"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

29 February 2016

Who is behind "Conservative Solutions PAC"?


This entity has been running misleading anti-Trump radio-spots in Florida since the day before Super Tuesday. 

One spot says about Trump: "He banned disabled veterans from his highrise."

In fact Trump has not banned disabled veterans as such from any of his buildings. He has complained over the course of many years, since 1991, to the City of New York about street-vendors with special "disabled veteran" licenses turning Fifth Avenue into a flea-market outside of Trump Tower.

Another anti-Trump spot complains: "He praised Russian gangster Vladimir Putin."

That is a very Jewish complaint, since it is Putin who has thwarted the Zionist-Jew plan to overthrow Bashar al-Assad and create chaos in Syria.

The following names were reported to the Federal Election Commission as having donated $200 or more to this PAC. Note that there are no donations of less than $50,000. This PAC certainly represents the interests of some very rich people, many of whom are well known to be Jews.

The name at the top of the list, Paul Singer, is that of a Jewish hedge-fund manager who promotes "gay rights." Is that really conservative?

SINGER, PAUL ELLIOT
NEW YORK, NY 10019
ELLIOTT MANAGEMENT CORP. 11/25/15$2,500,000
GRIFFIN, KENNETH C
CHICAGO, IL 60603
CITADEL, LLC 12/14/15$2,500,000
BESILU STABLES, LLC
MIAMI, FL 33165
06/29/15$2,500,000
BRAMAN, NORMAN
MIAMI, FL 33137
BRAMAN MOTORS, INC. 06/22/15$2,000,000
ELLISON, LAWRENCE J
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
ORACLE 06/24/15$2,000,000
PERLMUTTER, LAURA
LAKE WORTH, FL 33460
NOT EMPLOYED 06/08/15$2,000,000
BRAMAN, NORMAN
MIAMI, FL 33137
BRAMAN MOTORS, INC. 04/17/15$1,500,000
BRAMAN, NORMAN
MIAMI, FL 33137
BRAMAN MOTORS, INC. 05/17/15$1,500,000
ASNESS, CLIFF
NEW YORK, NY 10017
AQR CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 12/31/15$1,000,000
BRAMAN, NORMAN
MIAMI, FL 33137
BRAMAN MOTORS, INC. 12/23/15$1,000,000
SPENCER, MARY M
KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149
INVESTOR 10/19/15$1,000,000
HUMPHREYS, DAVID C
JOPLIN, MO 64803
TAMKO BUILDING PRODUCTS 12/15/15$1,000,000
ELLISON, LAWRENCE J
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
Oracle Corporation 01/20/16$1,000,000
ELLISON, LAWRENCE J
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
ORACLE 05/18/15$1,000,000
DEGEORGE, LAWRENCE F
JUPITER, FL 33477
DEG CAPITAL 05/19/15$500,000
RUBRIGHT, JAMES A
ATLANTA, GA 30305
PRIVET FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC 04/18/15$500,000
IGX, LLC
WILMINGTON, DE 19808
10/26/15$500,000
MCNAIR, ROBERT C
HOUSTON, TX 77054
HOUSTON TEXANS 08/24/15$500,000
CLINE, CHRIS
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL 33410
THE CLINE GROUP 09/28/15$500,000
BERKOWITZ, BRUCE R
CORAL GABLES, FL 33143
FAIRHOLME CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 11/12/15$250,000
ACCESS INDUSTRIES, INC
NEW YORK, NY 10019
12/08/15$250,000
FLORIDA CRYSTALS CORPORATION
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401
12/30/15$250,000
KLARMAN, SETH A
BOSTON, MA 02117
THE BAUPOST GROUP, LLC 12/04/15$250,000
SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF AMERICA, INC
MIRAMAR, FL 33027
07/29/15$250,000
POPE, JAMES A
RALEIGH, NC 27609
Variet Wholesalers, Inc 01/19/16$250,000
HARLAN R CROW FAMILY BRANCH PARTNERSHIP
DALLAS, TX 75219
01/20/16$250,000
DEVOS, RICHARD
GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49503
retired 01/19/16$250,000
KENDRICK, RANDY
PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253
Arizona Diamondback Baseball 01/25/16$200,000
TRAVEL RETAIL GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC
MIAMI, FL 33238
06/29/15$200,000
COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP PAC, INC
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313
10/02/15$200,000
HERRO, DAVID
CHICAGO, IL 60610
HARRIS ASSOCIATES, LP 11/20/15$150,000
COLLUM'S ADMIN & MAINT, LLC
ALLENDALE, SC 29810
06/24/15$150,000
GEO CORRECTIONS HOLDINGS, INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33487
04/17/15$100,000
GRIFFIN, KENNETH C
CHICAGO, IL 60603
CITADEL, LLC 06/24/15$100,000
GROFF, SUSAN L
DALLAS, TX 75202
NORTHWEST EXCAVATING 06/08/15$100,000
FLORIDA CRYSTALS CORPORATION
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401
06/29/15$100,000
HERRO, DAVID
CHICAGO, IL 60610
HARRIS ASSOCIATES, LP 04/24/15$100,000
HIRSCH, LAURENCE E
DALLAS, TX 75201
HIGHLANDER PARTNERS, LP 04/24/15$100,000
KENDRICK, RANDY
PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253
ARIZONA DIAMONDBACK BASEBALL 06/19/15$100,000
RUST, ROBERT W
CORAL GABLES, FL 33146
RETIRED 04/28/15$100,000
STOFIN CO, INC
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401
06/29/15$100,000
SANDLER, RICKY C
NEW YORK, NY 10128
EMINENCE CAPITAL, LP 12/22/15$100,000
VANDERSLOOT, FRANK L
IDAHO FALLS, ID 83405
MELALEUCA, INC. 12/31/15$100,000
CONSERVATIVES FOR EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313
12/04/15$100,000
CROW, HARLAN
DALLAS, TX 75219
CROW HOLDINGS 08/24/15$100,000
GAINES, STANLEY
PALM BEACH, FL 33480
RETIRED 10/02/15$100,000
GROFF, SUSAN L
NORTHRIDGE, CA 91324
NORTHWEST EXCAVATING CO., INC. 12/09/15$100,000
AMERICAS EXPORT CORPORATION
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401
06/29/15$100,000
AGRO-INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401
06/29/15$100,000
TMCV #2 LLC
IDAHO FALLS, ID 83402
12/30/15$90,000
NG MONTANA LLC
IDAHO FALLS, ID 83402
12/29/15$85,000
FERNANDEZ, RAUL J
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
Monumental Sports and Ent 01/27/16$60,000
KENDRICK, RANDY
PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253
Arizona Diamondback Baseball 01/28/16$50,000
SWEZY, LEWIS
MIAMI LAKES, FL 33016
CENTENNIAL MANAGEMENT CORP. 05/20/15$50,000
ZIPPER, JEFFREY A
BOCA RATON, FL 33496
JAZ COMPANY 05/20/15$50,000
STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INC
ST LOUIS, MO 63102
06/26/15$50,000
LION FINANCIAL, LLC
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140
05/20/15$50,000
MARGOLIS, RICHARD A
MALIBU, CA 90265
COLUMBUS PACIFIC PROPERTIES 06/26/15$50,000
NORTH CYPRESS MEDICAL CTR OPER CO, LTD
CYPRESS, TX 77429
06/24/15$50,000
HERTOG, ROGER
NEW YORK, NY 10151
HERTOG FOUNDATION 04/06/15$50,000
AMERICAN HEALTHWORKS, LLC
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33316
05/20/15$50,000
NICHOLS, J LARRY
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73116
DEVON ENERGY CORPORATION 12/21/15$50,000
REGAN, ROBERT M JR
ARLINGTON, VA 22207
21ST CENTURY FOX 10/27/15$50,000
KINGDON, MARK
NEW YORK, NY 10028
KINGDON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC 12/26/15$50,000
TAPIA, DON
PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253
RETIRED 10/14/15$50,000
HELIOS HOLDINGS
ATLANTA, GA 30339
12/31/15$50,000
ARNOTT, ROBERT D
CORONO DEL MAR, CA 92625
RESEARCH AFFILIATES 06/25/15$50,000
FUSSNER, CHRISTOPHER
JACKSON, WY 83001
TRANS-TEC USA 09/10/15$50,000
CORCORAN, MICHAEL C
ODESSA, FL 33556
CORCORAN & JOHNSTON 09/29/15$50,000
COLLUM'S SAWMILL, LLC
ALLENDALE, SC 29810
12/29/15$50,000

Mark Weber's Dereliction of Duty as Director of the IHR

Mark Weber: Squishy Semi-Revisionist Shirker
An aid to comprehension for viewers of Jim Rizoli's interview of Mark Weber (10 February 2016) 

Part One

Anybody who has not taken a particular interest in Historical Revisionism is likely to find little to criticize in Mark Weber's statements to Jim Rizoli in this interview. Such a viewer will likely be impressed that Weber speaks well of Holocaust Revisionists and defends their right to raise "questions."


If Mark Weber were a professor at a university or a mainstream public figure, that would be a net benefit. The problem is that Mark Weber does not occupy any such position but is the director of the Institute for Historical Review. He is supposed to be a leader in Holocaust Revisionism, not a spectator benevolently defending that movement's free-speech rights.

As an historian and as the director of the Institute, Mark Weber is supposed to be dealing in hard facts and logic and reaching conclusions about history. The motto of the Institute for Historical Review is: "to bring history into accord with the facts," and from its founding in 1978 the Institute was to be focused especially on dissecting and debunking what almost nobody else wanted to touch, that great body of destructive legends known as the Holocaust of the Jews. That was why the Institute for Historical Review was needed. The Institute was thus always intended to be radical, uncompromising, and at the vanguard of controversy. At one time it was. You will notice however that in this interview, uncompromising conclusions about the Holocaust are something that Mark Weber prefers to avoid. 

Read more.

Semi-Revisionists

Part Two

In the first part, I showed that Mark Weber, in his interview with Jim Rizoli, consistently tried to avoid acknowledging any findings of Holocaust Revisionism, and also tried to conceal his past acknowledgment of such findings. In this part, the focus is on Weber's attempts to justify his retreat from Holocaust Revisionism.

Mark Weber gives several arguments to justify his current refusal to support the revisionist findings that he once supported in regard to the Holocaust. I was able to discern the following, somewhat contradictory arguments, listed here in ascending order of absurdity:



1. The question of whether the Holocaust-story is true or false is no longer relevant.

2. Although the truth about the Holocaust is relevant (contradicting the previous point) it should not be relevant!


3. There is no point in disputing the Holocaust because Jews really were gassed!




21 February 2016

Texe Marrs: The only political party in the USA is the Jew Party.


Despite his religious outlook, Texe Marrs is an astute observer.
Ted Cruz is "one of these people," says Texe Marrs.



Marrs does not directly say that Cruz is a Jew because there is no direct proof, but the circumstantial indicators are strong.

Since Marrs views the world from a religious perspective, the way he explains what he observes is not exactly the way I would explain it. It does not mean that his observations are bad, only that the different framework for interpretation has to be taken into account.

Marrs' reference to Jews as Satan-worshippers makes sense if you take it as a metaphor. The Gospels, in the traditional Christian interpretation, constitute an aetiological myth explaining why Jews are the enemies of the rest of mankind.

The strongest determining factor in how people behave, however, is not religion but inherited character. This is also true of the Muslim immigrants in Europe: they behave as they do not so much because of their religion as because of their inherited character.

Marrs also makes a mistake when he says that the Stasi was the ruling political party in the part of Germany that was in the Communist Bloc. Stasi means Staatsicherheitspolizei -- State Security-Police. Anetta Kahane is a Jewish woman who was an agent of the Stasi and is currently involved in efforts to stifle nationalist speech in Germany.

18 February 2016

Bradley Smith, Major Holocaust Revisionist, dies on his 86th Birthday

More precisely, Smith was an important promoter of revisionism, from the perspective of a freethinker. He was not a scholar, but rather an activist for the right of revisionist arguments to be heard, especially at universities.

This is an interview from only two months ago.

16 February 2016

A Court without Law, by Heinrich Haertle -- part 12

Prof. Dr. Hermann Jahrreiss


International Injustice


From Freispruch für Deutschland by Heinrich Haertle
Translated by Hadding Scott, 2016


This authority gained through no law and only through military force is already refuted at its foundations in the pleading about international law by Professor Jahrreiss. As we have stated, Dr. Jahrreiss explicitly professes on behalf of the German defense-team the exalted purpose of fulfilling a primordial longing of humanity and, through an expanded international law, securing a just and enduring order of peace. Two preconditions however would first have to be met:


1. These new laws should not nullify their own legality by being applied retroactively and one-sidedly.

2. A supranational authority must first be created that can function as a world-legislature and world-executive.

For, as long as these conditions cannot be fulfilled, no court may claim the right to convict and to punish persons affiliated with a state or a government for a crime against peace.

According to recognized international law the breach of a political treaty is also nothing other than a violation of international law. The treaty-breaking state has committed a tort under international law (Völkerrechtsdelikt), but not a crime (strafbare Handlung).

Therefore, Jahrreiss demonstrates, there was no international criminal law until then.

Even if the German Reich in 1939 had violated a non-aggression pact -- which in the case of Poland was no longer possible, since the relevant treaty had been terminated -- even in this case Germany would have committed, and therefore under the rules of international law would have been liable for, only a tort:


"But only the Reich, not the individual, even if he were the head of state. This is beyond all doubt according to presently recognized international law." [Hermann Jahrreiss, "The Breach of Peace between States and its Culpability," IMT transcript, Supplement B, Part 1, II]

Professor Jahrreiss then thoroughly substantiates this position through the historical facts of the period after the First World War:


"For up to the most recent times not even the possibility was mentioned, either in the Manchurian, or in the Italo-Abyssinian, or in the Russo-Finnish conflict, of instituting criminal proceedings against those people who were responsible, on the Japanese, Italian, or Russian side, for planning, preparing, launching, and conducting the war or who simply participated in these acts in any way. And it was certainly not because matters had, paradoxically enough, not been thought out to the end, that they were not prosecuted. They were not prosecuted because this cannot take place as long as the sovereignty of states is the organizational basic principle of interstate order." [Hermann Jahrreiss, IMT transcript, 4 July 1946]

The state would have to surrender the most consequential event in the state's life, the decision for war or peace, to foreign states or to an international body.

The state would necessarily in effect dissolve itself, if it would have the question of its existence decided by others. The Nuremberg "laws" are only applicable if the sovereign state is already smashed.

Professor Jahrreiss indicates to the court this sequence of actions:


The Prosecution breaks up in its own mind the German State at a time when it stood upright in its full strength and acted through its organs. It must do so if it desires to prosecute individual persons for a breach of the peace between states. It must turn the defendants into private individuals. [Hermann Jahrreiss, ibid.]

With what do the Allied judges want to replace the state? Even now, states are the only subjects of international law. Where is a supranational authority that had already taken their place in 1939? Professor Jahrreiss holds this crucial fact against the tribunal:


"The regulations of the Charter deny the basis of this law*; they anticipate the law of a world state." [Hermann Jahrreiss, ibid.]

Against this legal-scientific and legal-philosophical criticism from the most important German expert on international law, the Allied jurists can offer only their old excuses and slogans. At the close of his pleading, Professor Jahrreiss again summarizes his defense of international law against international despotism (des Völkerrechts gegen internationale Willkür) -- cautious in form, but unambiguous in substance:


"Sentences against individuals for breach of the peace between states presuppose other laws than those in force when the actions laid before this Tribunal took place.
"The legal question of guilt -- and I am here only concerned with that -- is thus posed in its full complexity, for not one of the defendants could have held even one of the two views of the legal world constitution, on which the chief prosecutors base their arguments." [Hermann Jahrreiss, ibid.]
___________________________________________
* The argument is a little clearer in German. The usual term for international law is Völkerrecht, which literally means "law of peoples" or "law of nations." Obviously there cannot be a "law of nations" unless there are nation-states. Nation-states are therefore the basis for international law.

13 February 2016

Trump Reads Lyrics with Anti-Immigrant Message


Trump intended the song as a moral lesson against indiscriminate admission of immigrants, meaning especially admission of Muslims, but there is no reason whatsoever why it could not also be a warning against Jews. 

In fact it is much more aptly applied to the Jews, given the way Jews have taken over and have been wrecking the United States over the past century, a story that has been repeated over and over throughout the history of the Jews. In fact Jews are the fundamental creators of whatever Muslim problem exists in the United States today, through their influence on immigration-policy and incitement of foreign wars that have destabilized the Muslim world. The notion that there is some obligation to take refugees is certainly perpetuated by Jews.

Jews catch that kind of implication even when the general public does not -- even when it wasn't intended that way. You cannot try to save your country without running afoul of Jews.

Rush Limbaugh and others are attributing the song to Negro soul-singer Al Wilson, but Wilson was only one singer who recorded the song. (Johnny Rivers was another.) The song was written by Oscar Brown, Jr. (a mulatto) based on an ancient Greek tale attributed to Aesop, The Farmer and the Snake.

Here is the Aesop's fable:


ONE WINTER a Farmer found a Snake stiff and frozen with cold. He had compassion on it, and taking it up, placed it in his bosom. The Snake was quickly revived by the warmth, and resuming its natural instincts, bit its benefactor, inflicting on him a mortal wound. “Oh,” cried the Farmer with his last breath, “I am rightly served for pitying a scoundrel.”
The greatest kindness will not win the loyalty of ingrates.

11 February 2016

Crazed Halfwit Musicians Run Afoul of Jews

Negro Rapper "B.o.B." rejects the Jewish version of history.

On 26 January 2016, chart-topping Black rapper B.o.B. (real name Bobby Ray Simmons Jr.), who has had three top-ten hit recordings, caused serious worry to the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith by posting online a rap-video that: (1) alludes to Jewish power over the government of the United States, (2) declares that Adolf Hitler was not the greatest villain in world-history, and (3) suggests that the listener become familiar with David Irving. Read more.


Ted Nugent announces that Jews promote gun-control.

On Monday, 8 February 2016, Nugent shared on his personal Facebook page an image bearing the faces of twelve prominent Jews who advocate gun-control, with a small Israeli flag accompanying each Jewish face, and a contemptuous description accompanying several. Nugent did not create the meme, which is several years old, but reposted it with his own comment.... Read more.




Comment posted 12 February 2016 at 7:44am



09 February 2016

A Court without Law, by Heinrich Haertle -- part 11





Judicial Murderers


From Freispruch für Deutschland by Heinrich Haertle
Translated by Hadding Scott, 2016


The prerequisite for this pseudo-justice was the destruction of German sovereignty through the elimination of the Reich's government. With naked arbitrariness one has robbed the German political and military leaders of the protection of sovereignty, in order first to make them into prisoners of war and then to exterminate them as bandits. 

It is part of the natural law of genuine democracy that members of parliament have an immunity. In order to secure the independence of the people's representation, no deputy may be held responsible officially or in court for his political decisions and votes. If in a genuine democracy such a protection is necessary already for domestic political reasons, how much more obligatory was it that the democratic victor-states respect the immunity of the military and political leaders who require a government for their foreign-policy dealings? The simple consideration that no minister and no general could prepare and carry out a war as a private citizen would necessarily have prevented them from being treated in this manner contrary to international law. Would Field-Marshall Keitel ever have been able or wanted to bring about a world-war out of personal motives as a private citizen? Would Grand Admiral Doenitz have been able to build up a u-boat force and to lead a sea-war against the global powers as a private citizen? They acted on the order of their head of state in the performance of the tasks assigned to them, and could therefore be responsible only to their sovereign. 

This is however the difference between international law and private law, that the former knows only peoples and therefore states as accountable subjects of law. It is a law between states or communities of states. Especially the decision about war and peace has been the exclusive right of sovereign states. Although the act of coercion (Gewaltakt) at Flensburg could dissolve the legal government of the Reich, it could not therewith earn the right to proceed against members of a sovereign government as if they had been private persons. All maneuvers that are supposed to give legal justification retroactively to this act of coercion have thus failed absolutely. Only three years later the General Assembly of the United Nations pronounced the juristic death-sentence on the hangmen of Nuremberg. 

On 9 December 1948 it refused to recognize the principles of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg as authoritative international law.

Had this decision been issued already during the trial, the judges at Nuremberg would have had to terminate their functions, if they did not want to be convicted and sentenced as judicial murderers.

To the glory of the German defense-team, it must be stated again and again that even during the trial they dare to refute all pseudo-juristic maneuvers that are supposed to justify the military tribunal. The defense-attorney of the former Reich's Minister Alfred Rosenberg, Dr. Thoma, objects for example to the attempt to construct a personal responsibility of the members of the Reich's government toward an  international court created after the fact. Dr. Thoma states:


"The highest good, summum bonum, in international morals of nations has not yet been mandatorily codified. There does not exist any authoritative idea for the community of nations. Instead of discussions on individual ethics and individual criminality, the Prosecution should have submitted its accepted principles and criteria as international common law, which was not done.
"Therefore, with regard to the standpoint of the prosecuting authorities as to the personal responsibility of acting statesmen, I feel impelled to look upon this as a totally new philosophy and one which is very dangerous in its consequences." [Alfred Thoma, IMT transcript, 10 July 1946]

Jackson had to admit indirectly in his letter to President Truman on 7 June 1945, that when the war began no international legal order existed that could designate the war as a crime and the war-wagers as criminals:


But International Law as taught in the Nineteenth and the early part of the Twentieth Century generally declared that war-making was not illegal and is no crime at law. Summarized by a standard authority, its attitude was that “both parties to every war are regarded as being in an identical legal position, and consequently as being possessed of equal rights.” [Robert H. Jackson, letter to President Truman, 7 June 1945, p.6]

Jackson has to "demand" the criminalization of war for the first time in 1945! We have already demonstrated exhaustively that this was precisely the legal situation that was internationally acknowledged also at the beginning of the war in 1939. Since war was not illegal, the war-wagers of 1939 were not punishable as "criminals against peace." Dr. Stahmer already indicated in his petition of 19 November 1945 that even the League of Nations never could and never wanted to hold an individual personage of a belligerent country privately responsible for his tasks in the government. The practice of the League of Nations, he says, has been unambiguous on this point until the most recent period. It was however required to decide several times about the legality or illegality of the violent action of one of its members against another.


On several occasions the League had to decide upon the lawfulness or unlawfulness of action by force of one member against another member, but it always condemned such action by force merely as a violation of international law by the State, and never thought of bringing up for trial the statesmen, generals, and industrialists of the state which recurred to force. [Otto Stahmer, IMT transcript, 19 November 1945]

From the experiences with the League of Nations and the treaties of 1919-1939, especially after the total failure of the Kellogg Pact, the nations also after 1945 renounced codification of an individual responsibility of statesmen, for as long as there had been no success in constructing an international authority that would have been superordinated and thereby uniquely situated to call representatives of a particular state to account. Dr. Stahmer made the key observation about that:


And when, this summer, in San Francisco the new world-peace organization was established, no rule of law was created under which in the future an international court will punish those persons who launch an unjust war." [Otto Stahmer, Defense Motion Challenging Jurisdiction of Tribunal, IMT transcript, 20 November 1945]

Never will the judges and prosecutors at Nuremberg be able to justify that, in spite of this decision reached already in 1945 by the highest international authority, at the same time they claimed the role of world-judges and international hangmen. In the same summer of 1945 they created their own "law" ("Recht") in article 7 of the charter: 


The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.[Charter of the IMT]

And still a year later, in the rationale for the verdict they confirm this principle completely contrary to international law: 


... [T]he very essence of the Charter is that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State.[IMT's Judgement]

What are these "international duties" that are supposed to be stronger than the responsibility of politicians and military men to their own state? Who has established these international duties, who monitors compliance with them, and who punishes violation of them? An arbitrary construct is supposed to suffice for unhinging a right on which the sovereignty of the state is based. Consistently applied, this superordination of an international law over national laws must destroy these laws -- and the state.

This causal nexus shows that the Allies were compelled to eliminate the government of the Reich in order destroy the sovereignty of the German state.

Only in this case was the specially invented international law to be applied.

Already it is a shameless presumption of politicizing advocates to claim the privilege of deciding from their absolute power what "international duty" might be. That is because out of 50 nations only 23 attended the London convention, and even these remained passive, so that in practice the authority over 50 states is claimed by the representatives of only 4 states: France, England, USA, and USSR.


06 February 2016

A Court without Law, by Heinrich Haertle -- part 10




Lawrence Praises Nikitchenko



From Freispruch für Deutschland by Heinrich Haertle
Translated by Hadding Scott, 2016



The representatives of the liberal-democratic Western powers on the other hand have betrayed all legal principles of the cultured nations and juristically submitted to Soviet despotism.  In the English House of Lords on 5 May 1949, three years after the unjust verdict at Nuremberg, Lord Hankey pronounced the moral and juristic death-sentence on the French, American, and English members of the International Military Tribunal, as he affirmed before the plenum with an elevated voice that there was "something cynical and revolting in the spectacle of British, French and American judges sitting on the Bench with colleagues representing a country which before, during, and since the trials had perpetrated half the political crimes in the calendar."

Mr. Justice Lawrence saw himself compelled 14 days later to take refuge from Lord Hankey's reproach in the pretense that this was an insult to his Soviet colleagues who had demonstrated "their ability and fairness" in Nuremberg.

The strongest evidence of the demoralizing effect of this absolute capitulation to Soviet class-justice came from Chief Justice Jackson himself.  He, who uncontrollably invokes the west-east charter again and again in order then to go back to manipulating with arguments about international law, dares on 19 March 1946 to go so far as to admit that the expansion of the war by France and England in 1939 does not represent an act of aggression by Germany. But since it happens to be the case that Germany declared war on neither France nor England, but rather the reverse, and since without attack no state of war can occur, France and England, according to all rules of logic, must have been the aggressors. On 8 July 1946 defense-attorney Dr. Horn nailed Jackson down on this matter:

"At the session of March 19, 1946, Mr. Justice Jackson interpreting the indictment has stressed the point that the extension of the war brought about by the Western powers did not constitute a punishable aggression on the side of Germany. This interpretation is in keeping with his general argumentation concerning the notion of aggression. Should he want to carry this through quite consistently, he would logically have to declare Great Britain and France aggressors of Germany for having brought about the state of war by means of the ultimatum." [Martin Horn, Final Argument for Ribbentrop, IMT transcript, Supplement B, Part I]

If the Kellogg Pact had still been valid in 1939, the Nuremberg Tribunal would have had to prosecute France and England, specifically the French and English politicians and generals, of crimes against peace. One would get into such contradictions if Soviet class-justice is mixed with European principles of law. If this is embarrassing for an American jurist like Jackson, it is an enduring disgrace for Great Britain, that this land of world-famous jurisdiction supplies Mr. Justice Lawrence as the president, the primary responsible party, for a trial that employs Soviet class-justice against politicians and officers of a cultured European people.

Since none of the treaties concluded before 1939 was still in force at the time of the outbreak of the German-Polish conflict -- neither the charter of the League of Nations, nor the Locarno Treaty, nor, least of all, the Kellogg Pact --  only the motive would remain as the basis for an accusation of "crime" against a peace that was not protected by law: "criminal," they say, is a war against the Un-peace of Versailles; "permitted," indeed moral and virtuous, is a war for the perpetuation of the unjust borders established at Versailles. After futile attempts to lend the halo of law to this political prosecution of the vanquished by the victors, again and again one resorts to undisguised force and arbitrariness.

Meanwhile decades have passed [between 1945 and 1965] without bringing any genuine peace, but small and dirty wars, especially in Africa and Asia, the forward skirmishes of the threatening Third World War, and at every scene of battle those powers that purported in Nuremberg that they wanted to prohibit war forever participated directly or indirectly. As the Wilsonian League of Nations was founded in 1919 to perpetuate Un-peace, so was Roosevelt's U.N.O. constructed after 1945: with the same goal and the same result.

The new "peaceful world order" 20 years later still has not achieved any unity about the fundamental question that the Nuremberg inquisitors presumed had been solved for the longest time, about the problem of the how to distinguish defensive and aggressive war. The U.N.O. Committee on the Definition of Aggression, which has been debating for 15 years, must in these very days, on 16 April 1965, state that there is still no agreement to be reached. They are adjourning now until 1967 and are making humanity wait again for the solution of an insoluble problem.* Let us again compare to this reality the phrases with which Jackson wants to defend the Allied justice of revenge. In his opening address he declares:


"Any resort to war -- to any kind of a war -- is a resort to means that are inherently criminal." [Robert H. Jackson, Opening Statement, IMT transcript, 21 November 1945]

Where and when in the past decades was any government of any nation held responsible for any acts of war? If the system of justice constructed for Nuremberg by Jackson and Nikitchenko had functioned, all the ministers and militaries responsible for these subsequent wars would have ended very long ago behind penitentiary-walls or on the gallows of international jurisdiction. The guilty parties would necessarily have been found on one side or the other of those powers that indicted and hanged in Nuremberg.
____________________________________
* The United Nations' Committee on the Definition of Aggression finally in 1974 (after 24 years) arrived at a kind of definition, calling aggression the use of military force by one state against another, but it was really no definition, insofar as it also empowered the U.N. Security Council to designate any act not fitting that description as "aggression." (Eric Pace, New York Times News Service, 13April 1974) What it means is that the wealthier states that have ways to create hardship for other states without resorting to overt violence will have international support for crushing any less-powerful state that strikes back overtly, and a less-powerful state runs the risk of being labeled an aggressor for crossing those more powerful states even non-violently. It seems likely that schemes for maintaining world-peace are always ultimately schemes for maintaining the supremacy of the currently dominant power or powers. It was so at Versailles in 1919, and just the same at San Francisco in 1945. 



02 February 2016

A Court without Law, by Heinrich Haertle -- part 9



Rotten Pillars


From Freispruch für Deutschland by Heinrich Haertle
Translated by Hadding Scott, 2016


This Kellogg Pact however was used as the main support for convicting the German political and military leaders of crimes against peace and hanging them. Unfortunately, what the former Lord Chancellor of England stated in his book U.N.O. and War-Crimes was not yet known at that time. Viscount Maugham deals exhaustively with the Kellogg Pact and resolutely rejects the Nuremberg Tribunal's claim that the Pact gives entitlement to impose penalties for violating its terms.

The former Lord Chancellor of England issues a damning judgment against his Anglo-Saxon colleagues who played judges and prosecutors in Nuremberg:


The execution or imprisonment of numerous soldiers, naval officers, and statesmen of a signatory state could hardly be useful for this laudable goal. Such steps will very much sooner lead to exacerbated hostility.

The Kellogg Pact, ever since its signing in August 1928 -- thus long before 1939 -- was in fact never taken as a reason to brand as criminal and to treat as criminal any power subsequently involved in a war.

That the Kellogg Pact in 1939 was treated as no longer in existence even by its most important signatory states, is most clearly proven by the fact that even England and France, in their declarations of war against Germany, were not able to invoke the Kellogg Pact but only their disastrous guarantee to Poland.

The defense-attorney Dr. Horn has also indicated it:


"In 1939 there was neither a recognized definition of the aggressor nor an institution authorized to designate the aggressor.... According to the conception existing in 1939, the outbreak of war, in whatever way it happened, was not valuated juridically.... That this opinion is in accordance with the conception of international law of the main participating powers that had signed the statute when war broke out follows from the fact that men of international reputation in the field of international law were of the opinion that, should the Kellogg Pact and the system of collective security fail, the traditional legal conception as to war was still valid." [Martin Horn, final plea for Ribbentrop, IMT transcript, Supplement B, Part 1

Dr. Horn summarizes and explains in regard to the declarations of guarantees to Poland:


"This guarantee declaration shows once more how much Great Britain drew conclusions, taking a sensible political view, out of the decline of the collective security system, and how small a confidence it had in the practical results of the moral condemnation of war through the Kellogg Pact."

The Kellogg Pact, the basis for both the indictment and the convictions for crimes against peace, was not adequate for the task that the Nuremberg Tribunal tried to pretend that it could do. Again and again recourse was made to the self-made charter. Thus even these judges found themselves in effect obeying orders. They had to invoke that charter, which was incompatible with the acknowledged international law of the time. The appeal to superior command or superior directive of a government however was forbidden by precisely this charter. The all-powerful judges thereby found themselves in legal difficulties that they could not overcome through any pettyfogging (Rabulistik) however apodictically presented.

How simple, clear, and consistent, by contrast, is the principle of their Soviet Russian colleague Nikitchenko. As early as 20 June 1945 he revealed his universal formula.


"We are dealing here with the chief war criminals who have already been convicted and whose conviction has been already announced by both the Moscow and Crimea declarations by the heads of the governments, and those declarations both declare to carry out immediately just punishment for the offenses which have been committed." [Iona Nikitchenko, IMT transcript, 29 June 1945]

This Soviet law of brutality has the advantage of doing without Anglo-Saxon hypocrisy.