by Val Koinen
December 9, 2010
I’ve been doing quite a lot of reading about the Edgar Steele case lately (the North Idaho murder-for-hire case in which attorney Steele is accused of plotting with and hiring his neighbor Larry Fairfax to kill his wife and her mother). I wouldn’t call it research. Just browsing news reports and blogs along with statements made by his wife Cyndi Steele, the FBI, the Federal prosecuting attorney, judges, and of course the “lead actor” in this mess, would-be car bomber Larry Fairfax (“Larry the plumber;” the Steele’s “hillbilly handyman”).
As a result, I have not only learned some things; I have developed a number of impressions, questions, suspicions, and “reasonable doubts.”
Here’s what we seem to have so far –
On the “you’re guilty as hell, you scheming, plotting, politically incorrect, murder-for-hire guy” side (a rather short and shaky list if you ask me):
(1) We have the bankrupt, long-time FBI snoop and “confidential informant,” desperate-for-money, known liar and thief, and confessed pipe bomber Larry Fairfax saying that Edgar Steele plotted with him and hired him to kill his (Steele’s) wife and mother-in-law (Mr. Steele being a long-time attorney in good standing, an upright member of the community, as far as known a loving husband and father, a good, solid citizen with no criminal record whatsoever, and a U.S. Coast Guard veteran).
(2) And more than that – Fairfax says he has audio tapes to prove it (recordings which were allegedly made with the complicity of the FBI) – never mind that Edgar Steele denies saying the things on the tapes that have to do with a murder plot and that Cyndi Steele says she has heard those tapes and they are “untrustworthy” because of variances in background noise and a lack of characteristic vocal inflections every time her husband is supposed to be saying something about the murder plot (as though the tapes have been cobbled together – synthesized – probably using Mr. Steele’s utterances taken from his many readily available speeches).
On the “whoa, wait just a minute,” healthy-skepticism side (a long and continually growing list):
(1) Back in November 2009 then 64-year-old Edgar Steele very nearly died from a ruptured ascending aortic aneurism, and that was followed by at least one more aneurism and other serious medical problems over the ensuing months – hardly a condition in which one would be plotting multiple murders on multiple occasions over a prolonged period of time as described by Fairfax, it seems to me. (Actually, if he is guilty of the things he is accused of, Steele would have been working on these murder plots during exactly the same time period when he was convalescing, enduring new medical issues and surgeries, and being nursed back to health by his wife, the very woman he is accused of wanting to murder. Go figure.)
(2) It has been reported that Fairfax stole some $45,000 worth of silver coins from Steele’s residential and horse-ranch property, and no doubt knew Steele would discover the loss and would know who the thief was.
(3) That, together with Fairfax’s recent bankruptcy (debts of some $638,000.), imminent risk of losing his home to foreclosure, and desperation for cash; could certainly have provided ample motivation for him, as some have speculated, to decide to steal the silver and murder the Steeles.
(4) I have seen some references to the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in connection with this case (in a letter to a friend Steele said the ADL “was quoted extensively in the government’s opening papers in court”). If one is inclined to consider the possibility that Edgar Steele is being “set up” on these charges – framed – it would be pretty hard to ignore any involvement or participation on the part of the ADL. They are surely no friends of Edgar Steele, who was highly critical of them and their operations on any number of occasions in his past writings and speeches. Also noteworthy in this regard is the fact that the ADL would probably have had “tribally facilitated” access to the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and the Mossad, both of which have the technology and wherewithal to simulate voice recordings (the IDF has admitted to doing that very kind of thing at about the same time the Steele case broke, by doctoring audio recordings from radio exchanges with the “Gaza Freedom Flotilla”).
(5) Sometime in May, 2010, according to Cyndi Steele, Fairfax borrowed Edgar Steele’s pickup truck and swapped-out the nearly new tires (stole them and replaced them with his more worn tires). What a guy!
(6) Fairfax’s descriptions of the murder-for-hire plot are complicated, have included a number of discrepancies and contradictions, and in some particulars seem to have changed over time. The time-line over the most critical period of events is therefore very important:
-Nov. 21, 2009: Edgar Steele nearly dies from a ruptured aortic aneurism (he is hospitalized for an extended period and has other related serious health problems over the next months).
-Late 2009: Fairfax says he had several discussions with Steele in which Steele mentioned people he would like to see killed (including his wife and mother-in-law).
-April 14, 2010: Fairfax declares bankruptcy.
-On or about May 28-30, 2010: Fairfax made two pipe bombs and attached one to Cyndi Steele’s vehicle.
-Around May 29 - 31: Cyndi Steele departs for Oregon to care for her mother, who is also in poor health.
-May 31: Fairfax, reportedly accompanied by cousin Jim Maher, traveled to Oregon.
-June 8 or 9: Fairfax informed FBI of supposed murder-for-hire plot.
-June 9: First of two supposed incriminating plotting
conversations with Steele; Fairfax may or may not have recorded the conversation.
-June 10: Supposedly recorded second conversation.
-June 11: FBI visits Cyndi Steele at her mother’s home in Oregon City, Oregon.
-June 11: Edgar Steele arrested at his home.
-Prior to June 15: Cyndi Steele drives back to Idaho.
-June 14: Steele arraignment postponed one day due to phony "white powder" event (white powder later identified as harmless calcium carbonate mailed by person(s) unknown to the federal courthouse in Coeur d'Alene, and to several federal facilities in western states).
-June 15: Edgar Steele arraignment. Just hours before that event, that morning, Cyndi Steele takes her vehicle to a shop for an oil change, and an employee finds the pipe bomb still attached to the frame of her SUV.
-June 15: Fairfax interviewed (interrogated) by Coeur d’Alene Idaho police and then arrested by U.S. Government.
(7) By his own admission, in late May 2010, Fairfax made two pipe bombs and attached one underneath the SUV usually driven by Cyndi Steele. Depending on which story we believe, he may or may not have attached the other one under Edgar Steele’s vehicle – in any case, if he did he must have removed it, and he eventually turned it over to the FBI.
(8) One version of the plot offered by Fairfax had it that the purpose of the bomb that was to be placed on Edgar Steele’s vehicle was to deflect suspicion from him. Steele was to detonate that bomb, making it look as though he too (and not just his wife) had been targeted. But just how would Steele have detonated that bomb safely and privately? By starting the vehicle and letting it run for several (or many) minutes or hours in his garage or driveway? Maybe in the middle of the night when there was no chance someone else would just happen to come upon the scene? Wouldn’t it be a little suspicious, and wouldn’t he expect to come under suspicion, if the bomb went off when he wasn’t in the vehicle or anywhere near it?
(9) At one point (in a bail hearing) Fairfax’s lawyer said in court that Fairfax had only planted the bomb on Cyndi Steele’s vehicle as a ruse to convince Edgar Steele he was complying with the plan. And I believe Fairfax himself told investigators at one point that he planted that bomb to convince Steele the plan was moving forward. (What plan was that – to have the bomb “wait” to go off magically at some unknowable time when both Cyndi Steele and her mother were in the car together, over in Oregon?) Remember – Fairfax said Mr. Steele wanted both his wife and her mother killed, and the FBI is claiming they have proof (on tape) that he plotted that very situation a couple weeks later (for the second time). But the bomb was placed on Mrs. Steele’s SUV when it was at her home in Idaho, and she had to drive about 450 miles to get to her mother’s home in Oregon. So that earlier car-bombing attempt is inconsistent with any plan to kill both women.
(10) Let’s not forget – this was later determined to be a large, real, “live” bomb packed with high explosives and equipped with a detonating fuse. Hardly the kind of thing you would build and attach to a vehicle just as a ruse to convince someone you were carrying out some hare-brained murder scheme. And another thing – are we to suppose that the government just accepted on Fairfax’s word, without a detailed examination of the way the bomb had been placed (wired and/or taped) on the chassis of Cyndi Steele’s vehicle and the opinion of a qualified expert, his explanation that he disabled the bomb he placed on her vehicle by taping the fuse in such a way that it would not burn through and detonate the bomb? (I’m not convinced that is how it would work, as a practical matter.) Is Fairfax really such an expert when it comes to car bombs and fuses? Are we to believe that explanation is what makes him the “good guy,” the one who saved Mrs. Steele’s life (as she was reportedly told by the FBI)?
(11) My personal opinion is that a much more likely story would be that Fairfax attached pipe bombs to both of the Steele’s vehicles in an attempt to kill them both, but he didn’t know what he was doing and neither one exploded. Then, concerned that they would be found intact and traced back to him, he removed the bomb from Edgar’s vehicle and went to Oregon to check on the bomb he had put on Cyndi’s vehicle but for some reason couldn’t find it and assumed it had fallen off. Then he belatedly concocted the ridiculous murder-for-hire plot involving the Steeles and the mother-in-law, went to the FBI, and arranged to get the doctored audio tapes made and into their hands.
(12) Sometime in early June (on the 8th or 9th), Fairfax went to the FBI and told them of the supposed murder-for-hire plot, but at that time he neglected to tell them he had already placed a pipe bomb underneath Cyndi Steele’s SUV and had already driven to Oregon ostensibly to check to see if the bomb was still on the vehicle. Later, he said the Oregon trip on May 31 was to check Cyndi Steele’s vehicle to see what happened to the bomb but he and/or his alleged accomplice Jim Maher didn’t see it and they assumed it had fallen off. (That in itself is a little hard to understand, considering that Fairfax himself had attached the bomb in the first place and knew exactly where it should be underneath the vehicle. Maybe that too was a lie and circumstances prevented them from actually looking for the bomb?)
(13) If, as initially described by Fairfax, the murder via an automobile crash was supposed to look like an accident so Steele could collect insurance, it is hard to understand how that could be accomplished with a pipe bomb – an explosive event such as that would never be considered “accidental” by any police or insurance investigator, and both Steele and Fairfax (dim-bulb though he may be) would have known that.
(14) Fairfax said early-on that Steele agreed to compensate him for the murders with a $25,000. initial payment to be followed by $100,000. more if he (Steele) was cleared of suspicion and if he received an anticipated life insurance settlement. But what Fairfax didn’t know was that there was no life insurance (an inconvenient fact divulged later by Cyndi Steele).
(15) The FBI says they have Edgar Steele on tape insisting the hit had to look like a car crash, and that both his wife and mother-in-law had to die, because he “did not want to take care of a paraplegic.” Now just think about that for a minute. What is the likelihood that the Fairfax gang could just go over to a heavily populated part of Oregon and follow Cyndi Steele and her mother along some road in their neighborhood, where the whole thing wouldn’t be witnessed by anybody, and then force them off the road in an “accident” and have any reason to expect that would kill them both? Even if the accident was triggered by a bomb that was magically set to go off at precisely the right moment?
(16) In any case, the bomb attached to Mrs. Steele’s vehicle in late May was apparently connected by a fuse to the exhaust system. Once again, if it had gone off before she left for Oregon or while she was enroute on that trip, how could that have killed her mother? How did Fairfax convince Steele he could kill both women with an explosion and car crash unless he had a way to trigger the explosion by remote control after Mrs. Steele had reached the Oregon destination when both women were in the vehicle – especially if he wasn’t there himself to do the deed? So far as I know Fairfax has never claimed that he told Steele his purpose for going to Oregon was to somehow trigger the bomb on Cyndi Steele’s vehicle at just the right time, although he has given a number of other reasons for the trip.
(17) Things continue to get all “tangled up” when we stop to think about the switch from a car-bomb to a rigged auto accident and when we consider the timeline. One has to wonder how Steele could have just forgotten about the earlier attempt and then, apparently without even mentioning it, start plotting days or weeks later to make a second attempt to kill his wife and mother-in-law. But we do have reports (allegations) that Steele said at the June 9 meeting, “…if the black Endeavor (his wife’s SUV) were to leave he guaranteed that his wife would be driving it.” Now keep in mind that at the time Cyndi Steele was still at her mother’s place in Oregon City, Oregon; whereas Edgar Steele and Fairfax were in north Idaho, and they were both still there the next day as well. Apparently, Fairfax was supposed to drive to Oregon later on Thursday, June 10, or overnight, and be in Oregon (more than 400 miles away) on Friday the 11th so he could stage the “accident” one way or the other. But of course he never made that trip.
(18) None of this makes sense. Maybe that’s because it’s not reality – because it’s just differing versions of a not-too-well-thought-out story concocted by Fairfax? Another huge discrepancy in Fairfax’s story-telling in my opinion: Fairfax was a long-time FBI “confidential informant.” He had no doubt been spying on Edgar Steele for months in that capacity. When he built and planted bombs in late May, it would almost certainly have been after any number of planning discussions with Steele, no doubt over many days, or weeks (assuming of course that his allegations about Steele’s involvement are true). Yet during that first phase of the drama he didn’t so much as go to the FBI and inform them of anything. And so, they made no effort to record any conversations between Fairfax and Steele as they did later. One has to wonder – why didn’t Fairfax tell the FBI about that earlier planning and that first attempt? Note that when he went to the FBI on June 9, or possibly, at the very earliest on June 8 – that time, it only took the FBI a few hours to start monitoring and recording planning conversations for that second attempt (according to the FBI’s account). That the same thing didn’t happen the first time around is just not believable to me; in fact, it is preposterous.
(19) At this point it all gets hopelessly confusing. It is really hard for me to understand how all this nonsense could possibly provide the authorities with a rationale for accepting Fairfax’s stories as a credible basis for charging Edgar Steele with anything. When Fairfax contacted the FBI on June 8 or 9, and then supposedly recorded incriminating conversations with Steele on June 9(?) and/or 10, he said the murders were planned for June 11 because Steele had an alibi for that day. But note that Cyndi Steele was already in Oregon, with the bomb under her car; and Fairfax had already made a trip to Oregon (May 31) to check on that bomb. Also, Fairfax’s reasons given for that trip to Oregon keep changing (no surprise there). At various times he has stated the trip was to assure Edgar Steele the plan was moving forward; to scout out Cyndi Steele’s mother’s residence etc.; to check to see if the bomb was still on the vehicle; and to check on Cyndi Steele having an affair (as he says Edgar Steele suspected) (right – he could expect to just drive up to the mother’s house and there would be clear evidence of Cyndi Steele having an affair). And I still can’t reconcile Steele’s supposed payment of $400. to cover Fairfax’s travel costs for the trip(s) to Oregon. Was that for the May 31 trip? Or was it for another trip following the June 9-10 meetings? Or both?
(20) It seems pretty clear to me now that the whole matter of including Edgar Steele’s mother-in-law in the murder-for-hire plot might just have been contrived so this would become an interstate crime and the Federal Department of Justice could get involved (FBI, federal prosecutors, federal courts and judges).
(21) In my view it is beyond just being ludicrous and incomprehensible – it is absolutely and totally irrational, to the point of being virtually impossible – that an educated and federal persecution-savvy (er---prosecution-savvy) attorney such as Edgar Steele would: (a) hire someone like Fairfax to commit a complex (actually, just about impossible) interstate double murder such as this on his behalf; (b) expect to receive accident insurance compensation for a bomb-caused crash; or (c) go out to his horse barn with Fairfax for two days running (June 9-10) and plan the murders (between discussions of handyman and farm-chore assignments) for a second time (following Fairfax’s bungled first attempt to do the dirty deed in late May); and to do that apparently without so much as a mention of the first (failed) effort.
(22) Apparently, as noted above, Fairfax did not tell the FBI anything about the bombs when he first contacted them about the murder-for-hire plotting. According to Cyndi Steele, an FBI agent told her they did not hear any reference to bombs on the tapes. But she says she heard the word “bomb” several times. If she is correct about that, and if the FBI actually knew about the bomb under her car; then they knowingly endangered her, her passengers at various times, and everyone else along her entire driving route after they learned about it. According to Cyndi Steele, they didn’t even tell her about the bomb when they visited her at her mother’s residence on June 11.
(23) As mentioned above, Cyndi Steele has been allowed to listen to two of the supposedly incriminating tapes. On those tapes, supposedly surreptitiously recorded by Fairfax during meetings (in one of Steele’s horse barns?) on June 9 and 10, the recorded discussions reportedly switch back and forth between Steele giving instructions about work to be done on his property and elements of the murder plot. Mrs. Steele has stated that whenever her husband started to discuss the plot, there were changes in background noise and his voice lost certain inflections she is well familiar with. So she told the attending FBI agent that those incriminating portions of the taped conversations were untrustworthy.
(24) According to Mrs. Steele, “It has been implied by the FBI that if I do not go along with what they want me to say, such as their view of the disputed tapes, they will cause problems for me. Every time that I have told the FBI that I did not trust those tapes, the agent becomes defensive and insists that they are authentic and his demeanor is overbearing and he insists that I should agree with him. This is witness tampering perpetrated by the U.S. Government.”
(25) Also according to Cyndi Steele, FBI agents have tried to intimidate her by telling her Fairfax is the “good guy” who tried to save her life, and they have insisted that her husband Edgar Steele is the “bad guy.” They have told Mrs. Steele what a horrible person her husband is.
(26) By the way, the FBI allowed Cyndi Steele to listen to two tapes, but they told her there is a third one but that she couldn’t listen to that one because it “isn’t ready yet.” Hmmmm. I wonder what the FBI has to do to that tape to make it “ready?” To my knowledge she never has been allowed to listen to that third tape.
(27) It seems noteworthy to me that, about the time Edgar Steele was arrested and as the story was breaking, the local press was a bit too eager to “cooperate” with the FBI and the prosecution by vilifying Edgar Steele for his social and political positions and his political incorrectness, thus painting him as the bad guy in the public mind. I don’t suppose that could be considered “poisoning the jury pool,” now could it?
(28) One thing I find a little odd is how the Federal prosecutor and judges seem to be really, really reluctant to treat Fairfax and Company too harshly. At one point last June, at a Fairfax hearing, Magistrate Candy Dale called her decision to keep Fairfax behind bars (by denying him bail) “very difficult.” (I have to wonder why she would hold that view or even have that thought, let alone express it in court, considering Fairfax’s confessed crimes and his duplicity, and considering also the fact that Edgar Steele was being held in jail without bail!) Then, the Federal prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Traci Whelan, chose to grossly undercharge Fairfax (in my opinion), just charging him with “possession of an unregistered firearm and making a firearm in violation of the National Firearms Act.” I just can’t quite understand why he was not charged with the same or equivalent, much more serious crimes as Edgar Steele (for example, something like “use of interstate commerce to facilitate murder for hire;” “use of explosive material to commit a federal felony;” and “possession of a destructive device in relation to a crime of violence”). (Oh, well, maybe the State of Idaho will step up and charge him with attempted murder after this federal fiasco runs it course?) And then, as if to add insult to injury, Ms. Whelan offers Fairfax a plea-bargain deal that could get him as little as 18 months in prison when he is sentenced later this month. And lastly, to top it all off, the Feds have so far refused to arrest or charge supposed accomplice Jim Maher and any other of Fairfax’s accomplices still out there (at one time the FBI indicated to Cyndi Steele that there could be more than one of them). To me, none of this is even remotely understandable, and I think we the people should demand to know why the government has taken the positions it has.
(29) U.S. Attorney Traci Whelan would seem to spare no effort to prevent Cyndi Steele from saying (or even thinking) anything positive about her husband. When Edgar Steele gave some good (albeit emphatic and perhaps a little stern) husbandly and family-attorney-in-fact advisement to his wife and son in telephone conversations shortly after his arrest, Whelan had Steele held without bail and then piled on an additional felony charge (witness tampering). When Edgar Steele mailed a card to his daughter which contained a loving and reassuring message Whelan says was probably intended for his wife (whose birthday was July 29, about the same time), Whelan was all over Mr. Steele for violating the no-contact order. When Cyndi Steele and her mother filed affidavits in order to assert their “victim’s rights” prior to the governments’ acceptance of the sweetheart-deal plea bargain from Fairfax, Whelan derided the affidavits as just being speculation, and even questioned if the women wrote the affidavits themselves (as though there would be something wrong, or illegal, in getting an attorney to help draft the language for a legal instrument to be submitted to the court) (isn’t that what lawyers are for?). Whelan even went so far as to say she anticipates “an investigation into how the affidavits came to be drafted.” She also said the documents (affidavits) contain “statements set up to bolster Mr. Steele’s defense.” And just what in the world is wrong with that? After all, virtually everything the Feds say and do is meant to “bolster” their prosecution of Edgar Steele and their contention that he is guilty. And it gets worse. At the Fairfax plea hearing itself, U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill declined to entertain Mrs. Steele’s request that the hearing be postponed so tougher penalties could be imposed, noting Cyndi Steel had filed her request that morning despite knowing of the hearing for two weeks. That was his reason? Was a legally defined deadline missed? If so, so be it (but why then didn’t he say so?). But if not, should the short “lead-time” afforded by Mrs. Steele’s last minute filing constitute a proper basis for denying the victim’s requests? Winmill also said, “I have to question either the motive or the sincerity of their request.” Well I read the affidavits and I saw nothing at all wrong, or suspicious, about the motivation or sincerity; and again, I would question if that is a sufficient basis for rejecting the several very good points made in the affidavits. Certainly, to my way of thinking, there is at least the appearance of impropriety in all this. It just seems to me that a reasonable person might get the impression that the FBI, the prosecution and the courts are, whether knowingly and deliberately or not, in effect conspiring to deprive Cyndi Steele of her civil rights by working together to intimidate her into not trying to do anything to help her husband.
(30) Meanwhile, in spite of the government’s attitude toward Cyndi Steele, and their kid-gloves treatment of Fairfax and his reported accomplice Maher; they have no problem and spare no effort ensuring that Edgar Steele is held in virtual solitary confinement, without bail, with no assets with which to mount a proper defense, and under a (recently just partially lifted) no-contact order that prevents him from discussing his case with his wife.
(31) Following Edgar Steele’s arrest on June 11, the FBI apparently tore portions of the Steele’s house apart (walls, floorboards) in search of precious metals he was known to have hidden. Reports are that the FBI took a considerable quantity of silver (and gold?) (the Steele’s “life savings”) plus other valuable property, thus depriving Steele of the assets he needs to mount a proper defense.
(32) The FBI and prosecution have tried mightily to come up with a motive – any motive – for Edgar Steele to want to murder his wife and mother in law (especially since Cyndi Steele has said there was no life insurance coverage). At one point after Edgar’s arrest they found a boxed teddy bear in the Steele’s house, with a note that it was for his “Ukrainian girlfriends.” They deliberately opened the box and left the “gift” for Mrs. Steele to find, apparently hoping to make her think it might indicate some untoward (illicit) behavior on Mr. Steele’s part (in his condition, considering the medication he was no doubt taking?). But they didn’t know that this was simply a gift intended for one or more of Mr. Steele’s female Ukrainian clients, which he often referred to as his “Ukrainian girlfriends” (a completely innocent thing, not at all surprising or upsetting to Mrs. Steele). Then, later, according to Mrs. Steele, the FBI unsuccessfully tried to coerce her into admitting an involvement in an affair (they said they had photos, but they didn’t, of course). Once again, I would think that is much worse “witness tampering” or intimidation that anything Edgar Steele said in his June 13 telephone conversations with his son and wife.
(33) As I recall, the local press once again came through and “aided and abetted” the government’s perfidy by giving the impression in its reporting that Edgar Steele did in fact have a “real” “Ukrainian girlfriend.”
(34) While I haven’t as yet seen any definitive evidence of wrongdoing on the part of upper echelons of the U.S. government in this case, Edgar Steele in telephone calls to his son and wife from jail, not long after his arrest, did mention to them that he had learned there is involvement in the effort to prosecute him at the “highest levels” of the Attorney General’s office. So, considering that Barack Obama and Eric Holder are both Negroid, and considering Mr. Steele’s often expressed and quite proper but politically-incorrect concerns for his fellow White people, and some comparatively non-complimentary (albeit true and accurate) things he has said in the past about the nature of black people; I don’t think we can automatically dismiss the possibility of motivation for his arrest, and even the possibility of his being set up, coming from high levels of the U.S. government.
(35) More possible motive for a frame-up: It has been reported that Edgar Steele had been working on a book focused on Jewish and/or Israeli involvement in human trafficking – sex trafficking, in particular. It could be that he was prepared to expose some very serious wrongdoing by some very important people. It seems to me that could be real motivation for Jews/Israelis/Zionists/ZOG to want to put Steele out of commission.
(36) It is now believed by some that Fairfax, as a Federal informant, had for many months been nosing around the Steele’s place trying to turn up some wrongdoing that the U.S. Government could use to prosecute Steele for something (because they didn’t like his politically incorrect positions on some issues and were “out to get him”). If that is the case, the effort failed. But (just speculating, now) could such an “anti-Steele” position on the part of the U.S. Government be what first put thoughts into Fairfax’s head that eventually led to his planning and committing his crimes? (Assuming, of course, that he hasn’t been acting at the direction of the government all along.)
(37) Things just keep getting “weirder and weirder.” It has recently been disclosed that
Fairfax’s alleged accomplice Jim Maher, another neighbor in Steele’s residential Sagle/Talache Idaho area, is none other than the brother of nationally prominent comedian and talk-show host Bill Maher; and it is even reported that Larry Fairfax is a cousin of the Maher brothers. While it is admittedly small evidence of motivation, it should at least be mentioned that Edgar Steele once described Bill Maher’s political positions and actions and/or utterances in a less-than-favorable light in one of his essays, and that the Mahers are thought by some to be partly Jewish (and once again, we know that many Jews don’t think very highly of Edgar Steele due to his perceptive outtake on many things Jewish).
(38) When considering the guilt or innocence of Edgar Steele, I cannot leave this one very important thing unstated as a stand-alone item: his wife Cyndi Steele does not believe or accept that he is guilty of plotting to kill her and her mother (and neither does her mother, by the way, who has referred to Mr. Steele in an affidavit as care-giving and supportive). I would simply suggest in that regard that Cyndi Steele, of all people, should know.
_________________________
In summary, it seems that the Edgar Steele case is an ongoing gross (and possibly even deliberate?) miscarriage of justice. It looks as though he is being railroaded because of his beliefs, writings, and speeches; and possibly because of investigations he had been conducting that he planned to publish in the near future. And it even seems a reasonable possibility that certain elements of the U.S. Government may have joined Larry Fairfax et al in initiating and carrying out that crime.
It does seem possible that all this is being done at the behest of the Jews that control certain elements of the U.S. Government (ZOG); in collusion with the key Negroes-in-charge: Eric Holder, Attorney General (likely); and President Barack Obama (conceivably and possibly). Hard as it might be to believe, it appears as though these factions of the government jumped on this case when it was initiated by Fairfax (or by Fairfax in collusion with the ADL and/or the FBI) as a way to “get” Steele after they couldn’t find anything else to nail him with.
We may never know the real facts and truth in regard to this case. But it strikes me that what has been lacking up to this point is real, rigorous and intensive, and unbiased investigation of all the elements, and especially of the claims and actions of Larry Fairfax. And here I’m thinking of honest and competent investigation by both the local press (investigative journalism) and by the FBI (the Federal Bureau of Investigation).
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Quote Of The Week
"Thanks to the terrible power of our International Banks, we have forced the Christians into wars without number. Wars have a special value for Jews, since Christians massacre each other and make more room for us Jews. Wars are the Jews' Harvest: The Jew banks grow fat on Christian wars. Over 100-million Christians have been swept off the face of the earth by wars, and the end is not yet." —Rabbi Reichorn, speaking at the funeral of Grand Rabbi Simeon Ben-Iudah, 1869
Friday, March 18, 2011
The Truth About The Reichstag Fire
SOURCE
By FRED BLAHUT
If the burning of the German Reichstag brought the National Socialists to power in 1933, were the Nazis responsible for the arson? If not, who was?
By 1933, Germany was ripe for another revolution. The Moscow-backed communist revolutions of 1919 had been put down at awful cost. And then the Allies imposed "reparations" that stripped the country of its ability to employ its workers and feed its people, including a British-engineered blockade that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Germans by starvation.
The worldwide depression of 1929 hit the country, still staggering under the yoke of the Treaty of Versailles, in the gut. Food was scarce. Jobs were disappearing. Those who had jobs earned money that was close to worthless.
It was clear that the centrist government of President Paul von Hindenburg and Chancellor Heinrich Bruning, under extreme pressure from both the left and the right, could not hold. Fearing civil war, Hindenburg dismissed Bruning and in January of 1933 appointed Adolf Hitler, leader of the National Socialists, as chancellor, even though Hitler had no absolute majority in the lower chamber of the German Parliament-the Reichstag.
And then, on the night of February 27, the Reichstag building burned.
It is important to note that, following the armistice of 1918, British Prime Minister lloyd George had promised the British voters "to squeeze the German lemon until the pips squeaked." Germany had been stripped of its industry, its coal reserves in the Saar and the manufacturing capacities of Alsace-Lorraine.
The German Navy and merchant fleet had been seized; export barriers had been established for German products while free trade was imposed on imports produced by the Allies.
According to Leon Degrelle: "Germany was experiencing near-famine conditions. It was at this moment the Allies decided to confiscate a substantial part of what was left of Germany's livestock." (Hitler: Born at Versailles; Institute for Historical Review, 1987.)
Thomas Lamont, the American representative of the Allied powers "overseeing" Germany, was quoted: "The Germans were made to deliver cattle, horses, sheep, goats etc .... A strong protest came from Germany when dairy cows were taken to France and Belgium, thus depriving German children of milk."
According to Degrelle, "The question was now: Who was going to break the chains?
"Germany looked for an avenger to smash the Treaty of Vengeance. The avenger could not belong to the conventional right and left wings of German politics or any other Establishment entities, whether financial, military or religious."
In 1925, following the death of German President Friedrich Ebert, Hindenburg, a hero of World War I, was persuaded to run for president. He won easily. But, aging and ill, Hindenburg was not the national leader to bring Germany back from the abyss.
Prior to Hitler's appointment, the Reichstag had been suspended several times with rule by presidential decree. Neither the left nor the right believed it was Hindenburg himself who was running the country, which staggered on ineffectually. By 1933, Hindenburg had become senile.
On this point, European newsman Alec de Montmorency tells a story that was making the rounds in the Paris clubs frequented by journalists. Hindenburg, the story goes, asked one of his close aides in early 1933: "Who is that young man with a mustache who keeps bringing me papers to sign?"
Immediately after Hitler's appointment, the Reichstag was dissolved and new elections set for March 5. A violent election campaign ensued.
On February 24, the police raided Communist Party headquarters. It was announced that they had discovered plans for a new communist revolution. But they either didn't discover what they said that they had, or the evidence, for unknown reasons, was suppressed, because such documentation was never made public.
Then came the Reichstag fire. Hitler immediately blamed the communists. Hindenburg proclaimed a state of emergency and issued decrees suspending freedom of speech and assembly. Thanks to the "Red scare," the National Socialists and their allies, the German Nationalists, won a bare majority in the general election of March 5.
Shortly thereafter, first the Communist Party, and then all other parties except the National Socialist,were made illegal. The burning of the Reichstag was the spark that set the country ablaze. If, then, the fire was what catapulted Hitler to power, is it not reasonable to assume that the National Socialists had a hand in it? That was the consensus of propaganda in the United States, France and Great Britain.
The National Socialists blamed the communists, and tried to establish the guilt of Communist Party leaders in a trial at the High Court at Leipzig. They failed.
That led to the generally accepted theory that the National Socialists themselves torched the building. This version has been generally accepted. It appears in most textbooks and many reputable historians repeat it. According to A.J.P. Taylor in History Today, "I myself accepted it unquestioningly, without looking at the evidence."
But someone did look at the evidence: A retired civil servant-and anti-Nazi named Fritz Tobias. He began his project, it is reported, with the idea of settling once and for all the fact that the Nazis had been responsible for the fire. But that's not what he discovered. The results of his investigation were serialized in the German weekly Der Spiegel in 1950.
Here's the story as detailed by Tobias.
At just about 9 pm on February 27, a theology student -later a lecturer at Bremen-named Hans Floter was on his way home after a day of research and study at the library. As he crossed the open space in front of the Reichstag, he heard the sound of breaking glass. He looked up and saw someone climbing into the building through a window on the first floor. The building was otherwise deserted except for a night watchman who apparently did not hear the breaking glass.
Floter ran to the comer and found a policeman. "Someone is breaking into the Reichstag," he reported. The two men ran back to the building. Through the window they saw a shadowy, unidentifiable figure and something more ominous-flames. It was 9:03 pm. Floter, having done his duty, went home. He had not yet had supper and was hungry.
At this point, another passer-by joined the policeman, a young printer called Thaler, who was, incidentally, a Social Democrat, and definitely no supporter of the National Socialists. Thaler shouted: "Shoot, man, shoot." The policeman fired his revolver into the building and the shadowy figure disappeared.
The policeman ran to the nearest police post and gave the alarm. The time recorded was 9:15 pm. Within minutes police backup arrived at the Reichstag, At 9:22, a police officer tried to enter the Debating Chamber. He was driven back by the flames. At 9:27, the police discovered and arrested a half-naked young man. He was a Dutchman named Marinus van der Lubbe.
Meanwhile, the fire brigade had also been alerted. The first report is recorded at 9:13. The first engine reached the Reichstag at 9:18. But the firemen had problems entering the building to fight the blaze. Only one side door was kept unlocked after 8 pm. The firemen, not knowing this, went to the wrong door.
Gaining entrance, the firemen fought the first fires they came to-small blazes in the corridors, it turns out, and not the main fire. Eventually, the full strength of the Berlin fire brigade was mobilized, a force of some 60 engines. The time was 9:42. But by then, the building was beyond help.
Seen as evidence of Nazi involvement in the blaze was the fact that across the street from the Reichstag building was the residence-sometimes called a palace-of its president. The National Socialists being in charge of the legislative body, the president of the Reichstag on February 27, 1933 was Nazi leader Hermann Goering. But Goering had not yet moved in.
The building was unoccupied except for an apartment on the top floor which Goering had lent to "Putzi" Hanftstaengl, Hitler's foreign press chief. Hearing a commotion, Hanftstaengl looked out the window and saw the Reichstag burning. He knew that Hitler and Josef Goebbels were at a party nearby. He phoned Goebbels, who thought Hanftstaengel was playing some sort of practical joke and hung up. Hanftstaengel called back. Goebbels checked with the police and found the report was true.
Within a few minutes he, Hitler and a large group of National Socialists who had been at the party arrived at the Reichstag. An English journalist, Sefton Delmer, managed to join the crowd. Hitler, he reported, was very upset certainly not the demeanor of a man responsible for the action. "This is a communist plot, the signal for an uprising," Delmer reported Hitler yelling to his supporters. "Every communist official must be shot. The communist members [of the Reichstag] must be hanged."
Van der Lubbe, meanwhile, had been taken to the nearest police station. He was interrogated until 3 am of February 28. He was allowed to sleep for a few hours, awakened, given breakfast and, at 8 am, the questioning resumed. He gave clear, coherent answers. He described how he had entered the Reichstag and started a series of fires, even using some of his clothing to help the blazes get going.
The police, thoroughly and methodically, checked his story. They retraced his route through the Reichstag with a stopwatch and determined that the timing was correct for his entrance through a window to the time of his arrest. Van der Lubbe was clear about his motive. He had hoped that the entire German people would protest against the Nazi government. When this did not happen, he determined that he would protest individually.
Although the burning of the Reichstag was certainly a signal for revolt-he called it a "beacon" -he had given the signal alone, he insisted. He denied that he had any associates or fellow plotters. He said he knew no Nazis. He was not a member of the Communist Party. He was a socialist, more politically in tune with the left wing of the centrist government.
Van der Lubbe proved a willing witness against himself. He traced his movement for police during the weeks prior to the arson. He had drifted across Germany, apparently searching for anti-Nazi sentiment and finding nothing approaching the mass revolt he had hoped for. He even told police where he had purchased "fire-starter," a petroleum-based liquid used, as its name implies, to start fires, and matches. The police checked his story. Everything he said proved to be correct.
The police officials conducting the investigation concluded that van der Lubbe was deranged-but above average in intelligence, with an exceptionally accurate sense of place and direction. He knew where he had been and what he had been doing and remembered even small details of his wanderings, purchases and arson.
His interrogators were experienced men, professionals with no political connections. They became convinced that he was telling the truth and that he had set the fire at the Reichstag all by himself, with no outside help or even encouragement. Firemen who had been at the scene agreed that the sequence of arson events detailed by van der Lubbe matched their investigation results.
That conclusion didn't sit well with Hitler and the upper cadre of the National Socialists,locked in a bitter battle with the communists to gain control of the Reichstag. They had committed themselves to the proposition that the fire was a communist plot. Whether or not they believed this, it was the story that had to be sold to the German public if they were to defeat the communists at the polls.
Van der Lubbe and four others were tried for the arson; a man named Torgler, the leader of the communist bloc in the Reichstag, and three Bulgarian communists including Georgi Dimitrov.
Van der Lubbe's guilt was beyond question. He had been found in the Reichstag and he admitted starting the fires. But that wasn't what was worrying the Nazis. Everyone accepted van der Lubbe's guilt. It was the communists the Nazis wanted convicted.
A number of "expert" witnesses were produced-with Nazi help-by the prosecution with the intention of proving that the fire could not have been started by one man. But van der Lubbe proved to be the best witness for the other defendants. Testifying for hours, he told the judges that it was he, and he alone, who was responsible. He was quoted: "I was there and they [the other four defendants] were not. 1know how it was done because 1did it."
The High Court arrived at a complex verdict. First, van der Lubbe was found guilty. He was subsequently executed. (Arson was not a crime punishable by death. But Hitler managed to shove through a law to that effect and make its ramifications retroactive, a decision that would come back to haunt him.)
The other four defendants were found innocent. But, the court agreed with the Nazi-provided "expert" witnesses that the Dutchman could not have done it alone and that, therefore, the Reichstag had been torched by van der Lubbe and "persons unknown."
The Nazis had been hoist by their own petard. If van der Lubbe had accomplices, and the accomplices were not communists, who were they? The implication was that the accomplices must have been National Socialists, a point made repeatedly in court by Dimitrov, and echoed by the Establishment media throughout the Western world.
(Dimitrov, incidentally, fled Germany following the trial to the USSR where he rose in the ranks of Soviet officialdom and later returned to Bulgaria to take over leadership of the communist government there.)
The propaganda possibilities of the High Court decision were not lost on the communists. Enter a man named Willi Munzenberg, a German expatriate communist popular with the media and the pro-communists in the West, particularly Great Britain. The communists published what was called the Brown Book about the fire, filled with alleged evidence of National Socialist complicity in the arson. That the communist evidence of Nazi involvement was no more convincing than the Nazis' evidence of communist complicity was lost on the popular press.
Subsequently, the communists staged a counter-trial in London that, not unexpectedly, brought in a guilty verdict against the Nazis. Considered vital evidence in the counter-trial was the existence of a tunnel between Goering's residence and the Reichstag which carried electric and telephone cables and pipes for central heating.
According to the communists, a group of Brown Shirts had used the tunnel to enter the Reichstag and soaked the curtains and woodwork with a flammable liquid which caught fire when 'van der Lubbe struck the match or, alternately, they set the fire themselves. According to the latter version, when all was ready, van der Lubbe was pushed through the window into the Reichstag by an unnamed accomplice of the Brown Shirts, there to be found and arrested.
The Brown Book also alleged that, far from being an intelligent Socialist, Van der Lubbe was a degenerate half-wit and a homosexual prostitute, kept by Brown Shirt leader Ernst Roehm. This was the story accepted by the Western press in 1933 and, subsequently, historians. It became something "everyone knows," without anyone actually examining the facts.
There were allegations that the fire brigades were deliberately delayed by the Nazis. But the record books of the aforementioned brigades disprove this. And, almost all history books say the records of van der Lubbe's interrogation by the police had mysteriously disappeared. But again, that isn't true. Tobias found them where they were supposed to be-in the office where they had always been-in eight copies.
Van der Lubbe, having been characterized by the Nazis as a communist dupe, was treated even more harshly by the communists. Included in the Brown Book is a statement by a Dutch friend of the arsonist. One sentence reads: "I often spent a night in the same bed with him." This was used by the communists as proof of his homosexuality. But, according to Taylor, the sentence originally went on: " ... without observing any homosexual tendencies in him."
Taylor goes on to point out that all the stories about van der Lubbe's bad upbringing, about his disreputable family and his lack of friends "were in fact lies; communist forgeries."
The most vital evidence produced by the communists was the tunnel and the allegation that it had been used by the Brown Shirts. This, the communists alleged, had been revealed by repentant Brown Shirts to communists in Paris. One alleged Brown Shirt appeared at the counter-trial with a muffler wrapped around his face to conceal his identity. It was a wise precaution, according to Taylor, because the witness "was, in fact, a well-known communist and unmistakably Jewish."
Another confession supposedly came from one Karl Ernst, Brown Shirt leader in Berlin. Conveniently, the "confession" turned up after Ernst was dead, killed in the purge of June 30, 1934. Even more convenient, Ernst cleared up any items in the earlier communist versions of the arson where inaccuracies had been proven. But one point Ernst got wrong.
His post-mortem "confession" agreed with other "confessions" that the Brown Shirts entered the Reichstag at 8:49 pm. This had to be the time if they were to do their work before van der Lubbe was "pushed through the window" at 9:03. Unfortunately, Ernst (or the communist forgers) were unaware of one item in the Reichstag routine. At 8:45 pm, a postman came through the side door to collect the deputies' mail.
On February 27, he entered as usual, walked through the deserted building and left at 8:55 pm. He found nothing out of the ordinary-no shadowy figures, no smell of flammable liquid. In fact, the postman disproves the "accomplices" theory, no matter who those accomplices were alleged to have been, because of the time sequences.
And then there is the small fact overlooked by historians-that when Goering arrived at the Reichstag at 9:35 pm, having been alerted by his friend, he immediately thought entrance might have been gained through the tunnel. He was quoted: "They [the arsonists] must have come through the tunnel." He immediately went off with several policemen-not Nazis-to examine it. They found the doors at either end securely locked.
Would Goering have called for a search of the tunnel if he or his compatriots had been responsible for the fire? Hardly likely. He and the police might have caught the conspirators exiting on the Goering residence side.
In non-ideological retrospect, the same lack of evidence that exonerates the communists serves to also exonerate the National Socialists. If the Nazis had set fire to the Reichstag they would have manufactured evidence against the communists, just as the communists manufactured evidence against the Nazis in the Brown Book and the counter-trial.
The Brown Book was not intended to be closely examined. If it achieved its propaganda purpose-which it did, in the UK and the United States, at least- Munzenberg and his associates were satisfied.
Here is what can be determined from the facts that can be proved. No one came through the tunnel. There was no other way to enter the Reichstag, except past the night watchman or by breaking the window. Only van der Lubbe broke a window. Those who want to stick to the communist version, although they admit they can't prove how the Nazis got into the Reichstag, point to the trial testimony that van der Lubbe had to have had help.
But this evidence is the most unreliable of all. The most emphatic "expert" was, according to Taylor, "a crank distrusted by his colleagues." He claimed to be an authority on a strange "fluid" which, he said, was necessary for starting fires, He alleged that this "fluid" had a distinctive smell. But no policeman or fireman at the scene noticed any smell except smoke-no "fluid"; not even gasoline.
How could van der Lubbe have set the fire himself? These old, grandiose buildings were fires waiting to happen. There were heavy, dusty curtains everywhere; wooden paneling, high ceilings, drafts under the doors; everything capable of supporting a fire.
In 1834, the Houses of Parliament at Westminster in the UK were entirely destroyed by fire, Simply by a stove pipe becoming too hot. If this is too "historical" for today's reader, in 1956, the Vienna Stock Exchange was gutted by fire as the result of one smoldering cigarette in a wastepaper basket. Van der Lubbe had over 20 minutes to start fires; more than enough time.
One point: the postman left the building at 8:55 pm. How did van der Lubbe know it was safe to break in? He couldn't have; it was a lucky break, a coincidence. In any event, Hitler was well known for his penchant to improvise and it is obvious that is what he did while watching the Reichstag burn. Here was his chance to demonize the communists to his own advantage. He couldn't have known the outcome of that decision.
That van der Lubbe was guilty is beyond question. There is more evidence to acquit both the communists and the National Socialists of complicity than evidence to convict either group. But Germany lost the war and the communists won; and the winners write the history books.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Davidson, Michael worth, MA, Editor. "Hitler Soars to Power." When, Where, Why & How It Happened. Readers Digest Association limited, London, New York, Sydney, Cape Town, Montreal, 1995.
Degrelle, Gen. Leon. Hitler: Born at Versailles: lnstitute for Historical Review, Torrance, California, 1987.
Degrelle, Gen. Leon. Hitler: Democrat. Unpublished manuscript.
Montmorency, Alec de. Interview by the author, November, 1995.
Taylor, A.J.P. "Who Burned the Reichstag?" History Today, London, June, 1956.
Fred Blahut has been a writer and editor for more than 30 years and currently is managing editor of The SPOTLIGHT and assistant editor of TBR.
By FRED BLAHUT
If the burning of the German Reichstag brought the National Socialists to power in 1933, were the Nazis responsible for the arson? If not, who was?
By 1933, Germany was ripe for another revolution. The Moscow-backed communist revolutions of 1919 had been put down at awful cost. And then the Allies imposed "reparations" that stripped the country of its ability to employ its workers and feed its people, including a British-engineered blockade that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Germans by starvation.
The worldwide depression of 1929 hit the country, still staggering under the yoke of the Treaty of Versailles, in the gut. Food was scarce. Jobs were disappearing. Those who had jobs earned money that was close to worthless.
It was clear that the centrist government of President Paul von Hindenburg and Chancellor Heinrich Bruning, under extreme pressure from both the left and the right, could not hold. Fearing civil war, Hindenburg dismissed Bruning and in January of 1933 appointed Adolf Hitler, leader of the National Socialists, as chancellor, even though Hitler had no absolute majority in the lower chamber of the German Parliament-the Reichstag.
And then, on the night of February 27, the Reichstag building burned.
It is important to note that, following the armistice of 1918, British Prime Minister lloyd George had promised the British voters "to squeeze the German lemon until the pips squeaked." Germany had been stripped of its industry, its coal reserves in the Saar and the manufacturing capacities of Alsace-Lorraine.
The German Navy and merchant fleet had been seized; export barriers had been established for German products while free trade was imposed on imports produced by the Allies.
According to Leon Degrelle: "Germany was experiencing near-famine conditions. It was at this moment the Allies decided to confiscate a substantial part of what was left of Germany's livestock." (Hitler: Born at Versailles; Institute for Historical Review, 1987.)
Thomas Lamont, the American representative of the Allied powers "overseeing" Germany, was quoted: "The Germans were made to deliver cattle, horses, sheep, goats etc .... A strong protest came from Germany when dairy cows were taken to France and Belgium, thus depriving German children of milk."
According to Degrelle, "The question was now: Who was going to break the chains?
"Germany looked for an avenger to smash the Treaty of Vengeance. The avenger could not belong to the conventional right and left wings of German politics or any other Establishment entities, whether financial, military or religious."
In 1925, following the death of German President Friedrich Ebert, Hindenburg, a hero of World War I, was persuaded to run for president. He won easily. But, aging and ill, Hindenburg was not the national leader to bring Germany back from the abyss.
Prior to Hitler's appointment, the Reichstag had been suspended several times with rule by presidential decree. Neither the left nor the right believed it was Hindenburg himself who was running the country, which staggered on ineffectually. By 1933, Hindenburg had become senile.
On this point, European newsman Alec de Montmorency tells a story that was making the rounds in the Paris clubs frequented by journalists. Hindenburg, the story goes, asked one of his close aides in early 1933: "Who is that young man with a mustache who keeps bringing me papers to sign?"
Immediately after Hitler's appointment, the Reichstag was dissolved and new elections set for March 5. A violent election campaign ensued.
On February 24, the police raided Communist Party headquarters. It was announced that they had discovered plans for a new communist revolution. But they either didn't discover what they said that they had, or the evidence, for unknown reasons, was suppressed, because such documentation was never made public.
Then came the Reichstag fire. Hitler immediately blamed the communists. Hindenburg proclaimed a state of emergency and issued decrees suspending freedom of speech and assembly. Thanks to the "Red scare," the National Socialists and their allies, the German Nationalists, won a bare majority in the general election of March 5.
Shortly thereafter, first the Communist Party, and then all other parties except the National Socialist,were made illegal. The burning of the Reichstag was the spark that set the country ablaze. If, then, the fire was what catapulted Hitler to power, is it not reasonable to assume that the National Socialists had a hand in it? That was the consensus of propaganda in the United States, France and Great Britain.
The National Socialists blamed the communists, and tried to establish the guilt of Communist Party leaders in a trial at the High Court at Leipzig. They failed.
That led to the generally accepted theory that the National Socialists themselves torched the building. This version has been generally accepted. It appears in most textbooks and many reputable historians repeat it. According to A.J.P. Taylor in History Today, "I myself accepted it unquestioningly, without looking at the evidence."
But someone did look at the evidence: A retired civil servant-and anti-Nazi named Fritz Tobias. He began his project, it is reported, with the idea of settling once and for all the fact that the Nazis had been responsible for the fire. But that's not what he discovered. The results of his investigation were serialized in the German weekly Der Spiegel in 1950.
Here's the story as detailed by Tobias.
At just about 9 pm on February 27, a theology student -later a lecturer at Bremen-named Hans Floter was on his way home after a day of research and study at the library. As he crossed the open space in front of the Reichstag, he heard the sound of breaking glass. He looked up and saw someone climbing into the building through a window on the first floor. The building was otherwise deserted except for a night watchman who apparently did not hear the breaking glass.
Floter ran to the comer and found a policeman. "Someone is breaking into the Reichstag," he reported. The two men ran back to the building. Through the window they saw a shadowy, unidentifiable figure and something more ominous-flames. It was 9:03 pm. Floter, having done his duty, went home. He had not yet had supper and was hungry.
At this point, another passer-by joined the policeman, a young printer called Thaler, who was, incidentally, a Social Democrat, and definitely no supporter of the National Socialists. Thaler shouted: "Shoot, man, shoot." The policeman fired his revolver into the building and the shadowy figure disappeared.
The policeman ran to the nearest police post and gave the alarm. The time recorded was 9:15 pm. Within minutes police backup arrived at the Reichstag, At 9:22, a police officer tried to enter the Debating Chamber. He was driven back by the flames. At 9:27, the police discovered and arrested a half-naked young man. He was a Dutchman named Marinus van der Lubbe.
Meanwhile, the fire brigade had also been alerted. The first report is recorded at 9:13. The first engine reached the Reichstag at 9:18. But the firemen had problems entering the building to fight the blaze. Only one side door was kept unlocked after 8 pm. The firemen, not knowing this, went to the wrong door.
Gaining entrance, the firemen fought the first fires they came to-small blazes in the corridors, it turns out, and not the main fire. Eventually, the full strength of the Berlin fire brigade was mobilized, a force of some 60 engines. The time was 9:42. But by then, the building was beyond help.
Seen as evidence of Nazi involvement in the blaze was the fact that across the street from the Reichstag building was the residence-sometimes called a palace-of its president. The National Socialists being in charge of the legislative body, the president of the Reichstag on February 27, 1933 was Nazi leader Hermann Goering. But Goering had not yet moved in.
The building was unoccupied except for an apartment on the top floor which Goering had lent to "Putzi" Hanftstaengl, Hitler's foreign press chief. Hearing a commotion, Hanftstaengl looked out the window and saw the Reichstag burning. He knew that Hitler and Josef Goebbels were at a party nearby. He phoned Goebbels, who thought Hanftstaengel was playing some sort of practical joke and hung up. Hanftstaengel called back. Goebbels checked with the police and found the report was true.
Within a few minutes he, Hitler and a large group of National Socialists who had been at the party arrived at the Reichstag. An English journalist, Sefton Delmer, managed to join the crowd. Hitler, he reported, was very upset certainly not the demeanor of a man responsible for the action. "This is a communist plot, the signal for an uprising," Delmer reported Hitler yelling to his supporters. "Every communist official must be shot. The communist members [of the Reichstag] must be hanged."
Van der Lubbe, meanwhile, had been taken to the nearest police station. He was interrogated until 3 am of February 28. He was allowed to sleep for a few hours, awakened, given breakfast and, at 8 am, the questioning resumed. He gave clear, coherent answers. He described how he had entered the Reichstag and started a series of fires, even using some of his clothing to help the blazes get going.
The police, thoroughly and methodically, checked his story. They retraced his route through the Reichstag with a stopwatch and determined that the timing was correct for his entrance through a window to the time of his arrest. Van der Lubbe was clear about his motive. He had hoped that the entire German people would protest against the Nazi government. When this did not happen, he determined that he would protest individually.
Although the burning of the Reichstag was certainly a signal for revolt-he called it a "beacon" -he had given the signal alone, he insisted. He denied that he had any associates or fellow plotters. He said he knew no Nazis. He was not a member of the Communist Party. He was a socialist, more politically in tune with the left wing of the centrist government.
Van der Lubbe proved a willing witness against himself. He traced his movement for police during the weeks prior to the arson. He had drifted across Germany, apparently searching for anti-Nazi sentiment and finding nothing approaching the mass revolt he had hoped for. He even told police where he had purchased "fire-starter," a petroleum-based liquid used, as its name implies, to start fires, and matches. The police checked his story. Everything he said proved to be correct.
The police officials conducting the investigation concluded that van der Lubbe was deranged-but above average in intelligence, with an exceptionally accurate sense of place and direction. He knew where he had been and what he had been doing and remembered even small details of his wanderings, purchases and arson.
His interrogators were experienced men, professionals with no political connections. They became convinced that he was telling the truth and that he had set the fire at the Reichstag all by himself, with no outside help or even encouragement. Firemen who had been at the scene agreed that the sequence of arson events detailed by van der Lubbe matched their investigation results.
That conclusion didn't sit well with Hitler and the upper cadre of the National Socialists,locked in a bitter battle with the communists to gain control of the Reichstag. They had committed themselves to the proposition that the fire was a communist plot. Whether or not they believed this, it was the story that had to be sold to the German public if they were to defeat the communists at the polls.
Van der Lubbe and four others were tried for the arson; a man named Torgler, the leader of the communist bloc in the Reichstag, and three Bulgarian communists including Georgi Dimitrov.
Van der Lubbe's guilt was beyond question. He had been found in the Reichstag and he admitted starting the fires. But that wasn't what was worrying the Nazis. Everyone accepted van der Lubbe's guilt. It was the communists the Nazis wanted convicted.
A number of "expert" witnesses were produced-with Nazi help-by the prosecution with the intention of proving that the fire could not have been started by one man. But van der Lubbe proved to be the best witness for the other defendants. Testifying for hours, he told the judges that it was he, and he alone, who was responsible. He was quoted: "I was there and they [the other four defendants] were not. 1know how it was done because 1did it."
The High Court arrived at a complex verdict. First, van der Lubbe was found guilty. He was subsequently executed. (Arson was not a crime punishable by death. But Hitler managed to shove through a law to that effect and make its ramifications retroactive, a decision that would come back to haunt him.)
The other four defendants were found innocent. But, the court agreed with the Nazi-provided "expert" witnesses that the Dutchman could not have done it alone and that, therefore, the Reichstag had been torched by van der Lubbe and "persons unknown."
The Nazis had been hoist by their own petard. If van der Lubbe had accomplices, and the accomplices were not communists, who were they? The implication was that the accomplices must have been National Socialists, a point made repeatedly in court by Dimitrov, and echoed by the Establishment media throughout the Western world.
(Dimitrov, incidentally, fled Germany following the trial to the USSR where he rose in the ranks of Soviet officialdom and later returned to Bulgaria to take over leadership of the communist government there.)
The propaganda possibilities of the High Court decision were not lost on the communists. Enter a man named Willi Munzenberg, a German expatriate communist popular with the media and the pro-communists in the West, particularly Great Britain. The communists published what was called the Brown Book about the fire, filled with alleged evidence of National Socialist complicity in the arson. That the communist evidence of Nazi involvement was no more convincing than the Nazis' evidence of communist complicity was lost on the popular press.
Subsequently, the communists staged a counter-trial in London that, not unexpectedly, brought in a guilty verdict against the Nazis. Considered vital evidence in the counter-trial was the existence of a tunnel between Goering's residence and the Reichstag which carried electric and telephone cables and pipes for central heating.
According to the communists, a group of Brown Shirts had used the tunnel to enter the Reichstag and soaked the curtains and woodwork with a flammable liquid which caught fire when 'van der Lubbe struck the match or, alternately, they set the fire themselves. According to the latter version, when all was ready, van der Lubbe was pushed through the window into the Reichstag by an unnamed accomplice of the Brown Shirts, there to be found and arrested.
The Brown Book also alleged that, far from being an intelligent Socialist, Van der Lubbe was a degenerate half-wit and a homosexual prostitute, kept by Brown Shirt leader Ernst Roehm. This was the story accepted by the Western press in 1933 and, subsequently, historians. It became something "everyone knows," without anyone actually examining the facts.
There were allegations that the fire brigades were deliberately delayed by the Nazis. But the record books of the aforementioned brigades disprove this. And, almost all history books say the records of van der Lubbe's interrogation by the police had mysteriously disappeared. But again, that isn't true. Tobias found them where they were supposed to be-in the office where they had always been-in eight copies.
Van der Lubbe, having been characterized by the Nazis as a communist dupe, was treated even more harshly by the communists. Included in the Brown Book is a statement by a Dutch friend of the arsonist. One sentence reads: "I often spent a night in the same bed with him." This was used by the communists as proof of his homosexuality. But, according to Taylor, the sentence originally went on: " ... without observing any homosexual tendencies in him."
Taylor goes on to point out that all the stories about van der Lubbe's bad upbringing, about his disreputable family and his lack of friends "were in fact lies; communist forgeries."
The most vital evidence produced by the communists was the tunnel and the allegation that it had been used by the Brown Shirts. This, the communists alleged, had been revealed by repentant Brown Shirts to communists in Paris. One alleged Brown Shirt appeared at the counter-trial with a muffler wrapped around his face to conceal his identity. It was a wise precaution, according to Taylor, because the witness "was, in fact, a well-known communist and unmistakably Jewish."
Another confession supposedly came from one Karl Ernst, Brown Shirt leader in Berlin. Conveniently, the "confession" turned up after Ernst was dead, killed in the purge of June 30, 1934. Even more convenient, Ernst cleared up any items in the earlier communist versions of the arson where inaccuracies had been proven. But one point Ernst got wrong.
His post-mortem "confession" agreed with other "confessions" that the Brown Shirts entered the Reichstag at 8:49 pm. This had to be the time if they were to do their work before van der Lubbe was "pushed through the window" at 9:03. Unfortunately, Ernst (or the communist forgers) were unaware of one item in the Reichstag routine. At 8:45 pm, a postman came through the side door to collect the deputies' mail.
On February 27, he entered as usual, walked through the deserted building and left at 8:55 pm. He found nothing out of the ordinary-no shadowy figures, no smell of flammable liquid. In fact, the postman disproves the "accomplices" theory, no matter who those accomplices were alleged to have been, because of the time sequences.
And then there is the small fact overlooked by historians-that when Goering arrived at the Reichstag at 9:35 pm, having been alerted by his friend, he immediately thought entrance might have been gained through the tunnel. He was quoted: "They [the arsonists] must have come through the tunnel." He immediately went off with several policemen-not Nazis-to examine it. They found the doors at either end securely locked.
Would Goering have called for a search of the tunnel if he or his compatriots had been responsible for the fire? Hardly likely. He and the police might have caught the conspirators exiting on the Goering residence side.
In non-ideological retrospect, the same lack of evidence that exonerates the communists serves to also exonerate the National Socialists. If the Nazis had set fire to the Reichstag they would have manufactured evidence against the communists, just as the communists manufactured evidence against the Nazis in the Brown Book and the counter-trial.
The Brown Book was not intended to be closely examined. If it achieved its propaganda purpose-which it did, in the UK and the United States, at least- Munzenberg and his associates were satisfied.
Here is what can be determined from the facts that can be proved. No one came through the tunnel. There was no other way to enter the Reichstag, except past the night watchman or by breaking the window. Only van der Lubbe broke a window. Those who want to stick to the communist version, although they admit they can't prove how the Nazis got into the Reichstag, point to the trial testimony that van der Lubbe had to have had help.
But this evidence is the most unreliable of all. The most emphatic "expert" was, according to Taylor, "a crank distrusted by his colleagues." He claimed to be an authority on a strange "fluid" which, he said, was necessary for starting fires, He alleged that this "fluid" had a distinctive smell. But no policeman or fireman at the scene noticed any smell except smoke-no "fluid"; not even gasoline.
How could van der Lubbe have set the fire himself? These old, grandiose buildings were fires waiting to happen. There were heavy, dusty curtains everywhere; wooden paneling, high ceilings, drafts under the doors; everything capable of supporting a fire.
In 1834, the Houses of Parliament at Westminster in the UK were entirely destroyed by fire, Simply by a stove pipe becoming too hot. If this is too "historical" for today's reader, in 1956, the Vienna Stock Exchange was gutted by fire as the result of one smoldering cigarette in a wastepaper basket. Van der Lubbe had over 20 minutes to start fires; more than enough time.
One point: the postman left the building at 8:55 pm. How did van der Lubbe know it was safe to break in? He couldn't have; it was a lucky break, a coincidence. In any event, Hitler was well known for his penchant to improvise and it is obvious that is what he did while watching the Reichstag burn. Here was his chance to demonize the communists to his own advantage. He couldn't have known the outcome of that decision.
That van der Lubbe was guilty is beyond question. There is more evidence to acquit both the communists and the National Socialists of complicity than evidence to convict either group. But Germany lost the war and the communists won; and the winners write the history books.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Davidson, Michael worth, MA, Editor. "Hitler Soars to Power." When, Where, Why & How It Happened. Readers Digest Association limited, London, New York, Sydney, Cape Town, Montreal, 1995.
Degrelle, Gen. Leon. Hitler: Born at Versailles: lnstitute for Historical Review, Torrance, California, 1987.
Degrelle, Gen. Leon. Hitler: Democrat. Unpublished manuscript.
Montmorency, Alec de. Interview by the author, November, 1995.
Taylor, A.J.P. "Who Burned the Reichstag?" History Today, London, June, 1956.
Fred Blahut has been a writer and editor for more than 30 years and currently is managing editor of The SPOTLIGHT and assistant editor of TBR.
Think For God's Sake
"Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably why so few engage in it" - Henry Ford
I was listening to a podcast, somewhat of a newstalk/comdey show when the host was talking about a recent trip to South America. She was describing a scene where the group was on a jungle hike and saw some pregnant tribal woman with 6 or 7 kids and 5 pigs trying to cross a river that was 2-3 feet deep.
The host said the woman led the children across one by one, ranging in age for 8-mere months old, once the kids were across she took the pigs upstream and threw them one by one into the river where they would swim/float down until the oldest kid would grab the string around the pigs neck and pull it to shore.
After she described this story the host was just clearly amazed by this woman, how tough she was, how much ingenuity she possessed how clever to have been able to accomplish this feat on her own.
Really?
You're amazed by this?
This womans people have probably been crossing this damn river in the same manner for thousands of years, do any of them build a bridge? Even some makeshift crossing? Apparently not. In hundreds if not thousands of years these people much like the blacks in Africa are literally no more advanced than they were at the dawn of time.
Certainly these non Whites lack the capacity to learn, invent and build. I'm not downing them for it, that is how they are made but for a host to be awe struck by what amounts to raw stupidity is ignorant on the hosts part.
Here she lives in a society where in the palm of her hand she can hold a computer so amazing that she can video chat with someone in the far corners of the earth in real time, she can get in a car and drive 700 miles in a single day, or jump in an airplane and fly literally to any location in the world in 24 hours, hell if she had the money she could hitch a ride to outer freaking space. Is she amazed by that? Is she just constantly thankful and PROUD that her race has made it possible to live both in the coldest and hottest climate on earth with equal comfort?
Apparently not, and why?
Because people don't think, if they even try they so often miss the forest for the trees.
Until people actually use their brains, anything else is futile.
I was listening to a podcast, somewhat of a newstalk/comdey show when the host was talking about a recent trip to South America. She was describing a scene where the group was on a jungle hike and saw some pregnant tribal woman with 6 or 7 kids and 5 pigs trying to cross a river that was 2-3 feet deep.
The host said the woman led the children across one by one, ranging in age for 8-mere months old, once the kids were across she took the pigs upstream and threw them one by one into the river where they would swim/float down until the oldest kid would grab the string around the pigs neck and pull it to shore.
After she described this story the host was just clearly amazed by this woman, how tough she was, how much ingenuity she possessed how clever to have been able to accomplish this feat on her own.
Really?
You're amazed by this?
This womans people have probably been crossing this damn river in the same manner for thousands of years, do any of them build a bridge? Even some makeshift crossing? Apparently not. In hundreds if not thousands of years these people much like the blacks in Africa are literally no more advanced than they were at the dawn of time.
Certainly these non Whites lack the capacity to learn, invent and build. I'm not downing them for it, that is how they are made but for a host to be awe struck by what amounts to raw stupidity is ignorant on the hosts part.
Here she lives in a society where in the palm of her hand she can hold a computer so amazing that she can video chat with someone in the far corners of the earth in real time, she can get in a car and drive 700 miles in a single day, or jump in an airplane and fly literally to any location in the world in 24 hours, hell if she had the money she could hitch a ride to outer freaking space. Is she amazed by that? Is she just constantly thankful and PROUD that her race has made it possible to live both in the coldest and hottest climate on earth with equal comfort?
Apparently not, and why?
Because people don't think, if they even try they so often miss the forest for the trees.
Until people actually use their brains, anything else is futile.
Understanding Negro Worship
There are few things which I find more frustrating then watching White males and women worship blacks. Obviously I have issue with this on multiple levels but casting the jewish push for White women to bed down with blacks thus destroying the White race aside, I would like to focus on the purely superficial level.
Take for example the typical American male today, a beer drinking, at least slightly overweight male who enjoys sports. You see this male often extremely angry to the point of physical violence when his sports team is losing, yet his nation which his forefathers forged by blood and sweat turning a barren land into the most powerful country in the history of the earth, doesn't even warrant a pause for concern or even a passing thought. This is the epitome of decadence, stupidity and laziness. I have no time nor tolerance for such utter spineless, brainless, cowardice fools.
But these morons don't stop at just ignoring their country rotting from the inside out, it's much much sadder than that. In any sport where blacks take part they are constantly glorified by the jewish controlled media. They are as large as the game they play, White girls rush out to bed down with these degenerate thugs, White males rush out and buy their jerseys and sing their praises. Why?
Why are these negroes worshipped? What exactly do they do? They are talented at putting a ball through a hoop? They can run fast? That is literally the extent of their contributions to society at large. They hone these skills on the basketball courts of their section 8 housing complex, and who needs a job when the government amply provides for their family?
The fact that Whites worship these blacks is pathetic enough, but it gets exponentially moreso when you consider the talents, and contributions of Whites to the entire world. Here you have a race of people whose ancestors have sent people to outer space, conquered the earth, tamed any wilderness they attempted, cured nearly all diseases, built skyscrapers, bridges, ships the size of cities, submarines which people can live underwater for months at a time, the internet where people can communicate across the entire planet for just pennies per day I mean the list is so long I'd be an old man before I finished listing the myriad of achievements.
This is like a great inventor, say Nikola Tesla worshipping and being awe struck by animals in a zoo whose only achievement is throwing shit around and making people laugh. It's so utterly asinine that if it weren't a reality I wouldn't be able to believe it.
Of course we know why the jews push us to worship the blacks,
"We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by the whites, we can mould them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to install in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause"
Israel Cohen, A Racial Program For The 20th Century (1912) quoted by Congressman
Abernathy, Congressional Record (1957), p. 8559
It's time to stop, to throw off the years of brainwashing, to hell with the Negro Football League and the Negro Basketball Association, they are all pure rot, a gigantic waste of time, money, and a giant slap in the face to the great men who have come before us and toiled in the sun so that we might not have to.
Take for example the typical American male today, a beer drinking, at least slightly overweight male who enjoys sports. You see this male often extremely angry to the point of physical violence when his sports team is losing, yet his nation which his forefathers forged by blood and sweat turning a barren land into the most powerful country in the history of the earth, doesn't even warrant a pause for concern or even a passing thought. This is the epitome of decadence, stupidity and laziness. I have no time nor tolerance for such utter spineless, brainless, cowardice fools.
But these morons don't stop at just ignoring their country rotting from the inside out, it's much much sadder than that. In any sport where blacks take part they are constantly glorified by the jewish controlled media. They are as large as the game they play, White girls rush out to bed down with these degenerate thugs, White males rush out and buy their jerseys and sing their praises. Why?
Why are these negroes worshipped? What exactly do they do? They are talented at putting a ball through a hoop? They can run fast? That is literally the extent of their contributions to society at large. They hone these skills on the basketball courts of their section 8 housing complex, and who needs a job when the government amply provides for their family?
The fact that Whites worship these blacks is pathetic enough, but it gets exponentially moreso when you consider the talents, and contributions of Whites to the entire world. Here you have a race of people whose ancestors have sent people to outer space, conquered the earth, tamed any wilderness they attempted, cured nearly all diseases, built skyscrapers, bridges, ships the size of cities, submarines which people can live underwater for months at a time, the internet where people can communicate across the entire planet for just pennies per day I mean the list is so long I'd be an old man before I finished listing the myriad of achievements.
This is like a great inventor, say Nikola Tesla worshipping and being awe struck by animals in a zoo whose only achievement is throwing shit around and making people laugh. It's so utterly asinine that if it weren't a reality I wouldn't be able to believe it.
Of course we know why the jews push us to worship the blacks,
"We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by the whites, we can mould them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to install in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause"
Israel Cohen, A Racial Program For The 20th Century (1912) quoted by Congressman
Abernathy, Congressional Record (1957), p. 8559
It's time to stop, to throw off the years of brainwashing, to hell with the Negro Football League and the Negro Basketball Association, they are all pure rot, a gigantic waste of time, money, and a giant slap in the face to the great men who have come before us and toiled in the sun so that we might not have to.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Will Abe Foxman Apologize To Charlie Sheen?
By Rev. Ted Pike 3 Mar 11
In 1918 Vladimir Lenin recorded and sent throughout Russia a phonograph record threatening death to any Russian who revealed the Jewish name of a Bolshevik leader. [1] A photo of the first People's Commissariat at that time reveals the nearly total dominion of Jews over Bolshevism: All five were Jewish. (See Jewish Activists Created Communism)On February 24, actor Charlie Sheen committed an offense that would have sentenced him to death in Jewish-controlled Bolshevik Russia. In an internet radio interview he used the Jewish name (Chaim Levine) of Chuck Lorre, producer of his sitcom. Instantly, "Amerika's" thought crime commissar, ADL head Abe Foxman, sprang into action.
Unlike other public figures attacked with Foxman’s highly nuanced objections, Sheen demands an apology. His attorney Marty Singer says that Lorre referred to himself as Chaim on a vanity card in February and that Sheen's statement was not anti-Semitic. Sheen says he was referring to Lorre's real name "because I wanted to address the man, not the bulls**t TV persona." Sheen himself was given another name at birth. "So you're telling me, anytime someone calls me Carlos Estevez, I can claim they are anti-Latino?"By invoking television producer Chuck Lorre’s Jewish name in the context of an angry tirade against him, Charlie Sheen left the impression that another reason for his dislike of Mr. Lorre is his Jewishness. This fact has no relevance to Mr. Sheen’s complaint or disagreement, and his words are at best bizarre, and at worst, borderline anti-Semitism.
Foxman would be well advised to apologize. In 2001 ADL smeared as anti-Semitic a Colorado filmmaker, William Quigley, whose career depended on good relations with Hollywood. Quigley sued and the court agreed that, since Hollywood was in fact Jewish-dominated, ADL had severely damaged his economic future. ADL was fined $10.5 million, a sum whose interest accrued to nearly $14 million after several years of appeals. (See Jews Confirm Big Media Is Jewish)
On February 25, CBS canceled the final four tapings of Sheen’s sitcom. It could be argued that ADL’s accusations—not Sheen’s attention-getting behavior—is to blame. The smear of “anti-Semitism” could even lead to a boycott by entertainment media for the rest of Sheen's life. The actor may be in an excellent position to sue ADL, perhaps demanding hundreds of millions. If the court agrees that Sheen has been maliciously stereotyped, ADL could suffer financially to a much greater degree than under the Quigley judgment. If Sheen decides to sue ADL, it will be a well-deserved legal whack on the snout. Even if Foxman realizes he has overstepped and apologizes, it will significantly tarnish his authority as speech crimes commissar.
Nuancing Thought Crime
With world criticism raging against Israel's entrenched brutality to the people of Gaza, Foxman and other Jewish leaders are becoming much more extreme and nuanced in their demands that matters Jewish remain a "no free speech zone." They fear that Europe’s anti-Israel mood will spread to conservative leaders like Glenn Beck.
Like Foxman, liberal Jewish religious leaders have denounced Beck for what they consider borderline anti-Semitic inferences. Some 600 primarily Reform (secular) rabbis want Beck fired from FOX. His only crime is calling his enemies "Nazis" or describing abortion deaths as a "Holocaust." Liberal
Jewish propagandists claim that no genocide in history can compare to the evil that Nazis inflicted on the Jews. Beck’s use of "Holocaust" terms thus trivializes the near-deified memory of Jewish dead.
Joseph Stalin authorized the assassination of countless opponents as he climbed the ladder of political power in Russia. The more he purged his enemies, the more sensitive he became to the smallest hint of disloyalty. At the end, a comrade who merely failed to look him straight in the eye was doomed as an enemy of the state. This is the paranoid destiny of America under Foxman, the new high executioner of thought correctness. Many American political and religious leaders are beginning to realize they are in the crosshairs of ADL, vulnerable to the slightest slip of tongue about Judaism or Israel.
What should they do? The opposite of groveling Glenn Beck, who apologized for his true statement that Reform (secular) Jews are primarily political, not spiritual, in emphasis. They should follow the lead of fighters like Helen
Thomas and even the train wreck that is Charlie Sheen. His demand for ADL’s apology may be fueled by “crack courage,” but it is courage nonetheless. It is outrageous that this degenerate addict is virtually the only public figure in modern times to fight back at ADL.
Footnote:
1. Encyclopedia Judaica . “Communism,” p. 798.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Interlocking Directors
Wikipedia has a decent article on the subject, this is just a small sampling of how intertwined the elite are. How tight and cohesive a group they form. Don't delude yourself it is US vs them.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
CLICK TO ENLARGE
US Government Wants Software That Will Create "Fake People" On Social Networks In Order To Spread Propaganda
We know people are sheep, and this would be an effective tool in order to make people go along with what is perceived to be popular opinion. The dirty tricks of this dying empire know no bounds.
The contract calls for the development of "Persona Management Software" which would help the user create and manage a variety of distinct fake profiles online.
The job listing was discussed in recently leaked emails from the private security firm HBGary after an attack by internet activist last week.
Click here to view the government contract (PDF)
According to the contract, the software would "protect the identity of government agencies" by employing a number of false signals to convince users that the poster is in fact a real person. A single user could manage unique background information and status updates for up to 10 fake people from a single computer.
The software enables the government to shield its identity through a number of different methods including the ability to assign unique IP addresses to each persona and the ability to make it appear as though the user is posting from other locations around the world.
Included in HBGary's leaked emails was a government proposal for the government contract. The document describes how they would 'friend' real people on Facebook as a way to convey government messages. The document reads:
Other documents in the leaked emails include quotes from HBGary CEO Aaron Barr saying, "There are a variety of social media tricks we can use to add a level of realness to all fictitious personas... Using hashtags and gaming some location based check-in services we can make it appear as if a persona was actually at a conference and introduce himself/herself to key individuals as part of the exercise, as one example."
Additional emails between HBGary employees, usually originating from Barr,
discuss the vulnerability social networking causes.
One employee wrote, "and now social networks are closing the gap between attacker and victim, to the point I just found (via linked-in) 112 females, wives of service men, all stationed at Hurlbert Field FL - in case you don't know this is where the CIA flies all their "private" airlines out of. What a damn joke - the U.S. is no longer the super power in cyber, and probably won't be in other areas soon."
Barr also predicted a steady rise in clandestine or secret government operations to stem the flow of sensitive information. "I would say there is going to be a resurgence of black ops in the coming year as decision makers settle with our inadequacies... Critical infrastructure, finance, defense industrial base, and government have rivers of unauthorized communications flowing from them and there are no real efforts to stop it."
The creation of internet propoganda software is only one of HBGary's controversial activities. According to Wikileaks competetor and occasional collaborator Cryptome.org, several other progressive organizations were intended to be targeted including anti-war activist, anti-torture organizations and groups opposed to the US Chamber of Commerce.
The emails also include a number of other embarrasing entries including the purchase of the book "The Multi-Orgasmic Man: Sexual Secrets Every Man Should Know" from Amazon for $6.76.
The US government is offering private intelligence companies contracts to create software to manage "fake people" on social media sites and create the illusion of consensus on controversial issues.
The contract calls for the development of "Persona Management Software" which would help the user create and manage a variety of distinct fake profiles online.
The job listing was discussed in recently leaked emails from the private security firm HBGary after an attack by internet activist last week.
Click here to view the government contract (PDF)
According to the contract, the software would "protect the identity of government agencies" by employing a number of false signals to convince users that the poster is in fact a real person. A single user could manage unique background information and status updates for up to 10 fake people from a single computer.
The software enables the government to shield its identity through a number of different methods including the ability to assign unique IP addresses to each persona and the ability to make it appear as though the user is posting from other locations around the world.
Included in HBGary's leaked emails was a government proposal for the government contract. The document describes how they would 'friend' real people on Facebook as a way to convey government messages. The document reads:
- "Those names can be cross-referenced across Facebook, twitter, MySpace, and other social media services to collect information on each individual. Once enough information is collected this information can be used to gain access to these individuals social circles.
- Even the most restrictive and security conscious of persons can be exploited. Through the targeting and information reconnaissance phase, a person’s hometown and high school will be revealed. An adversary can create a classmates.com account at the same high school and year and find out people you went to high school with that do not have Facebook accounts, then create the account and send a friend request. Under the mutual friend decision, which is where most people can be exploited, an adversary can look at a targets friend list if it is exposed and find a targets most socially promiscuous friends, the ones that have over 300-500 friends, friend them to develop mutual friends before sending a friend request to the target. To that end friend’s accounts can be compromised and used to post malicious material to a targets wall. When choosing to participate in social media an individual is only as protected as his/her weakest friend."
Other documents in the leaked emails include quotes from HBGary CEO Aaron Barr saying, "There are a variety of social media tricks we can use to add a level of realness to all fictitious personas... Using hashtags and gaming some location based check-in services we can make it appear as if a persona was actually at a conference and introduce himself/herself to key individuals as part of the exercise, as one example."
Additional emails between HBGary employees, usually originating from Barr,
discuss the vulnerability social networking causes.
One employee wrote, "and now social networks are closing the gap between attacker and victim, to the point I just found (via linked-in) 112 females, wives of service men, all stationed at Hurlbert Field FL - in case you don't know this is where the CIA flies all their "private" airlines out of. What a damn joke - the U.S. is no longer the super power in cyber, and probably won't be in other areas soon."
Barr also predicted a steady rise in clandestine or secret government operations to stem the flow of sensitive information. "I would say there is going to be a resurgence of black ops in the coming year as decision makers settle with our inadequacies... Critical infrastructure, finance, defense industrial base, and government have rivers of unauthorized communications flowing from them and there are no real efforts to stop it."
The creation of internet propoganda software is only one of HBGary's controversial activities. According to Wikileaks competetor and occasional collaborator Cryptome.org, several other progressive organizations were intended to be targeted including anti-war activist, anti-torture organizations and groups opposed to the US Chamber of Commerce.
The emails also include a number of other embarrasing entries including the purchase of the book "The Multi-Orgasmic Man: Sexual Secrets Every Man Should Know" from Amazon for $6.76.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Great Source Of Information On WWII, Hitler and the Third Reich
I don't think any subject exists where more misinformation exists than that of Hitler and Nazi Germany. It is a topic where everyone has an opinion which they think is infallible. These are the people who regurgitate propaganda, have strong views on Hitler yet have never even read the first page of Mein Kampf.
For those of us who enjoy historical study and want to read accounts and speeches from that era straight from the source I don't think you can do better than the following link. I plan on reposting stories and speeches here as time goes on in order to set the record straight and shine light on the Truth. Until then enjoy
The Mein Kampf Project
For those of us who enjoy historical study and want to read accounts and speeches from that era straight from the source I don't think you can do better than the following link. I plan on reposting stories and speeches here as time goes on in order to set the record straight and shine light on the Truth. Until then enjoy
The Mein Kampf Project
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)