Denken Macht Frei (Thought Sets You Free) brings you selected articles from various sources including European Action, the English language website of Europäische Aktion
Switzerland’s desire to join the EU is unpopular as never before. In addition, the European Economic Area (EEA) is increasingly unpopular as a new survey shows. Therefore for the Swiss a political alignment with the European Union is slowly disappearing into the distance.
No desire for the EU: The Swiss people reject
EU membership as clearly as ever.
The confidence of the Swiss in the European Union is gone: Only 11.5 percent of the voters are in favor of joining. Twelve years ago more than a third desired becoming a part of the EU. This is the result of an evaluation made by the Swiss newspaper "SonntagsZeitung" based on a set of surveys continuously conducted since 1993 by the research institute Isopublic.
For the Swiss the EU has never been so unpopular as it is now in 2012. Even membership of the EEA – which Swiss voters rejected 20 years ago with 50.3 percent – would be rejected by a massive margin if they were to vote today; only about 32 percent still want to join it.
"Serious deadlock»
In the Euro-friendly French-speaking part of Switzerland the same trends are seen. Until 2008 a clear majority of 60 percent there spoke for EEA membership - today it's only 41.5 percent.
These figures send out a clear signal to the politicians. Their reactions reflect this. For instance Christa Markwalder FDP National Councillor said regarding European policy Switzerland is "in a serious deadlock." She advocates a "EEA light".
Old Federal Councillor Micheline Calmy-Rey (SP) does not see any alternative to bilateral agreements. SVP patron Christoph Blocher anticipating a European referendum in the next few years says, "I'll have to get involved once again." Considering these figures this fight should be one of his easiest.
Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel for his most idiotic stunt at the United Nations this year displaying a poster intended to instill awe and (he hoped) the desire for war among the world's population of goyim. What he actually achieved is that the whole world ended up pointing at him and bursting out into laughter.
What a twat!
A (modified) version of that poster puts things into proper perspective...
The real "world series of poker," J.S. Kim of The Underground Investor writes today, is the international central bank currency war, which places gold and silver at the center. Kim adds that GATA's exposure of manipulation of the gold and silver markets is increasingly being noted by investment houses. Kim's commentary is headlined "The Real World Series of Poker Is Going Down Right Now" and it's posted at The Underground Investor here:
Citing Bank of England records, Zero Hedge has revealed that as the London Gold Pool was collapsing in 1968 the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England conspired to conceal from the German Bundesbank the deficient gold content of U.S. gold bars, apparently made from coin melt, that were being transferred to the Bundesbank to conclude gold swaps. This is, Zero Hedge says, another reason why the Bundesbank might want to cut off inquiry into the security of its foreign-vaulted gold. Zero Hedge's report is headlined Bank Of England To The Fed: "No Indication Should, Of Course, Be Given To The Bundesbank..."
Excerpt: Full May 1968 memo from the Bank of England to the NY Fed
MR. BRIDGE
THE CHIEF CASHIER
U.S. Assay Office Gold Bars
1. We have from time to time had occasion to draw the Americans’ attention of the poor standards of finish of U.S. Assay Office bars. In addition in 1961 we passed on to them comments from Johnson Matthey to the effect that spectrographic examination did not support the claimed assay on one bar they had so tested (although they would not by normal processes have challenged the assay) and that impurities in the bar included iron which caused some material to be retained on the sides of crucible after pouring.
2. Recently, Johnson Matthey have put 172 “bad delivery” U.S. Assay Office bars into good delivery form for account of the Deutsche Bundesbank. These bars formed part of recent shipments by the Federal Reserve Bank to provide gold in London in repayment of swaps with the Bundesbank. The out-turn of the re-melting showed a loss in fine ounces terms four times greater than the gross weight loss. Asked to comment Johnson Matthey have indicated verbally that:-
(a) the mixing of “melt” bars of differing assays in one “pot” could produce a result which might be a contributing factor to a heavier loss in fine weight but they did not think this would be substantial ;
(b) a variation of .0001 in assay between different assayers is an extremely common phenomenon;
(c) over a long period of years they had had experience of unsatisfactory U.S. assays
3. It is not, however, possible to say that the U.S. assays were at fault because Johnson Matthey did not test any of the individual bars before putting them into the pot.
4. The Federal Reserve Bank have informed the Bundesbank that adjustments for differences in weight and refining charges will be reimbursed by the U.S.Treasury.
5. No indication should, of course, be given to the Bundesbank, or any other central bank holder of U.S. bars, as to the refiner’s views on them. The peculiarity of the out-turn will be known to the Bundesbank: it has so far occasioned no comment.
6. We should draw the attention of the Federal to the discrepancy in this (and any similar subsequent such) result and add simply that the refiners have made no formal comment but have indicate that, although very small differences in assay are not uncommon, their experience with U.S. Assay Office bars has not been satisfactory.
7. We hold 3,909 U.S. Assay Office bars for H.M.T. in London (in addition to the New York holding of 8,630 bars). After the London gold market was reopened in 1954 we test assayed the bars of certain assayers to ensure that pre-war standards were being maintained. It might be premature to set up arrangements now for sample test assays of U.S. Assay Office bars but if it appeared likely that the present discontent of the refiners might crystalise into formal complain we should certainly need to do this. In the meantime I would recommend no further action.
Excerpt from:The Daily Bell exclusive interview with Ron Holland (left).
Daily Bell: Are we going to see Europe's social discontent happening here?
Ron Holland: Yes. As in Europe, the social discontent here will come from higher taxes, reduced benefits and extreme austerity measures designed to steal our savings, government and private retirement benefits and our remaining gold and wealth. Of course, none of this will likely begin until after the January inauguration.
Personally, I don't think we've seen even the real beginning of social or political discontent in Europe. I believe it will directly impact the PIIGS as well as wealthy Germany far more than what we've seen so far. Eventually, the German people will get tired of bailing out German, French and Anglo-American banking interests and other European nations and say, "Enough is enough." This is when the sh*t will hit the fan. I think Germany may exit the EU far earlier than some other countries in southern Europe.
Switzerland, by not foolishly joining the EU or the euro, will be the only nation in Europe to likely escape the turmoil. Of course, Switzerland didn't join because, with their confederation direct democracy style of government, the voters wouldn't allow their politicians to join. Two points I would like to add about Switzerland: First, they have the best government structure designed to meet the needs for our new 21st century environment, which should be copied by nations around the world. Second, although I believe Switzerland will certainly escape the internal strife that will get far worse across Europe, they have their own unique risks from criminal gangs as the economy worsens in neighboring countries.
Recent press reports show Switzerland expanding its number of military police units in case the coming EU collapse threatens their national borders. A close look at European history would suggest this threat should be the least of their concerns.
This island of security and safety in a collapsing Europe has approximately 7,000 tons of gold stored both privately and as government reserves. This is approximately 8 percent of the 85,000 tons of gold in the world held as bars and coins; the other 50 percent is mainly jewelry. Add to this the trillions in financial wealth held in and managed from Switzerland and you have a very tempting target for public criminal gangs (governments, central banks and politicians) to want to get their hands on.
I'm not saying Germany, Italy, France or the United States and UK will threaten or actually invade Switzerland, I'm just saying desperate political leaders and financial elites in times of economic crisis have done this hundreds of times over the last couple of centuries.
Here is a list of Major Wars & Conflicts Just In the 20th Century. You might notice how many times Switzerland's neighbors and the United States have been involved in these conflicts while Switzerland has remained armed but at peace. Still, 8 percent of the non-jewelry gold in the world would be a tempting target and most threats of aggression by nations have been for far less.
It's just something to consider. I hope Switzerland decides not just to increase military police battalions but also to modernize and increase its defensive military capability. I have a fictional essay coming out in a few weeks about how such a military aggression, although unlikely, could happen in the future. [Highlighting by DMF]
By Richard Cantillon (writing for The Dollar Vigilante)
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
The EU political elites were beside themselves with self-congratulation on Friday as the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize committee announced that this year’s prize was awarded to the EU for its contributions to peace.
Yet a quick survey of historical facts since the end of WW2 reveals that the EU’s institutions, policies, and politicians had little or nothing to do with maintaining peace and security in Europe. Rather, what they did have was an immense impact on the steady growth of centralisation of political power in a set of supra-national unaccountable and anti-democratic institutions legalised in a succession of treaties between nation state governments; and a commensurate erosion and alienation of democratic powers within Europe’s nation states.
In the immediate aftermath of the war, Germany was occupied by the Allied and Russian armies. Both Germany’s and France’s economic infrastructures were devastated. Across the entire continent many were destitute and near starvation. No one was about to start another war. Economic reconstruction was kick-started in Germany by the US government’s Marshall Plan aid. No one in Europe had the capital or resources to mount such an effort.
Soon after, when the Russians decided that Eastern Europe was now their preserve, they determined to remain in Berlin. The Berlin Wall went up and the Cold War began. The US and USSR faced off across Europe threatening each other with nuclear arsenals. This military strategy, known as MAD (mutually assured destruction), was a contingent equilibrium that prevented war in Europe. All of Western Europe’s military and defence planning and operations were controlled by the US-dominated North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Although both Britain and France had their own “independent” nuclear deterrents, in truth, NATO was the sole arbiter of defence strategy in the European theatre. EU institutions had no say in NATO.
Around that time (late 1950s), the institutional and political emergence of today’s (so called) European Union was nothing more than the creation of the European Coal & Steel Community (ECSC), soon followed thereafter by the European Economic Community (EEC), commonly known as the “Common Market”. This was in reference to its focus on free trade and open markets between its six (France, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg, West Germany, Italy ) member states. These new institutions had zero involvement in military, defence or security matters.
Fast forward to the late 1980s. The economies of Western Europe had recovered from the depredations of WW2, participating in the benefits of growth in world trade, productivity gains from technology innovations, and expanding domestic markets underpinned by growing population, increased labour participation rates and higher real incomes. All of which contributed to financing not only a growing “welfare state” sector in all the Western European nation states, but also a fast-inflating set of EU supranational institutions, encoded into EU law as the treaties of Maastricht (1979), Madrid (1985), and Lisbon (2005); and equally fast inflating budgets and spending.
The people of Europe were rarely allowed to vote any of these transfers of sovereign power from their own countries to the power elites controlling the EU. When they did exceptionally have referenda (France, Ireland) they voted against these power grabs; only for their political masters to force repeat referenda; effectively instructing them to “vote the right way”, and thereby reinforcing the growth of a dangerous Leviathan.
The lesson for all to learn from these predatory acts was that the writing was on the wall for nation state democracies in Europe. The creation of a United States of Europe against the consent of the people, was and is the overriding strategic goal of all those allied to the creation and strengthening of the EU. Which in practice means the overwhelming majority of the professional political class in ALL member countries (now 27 in number) of the EU.
However, for those with knowledge of the founding history of the EU, the unbridled truth of its power grabbing goals were revealed from its inception. The entire history of the EU’s development was conceived in the late 1940s by a group of European elite intellectuals, centred around Jean Monnet. Their mindset and intent was always anti-democratic, centralising, elitist, and statist. Their intent was captured in the EC’s founding treaty, the Treaty of Rome (1954), which clearly defined the aim as the “ever increasing integration” of the member states. The means to this end were also carefully established in the Treaty, by solely allocating the power of proposing legislation to the bureaucracy, that is, the European Commission. This extraordinarily anti-democratic design means that the European Parliament can only debate and vote laws and budgets presented by the Commission. Parliamentary deputies are mere voting fodder. By design, ALL legislation voted in the Parliament sets out to extend, deepen, consolidate and render irreversible the centralising, statist, anti democratic, integrationist and authoritarian rule of Europe’s diverse peoples and multifaceted economies.
The vast majority of Europe’s populations have sleepwalked into this nightmare; not realising the profound implications of the elites’ actions and the associated treaties. Which was fine for those EU elites and their power grab ambitions. Until that is, the euro crisis broke.
It is not economically possible to have a sound and sustainable monetary union without at the same time having fiscal union. Nation state democracies have that combination and it is legitimised through having a political union. The EU introduced monetary union in the 1990s without either fiscal or political union. This was done surreptitiously, irresponsibly but deliberately. Most discerning observers at the time knew that the design was flawed and would eventually create a crisis. The political elites at the time were informed. They chose to ignore the design weakness; arguably seeing it as an opportunity to hasten political union at a later date.
This is where we are today. The EU power elites see the eurozone crisis as a once in a lifetime opportunity to irreversibly close the door on nation states political autonomy. The President of the EU Commission, Barrosso, has called for the creation of both a banking union and a fiscal union. “More Europe” is the clarion call for solving the eurozone crisis.
So are the populations of Europe benefiting from peace and security bestowed from above? Are they contentedly basking in the well being and sense of European identity that the EU power elites claim is the legacy of their benign supranational rule?
Absolutely not. Tension, conflicts, civil unrest, violence, suicides, and demonstrations are the order of the day in many of Europe’s capitals. The people in the benighted southern European counties are voting with their hard earned savings. Billions of euros have already been shipped out of bank deposit accounts in Greece, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese banks and sent to safer havens in Germany and Switzerland. Governments in Greece and Italy have already been toppled by Brussels and external appointees imposed. The Spanish government is being threatened and cajoled to bow to an EU bailout; meaning, imposed constraints on its powers to tax and spend.
There are new political movements emerging with anti-centralising, anti EU agendas, in Greece, Italy, Spain, and Bavaria (southern Germany). The majority of British, Finns, and Czechs are now eurosceptic in outlook. Even in France one party – Marine Le Pen’s National Front – has at last broken ranks and openly adopted an anti euro, anti EU Fiscal Pact, policy platform. An immense power struggle for the heart and soul of Europe is beginning.
The EU power elites are resolved and united to win this struggle. At any cost. That means even to participate in the active destruction of liberty and free markets in Europe as well as the institutions and tax and spend powers of national democracies. They have invested their entire careers in this EU Project, the United States of Europe. The disastrous consequences of their policies, actions and powers are evident to all those who wish to see. Except, that is, the Nobel Peace Prize committee and the EU elites themselves. Hubris is their blindness but authoritarian power their drug. These people are dangerous and intent on taking away our freedoms.
Nobel Peace Prize is officially a joke: European Union wins in 2012 BEFORE IT'S NEWS - Saturday, October 13, 2012
The European Union was announced the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize 2012. A heated debate emerged over the validity of the award amidst the backdrop of Europe’s as-yet-unsolved economic crisis.
The 27-nation organization was awarded the prize for its role in “uniting the continent,” and its contributions “to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe.”
The unanimous decision was made by a five-person panel chaired by Thorbjoern Jagland, the Council of Europe’s Secretary-General and a strong advocate of the EU in Norway. “The EU helped transform Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace,” Jagland said.
The EU will receive a $1.2 million award on December 10 by the Nobel Committee.
The news came 60 years after the creation of the EU’s predecessor organization, the European Coal and Steel Community, which helped rebuild a continent decimated by two World Wars.
“The European Union is in the middle of one of its worst crises, but perhaps it is precisely now the peace and stabilization project deserves a hand from the ‘no’ country Norway?” Norwegian public broadcaster NRK said.
Norway, the Nobel Peace Prize’s host nation, refused membership in the EU in 1972 and again in 1994.
The last organization to be granted a Nobel Peace Prize was French charity Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders), 13 years ago.
Storm of debate erupts over EU peace prize win
The EU enthusiastically welcomed the announcement, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel calling the decision “wonderful,” and vowing to press for closer integration in the EU. ”The fact that the Nobel Committee has honored this idea is both a spur and an obligation, also for me in a very personal way,” she told reporters.
Martin Schulz, president of the EU Parliament said he was “deeply touched and honored” by the prize. “The EU is a unique project that replaced war with peace, hate with solidarity.”
“Overwhelming emotion for awarding of Nobel Prize to EU,” he wrote on his twitter account.
The news also sparked debate and criticism in the EU and elsewhere. Nigel Farage, head of Britain’s euro-skeptic UK Independence Party said the move was “an absolute disgrace. I think it brings the Nobel Prize into total disrepute,” the AP reported.
The leader of Norway’s main anti-EU organization, Heming Olaussen, described the prize as “absurd” in an interview with NRK.
RT’s Max Keiser expressed outrage, describing the Nobel Peace Prize as being given to “a technocratic monstrosity.”
“This is like giving the prize to Frankenstein for being the best monster created during the past 12 months,” Keiser said.“Who are they going to give it to next? They are going to give it to a genetically modified seed in India where farmers are killing themselves by the thousands because of companies like Monsanto. Give it to Monsanto next year, Nobel Committee!”
International investor and author James Rogers told RT that the EU may have gotten the prize for bringing nations together, but could still fall apart.
“I assure you, next week or next month, when people are out rioting in the streets again in parts of Europe, they are not going to care about the Nobel Peace Prize,” Rogers said. “Europe has been spending money they don’t have. That’s going to have to stop, and it’s going to cause more riots in the streets, more social unrest, more governments failing and perhaps even countries failing, and perhaps even people pulling out of the euro.”
Several Russian officials and human rights activists also expressed confusion over the decision.
In 2009, the Nobel Committee raised eyebrows and sparked similar debate for awarding the Peace Prize to newly inaugurated US President Barack Obama. President Obama had only been in office for two weeks, but was awarded the prize “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”
This is not to mention controversial 1973 Peace Prize for Henry Kissinger, US Secretary of State and US National Security Advisor, who was implicated in war crimes in Latin America and Southeastern Asia.
From the Whatreallyhappened.com website, written by Mike Rivero: "VIRTUAL 9-11: Will Israel Hack The US Banking System Computers and Falsely Blame It On Iran?"
SGTreport brings you this in-depth interview with radio show host Mike Rivero, founder of WhatReallyHappened.com. As a 20-year veteran of the truth movement, Mike gives us his expert perspective on the Madness of the ruling "Elite" and the death of the Petrodollar. [Parts 1 & 2]
My comment: Politicians, bureaucrats, and bankers are the same throughout the Western World as they are in the US as is shown in these two YouTube videos. They do not want to lose their power, but if their elitist monetary systems implode that is what will happen to them, if not worse. They will and are reacting ruthlessly and relentlessly to avoid this. One should note, however, that insanity is defined as repeating the same action but expecting a different result. So the US Federal Reserve conducted QE1 (quantitative easing), then QE2, then Operation Twist and now is set for QE3. It expects a different result from the rising costs and debasement of the currencies. Somehow by enlisting the cooperation of the Euro Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, and the Swiss National Bank they think they can pull off QE3 in a veritable ongoing QE to Infinity when all previous efforts have failed to produce a solution or economic recovery. The central planers, sorry central bankers are in a quandary and it is beginning to show. Their solutions solve nothing. If they continue to follow this course what they will finally achieve is at best to rule over the ruins of a destroyed world.
The stock market will not remain in its current tranquil state. Investors will soon be roused from their blissful trance.
This trance traces its origins back to the mass self-delusion that central banks can revitalize multi-trillion-dollar economies, simply by prodding investors into stocks and other “risk assets.” Investing is not that simple. The comparison between bond yields and stock yields — two completely different investments — has become absurd.
Bonds are contracts involving a fixed stream of cash flows and a predetermined maturity date. Stocks are claims on highly uncertain streams of future free cash flows that often stretch out for decades. Many risks can enter the picture and alter the trajectory of free cash flow — and investors’ expectations of them.
Risks tend to appear out of the blue and smack investors out of their blissful trance — a trance created by central banks that have shifted far too much attention on the returns of stocks versus bonds...
Here is just one negative catalyst growing closer as the weeks and months pass: Germany could exit from the euro and return to the deutsche mark. While a German exit would offer long-awaited clarity about the future of Europe, it would also spark a mad scramble to adjust to a new reality.
A German exit would trash the euro’s value against the currency that’s steadily becoming the reserve of choice: gold. Only weak economies with bankrupt governments would be left standing behind the euro. The European Central Bank (ECB) would be free to monetize as much Italian and Spanish debt as it wished (i.e., print euros to buy the government bonds of Italy and Spain). The economists calling for a weaker currency to restore prosperity to the PIIGS countries would get to see their prescription play out in a real-world laboratory. Results would show that currency debasement does not create stronger, more competitive economies. Countries left in the euro would see collapsing living standards: import prices would rise and capital investment would fall amid a chaotic currency regime.
ECB president Mario Draghi famously deemed the euro “irreversible”; he would do whatever is necessary to preserve it. But what Draghi sees as necessary will eventually be seen as intolerable in creditor countries like Germany. Once Draghi starts monetizing Spanish debt, Germany and other wealthy countries will view the euro’s costs as greater than its benefits.
The German central bank — the Bundesbank — still exists. The Bundesbank could convert its liabilities from euros to deutsche marks at a predetermined exchange rate and take a one-time write- down on assets related to claims on PIIGS central banks. It would certainly be costly, but the alternative is worse: perpetually financing eurozone states unwilling to restructure public benefit programs unaffordable for their economies.
Having seen the example of Greece, the Spanish public suspects that austerity will only make things worse. Spain will come to believe that its salvation lies in the printing press — in the ability to inflate away its heavy debt burden. After promising markets that the ECB would buy Spanish debt, Mario Draghi now has no choice but to fire up the euro printing press.
Most other debt holders will flee the chaos unfolding in Spain. They’ll refuse to hold Spanish bonds at yields too low to compensate for default risk. The ECB, once it establishes a fake, above-market price for Spanish bonds, will ultimately find itself the only holder of those bonds. This is what happens when central planners impose prices far from what private investors consider fair value (in this case, pushing Spanish debt yields to below 4%, versus a much higher market-based yield). Once the German taxpayers see that the ECB will become the majority holder of Spanish debt, they will insist that German politicians plan an exit from the euro.
The next act in this long-running tragedy involves Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy officially requesting a bailout from the EU. Rajoy’s bailout-stalling is only a negotiating tactic to get the easiest terms possible. His so-called “austerity” budget, released this week, shows that he’s still far from the demands of EU bailout bureaucrats. For example, Rajoy’s budget ignored the EU suggestion that Spain raise the official retirement age for pensions.
Once the negotiations end, the bailout will commence. The ECB will sprinkle its fairy dust and enter a Spanish bond market that others are fleeing. The investors who are dumping Spanish bonds know that Spain’s experience will resemble Greece’s experience: a series of EU bailout checks, failed austerity programs and probably steep haircuts for bondholders. That’s why the folks who are still holding Spanish bonds will be happy for the ECB to take them out of their positions with newly printed euros.
Rajoy’s budget cuts will not be enough. Spain can’t afford to fiddle around the edges. It needs a financial restructuring focused on the zombie banks. The banks still haven’t come close to admitting their real capital shortfalls. Until there is a restructuring, with substantial haircuts for bank shareholders and bondholders, projections of economic recovery are pure fantasy.
Even if proposed budget cuts satisfy Germany and the EU, there is no political will for austerity in Spain. That much is clear from the rising energy of protests in the streets of Madrid. Protests against budget cuts have only just begun. Debilitating strikes are on the way.
We may even see the wealthy northeastern region of Catalonia vote to sever financial ties to the national government. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard summarizes Spain’s fragile political cohesion in a recent UK Telegraph column:
“I have no idea what Spain will do, but emotions are running high and the country — in the words of Confidencial this morning — risks 'disintegrating.’ We watch and wait to see whether the Basque revolt or the Catalan revolt will detonate first, and whether the Spanish will really use ‘all means’ to hold the union together.
“The newspapers ABC and La Razon both called on the government to deploy ‘the arms of the state’ to stop Catalonia holding an independence referendum.
“It is as if The Daily Telegraph were to call for coercion to stop Scottish independence. Imagine the response in Scotland.”
Do you think many investors would hold Spanish bonds while whole regions were threatening to secede, fighting a central government that might morph into a military dictatorship? Or that in this scenario Germany would tolerate staying in a euro collateralized by Spanish bonds? I don’t think so.
Germany will watch as all of this unfolds and realize that Spain’s austerity promises will be broken. The ECB will be left holding hundreds of billions of Spanish debt, with no possible exit and constant pressure to continue monetizing Spanish debt. It will be then that the drive to exit the euro will pick up speed.
Enjoy the blissful trance while you can; it is about to come to an end.
Liechtenstein is a prime example
We have always dedicated ourselves in our Road Maps to the fundamental questions of political work. This time we will present an example of a successful campaign, which was based on strict adherence to tactical considerations. In recent months the EA National Group of the Principality of Liechtenstein under its intelligent and energetic National Leader demonstrated how, in individual tactical steps, a major strategic interim target can be achieved. By means of various country-wide campaigns the task was to grab the attention of the media by concentrating on a predetermined area - as homogeneous as possible - and over a fairly long period of time, thereby breaking the spiral of silence.
We base our precept on the assumption that bad news is also news. Thus, we have put the current unjust regime in a dilemma since, if the media stay silent regarding our information campaigns, they are indirectly admitting we are right. The public have read our flyers, our posters and banners, they have seen our golden Cross of Europe on stickers and balloons, on our website they have looked at the texts, films and lectures and in so doing have had the opportunity to form their own opinions at their leisure. And in many cases that is positive. If, however, the media begin to drool - as is now the case in Liechtenstein - many more people unavoidably become aware of us. And right now that is the main thing. The people must get to know: EUROPEAN ACTION is there, and it has very specific objectives.
The fact that the media are now hopping mad, because a certain Member of the Liechtensteiner Landtag, a typical do-gooder, who continuously repeats the same boring rhetoric, reels off antifascist litanies and then calls the police, is something that doesn’t greatly bother us. We are much more interested in the fact that the Liechtenstein public prosecutor's office has once again confirmed its official position that there is nothing legally wrong with our activities. At this stage in our political struggle this is critical: we have no interest that our activities are prohibited or that our fellow campaigners are brought to court. We operate very close to the limits, but we try as far as possible to avoid major losses, which serve no useful purpose.
If one day in the future the ruling political structure in Europe throws all its hypocritical liberal principles overboard and segues into an open dictatorship, tougher laws will naturally be adopted, which could to some degree make our 7 objectives illegal. In that case we would have to respond with an appropriate change in strategy.
Meanwhile, however, the precedent set by Liechtenstein should be adopted. With diverse, even unconventional campaigns – required is only that they have style and class – the objective is that attention is drawn towards the EA and with maximum energy ensure that the deathly silence is broken and that the taboos crumble away.
A wave of sympathy in the general population for EA cannot be restrained any longer as soon as the censorship and pent up fear are first broken. The clearer the crisis heading in our direction becomes, the sooner people will be looking for alternatives which we can provide them with. Initially consent is covert, or at least restrained, but at some point it will be more open. Therefore, it is necessary in a specific geographical area - or at a university, a cultural, economic or political meeting of any kind - to reach a larger number of interested parties through multiple and diverse actions, so that inevitably conversations ensues thereby breaking the spell.
The Principality of Liechtenstein has 17,000 households. After the recent media storm in three days 7,000 users from Liechtenstein visited our webpage www.europaeische aktion.org.
That is what we understand as successful work!
Our congratulations to Liechtenstein!
The "Volksblatt" Liechtenstein
Monday - 24th September 2012
European Action: Liechtenstein National Leader resigns
VADUZ - The pressure that the [Liechtensteiner] government and Parliament applied last Thursday has had its effect. In an e-mail that the „Volksblatt“ received this evening, National Leader Oliver Hasler has abruptly decided to distance himself from European Action.
“I have made the decision to declare the withdrawal as National Leader of Liechtenstein and all other offices of European Action (Europäischen Aktion). As a young man at the beginning of my career I want to deny the opinion dictators the opportunity to destroy my personal existence”, writes Hasler.
In a telephone conversation that evening Oliver Hasler confirmed to “Volksblatt.li" that he was indeed the author of the email letter. Hasler lamented the fact that in accordance with the claims of Member of Parliament Harry Quaderer laws will be adopted in Liechtenstein with the purpose of “removing persons with nationalist ideals from the political process”. This is in his opinion a “highly dubious interpretation of political pluralism which reveals the lack of democracy of present times”. Hasler emphasized that he fully agrees with the government to adopt a zero-tolerance policy against the far right and politically-motivated perpetrators of violence. “This I can emphasize because I dissociate myself from any accusations of right-wing extremism, racism and xenophobia.”
Last Thursday Interior Minister Hugo Quaderer stated: “The fact that a Liechtensteiner as the National Leader of a far right group such as EA makes a speech abroad together with Holocaust deniers and former Nazis is problematic and disgraceful at the same time. The government also wants to make it quite clear it condemns the incomprehensible blood and soil ideology of this group. Far right-wing ideology has no place in our society."
The "Volksblatt" Liechtenstein
Wednesday - 19th September 2012
Passionate appeal against far-right "European Action"
VADUZ - With a passionate appeal against the far right "European Action" at the beginning of the September session on Wednesday the independent Member of Parliament Harry Quaderer voiced his opinion.
"It cannot be that we must allow the citizens of Liechtenstein be bombarded with radical right-wing trash of the first order in the form of junk mail in letterboxes. Simply shaking one’s head while watching this is not enough", Quaderer said. If you then also read the speech of the Liechtenstein National Leader Oliver Hasler from Nendeln which he held on the occasion of the EA Europe Festival in Mont Sainte-Odile, one feels as though transported back in time by 70 years.
Quaderer urges government to take action
Harry Quaderer asked the President of the Landtag Arthur Brunhart to read a statement at the end of the parliamentary session saying that "this movement demonstrates, that these convictions have no place in the Liechtenstein community. We are against right-wing extremism, we are against Holocaust deniers, we are against racism, we are against the ideas of European Action".
Quaderer simultaneously urged the government to set the wheels in motion "to pull the rug from under the feet of such people and, if necessary, through legislative changes to remove them from the political process.
The "Volksblatt" Liechtenstein
Tuesday - 18th September 2012
Far right EA: Liechtenstein National Leader makes his speech
SCHAAN/ODILIENBERG - Last weekend, right-wing activists in Liechtenstein distributed leaflets of the "European Action" (EA). A week earlier, the EA "National Leader" Oliver Hasler spoke at the "Europe Festival" on Mount Sainte-Odile in the French Vosges.
Similarly to other far-right groups EA activists want to be politically active but do not want to be identified. Thus, the "Volkstreue Jugend Liechtenstein" (Nationalist Youth Movement of Liechtenstein) - associated with the EA – recently explained their public reclusiveness saying that for "activists loyal to their country" the "established powers" have been declared to be "unacceptable opponents".
FL- National Leader delivers speech to comrades
On Saturday a week ago (8th September) "European Action" (Europäische Aktion) met for the second time for their "Europe Festival". As it did last year the EA once again unsuccessfully attempted to rent a room in Liechtenstein.
The EA activists found an alternative venue for the event at Mont Sainte-Odile in Alsace, to the southwest of Strasbourg. Among the ten orators this year was also a "23-year" Liechtensteiner. This fact was reported by the organization on its website. His speech received "special attention" because his group had made "the European Action a household name among the Liechtenstein population."
However, the EA does not name the name of the National Leader. As an exception on Thursday last week, however, the name "Oliver Hasler" was online for several hours. Several months ago the name of the young man from Nendeln also appeared on the hacked client list of a mail-order business popular with nationalists.
To read what Oliver Hasler advocated in his speech on Mont Sainte-Odile and who the Holocaust denier was who founded European Action two years ago, see the the 18 September 2012 edition of "Volksblatt".
The original report (in English) of the EA "Europe Festival" can be read here.
2 years of research, rare photos support compelling case
by Jerome R. Corsi,
a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter.
He has authored many books, including No. 1
N.Y. Times best-sellers "The Obama Nation"
and "Unfit for Command." Corsi's latest book is "Where's the REAL Birth Certificate?"
“Who’s your real Daddy?” is a question that remarkably continues to dog Barack Obama, even as he proceeds into his fourth year as president.
With the release this July of Joel Gilbert’s full-length documentary, “Dreams from My Real Father: A Story of Reds and Deception,” the mystery deepens regarding who Obama really is.
“The film provides the first cohesive understanding of Obama’s deep-rooted life journey in socialism, from his childhood to his presidency,” Gilbert told WND.
Gilbert rejects the official story that the Kenyan-born Barack Obama was the president’s father.
Instead, he argues, Frank Marshall Davis, the radical poet and journalist who was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA, was the real, biological and ideological father of Barack Obama.
“I decided to investigate Frank Marshall Davis. His close physical resemblance to Obama was shocking, while Obama little resembled the Kenyan Obama,” Gilbert said. “How could this be?” Get “Dreams from My Real Father: A Story of Reds and Deception” from WND’s Superstore.
Gilbert launched into what became two years of research during which he conducted interviews and discovered rare film footage and photos.
“I unearthed two film archives of Frank Marshall Davis, one from 1973, the other from 1987, as well as Davis’ photo collection,” he explained. “I then acquired 500 copies of the Honolulu Record, the communist-run newspaper where Davis wrote a weekly political column for eight years.”
Gilbert’s research turned shocking when he obtained seven indecent photos of Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, at Frank Marshall Davis’ house, suggesting an intimate connection between Dunham and Davis.
“I was not happy to include these racy photos in the film but found it necessary to substantiate the intimate relationship between the two,” he said. “Those photos ended up in a men’s mail-order catalog of nude women, likely sold to them by Davis. I placed black bars on parts of the photos to be respectful.”
To establish the foundation for the photos, Gilbert documented that Davis was one of the founders of a photography club in Chicago, known as the “Lens Camera Club,” and that he specialized in nude photographs.
See the trailer for “Dreams from My Real Father”:
Later in life, Davis also penned a scurrilous, autobiographical sex novel, titled “Sex Rebel: Black,” in which he detailed an illicit sexual relationship with an underage woman named “Anne.” Gilbert believes the name was a thin disguise for Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.
Gilbert reconstructs Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” and concludes that the tale of the goat-herding father from Kenya is a cover story, concocted to mask an inconvenient pregnancy.
The truth, Gilbert argues, is that Barack Obama II was born from the illicit sexual relationship that rebellious teenager Ann Dunham began with Davis after her parents forced her to move to Hawaii.
Gilbert believes that when Dunham first arrived in Hawaii after graduating from high school, she used the sexual relationship with Davis to act out her frustration that her parents would not permit her to fulfill her wish to attend the University of Washington in Seattle with her Mercer Island High School friends.
In 2010, Gilbert wrote and directed a film titled “Atomic Jihad: Ahmadinejad’s Coming War and Obama’s Politics of Defeat.” “Dreams from My Real Father” will be released this summer, with screenings in theaters across the country currently in the planning process.
Communist roots
The FBI had Davis under surveillance for 19 years, monitoring his support of the Communist Party both in Chicago and in Hawaii.
Gilbert portrays Obama as a “Red Diaper Baby,” a phenomenon among the radical left, referred to as “hand-me-down Marxism,” in which children of radical parents grow up to be radicals. Such was the case with much of the leadership of Students for a Democratic Society and the Weather Underground, including Obama senior political adviser David Axelrod, who was born to a mother who wrote for a communist newspaper in New York City.
Barack Obama Sr., Barack Obama II and Frank Marshall Davis
“Obama sold himself to America as the multi-cultural ideal, a man who stood above politics. His father was a goat herder from Kenya, he would bring people together, so it went,” Gilbert explained. “While voters will overlook some fudging by politicians, promoting a false family background to hide an agenda irreconcilable with American values is a totally unacceptable manipulation of the electorate.”
What Gilbert presents is a direct challenge to the official narrative, arguing it is more likely President Obama has a deeply disturbing family background and a hidden Marxist agenda.
“Unfortunately, Obama’s style is to minimize, misdirect, and outright lie about damaging information about his past,” Gilbert said. “I hope the media will now demand that he come clean about his family background, his political foundations and fully reveal his agenda for transforming America.”
In writing his autobiography, Obama masked his relationship with Davis, naming him only as “Frank,” a friend of his grandfather who “lived in a dilapidated house in a run-down section of Waikiki.”
Gerald Horne, a contributing editor to “Public Affairs,” an openly Marxist political review, made the first positive identification of “Frank” as Frank Marshall Davis.
In March 2007, Horne gave a speech at New York University on the occasion of the Communist Party USA archive being placed at an NYU library.
In that speech, Horne discussed Davis, noting that Davis, who was born in Kansas and lived much of his adult life in Chicago, had moved to Honolulu in 1948 at the suggestion of his good friend, actor Paul Robeson. In the 1940s, Robeson was an outspoken critic of segregation and racial discrimination in the U.S., a strong advocate of the Soviet Union and a member of the Communist Party USA.
Horne also documented Davis’s friendship with the Dunham family in Hawaii.
“Eventually, [Davis] befriended another family – a Euro-American family – that had migrated to Honolulu from Kansas, and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who, retracing the steps of Davis, eventually decamped to Chicago.”
Lorne further stated Davis was “a decisive influence in helping [Obama] to find his present identity as an African-American, a people who have been the least anti-communist and the most left-leaning of any constituency in this nation.”
After Horne’s speech, the identity of “Frank” was never in doubt, nor his importance in the development of the young Barack Obama.
On Dec. 5, 1956, Davis appeared in executive session before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee investigating “the scope of Soviet activity in the United States,” one of the McCarthy-era panels seeking to expose communists considered to be a security threat.
Invoking his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, Davis refused to answer a direct question asking if he was then a communist.
A year earlier, in 1955, a Commission on Subversive Activities organized by the government of the Territory of Hawaii identified Davis as a member of the Communist Party USA. The committee singled out for criticism several articles Davis published in the “Communist Honolulu Record” that were critical of the commission.
May 19th Communist Organization
Gilbert documents Obama’s association at Columbia University with what was known as the May 19th Communist Organization, an above-ground support group for the Weather Underground based in New York City from 1978 to 1985.
“May 19th” carried out raucous anti-Apartheid and anti-Klan protests and operated a host of front organizations.
At the time, Weather Underground co-founder William Ayers – Obama’s Chicago neighbor and colleague in education reform – wrote that May 19th provided “a sea for the guerrillas to swim in.”
Some May 19th members committed acts of violence and terrorism, such as the 1981 Nanuet Brinks robbery and murders, the bombing of South African offices in 1981 and the U.S. Capitol bombing in 1983.
“I spoke with a former FBI informant who told me the May 19th Communist Organization had a weapons training camp in the Catskill Mountains, run by former Black Panthers,” Gilbert told WND. “In addition, some May 19th members were sent to Cuba for several weeks each year with the Venceremos Brigade, a continuation of the SDS/Weather Underground program begun in the ’60s, for explosives training from Cuban intelligence, DGI.”
Obama’s election was not a sudden political phenomenon, Gilbert maintains.
“It was the culmination of an American socialist movement that Frank Marshall Davis nurtured in Chicago and Hawaii and has been quietly infiltrating the U.S. economy, universities and media for decades,” he explained. “To understand Obama’s plans for America, look no further than communist Frank Marshall Davis.”
Under pressure from the German government, Munich media regulatory office (BLM) has made an illegal decision to remove Iran's international English Channel, Press TV, from SES Astra at 19:00 local time on Tuesday.
In an email sent to the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) officials, Vice President of the SES Platforms Services, Stephane Goebel, noted that the BLM has asked Press TV be immediately removed from the platform.
The authority has claimed that Iran's English-speaking channel does not have a license for broadcast in Europe.
“BLM has…sent us an official request to immediately seize the service of the above-mentioned channel [Press TV],” Goebel noted.
Regretting the decision, Goebel added that his company “will be no longer able to keep the Press TV signal on air and will need to shut down the service without further notice.”
The move is clearly part of a plot orchestrated by the West to silence the voice of the Iranian English-language channel.
Actually it is not the job of EUROPEAN ACTION to comment on every egg that the system’s clucking chickens lay. And that you, Herr Grass, belong to those chickens needs no further explanation. Your unsavory books and the Nobel Prize in Literature that you received are proof enough. Likewise, your long years as a dedicated SPD propagandist and election worker. The fact that a few years ago you admitted serving as a voluntary member of the Waffen-SS as a young man speaks less against you as against the ability of the responsible officers to make a good decision when they admitted the young Günter Grass. But well, it was war, and then just about anyone was accepted…
But now as the pampered "conscience of the German Nation" you have raised a storm in a teacup: You have written a poem about your concern that Israel makes a first strike against Iran. And the predictable outcry was immediate. The Central Council of Jews were screaming bloody murder, the Israeli ambassador in Berlin Nahshon called "Stop the thief!" and my friends were pestering me to comment on the palaver. Well, Günter Grass has written a poem - big deal! As an expert on poetry I must say, of course, that it's not a poem. It's just a prose text with arbitrary broken lines, without everything that makes a poem a poem. But we don’t want to rebuke you for that, that's normal these days, after some of the aesthetes in the 1968s decreed, "after Auschwitz" writing poetry is no longer possible.
Yes, my dear Herr Grass, "After Auschwitz" you cannot criticize Jews anymore, not even in a poem, not even when the poem is not a poem. Your concern for the safety of the world and the lives of the Iranian people is indeed laudable but you should have thought about doing that much earlier. If you, together with your comrades had won the war we would not have these problems now. And if, after losing the war, you had been more concerned with objectivity and fairness in respect of the war, today there would be at least a slight chance to describe the wretched warmongering of Zionism for what it really is. But for decades you, Herr Gras, have been licking the system’s boots, and together with your cronies in the "German" literature and media business have made sure that your own “Volk” no longer know where they stand, that they identify themselves as a criminal nation, whereas the Jews are identified as the victims of world history worthy of eternal pity.
It is simply disingenuous of you to come along now and make a display of morally indignity about Israeli war preparations. If Israel and its lobby in the background think that a nuclear strike against Iran is necessary, then they will not be deterred by a whining German writer, that at every opportunity has reaffirmed his abiding friendship for Israel and his opposition to an independent and strong German course of action. Since you are an avid supporter of the Holocaust religion, you must admit the need for the Jews to take any measures they deem necessary, so that "it" never happens again. Herr Grass - you must finish what you start. In this respect Frau Merkel is more consistent than you are when she provides submarines to the Israelis.
Finally a short comment for your upbringing: describing a statesman like Dr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a "loud-mouth" is actually a gross impertinence. But it is also primarily incorrect in its content. "Loud-mouths" are generally seen as people who shoot off their mouth, but turn heel when things get serious. In no way does that apply to the Iranian President. Possibly you should once again watch the recent interview in ZDF [a German TV program] with Ahmadinejad. You can find a copy (in German), for example, on our website europaeische-aktion.org. If you can point out to me one sentence that is the words of a loud-mouth then I will invite you to a kebab shack for lunch - and that's saying something for me! You will find, however, the moderator of this interview, a compatriot of yours, is equally as misbehaved as you are.
Crazy poem against Israel Günter Grass shocks Germany
“What Must Be Said”
Why am I silent, concealing far too long, that which is apparent and has been simulated in war games, where we, the survivors, appear, if at all, just as footnotes.
It is alleged there is a right to make the first strike, which could annihilate the Iranian people, who are dominated by a big mouth and are directed to attend organized rallies, on suspicion that within his competence lies the construction of a nuclear bomb.
But why do I restrain myself from naming the other country by name, in which for years - although kept secret - there is a growing nuclear potential, albeit not monitored, because it is inaccessible for inspection?
The silence of everyone regarding this fact, to which I have subordinated my own voice, has become a burdensome lie for me and a coercion, which promises punishment as soon as it is disregarded; the verdict "anti-Semitism" is well known.
However, when my own country, faced as it is by its very own crimes which are unique beyond comparison, time after time is confronted and called to account, again as a matter of routine and very business-like (though nimble tongues declare it to be “reparations”), is about to supply Israel with another submarine, one whose speciality is is the delivery of all-destructive warheads to a place where the existence of a single nuclear weapon is unproven, but where suspicion serves as proof; because of this I say what must be said.
But why did I remain silent for so long? Because I thought that my own origins, blemished by a stain that can never be removed, forbade me to confront Israel, a country to which I am attached and want to remain so, with this fact as an outright declaration of truth.
Why only now, in old age, with the last of my ink, do I say: Israel’s nuclear power endangers an already delicate world peace? Because it must be spoken now, since tomorrow may be too late; also because - burdened enough as Germans - we may be supplying material for a crime, which is foreseeable, and thus our complicity will not be erased by any of the usual excuses.
Granted: I’ve broken my silence, because I am weary of the West’s hypocrisy; moreover, I hope that many others may free themselves from their silence, and demand that those responsible for dangers faced renounce the use of force, and likewise insist, that unhindered and permanent monitoring of the Israeli nuclear potential and of Iranian nuclear facilities through an international authority will be permitted by the governments of both countries.
Only in this way can help be provided, to everybody, to Israelis and Palestinians, indeed to all human beings, who live as enemies next to each other in this region occupied by madness, and ultimately, to ourselves as well.
The world stirs. The financial crisis has shattered our blind faith in the prevailing economic and political system. But the good thing about every crisis is: it makes you think. Many suspect that the alleged solutions proposed by government are no remedies at all, but merely measures intended to keep the system alive. With justification the idea is spreading that the whole thing actually is a gigantic redistribution of money and power into the hands of a small number of people.
Our system – like all systems – is supported by fundamental principles, that cannot be shaken without putting the whole in danger. Such principles are for that reason always taboo zones. He who wishes to make progress, or even merely be tolerated in our society does well to acknowledge, or at least not to openly dispute, certain core beliefs: To these belong devotion to the free market, as well as the interest based economy and the independence of the banking system, to so-called parliamentary democracy, including the attendant two-party left/right system, devotion to philosemitism, antiracism, homosexuality, and abortion together with the highest praises for the human rights to which one considers oneself part of. It is certainly permitted to belong to whatever religion or philosophy one wishes to – but subject to the tacit assumption that one doesn't really take it seriously. Otherwise, very quickly it begins to smell a bit like fundamentalism. In today's political and media environment, a fundamentalist is anyone who holds his Catholic, or Evangelical, or Islamic, or national perceptions – or whatever feelings of any kind – above those highest of values enumerated above. That is why fundamentalists cannot be tolerated under the ‘globalized’ New World Order that is the central theme of American politics. Incidentally, it is only a very small step that separates the fundamentalist from being maligned as a terrorist. And it is not necessary here to point out to you what sort of treatment awaits terrorists. That has been dealt with by 9/11.
The thoughtful European notes with puzzlement that the taboo zones, identified by Political Correctness and guarded by the judiciary and media, grow more numerous every day. The citizen is condemned to silence by all manner of gag laws and intimidated further by the threat of the grotesque EU arrest warrant. He no longer knows what is punishable by law, nor where, nor why. In 2007, it is said, nearly 14,000 "right-wing crimes"– whatever those might be – were committed in Germany, of which a few hundred were violent. After subtracting the latter group there remain some 13,000 politically motivated non-violent "crimes". That is remarkable, especially in light of the incessant reminders by self-righteous German politicians in China and elsewhere to "uphold human rights." Obviously, the much heralded rights of freedom of expression, academic freedom, freedom of religious or philosophical belief, etc., are valid only if they do not contradict any of the enshrined Stone Tablets of Western Values.
The greatest oddity of all these taboo zones is one of historical nature. And that is as soon as National Socialism or the so-called Third Reich is mentioned then contemporary thinking is abandoned completely. The brain is deprived of its function and quasi religious-like reflexes appear. All powers of reasoning cease, any doubting of the standard practise of ‘Judgement and Conviction’ is regarded as inappropriate, even malign. Here there is only one opinion allowed: the National Socialists – read the Germans - are perpetrators, and exclusively so, and the Jews are victims, and that forever. The uproar about Martin Hohmann and General Reinhard Guenzel, about Erika Steinbach and Eva Herrmann, or recently, Thilo Sarrazin illustrates this point well. For respectable people anyone who doubts this supreme doctrine is no longer a discussion partner, but instead a leper and a heretic rolled into one, subjected instantly to inquisitorial judgment, ostracism, and economic destruction. And everyone who has anything to do with such a person must immediately distance himself.
That is especially true for the Holocaust, the killing zone of this minefield. The never-ending media hype surrounding Bishop Richard Williamson brought this taboo to the forefront once again. Frau Merkel sees it as her duty to instruct the Pope, the Pope sees it necessary to ask the bishop to make a retraction and the German Justice Department was considering issuing an international arrest warrant against the churchman. Eventually, he was fined 12,000 Euro - why? Because he judges a historical fact differently from the way that is usual and permitted. This is heresy. This means nothing other than that part of the field of contemporary history has been removed from scholarly discussion, and is elevated into the sphere of religion, and indeed a kind of world religion that in Germany has unmistakably acquired the status of a semi-official state religion.
While the media campaign against Williamson was in full swing, the revisionist and lawyer Horst Mahler was sentenced in Munich as well as in Potsdam to a total of over twelve years' imprisonment for having denied the Holocaust and for having examined the Yahweh religion. Mahler's assistant, the lawyer Sylvia Stolz, was sentenced in 2007 to 3 ½ years in jail and there and then immediately conducted out of the courtroom. The reason: she defended the German-Canadian publicist Ernst Zündel in court in Mannheim and attempted to prove that the defendant was right. Zündel himself received five years, whereby the two years' detention while awaiting trial in most shameful conditions [in Canada] were not counted. Thus Zündel got seven years because he distributed material over his Internet site that appeared to show there was evidence against the argument of the mass gassing of Jews.
Shortly after Zündel was imprisoned the chemist and author of several books Germar Rudolf, originally a scientist at the Max Planck Institute in Stuttgart, received a jail sentence of 2 ½ years because, on the basis of his personal research in Auschwitz, he believed he had come the same conclusions as other researchers before him, for example, the Frenchman Robert Faurisson, a university professor for documentary research and textual criticism in Lyon and at the Sorbonne in Paris. Faurisson has several times been fined astronomical sums in France, and had suffered bodily injury by unidentified thugs. One of the best-known revisionist researchers and writers, is the Swiss teacher of languages and literature and Scandinavian studies Jürgen Graf, sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment in Switzerland for denying the Holocaust. By absconding to Russia and exile he avoided captivity. Also on the run is the French chemical engineer Vincent Reynouard who is the father of seven children. In Austria, the legal expert Dipl Ing Wolfgang Frohlich is in jail for the second time because he does not accept the official version of the Holocaust. Where is Amnesty International? Where the European Court of Human Rights? Where the outcry from the media? Where the student protests? Where the church?
All these men and women and many others, for example, Ursula Haverbeck, Dipl. Pol. Udo Walendy, Gerd Honsik, Dr. Max Wahl, Siegfried Verbeke, Gaston Amaudruz have committed no offence other than to have arrived at conclusions from their research and analysis that diverge from the official line – and that they admittedly then addressed detailed questions to those who disseminated the alleged false information around the world.
It is the pride of Western science – ever since the Renaissance, and in particular since the Enlightenment – to allow nothing to be sacrosanct, to have no taboos, and to accept nothing short of absolute objectivity. Revision – that is examination, verification and questioning, is a basic principle of science. All else is dogmatism. Science cannot accept religious, political or other social premises. In the sense of the natural sciences, there is no Christian reality nor Unchristian reality, no moral nor immoral truth. The researcher therefore has a right to err, since no one is in possession of absolute truth. Science has replaced the era of confession with an age of knowledge. Applied to research into the Holocaust this means: Research may not be distorted by philo-Semitic nor by anti-Semitic reactions, any more than it may by philo-Germanic or anti-Germanic ones. Whether one likes the Jews or the Germans, or dislikes them is, as far as research is concerned, not a deciding factor and may not be allowed to influence it in any way.
Frau Merkel said in her message to Pope Benedict XVI: There can be no denial of the Holocaust. What does this mean: There “can” not be? Does this mean after all – contrary to all scientific method – that there are global political forces influencing the decision making of both the Germany head of state as well as the highest Churchman of Christendom? At least comments have been made that suggest this. As early as 21 May 1979 Professor William Rubinstein of the University of Melbourne, Australia, wrote in the "Nation Review”: If it was ever proven that the Holocaust was a Zionist myth, Israel would lose its number one propaganda weapon. And after the German lecturer and revisionist Günther Deckert was sentenced to several years in prison, the Feuilleton editor of the Frankfurter newspaper FAZ Bahlers said on 15 August 1994: If Deckert’s view of the Holocaust was correct, then the Federal Republic of Germany was founded on a lie. Each presidential speech, every minute of silence, every history book would be a lie. In denying the murder of the Jews, he disputes the legitimacy of the Federal Republic of Germany. If that’s not enough there would seem to be larger issues at stake: The memory of the Holocaust is central to the New World Order. So wrote Ian J. Kagedan, Director of the Canadian B'nai B'rith in the "Toronto Star" on 26.11.1991.
These nondescript newspaper reports enable us to understand why Frau Merkel has not convened her own International Holocaust Conference in Berlin and subjected the assertions of the revisionists to public discussion and appraisal. If she did the ‘sorry affair’ would once and for all be laid bare and the "pseudo-scientific shambles" of the Holocaust deniers would be exposed for all to see – and indeed by scientists, not merely by journalists. But this would require argument and counterargument to be discussed. Is it to be feared that such a discussion might produce results other than those that are politically desired? Is this why revisionists are doing time in jail? Is this why their books are banned? Is this why the public is being denied the means of evaluating the state of revisionist arguments? Courtroom practice has apparently suffered a similar fate that “government approved science” has. Thus nowadays in court – something that the public regretfully never learns – is that there is never an inquiry into whether the accused may be right. The judge does not accept the admission of evidence and if the accused should try to explain his position, he is liable to additional charges, as is his lawyer! A judicial monstrosity. The fact of the genocide of millions in gas chambers is simply assumed to be "manifestly obvious" and the court has then only to decide whether the defendant has denied this manifest obviousness – and then to determine his sentence. A historical event is simply raised to the status of common knowledge, i.e. a verifiable natural law, while at the same time, factual verification of it is forbidden! Is somebody here afraid of the truth?
The voices are becoming more numerous that advocate ending this appalling situation. After Martin Walser criticized the "Auschwitz club" more than ten years ago, now according to the Frankfurter newspaper FAZ on 10.07.2008, the former federal judge Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem has declared: As a lawmaker I would not make denying the Holocaust a punishable offence. And 10 June 2008, the Süddeutsche Zeitung quoted a statement by Winfred Hassemer, former Vice Chairman of the Federal Constitutional Court: I am not a supporter of the criminalization of Holocaust denial. This means in plain text: The notorious § 13 paragraph 3 of the German Criminal Code “Volksverhetzung“ (Incitement of the Masses), as well as the Swiss "Antirassismusgesetz” (Law against Racial Discrimination) and the Austrian "Wiederbetätigungsgesetz" (Law against the Return to National Socialism) should be deleted entirely as anti-democratic special laws.
In 2007 Prof. Karl Albert Schachtschneider, (University of Erlangen), gave a brilliantly clear answer in a lecture in Salzburg. To the question: Do we have freedom of speech here? He answered: A country in which free speech is suppressed by severe punishments is not a free country. The great Immanuel Kant said about freedom of speech that one must be free to say anything, whether it is true or untrue. Regarding the Holocaust, this or that may be true or not true; I wasn't there. But the reason I don't discuss it, is because it is forbidden. One is not allowed to discuss it, not even scientifically. The offence as defined by „Volksverhetzung“ (Incitement of the Masses) prevents that. This is not a free country. (YouTube link to Prof. Dr. Schachtschneider)
If we are not free, then we must free ourselves. We should not greet Gessler’s hat [part of Swiss “William Tell” tradition]. Free speech - free country! The first step is to examine the central historical and judicial taboos of the "New World Order", according to the principle "Where everyone condemns, one must verify; where everyone praises, too.” One can only free oneself from an enemy who is identified. How true the sentence: Thought Sets You Free!
Bernhard Schaub is Swiss. He was a teacher of German and history at Waldorf schools in Switzerland before was dismissed in 1993 due to the publication of a book in which he had called for a neutral investigation of the Holocaust. He also lost a later position as academic dean of an adult education school for similar reasons. In December 2006 he participated as a speaker at the Holocaust Conference convened by President Ahmadinejad in Tehran. In the autumn of 2007 he was convicted by a Swiss court for a renewed call for research into this subject to three months imprisonment on probation. Bernhard Schaub is active as a speaker and writer in the whole German-speaking world.
