Artois, in front of Warsaw, Nizhni-Novogorod, Kowno, and Riga but in Germany, in the Ruhr or on the Maine, on the Elbe, in front of Hanover, Leipzig, Nürnberg, etc.

If such happened, then we must admit that the destruction of Germany might have been accomplished. It is very much open to question if our young federal State could have borne the hard struggle for four and a half years, as it was borne by a France that had been centralized for centuries, with the whole national imagination focused on Paris. If this titanic conflict between the nations developed outside the frontiers of our fatherland, not only is all the merit due to the immortal service rendered by our old army but it was also very fortunate for the future of Germany. I am fully convinced that if things had taken a different course there would no longer be a German REICH to-day but only ‘German States’. And that is the only reason why the blood which was shed by our friends and brothers in the War was at least not shed in vain.

The course which events took was otherwise. In November 1918 Germany did indeed collapse with lightning suddenness. But when the catastrophe took place at home the armies under the Commander-in-Chief were still deep in the enemy’s country. At that time France’s first preoccupation was not the dismemberment of Germany but the problem of how to get the German armies out of France and Belgium as quickly as possible. And so, in order to put an end to the War, the first thing that had to be done by the Paris Government was to disarm the German armies and push them back into Germany if possible. Until this was done the French could not devote their attention to carrying out their own particular and original war aims. As far as concerned England, the War was really won when Germany was destroyed as a colonial and commercial Power and was reduced to the rank of a second-class State. It was not in England’s interest to wipe out the German State altogether. In fact, on many grounds it was desirable for her to have a future rival against France in Europe.

Therefore French policy was forced to carry on by peaceful means the work for which the War had opened the way; and Clemenceau’s statement, that for him Peace was merely a continuation of the War, thus acquired an enhanced significance.

Persistently and on every opportunity that arose, the effort to dislocate the framework of the REICH was to have been carried on. By perpetually sending new notes that demanded disarmament, on the one hand, and by the imposition of economic levies which, on the other hand, could be carried out as the process of disarmament progressed, it was hoped in Paris that the framework of the REICH would gradually fall to pieces. The more the Germans lost their sense of national honour the more could economic pressure and continued economic distress be effective as factors of political destruction. Such a policy of political oppression and economic exploitation, carried out for ten or twenty years, must in the long run steadily ruin the most compact national body and, under certain circumstances, dismember it. Then the French war aims would have been definitely attained.

By the winter of 1922-23 the intentions of the French must already have been known for a long time back. There remained only two possible ways of confronting the situation. If the German national body showed itself sufficiently tough-skinned, it might gradually blunt the will of the French or it might do–once and for all–what was bound to become inevitable one day: that is to say, under the provocation of some particularly brutal act of oppression it could put the helm of the German ship of state to roundabout and ram the enemy. That would naturally involve a life-and-death-struggle. And the prospect of coming through the struggle alive depended on whether France could be so far isolated that in this second battle Germany would not have to fight against the whole world but in defence of Germany against a France that was persistently disturbing the peace of the world.

I insist on this point, and I am profoundly convinced of it, namely, that this second alternative will one day be chosen and will have to be chosen and carried out in one way or another. I shall never believe that France will of herself alter her intentions towards us, because, in the last analysis, they are only the expression of the French instinct for self-preservation. Were I a Frenchman and were the greatness of France so dear to me as that of Germany actually is, in the final reckoning I could not and would not act otherwise than a Clemenceau. The French nation, which is slowly dying out, not so much through depopulation as through the progressive disappearance of the best elements of the race, can continue to play an important role in the world only if Germany be destroyed. French policy may make a thousand detours on the march towards its fixed goal, but the destruction of Germany is the end which it always has in view as the fulfillment of the most profound yearning and ultimate intentions of the French. Now it is a mistake to believe that if the will on one side should remain only PASSIVE and intent on its own self-preservation it can hold out permanently against another will which is not less forceful but is ACTIVE. As long as the eternal conflict between France and Germany is waged only in the form of a German defence against the French attack, that conflict can never be decided; and from century to century Germany will lose one position after another. If we study the changes that have taken place, from the twelfth century up to our day, in the frontiers within which the German language is spoken, we can hardly hope for a successful issue to result from the acceptance and development of a line of conduct which has hitherto been so detrimental for us.

Only when the Germans have taken all this fully into account will they cease from allowing the national will-to-life to wear itself out in merely passive defence, but they will rally together for a last decisive contest with France. And in this contest the essential objective of the German nation will be fought for. Only then will it be possible to put an end to the eternal Franco-German conflict which has hitherto proved so sterile. Of course it is here presumed that Germany sees in the suppression of France nothing more than a means which will make it possible for our people finally to expand in another quarter. To-day there are eighty million Germans in Europe. And our foreign policy will be recognized as rightly conducted only when, after barely a hundred years, there will be 250 million Germans living on this Continent, not packed together as the coolies in the factories of another Continent but as tillers of the soil and workers whose labour will be a mutual assurance for their existence.

In December 1922 the situation between Germany and France assumed a particularly threatening aspect. France had new and vast oppressive measures in view and needed sanctions for her conduct. Political pressure had to precede the economic plunder, and the French believed that only by making a violent attack against the central nervous system of German life would they be able to make our ‘recalcitrant’ people bow to their galling yoke. By the occupation of the Ruhr District, it was hoped in France that not only would the moral backbone of Germany be broken finally but that we should be reduced to such a grave economic condition that we should be forced, for weal or woe, to subscribe to the heaviest possible obligations.

It was a question of bending and breaking Germany. At first Germany bent and subsequently broke in pieces completely.

Through the occupation of the Ruhr, Fate once more reached out its hand to the German people and bade them arise. For what at first appeared as a heavy stroke of misfortune was found, on closer examination, to contain extremely encouraging possibilities of bringing Germany’s sufferings to an end.

As regards foreign politics, the action of France in occupying the Ruhr really estranged England for the first time in quite a profound way. Indeed it estranged not merely British diplomatic circles, which had concluded the French alliance and had upheld it from motives of calm and objective calculation, but it also estranged large sections of the English nation. The English business world in particular scarcely concealed the displeasure it felt at this incredible forward step in strengthening the power of France on the Continent. From the military standpoint alone France now assumed a position in Europe such as Germany herself had not held previously. Moreover, France thus obtained control over economic resources which practically gave her a monopoly that consolidated her political and commercial strength against all competition. The most important iron and coal mines of Europe were now united in the hand of one nation which, in contrast to Germany, had hitherto defended her vital interests in an active and resolute fashion and whose military efficiency in the Great War was still fresh in the memories of the whole world. The French occupation of the Ruhr coal field deprived England of all the successes she had gained in the War.

And the victors were now Marshal Foch and the France he represented, no longer the calm and painstaking British statesmen.

In Italy also the attitude towards France, which had not been very favourable since the end of the War, now became positively hostile. The great historic moment had come when the Allies of yesterday might become the enemies of to-morrow. If things happened otherwise and if the Allies did not suddenly come into conflict with one another, as in the Second Balkan War, that was due to the fact that Germany had no Enver Pasha but merely a Cuno as Chancellor of the REICH.

Nevertheless, the French invasion of the Ruhr opened up great possibilities for the future not only in Germany’s foreign politics but also in her internal politics. A considerable section of our people who, thanks to the persistent influence of a mendacious Press, had looked upon France as the champion of progress and liberty, were suddenly cured of this illusion. In 1914 the dream of international solidarity suddenly vanished from the brain of our German working class. They were brought back into the world of everlasting struggle, where one creature feeds on the other and where the death of the weaker implies the life of the stronger. The same thing happened in the spring of 1923.

When the French put their threats into effect and penetrated, at first hesitatingly and cautiously, into the coal-basin of Lower Germany the hour of destiny had struck for Germany. It was a great and decisive moment. If at that moment our people had changed not only their frame of mind but also their conduct the German Ruhr District could have been made for France what Moscow turned out to be for Napoleon. Indeed, there were only two possibilities: either to leave this move also to take its course and do nothing or to turn to the German people in that region of sweltering forges and flaming furnaces. An effort might have been made to set their wills afire with determination to put an end to this persistent disgrace and to face a momentary terror rather than submit to a terror that was endless.

Cuno, who was then Chancellor of the REICH, can claim the immortal merit of having discovered a third way; and our German bourgeois political parties merit the still more glorious honour of having admired him and collaborated with him.

Here I shall deal with the second way as briefly as possible.

By occupying the Ruhr France committed a glaring violation of the Versailles Treaty. Her action brought her into conflict with several of the guarantor Powers, especially with England and Italy. She could no longer hope that those States would back her up in her egotistic act of brigandage. She could count only on her own forces to reap anything like a positive result from that adventure, for such it was at the start. For a German National Government there was only one possible way left open.

And this was the way which honour prescribed. Certainly at the beginning we could not have opposed France with an active armed resistance. But it should have been clearly recognized that any negotiations which did not have the argument of force to back them up would turn out futile and ridiculous. If it were not possible to organize an active resistance, then it was absurd to take up the standpoint: “We shall not enter into any negotiations.” But it was still more absurd finally to enter into negotiations without having organized the necessary force as a support.

Not that it was possible for us by military means to prevent the occupation of the Ruhr. Only a madman could have recommended such a decision. But under the impression produced by the action which France had taken, and during the time that it was being carried out, measures could have been, and should have been, undertaken without any regard to the Versailles Treaty, which France herself had violated, to provide those military resources which would serve as a collateral argument to back up the negotiations later on. For it was quite clear from the beginning that the fate of this district occupied by the French would one day be decided at some conference table or other. But it also must have been quite to everybody that even the best negotiators could have little success as long as the ground on which they themselves stood and the chair on which they sat were not under the armed protection of their own people. A weak pygmy cannot contend against athletes, and a negotiator without any armed defence at his back must always bow in obeisance when a Brennus throws the sword into the scales on the enemy’s side, unless an equally strong sword can be thrown into the scales at the other end and thus maintain the balance. It was really distressing to have to observe the comedy of negotiations which, ever since 1918, regularly preceded each arbitrary dictate that the enemy imposed upon us. We offered a sorry spectacle to the eyes of the whole world when we were invited, for the sake of derision, to attend conference tables simply to be presented with decisions and programmes which had already been drawn up and passed a long time before, and which we were permitted to discuss, but from the beginning had to be considered as unalterable.             It is true that in scarcely a single instance were our negotiators men of more than mediocre abilities. For the most part they justified only too well the insolent observation made by Lloyd George when he sarcastically remarked, in the presence of a former Chancellor of the REICH, Herr Simon, that the Germans were not able to choose men of intelligence as their leaders and representatives. But in face of the resolute determination and the power which the enemy held in his hands, on the one side, and the lamentable impotence of Germany on the other, even a body of geniuses could have obtained only very little for Germany.

In the spring of 1923, however, anyone who might have thought of seizing the opportunity of the French invasion of the Ruhr to reconstruct the military power of Germany would first have had to restore to the nation its moral weapons, to reinforce its will-power, and to extirpate those who had destroyed this most valuable element of national strength.

Just as in 1918 we had to pay with our blood for the failure to crush the Marxist serpent underfoot once and for all in 1914 and 1915, now we have to suffer retribution for the fact that in the spring of 1923 we did not seize the opportunity then offered us for finally wiping out the handiwork done by the Marxists who betrayed their country and were responsible for the murder of our people.

Any idea of opposing French aggression with an efficacious resistance was only pure folly as long as the fight had not been taken up against those forces which, five years previously, had broken the German resistance on the battlefields by the influences which they exercised at home. Only bourgeois minds could have arrived at the incredible belief that Marxism had probably become quite a different thing now and that the CANAILLE of ringleaders in 1918, who callously used the bodies of our two million dead as stepping-stones on which they climbed into the various Government positions, would now, in the year 1923, suddenly show themselves ready to pay their tribute to the national conscience. It was veritably a piece of incredible folly to expect that those traitors would suddenly appear as the champions of German freedom. They had no intention of doing it. Just as a hyena will not leave its carrion, a Marxist will not give up indulging in the betrayal of his country. It is out of the question to put forward the stupid retort here, that so many of the workers gave their blood for Germany. German workers, yes, but no longer international Marxists. If the German working class, in 1914, consisted of real Marxists the War would have ended within three weeks. Germany would have collapsed before the first soldier had put a foot beyond the frontiers. No. The fact that the German people carried on the War proved that the Marxist folly had not yet been able to penetrate deeply. But as the War was prolonged German soldiers and workers gradually fell back into the hands of the Marxist leaders, and the number of those who thus relapsed became lost to their country. At the beginning of the War, or even during the War, if twelve or fifteen thousand of these Jews who were corrupting the nation had been forced to submit to poison-gas, just as hundreds of thousands of our best German workers from every social stratum and from every trade and calling had to face it in the field, then the millions of sacrifices made at the front would not have been in vain. On the contrary: If twelve thousand of these malefactors had been eliminated in proper time probably the lives of a million decent men, who would be of value to Germany in the future, might have been saved. But it was in accordance with bourgeois ‘statesmanship’ to hand over, without the twitch of an eyelid, millions of human beings to be slaughtered on the battlefields, while they looked upon ten or twelve thousand public traitors, profiteers, usurers and swindlers, as the dearest and most sacred national treasure and proclaimed their persons to be inviolable. Indeed it would be hard to say what is the most outstanding feature of these bourgeois circles: mental debility, moral weakness and cowardice, or a mere down-at-heel mentality. It is a class that is certainly doomed to go under but, unhappily, it drags down the whole nation with it into the abyss.

The situation in 1923 was quite similar to that of 1918. No matter what form of resistance was decided upon, the first prerequisite for taking action was the elimination of the Marxist poison from the body of the nation. And I was convinced that the first task then of a really National Government was to seek and find those forces that were determined to wage a war of destruction against Marxism and to give these forces a free hand. It was their duty not to bow down before the fetish of ‘order and tranquillity’ at a moment when the enemy from outside was dealing the Fatherland a death-blow and when high treason was lurking behind every street corner at home. No. A really National Government ought then to have welcomed disorder and unrest if this turmoil would afford an opportunity of finally settling with the Marxists, who are the mortal enemies of our people. If this precaution were neglected, then it was sheer folly to think of resisting, no matter what form that resistance might take.

Of course, such a settlement of accounts with the Marxists as would be of real historical importance could not be effected along lines laid down by some secret council or according to some plan concocted by the shriveled mind of some cabinet minister. It would have to be in accordance with the eternal laws of life on this Earth which are and will remain those of a ceaseless struggle for existence. It must always be remembered that in many instances a hardy and healthy nation has emerged from the ordeal of the most bloody civil wars, while from peace conditions which had been artificially maintained there often resulted a state of national putrescence that reeked to the skies. The fate of a nation cannot be changed in kid gloves. And so in the year 1923 brutal action should have been taken to stamp out the vipers that battened on the body of the nation. If this were done, then the first prerequisite for an active opposition would have been fulfilled.

At that time I often talked myself hoarse in trying to make it clear, at least to the so-called national circles, what was then at stake and that by repeating the errors committed in 1914 and the following years we must necessarily come to the same kind of catastrophe as in 1918. I frequently implored of them to let Fate have a free hand and to make it possible for our Movement to settle with the Marxists. But I preached to deaf ears. They all thought they knew better, including the Chief of the Defence Force, until finally they found themselves forced to subscribe to the vilest capitulation that history records.

I then became profoundly convinced that the German bourgeoisie had come to the end of its mission and was not capable of fulfilling any further function. And then also I recognized the fact that all the bourgeois parties had been fighting Marxism merely from the spirit of competition without sincerely wishing to destroy it. For a long time they had been accustomed to assist in the destruction of their country, and their one great care was to secure good seats at the funeral banquet. It was for this alone that they kept on ‘fighting’.

At that time–I admit it openly–I conceived a profound admiration for the great man beyond the Alps, whose ardent love for his people inspired him not to bargain with Italy’s internal enemies but to use all possible ways and means in an effort to wipe them out. What places Mussolini in the ranks of the world’s great men is his decision not to share Italy with the Marxists but to redeem his country from Marxism by destroying internationalism.             What miserable pygmies our sham statesmen in Germany appear by comparison with him. And how nauseating it is to witness the conceit and effrontery of these nonentities in criticizing a man who is a thousand times greater than them. And how painful it is to think that this takes place in a country which could point to a Bismarck as its leader as recently as fifty years ago.

The attitude adopted by the bourgeoisie in 1923 and the way in which they dealt kindly with Marxism decided from the outset the fate of any attempt at active resistance in the Ruhr. With that deadly enemy in our own ranks it was sheer folly to think of fighting France. The most that could then be done was to stage a sham fight in order to satisfy the German national element to some extent, to tranquilize the ‘boiling state of the public mind’, or dope it, which was what was really intended. Had they really believed in what they did, they ought to have recognized that the strength of a nation lies, first of all, not in its arms but in its will, and that before conquering the external enemy the enemy at home would have to be eliminated. If not, then disaster must result if victory be not achieved on the very first day of the fight.             The shadow of one defeat is sufficient to break up the resistance of a nation that has not been liberated from its internal enemies, and give the adversary a decisive victory.

In the spring of 1923 all this might have been predicted. It is useless to ask whether it was then possible to count on a military success against France. For if the result of the German action in regard to the French invasion of the Ruhr had been only the destruction of Marxism at home, success would have been on our side. Once liberated from the deadly enemies of her present and future existence, Germany would possess forces which no power in the world could strangle again. On the day when Marxism is broken in Germany the chains that bind Germany will be smashed for ever. For never in our history have we been conquered by the strength of our outside enemies but only through our own failings and the enemy in our own camp.

Since it was not able to decide on such heroic action at that time, the Government could have chosen the first way: namely, to allow things to take their course and do nothing at all.

But at that great moment Heaven made Germany a present of a great man.

This was Herr Cuno. He was neither a statesman nor a politician by profession, still less a politician by birth. But he belonged to that type of politician who is merely used for liGYMNASIUMating some definite question. Apart from that, he had business experience. It was a curse for Germany that, in the practice of politics, this business man looked upon politics also as a business undertaking and regulated his conduct accordingly.

“France occupies the Ruhr. What is there in the Ruhr? Coal. And so France occupies the Ruhr for the sake of its coal?” What could come more naturally to the mind of Herr Cuno than the idea of a strike, which would prevent the French from obtaining any coal? And therefore, in the opinion of Herr Cuno, one day or other they would certainly have to get out of the Ruhr again if the occupation did not prove to be a paying business. Such were approximately the lines along which that OUTSTANDING NATIONAL STATESMAN reasoned. At Stuttgart and other places he spoke to ‘his people’ and this people became lost in admiration for him. Of course they needed the Marxists for the strike, because the workers would have to be the first to go on strike. Now, in the brain of a bourgeois statesman such as Cuno, a Marxist and a worker are one and the same thing. Therefore it was necessary to bring the worker into line with all the other Germans in a united front. One should have seen how the countenances of these party politicians beamed with the light of their moth-eaten bourgeois culture when the great genius spoke the word of revelation to them. Here was a nationalist and also a man of genius.

At last they had discovered what they had so long sought. For now the abyss between Marxism and themselves could be bridged over. And thus it became possible for the pseudo-nationalist to ape the German manner and adopt nationalist phraseology in reaching out the ingenuous hand of friendship to the internationalist traitors of their country. The traitor readily grasped that hand, because, just as Herr Cuno had need of the Marxist chiefs for his ‘united front’, the Marxist chiefs needed Herr Cuno’s money. So that both parties mutually benefited by the transaction. Cuno obtained his united front, constituted of nationalist charlatans and international swindlers. And now, with the help of the money paid to them by the State, these people were able to pursue their glorious mission, which was to destroy the national economic system. It was an immortal thought, that of saving a nation by means of a general strike in which the strikers were paid by the State. It was a command that could be enthusiastically obeyed by the most indifferent of loafers.

Everybody knows that prayers will not make a nation free. But that it is possible to liberate a nation by giving up work has yet to be proved by historical experience. Instead of promoting a paid general strike at that time, and making this the basis of his ‘united front’, if Herr Cuno had demanded two hours more work from every German, then the swindle of the ‘united front’ would have been disposed of within three days. Nations do not obtain their freedom by refusing to work but by making sacrifices.

Anyhow, the so-called passive resistance could not last long. Nobody but a man entirely ignorant of war could imagine that an army of occupation might be frightened and driven out by such ridiculous means. And yet this could have been the only purpose of an action for which the country had to pay out milliards and which contributed seriously to devaluate the national currency.

Of course the French were able to make themselves almost at home in the Ruhr basin the moment they saw that such ridiculous measures were being adopted against them. They had received the prescription directly from ourselves of the best way to bring a recalcitrant civil population to a sense of reason if its conduct implied a serious danger for the officials which the army of occupation had placed in authority. Nine years previously we wiped out with lightning rapidity bands of Belgian FRANCS-TIREURS and made the civil population clearly understand the seriousness of the situation, when the activities of these bands threatened grave danger for the German army. In like manner if the passive resistance of the Ruhr became really dangerous for the French, the armies of occupation would have needed no more than eight days to bring the whole piece of childish nonsense to a gruesome end. For we must always go back to the original question in all this business: What were we to do if the passive resistance came to the point where it really got on the nerves of our opponents and they proceeded to suppress it with force and bloodshed? Would we still continue to resist? If so, then, for weal or woe, we would have to submit to a severe and bloody persecution. And in that case we should be faced with the same situation as would have faced us in the case of an active resistance. In other words, we should have to fight. Therefore the so-called passive resistance would be logical only if supported by the determination to come out and wage an open fight in case of necessity or adopt a kind of guerilla warfare. Generally speaking, one undertakes such a struggle when there is a possibility of success. The moment a besieged fortress is taken by assault there is no practical alternative left to the defenders except to surrender, if instead of probable death they are assured that their lives will be spared. Let the garrison of a citadel which has been completely encircled by the enemy once lose all hope of being delivered by their friends, then the strength of the defence collapses totally.

That is why passive resistance in the Ruhr, when one considers the final consequences which it might and must necessarily have if it were to turn out really successful, had no practical meaning unless an active front had been organized to support it. Then one might have demanded immense efforts from our people. If each of these Westphalians in the Ruhr could have been assured that the home country had mobilized an army of eighty or a hundred divisions to support them, the French would have found themselves treading on thorns. Surely a greater number of courageous men could be found to sacrifice themselves for a successful enterprise than for an enterprise that was manifestly futile.

This was the classic occasion that induced us National Socialists to take up a resolute stand against the so-called national word of command.

And that is what we did. During those months I was attacked by people whose patriotism was a mixture of stupidity and humbug and who took part in the general hue and cry because of the pleasant sensation they felt at being suddenly enabled to show themselves as nationalists, without running any danger thereby. In my estimation, this despicable ‘united front’ was one of the most ridiculous things that could be imagined. And events proved that I was right.

As soon as the Trades Unions had nearly filled their treasuries with Cuno’s contributions, and the moment had come when it would be necessary to transform the passive resistance from a mere inert defence into active aggression, the Red hyenas suddenly broke out of the national sheepfold and returned to be what they always had been. Without sounding any drums or trumpets, Herr Cuno returned to his ships. Germany was richer by one experience and poorer by the loss of one great hope.

Up to midsummer of that year several officers, who certainly were not the least brave and honourable of their kind, had not really believed that the course of things could take a turn that was so humiliating.

They had all hoped that–if not openly, then at least secretly—the necessary measures would be taken to make this insolent French invasion a turning-point in German history. In our ranks also there were many who counted at least on the intervention of the REICHSWEHR. That conviction was so ardent that it decisively influenced the conduct and especially the training of innumerable young men.

But when the disgraceful collapse set in and the most humiliating kind of capitulation was made, indignation against such a betrayal of our unhappy country broke out into a blaze. Millions of German money had been spent in vain and thousands of young Germans had been sacrificed, who were foolish enough to trust in the promises made by the rulers of the REICH. Millions of people now became clearly convinced that Germany could be saved only if the whole prevailing system were destroyed root and branch.

There never had been a more propitious moment for such a solution. On the one side an act of high treason had been committed against the country, openly and shamelessly. On the other side a nation found itself delivered over to die slowly of hunger. Since the State itself had trodden down all the precepts of faith and loyalty, made a mockery of the rights of its citizens, rendered the sacrifices of millions of its most loyal sons fruitless and robbed other millions of their last penny, such a State could no longer expect anything but hatred from its subjects. This hatred against those who had ruined the people and the country was bound to find an outlet in one form or another. In this connection I shall quote here the concluding sentence of a speech which

I delivered at the great court trial that took place in the spring of 1924.

“The judges of this State may tranquilly condemn us for our conduct at that time, but History, the goddess of a higher truth and a better legal code, will smile as she tears up this verdict and will acquit us all of the crime for which this verdict demands punishment.”

But History will then also summon before its own tribunal those who, invested with power to-day, have trampled on law and justice, condemning our people to misery and ruin, and who, in the hour of their country’s misfortune, took more account of their own ego than of the life of the community.

Here I shall not relate the course of events which led to November 8th, 1923, and closed with that date. I shall not do so because I cannot see that this would serve any beneficial purpose in the future and also because no good could come of opening old sores that have been just only closed. Moreover, it would be out of place to talk about the guilt of men who perhaps in the depths of their hearts have as much love for their people as I myself, and who merely did not follow the same road as

I took or failed to recognize it as the right one to take.

In the face of the great misfortune which has befallen our fatherland and affects all us, I must abstain from offending and perhaps disuniting those men who must at some future date form one great united front which will be made up of true and loyal Germans and which will have to withstand the common front presented by the enemy of our people. For I know that a time will come when those who then treated us as enemies will venerate the men who trod the bitter way of death for the sake of their people.

I have dedicated the first volume of this book to our eighteen fallen heroes. Here at the end of this second volume let me again bring those men to the memory of the adherents and champions of our ideals, as heroes who, in the full consciousness of what they were doing, sacrificed their lives for us all. We must never fail to recall those names in order to encourage the weak and wavering among us when duty calls, that duty which they fulfilled with absolute faith, even to its extreme consequences. Together with those, and as one of the best of all, I should like to mention the name of a man who devoted his life to reawakening his and our people, through his writing and his ideas and finally through positive action. I mean: Dietrich Eckart.               

No responses yet

Leave a Reply