Monthly Archives: February 2014

THE DANGERS OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, by JERRY O’NEIL, STATE REPRESENTATIVE & FORMER STATE SENATOR, MONTANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DISTRICT 3, COLUMBIA FALLS & KALISPELL, MONTANA

AGAINST AN AMENDMENTS CONVENTION Montana State Representative Jerry O’Neil of Columbia Falls, Wednesday, 26 February 2014—4:05 PM (1 hour ago) Central Standard Time

I am against an “Amendments Convention” as called for by Mark Levin, Rob Natelson and Tim Baldwin. I do not take this position lightly.

Under the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, our President and Congress have taken over our banking, unions, businesses, communications, and education. They have created a secret police/national police (TSA, ICE, Border Patrol, etc), and instituted ObamaCare by which government will control all our health care. They have failed to turn over about 25% of the land area of Montana as was agreed to when we became a state. 

I agree freedom could be advanced with the proper amendments to the U.S. Constitution. As a state legislator, I have attempted several times to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to place some control over, and limits on, the federal government. 

In 2003 I got a bill to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment out of the Senate Judiciary Committee – but it was defeated on the Senate Floor. In the 2005 legislative session I attempted to accomplish close to the same thing by having the Montana legislative caucuses nominate our U.S. Senate candidates to be on the general election ballot. 

In the 2013 legislative session, with Senator Verdell Jackson’s brilliantly executed motion for reconsideration in the Senate, I got House Joint Resolution 3 passed. This is a request for a constitutional amendment to put some sideboards on the “Commerce Clause” of the U.S. Constitution. I presently need some help to get other states to advance this concept. 

Then why am I against an Amendments Convention? Because I don’t believe the majority of the citizens of the United States currently understand or appreciate Freedom. It is not adequately taught in our schools or churches. Even the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church seems to be ignorant of the fact that capitalism has lifted far more out of poverty than socialism and communism ever have. 

Vaclav Klaus, the former Premier of the Czech Republic stated: 

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” 

While many of us in Montana have known what is happening for many years, we have not hollered loud enough to wake up our neighbors. We have not always supported the candidates who understood the basics of freedom when they were running for our school boards, city councils, county commissioners, state legislatures, judges, congress and president. We have not sent enough letters to the editor speaking up for freedom. 

We have been complacent, attending churches where the preachers would not take a stand on Biblical principals of freedom because they were afraid they would loose their parishioners’ monetary support and their federal tax exemption. Many of these churches would not even mention it to their congregations when they knew a political candidate was in favor of government supported abortions. 

For years we have watched the Supreme Court put forth immoral, anti freedom and statist decisions , including the Dred Scott decision, the Slaughter House Cases, Wickard v. Filburn, Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, Gonzales v. Raich, Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence v. Texas. We have allowed the bigs, such as AIG, General Electric, Bank of America and Monsanto, to choose the likes of McCain and Romney to be our presidential candidates. (Will they choose Chris Christie for us this coming election?) 
We have known for years deficit financing as advocated by Keynesian economists constitutes theft from our seniors’ retirement accounts and supports the big banks. Yet the public supported the Federal Reserve Act in order to “furnish an elastic currency.” 
We have supported our universities where the professors of economics are beholden to the Federal Reserve System as consultants, board members, or for having published their masters or doctors thesis in one of the fed’s magazines. 

We have seen the evidence of how the “bigs”, including the pharmaceuticals, banking industry, insurance, unions and other protected industries and professions own the political establishment, but we have not supported the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment to lessen the bigs’ power and return some semblance of states’ rights. 

We have seen socialism advance but have not challenged the expansion of Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, federal intervention in education, food stamps, ObamaCare, and a whole plethora of other government programs. 

We have seen the installation of the Real ID act, the Patriot Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act, but, because we were afraid, we kept silent. We accept airport screening and government eavesdropping. We take off our shoes at the airports like good comrades. 

The people of Montana believe government can pass laws to make them more affluent. 
In 2006 we 72.7% of the voters passed Initiative I-151 to increase the minimum wage. By so doing we devalued the dollar and deprived many Indian children on our reservations, where unemployment is over 50%, the opportunity to get their first job. The minimum wage effect on those whom age out of our foster care system is similarly devastating. At the age of 26, 46.8 percent of participants responding to one study were unemployed. We need to make it easier to hire the needy, not remove the bottom rung of their ladder to prosperity. 

In our last Montana election we passed initiative I-166 by a 3 to 1 majority. The fuzzy catch phrase with which it was sold to the public was “Corporations are not People.” That was what appeared on the ballot. The rest of I-166, which did not appear on the ballot, called for a repeal of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution! The intent was to abolish the freedoms of speech, press and association that Congress is presently not allowed to interfere with. If I-166 is successful, these freedoms likely will be replaced with statutory rules as Congress sees fit. 

While the public remains asleep to the concept of freedom it is too dangerous to make it easier to change the Constitution. 
Our Constitution contains negative rights, stating what government can’t do to us or take away from us. We are too likely to throw away these “negative rights” contained in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and replace them with “positive rights,” such as a right to: free health care, free child care, living wages, and government controlled food prices. 

Maybe the chance to amend positive rights into our Constitution is the reason George Soros, Common Cause, the Move to Amend coalition and hundreds of other progressive organizations are also pushing for an Article V amendments convention. 

What are we going to do to save freedom for our progeny? When are we going to stop bowing to the socialists, fascists and communists? When are we going to demand our schools and churches teach and advocate for freedom? When are we going to join freedom fighters holding up signs along the highways criticizing the big government statists and asking for freedom? When are we going to stand up in church and speak up for political candidates who will fight for the Biblical truths and freedoms that our founding fathers fought and died for? 

Until the majority of the public understands and believes in freedom an Amendments Convention is more likely to enslave us than to free us. Therefore I am against having one at this time.

STALIN’S GERMAN-NATIONALIST PARTY—an interesting Footnote to World War II History, K.R. Bolton in “Inconvenient History”

Spring 2014 issue | Inconvenient History (online revisionist magazine)

http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2014/volume_6/number_1/stalins_german_nationalist_party.php

At a meeting between Joseph Stalin and leaders of the Socialist Unity Party (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands: SED) in the Soviet zone of occupied Germany, held on January 31, 1947, Stalin asked what percentage of Germans (in all the occupation zones) were “fascist elements,” and “what influence did they retain in the Western zones”? Otto Grotewohl replied that it was a difficult question to answer, but that he could give Stalin lists of former National Socialist party members “in leadership positions in the Western zones.” Stalin had not asked the question with the view to purging Germany of “fascists,” but with the possibility of re-forming former National Socialist party members into another party, which would promote nationalism and socialism within the context of a Soviet Germany. He was also interested in the possible voting patterns of “fascist elements” should there be a plebiscite on German unification. Grotewohl’s view was that they were “all reactionaries.” Stalin’s view was different. Would it be possible to organize the “fascists” in the Soviet zone under a different name? He pointed out to the SED leaders that their policy of “exterminating fascists” was no different from that of the USA, stating: “Maybe I should add this course [of organizing a nationalist party] so as not to push all of the former Nazis into the enemy camp?”1

While the Western zones sought to ban any political re-manifestation of National Socialism, Stalin was exploring the possibilities of integrating such elements into a new Soviet Germany. The reticence he received from the Socialist Unity leaders was based on a typically Marxist reaction. However, one uses Marxism to tear down a nation and a state, not to construct one. Stalin, as Trotsky correctly lamented, had “betrayed” the Bolshevik revolution2 by reversing possibly every Marxian program that had been erected by Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Sverdlov, et al, who had for the most part been purged or liquidated by Stalin.3

Grotewohl objected that if the “fascists” were reorganized into their own party, such a move would be “incomprehensible to the working masses” in the Western zones. Presumably he was so naïve as to believe that the proletariat in the Western zones were so eager to forsake twelve years of almost miraculous social and economic achievements under National Socialism, and embrace doctrinaire Marxism, that they would feel betrayed unless all the leaders of the former regime were routed and lynched. Stalin had other thoughts. Stalin replied that showing the “Nazis” in the Western zones that their comrades under the Soviets were not being purged would provide a positive impression that “not all of them will be destroyed.” Pieck regarded the idea as “impossible,” while Stalin saw no reason why it should not be achieved. He wanted to recruit “patriotic elements” to a “fascist party” especially among “secondary figures of the former Nazi Party.” There would be nothing reactionary about establishing such a party, as many “Nazis” had “come from out of the people.”4

Ulbricht thought Stalin’s idea entirely plausible by focusing on the socialist aspect of National Socialism, especially among idealistic youth, who had regarded the NSDAP as Socialist. Stalin explained that he did not aim to integrate “fascist’ elements into the SED, but to encourage them to form their own party, in alliance with the SED.5 Former “Nazis” were voting for the bourgeois conservative parties in the Soviet-occupied zone, fearful that the establishment of a Soviet state would mean their liquidation. Stalin wanted to demonstrate that their situation under a Soviet Germany would be otherwise. He also did not share the preposterous view of the German Communist leaders present that the “fascist elements” were all bourgeois. He stated that “there should be relief for those who had not sold out” to the Western occupation; and that “we must not forget that the elements of Nazism are alive not only in the bourgeois layers, but also among the working class and the petty bourgeoisie.”6

Ulbricht’s particularly positive attitude among the SED leaders towards Stalin’s plans for a nationalist party as part of an SED-led “national front” had a personal precedent. While the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939 had caused a crisis of conscience among Communists throughout the world, Ulbricht had been particularly enthusiastic towards the alliance between two “socialist” states, writing in the Comintern newspaper, Die Welt, published in Stockholm:

Many workers, who desire socialism, welcome the pact particularly, because it reinforces the friendship with the great country of socialism. … Both the German people and those peoples who are admitted to the German multinational state7 must make the choice: not together with English high finance in favor of the extension of the war and a new Versailles, but together with the Soviet Union for peace, for the national independence and the friendship of all peoples. The working-class, the farmers and the working intellectuals of Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland will be the strongest guarantee for the Soviet-German alliance and the defeat of the English plan.8

It should be noted that Ulbricht saw the Hitler-Stalin pact as an alliance against plutocracy headed by England. Ulbricht also played a prominent role in Stalin’s purge of the German Communist party leadership that had fled to the USSR after Hitler’s assumption of office. Some of these were extradited from the USSR back to Germany, such as Margarete Buber-Neumann, who was sent to Ravensbrück.9 While Hitler executed five members of the Politburo of the German Communist party, in the USSR seven were liquidated, and 41 out of 68 party leaders.10

Pieck, presumably assuming that the projected party would be called “National Socialist” or “Fascist,’ objected that that the Allies would not allow the reconstitution of such a party. Stalin laughed in response, and explained that the party would be called a name that was less obvious, such as “National Democrats.”11

Another major objection from the party leaders, again naïve, was that the “fascists” are an “aggressive party” and want “living space.” Stalin pointed out that Germany was defeated, its army was no more and that the “fascist elements” were not concerned with such matters.

Otto Grotewohl

Otto Grotewohl, Prime Minister of the German Democratic Republic, delivers keynote speech during the celebration of the 71st Birthday of Josef Stalin held in the Berlin State Opera on the evening of 21 December 1950. The inscription reads “Long live J.W. Stalin, the best friend of the German people!”
Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-09039-0001 / CC-BY-SA [CC-BY-SA-3.0-de (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en)], via Wikimedia Commons

Indeed, a significant faction of diehard post-war German National Socialists were committed to a neutralist position, if not being overtly pro-Soviet. They had just fought a war against the USSR, and many were not eager to do so again in the interests of American hegemony over Europe, which they regarded as culturally and spiritually lethal, and therefore a more pervasive threat than Russian military occupation. Furthermore, the plutocracies had fallen out with Stalin when he declined to become a junior partner in a post-war new world order based around the United Nations General Assembly, where the USA could readily buy votes and outmaneuver the Soviet bloc with ease; and the Baruch Plan for the “internationalization of atomic energy,” which the USSR considered to be a euphemism for American control.12 In fact, it was the USSR that pursued a national course, including a campaign against “rootless cosmopolitanism” in the arts, which the Stalinist leadership condemned as “internationalism,” while promoting a revived Russian folk culture; while the USA was committed to internationalism, and a cultural offensive in which abstract expressionism and jazz took leading roles in trying to subvert nations.13

Given this post-war realignment, it should not be too difficult to see why Stalin would regard ex-Nazis as potential allies, and vice versa.

The largest post-war National Socialist formation in the Western zone, the Socialist Reich Party, under the leadership of Major General Otto Remer, was quickly suppressed by the Allies when it made considerable electoral progress. Most worrying of all was the Socialist Reich Party’s “neutralist position,” at a time when the USA had reversed the Morgenthau Plan for the obliteration of German nationhood and nationality,14 and sought to rebuild Germany as an ally against the new foe, Stalin. Sir Oswald Mosley, commenting on the arrest of Dr. Werner Naumann, designated by Hitler as Goebbels’s successor, and a few others, for allegedly plotting to infiltrate the Free Democratic Party, remarked on the West’s post-war policies towards Germany that “Years after the Russians were offering German scientists every material prize that life can hold, the allies were making such men sweep rubble in the streets on account of their past political affiliations.”15

Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NDPD)

In February 1948 the Soviet Military Administration (Sowjetische Militäradministration in Deutschland:SMAD) announced the end of denazification. In March 1948 the prosecution of Germans for alleged “war crimes” was formally ended. The same month the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NDPD) was formed. The German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische RepublikDDR) was announced in 1949, from elections in the Soviet occupied zone, after the failure of the USSR and the Western occupiers to agree on terms for elections on the reunification of Germany.

With the NDPD’s creation, Stalin stated that the party would “erase the line between non-Nazis and former Nazis.”16 On March 22, a newspaper was launched to pave the way, National-Zeitung, announcing: “while in other areas there remains the atmosphere of denazification of Germany, in the eastern part the people’s eyes light up again. Simple party comrades no longer have to be timid and fearfully look around as if they were pariahs.” The party was founded three days later, under the chairmanship of Lothar Bolz, who held the post until 1972. Bolz had been a member of the pre-war German Communist party and was one of the few German Communist leaders to have survived Stalin’s hazardous hospitality towards Communist refugees.17During much of the time Bolz served in the government of the DDR, including the position of Foreign Minister (1968-1978), the vice chairman of the NDPD was Heinrich Hohmann, who had joined the National Socialist party in 1933, and was a co-founder of the League of German Officers, which formed the initial nucleus of the NDPD.

The NDPD program was stridently nationalistic; as much as the Socialist Reich Party which was being outlawed in the Federal Republic:

America violated the Treaty of Potsdam and plunged us Germans with malice into the biggest national distress of our history. … But the American war may and shall not take place! Germany must live! That’s why we National Democrats demand: the Americans to America. Germany for the Germans! The Federal Republic of Germany is a child of national treason… That’s why we National Democrats demand: German unity over the head of the government of national treason in Bonn, as a basis for peace, independence and prosperity for our entire German fatherland.18

The party reached a peak of 230,000 members in 1953, and during the 1980s still had a significant membership of 110,000. In 1948 the party sent 52 members to the DDR parliament, the Volkskammer. One of its primary aims was German unification, and the party drew on ex-NSDAP members and army veterans to support its campaigns. One such appeal from the party issued in 1952 included 119 names of officers from the Wehrmacht, SS, Hitler Jugend, League of German Maidens (BDM) and German Labor Front.19

Hess’s Meeting with DDR Leaders

Interestingly, also in 1952, Lothar Bolz, then deputy minister-president of the DDR; the minister of trade and supplies, Karl Hamann, and Otto Grotewohl met with former deputy Führer Rudolf Hess, to discuss whether Hess would be willing to play a leading role in a reunified and neutral Germany. German historian Werner Maser states that Otto Grotewohl told him of the meeting on the understanding that it would not be mentioned until after Grotewohl’s death.20 Wolf Rüdiger Hess (Rudolf Hess’s son) states that in March 1952 “Stalin proposed a peace treaty and free elections for a neutral and unified Germany to prevent the Federal Republic of Germany from joining the West’s defense organization, which he considered a threat to Soviet security.”21 A neutral, reunited Germany was precisely the policy of the Socialist Reich Party.

Hess had been taken from Spandau to meet the DDR leaders when the USSR assumed its monthly jurisdiction over the prison fortress.22Professor Maser records that Stalin wished “to temper justice with mercy in the Germany matter and to grant Hess a prominent position within the framework of reconstruction and the efforts towards the reunification of Germany.”23 Maser stated that he had the impression from Grotewohl that the NDPD, the Liberal Democratic Party and the Democratic Farmers’ Party, all part of a “National Front” bloc in the DDR, had moved their party programs “suspiciously close to the 25-point program of the NSDAP of 1920.” It was proposed that Hess would serve as “a vehicle for the introduction of the New Policy,” according to Maser. In the longer term, Hess would play a part in the leadership of a reunited Germany. If Hess would state that the DDR policy was the same as the “socialism” to which he had always adhered, he would be immediately released from Spandau. Hess rejected the offer, although he “welcomed… the efforts of the DDRand the Soviet Union to preserve German patriotism, and had listened attentively to what his interlocutors had to say on the programs of the political parties referred to…” But he regarded the acceptance of such an offer as a betrayal of Hitler’s memory. Grotewohl found it hard to understand why Hess rejected the offer to help rebuild Germany as a free man.24

Wolf Rüdiger Hess remained skeptical as to the reality of the meeting and the offer. He has not explained why. The alleged meeting took place precisely when the USSR called for a plebiscite on the unification and neutrality of Germany, which reflected a policy that was likewise taken up by war veterans and former NSDAPmembers led by Major General Otto Remer in the Federal Republic.

The Socialist Reich Party (SRP) was founded in 1949, and promptly had two members in the Bundestag, who defected from other parties when the SRP was formed. Remer was not only deputy leader, but also the most energetic campaigner, receiving enthusiastic responses to his condemnation of the American democratic imposition and praise for the achievements of National Socialism.25 Remer was soon banned from Schleswig-Holstein and North Rhine-Westphalia, where the SRP was most popular. The US occupation authorities not only noted the “Nazi” style of the SRP but also its opposition to a Western alliance, and advocacy of united Europe as a third force, led by a reunified Germany. The SRP attracted 10,000 members, and organized auxiliaries for women, youth and trade unionists. Its paramilitary Reichsfront was formed mainly among the British-run German Service Organization barracked at British military bases, which were reportedly covered with SRP propaganda. In 1950 SRP members were banned from state service, the US State Department fearing that the party could democratically assume power.26 SRP meetings were violently broken up by police, and a pro-SRP newspaper, Reichszeitung, was banned. Remer increased his denunciation of the US occupation and the Western alliance, while refraining from condemning the USSR and the DDR. The US State Department noted this, with the comment: “The party is suspected of willingness to effect a large compromise with Russia in order to unify Germany.”27 When the USA decided on a policy of integrating Germany into the western defense system, Remer launched a campaign with the slogan “Ohne mich!” (“Count me out!”), which drew a ready response from war veterans resentful of their post-war predicament under the Western zone. Remer went further and stated that in the event of war, Germans should not cover an American retreat if the Russians drove them back. He stated that he would “show the Russians the way to the Rhine,” and that the SRP members would “post themselves as traffic policemen, spreading their arms so that the Russians can find their way through Germany as quickly as possible.”28

Leaders of the Socialist Reich Party

The leadership of the SRP (Socialist Reich Party); Chairman of the SRP Dr. Fritz Dorls, the former Major General Otto Ernst Remer, 2nd Chairman of the SRP and the former SS and Hitler Youth leader Count von Westarp. Photo: 14 August 1952.
Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-15845-0010 / CC-BY-SA [CC-BY-SA-3.0-de (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en)], via Wikimedia Commons

In 1952, the year of the meeting between the SED leaders and Hess, and Stalin’s call for free elections for a neutral and united Germany, Remer, who had the previous year been sentenced to four months’ jail for slandering Bonn officials, invoking the Treaty of Rapallo as a symbol of Russo-German co-operation, endorsed Stalin’s proposals. The US felt obliged to offer the Adenauer government the pretense of sovereignty over German affairs under the “Contractual Agreement” of May 1952. SS veterans were now permitted to join the army. The US remained suspicious of how reliable West Germany would be in a conflict with the Eastern bloc, but preferred the risk of rebuilding the Western zone to the possibility that Germans would respond to Stalin’s call for a united, neutral state. It was also tacitly accepted that the purpose of NATO was to contain Germany as much as the USSR.29 The pressure from the SRP and from Stalin’s call for a neutral, united Germany, had forced the end of denazification in the Federal Republic.

At this time, the American philosopher and activist Francis Parker Yockey, in calling for the liberation and unity of Europe was, like Remer et al, prepared to collaborate with the USSR to purge the “holy soil” of Europe of US occupation, which he regarded as the enforcer of Jewish “culture distortion.” Yockey, who until apprehended in the USA in 1960, had kept ahead of military intelligence, Interpol and the FBI, and travelled the world organizing a “fascist” revival, was an adviser to the SRP. Working with a few colleagues within Mosley’s Union Movement in 1947, Yockey, contrary to Mosley, took the position that a Russian occupation of Europe was the lesser evil. This was noted by the FBI, which in summarizing Yockey’s activities in a 1954 report stated that Yockey and his colleagues left Mosley and founded the European Liberation Front in 1949 having published his magnum opus, Imperium, the previous year. During a planning meeting for the ELF in London, Yockey stated that an aim would be to create a partisan organization which would collaborate with the USSR against the Western occupation powers in Germany. The FBI report states that Yockey went to Germany, where he spread anti-US material of a pro-Soviet nature, and contacted the SRP.30 Yockey wrote a sequel to ImperiumDer Feind Europas, as an instruction manual to for the SRP, although the document was suppressed by the occupation authorities.31 During 1955 to 1957, the “missing years,” Yockey is thought to have travelled through the Soviet bloc. In a letter to this writer, by Yockey’s primary US contact, Keith Thompson, registered US agent for the SRP, it was stated that Yockey served as a courier for the Czech secret service. His “fascism” was obviously regarded as no impediment to the Soviets, and it might be conjectured that he earned a living writing anti-Zionist propaganda in the Soviet bloc, having undertaken this for the Nasser regime in Egypt in 1953.

DDR Rebuffs Zionists

In 1952, the Bonn regime announced that it would begin paying reparations to Jews. Meanwhile, the trial began of Rudolf Slansky and other mostly Jewish leaders of the Czechoslovakia Communist party, who were charged with a wide-ranging “Zionist conspiracy” in collusion with the USA and Israel;32 an event that was seminal in the thinking of Yockey and other rightists vis-à-vis the Soviet bloc.33  The trial was noted by theSED Central Committee:

Sailing under the Jewish nationalistic flag, and disguised as a Zionist organization and as diplomats of the American-vassal government of Israel, these American agents practiced their trade. From the Morgenthau-Acheson Plan that was revealed during the trial in Prague it appears unmistakably that American imperialism organizes and supports its espionage and sabotage activities in the people’s republics via the State of Israel with the assistance of Zionist organizations.34

The “Morgenthau-Acheson Plan” referred to in the SED statement was an allegation that an agreement had been reached “according to which American support for Israel was promised in exchange for the use of Zionist organizations for espionage and subversion,” of the Soviet bloc states.35

Furthermore, in the same statement, the SED Central Committee condemned the German communist Paul Merker as a Zionist agent who had who acted “in the same way as the criminals in Czechoslovakia.” Merker, who had spent the war years in exile in Mexico, advocated reparations for German Jews. The SED leaders stated:

It can no longer be doubted that Merker is an agent of the US financial oligarchy, whose demand for compensation for Jewish properties is only designed to infiltrate US financial capital into Germany. That is the real reason for his Zionism. He demands the displacement of German national wealth with the words: “The compensation for the harm that has been done to Jewish citizens will be given both to those who return and to those who want to stay abroad.” Merker illicitly transformed the maximum profits squeezed out of German and foreign workers by monopoly capitalists into alleged property of the Jewish people. In reality “Aryanization” of this capital merely transferred the profits of “Jewish” monopoly capitalists to “Aryan” monopoly capitalists.36

As with the Soviet purging of Zionists and Jews in Czechoslovakia, Merker was condemned as being part of a world apparatus in which Zionists served as agents for subversion by foreign capital.

The DDR did not at any stage establish diplomatic relations with Israel. The DDR also adamantly refused to pay any reparations to Israel or “Holocaust survivors.”

On September 18, 1973, Yosef Tekoah, Israeli ambassador to the U.N. General Assembly, stated that:

“Israel notes with regret and repugnance that the other German state (DDR) has ignored and continues to ignore Germany’s historical responsibility for the Holocaust and the moral obligations arising from it. It has compounded the gravity of that attitude by giving support and practical assistance to the campaign of violence and murder waged against Israel and the Jewish people by Arab terror organizations.”

The East German regime never accepted the war guilt that was the foundation of the Bonn regime, and hence it was not morally hindered in pursuing an anti-Zionist policy. Interestingly, the first comments on Bonn’s intention to pay reparations to Jews and Israel were published three days after the publication of the indictments against Slansky, et al for “Zionist treason.” An article in Neues Deutschland described the reparations agreement as a deal brokered between “West German and Israeli capitalists.”37 With the death of Stalin in 1953, Israel hoped for a change in direction, including on the matter of reparations, but the DDRrefused.

In 1968 Simon Wiesenthal claimed that the DDR news service was far more anti-Zionist than that of any other Soviet-bloc state, and that this was because of the number of ex-“Nazis” employed there.38 The NDPD was the focus of Wiesenthal’s allegations. Dr. Richard Arnold, who had been an official in the Ministry for Science and Public Education (1939-1945), and had written of eliminating every trace of the “Jewish spirit” from the cultural life of Germany, was in 1968 general editor of Der Nationale Demokrat, the newspaper of the NDPD, and recipient of the Order of Merit for the Fatherland. Kurt Herwart Ball, who had been editor of the SS journalHammer, in the DDR was a journalist for the NDPD and an official in the propaganda bureau of the regime.

In a 1951 report the Anglo-Jewish Association urged the Bonn regime and the Allied occupiers to start a vigorous campaign against the revival of National Socialism and any admittance of war veterans into the political realm, alluding to the threat of an accord between “Nazis” and the Eastern bloc:

In Germany as elsewhere the political pendulum has swung far since 1945. The increasing sharpening of the cold war has, among other things, resulted in a certain tendency among parties, not always entirely disinterested, to label those who draw attention to the neo-Nazi revival as Communists and fellow-travellers. The facts revealed about new Nazi groups in this booklet, and the strong suspicion held in many German quarters that some of their leaders, at any rate, are not above coming to a working arrangement with the totalitarians of the Eastern Zone, should help to expose such views. Too frequently they are expressed by people whose professed dislike of Stalinist dictatorship is merely a cloak for their own totalitarian aims.

It should be clearly realized that the neo-Nazis are in no sense allies against Communism. Even before the leading neo-Nazi group —the Socialist Reich Party— was founded, Drew Middleton, senior correspondent of The New York Times in Germany, wrote:

“It is high time that the United States, Britain and France awoke to the danger, the very real danger, that the rise of the right-wing in Germany represents the best chance of a Soviet-German rapprochement… anti-Communism is not enough. (The Struggle for Germany, Allan Wingate, 1949)”

The new Nazis draw their inspiration direct from Hitler’s Germany, and those who learn from the lessons of history will keep firmly before them the memory of the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939. They will remember that it was this pact that signaled the unleashing of the German armies against Poland and later against the West. Similarly, it should not be forgotten that the history of the ill-fated Weimar Republic is dotted with examples of co-operation between the Nazis and Communists against the democratic parties. What happened before can well happen again.39

The DDR integration of “Nazis” and Rightists had its precedents, as mentioned by the Anglo-Jewish report. Karl Radek, the anti-Semite’s stereotype of a “Bolshevik Jew,” attempted to appeal to the nationalism of German workers to win them over to the Communist party and away from the NSDAP, by agitating for opposition to the French occupation of the Ruhr, in the name of the martyred Freikorps fighter Albert LeoSchlageter, who had been shot in 1923 by the French for his resistance activities. Radek’s speech urged the Communists to tap into, rather than oppose, the nationalist sentiments of the German workers. Radek stated in words that were thirty years later reflected in Stalin’s aim of reintegrating the NSDAP and military veterans into the DDR, that “those who have turned to fascism in their despair over the social ills and enslavement of their nation” should no longer be regarded with anathema by the Communist party. 40 Towards this end leaflets advertising Communist Party meetings honoring Schlageter were adorned with the red star and the swastika.41 A pamphlet on Schlageter included Radek’s speech, and articles by conservative-revolutionary Moeller van den Bruck, Count Ernst zu Reventlow of the NSDAP, and Fröhlich of the Communist Party.42

The “National Bolshevik” current within the German Right during the Weimar era regarded the USSR as a natural ally of Germany vis-à-vis the plutocracies. They advocated an eastward direction for German diplomacy, which had been reflected in the Treaty of Rapallo. The primary “National Bolsheviks” were Ernst Niekisch and Karl O. Paetel, around whom gravitated not only radical nationalists and revolutionary-conservatives such as Otto Strasser and Ernst Junger but also the Communists Bertolt Brecht and Ernst Toller.43 Even Oswald Spengler, the conservative-revolutionary philosopher-historian, who warned of the possibility of Russia’s leadership of a “colored world revolution” behind the banner of Bolshevism,44 had also seen the possibility of another Russo-German alliance.45

The USSR sought out Rightists via several organizations: The Association for the Study of the Planned Economy of Soviet Russia (Arplan), included Reventlow, Junger, and several National Bolsheviks.46The League of Professional Intellectuals (BGB) included Junger and Niekisch and, according to Soviet documents, was a means of attracting “into our orbit of influence a range of highly placed intellectuals of rightist orientation.”47

Hence, the line taken by both Remer and the DDR was by no means a historical aberration or paradox. On October 23, 1952, the SRP was banned48 after winning 16 seats in the state parliament of Lower Saxony and 8 seats in Bremen. The SRP was succeeded by the German Reich Party of Colonel Hans-Ulrich Rudel, and the National Democratic Party (NPD), not to be confused with its Soviet-sponsored namesake, the NDPD.

Remer, like Rudel, and the commando leader Major Otto Skorzeny, undertook their own versions of German diplomacy, Rudel and Skorzeny both advising Juan Peron in Argentina, while Remer was said to have maintained close links with the Nasser regime, and lived in Egypt and Syria. Martin Lee writes that a Russo-German accord remained the basis of Remer’s policy as the only means of liberating Europe from the USA. Remer believed that a united Europe should include Russia,49 which would welcome such a union as a bulwark against an encroaching Asia.50

In 1983, back in Bavaria, Remer launched the German Freedom Movement (Die deutschen FreiheitsbewegungDDF), dedicated to Russo-German accord, under the chairmanship of Georg Bosse. Their manifesto, The Bismarck-German Manifesto, is subheaded “German-Russian Alliance Rapallo 1983.” The movement published a periodical, Recht und Wahrheit (Justice and Truth). The DDF manifesto Der Bismarck-Deutsche continued the neutralist line from Remer’s SRP days three decades earlier. The manifesto, echoing Yockey’s ideas on the “culture-distorting regime” of Washington and New York, states “The American way of life is for us synonymous with the destruction of European culture,” and that Germany “would not be used as the tip of the NATO spear… We will not participate in a NATO war against Russia.” Remer explained to Martin Lee “We have to realize and act accordingly, like Bismarck did, that Russia is the superpower in this gigantic Eurasian continent, to which we belong geographically, geopolitically and economically, and even culturally… We are, like Bismarck, for a close collaboration with Russia in politics, economy, culture, science, technology, and research.”51

US Army intelligence, still monitoring Remer, feared that his neutralist, and even “pro-Soviet” line was making headway among the German Right, and noted a “trend towards neutralism” and “a rise in anti-Americanism.” In 1985 a West German secret service officer opined to a Reuters newsman that, “the Soviet Union is seen as a potential friend and, in some cases, even an ally.”52

It is an interesting aside that in 1962, during the “Cuban Missile Crisis,” Castro purchased 4,000 pistols through Remer and Ernst Wilhelm Springer.53 The latter had been a member of the SRP who, like Remer, settled in Egypt in 1953, supplying guns to Arab clients.54 It is perhaps indicative that Remer was serious when he had ventured that the SRP would assist the Russians in Germany in the event of a conflict with the USA.

Why pro-Russian, anti-NATO or neutralist positions should be regarded by US and German intelligence agencies as sudden new trends among the Right is difficult to explain. Even the comparatively conservativeNPD of the 1960s, during which time it reached its electoral high point under Adolf von Thadden, rejected NATO.

While Yockey’s plans were cut short with his death in a San Francisco jail in 1960 while awaiting trial for passport fraud, his militant stance was assumed by a new generation led by Michael Kuhnen, who founded the Action Front of National Socialists during the late 1970s and the 1980s. Under the name of the Werewolf Northern Cell,55 in association with Wiking Jugend, a raid on a NATO base in the Netherlands was organized along with others against NATO and US bases in West Germany.56

This is not to say that Remer and others had become Stalinists. As articles in Recht und Wahrheit show,57Remer and the DDF remained critical of Stalinism, the USSR and the DDR, and welcomed the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany. It is unclear to this writer what Remer et al, expected Europe to gain by the supplanting of Soviet control over Eastern and Central Europe and the obliteration of the Warsaw Pact, by a power that was “synonymous with the destruction of European culture,” as Remer had put it. His views at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall seem at odds with the avidly anti-US, pro-Soviet statements during the early 1950s. Perhaps he had considered the USSR to have progressively decayed after Stalin, which it indeed had. The “colour revolutions” organized and funded by George Soros’s network and the National Endowment for Democracy, in association with the US State Department, have been rampant across Europe since the days of “Solidarity” in Poland and show no signs of abating. Nonetheless, when the USSR remained a factor in world power politics, Remer was still insisting in 1983 that “I want to make an agreement with the Russian people, we have to move out of NATO, and out of the European Community. We want to be a neutral country, then we can reunify. The Americans, not the Russians, are the aggressors!” Remer stated that the Russians were “very interested.”58

Origins of the NDPD in Wartime USSR

As is well known, some such as General Reinhard Gehlen, head of the Bonn regime’s espionage apparatus, became avid Cold Warriors on behalf of the USA. The relationship between the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands, the USSR and the leaders of the DDR and Socialist Unity Party reflected a willingness of other war veterans and ex-NSDAP members to embrace Soviet hegemony while remaining German patriots.

Those who formed the NDPD had been prisoners of war held by the USSR. While many Russian soldiers who had surrendered to the Germans sought to join an anti-Soviet army under German auspices, there were Germans in Russian captivity who were persuaded that they could play a role in postwar Germany.

NDPD co-founder and first chairman (1948-1972), Lothar Bolz was one of the few Communist party members who had survived liquidation by Stalin when party members had fled to the USSR. There he taught at an ideological school for captured Germans.

A primary co-founder of the NDPD was Colonel Wilhelm Adam, a veteran of both world wars, whose nationalist politics went back to membership in the Young German Order in 1920, and the NSDAP in 1923, and his participation in the Munich Putsch. He was a member of the conservative German People’s Party (DVP) during 1926-1929. In 1933 he joined the Stahlhelm and the SA. Captured in 1943 at Stalingrad, Adam joined the National Committee for a Free Germany. Returning to the Soviet Zone of Germany in 1948, he was an adviser to the state government of Saxony. In 1952 he became a colonel in the Kasernierte Volkspolizei(KVP), which became the DDR People’s Army. He was honored in 1968 with the Banner of Labor, and with the title of Major General in 1977.

Vincenz Müller, a veteran of both world wars, with the rank of lieutenant general, was captured at Minsk in 1944. He joined the National Committee for a Free Germany, in which he was particularly active. In 1948 he returned to Germany and joined the NDPD, serving as deputy chairman during 1949-1952, and as a member of the Volkskammer. In 1952 he was given responsibility for reorganizing the DDR armed forces, headed the Ministry of the Interior, organized the KVP, and was appointed first chief of staff of the National People’s Army. However, his loyalties were often suspect, perhaps because he maintained contacts in the West in regard to promoting relations between the Federal Republic and the DDR, He retired in 1958.

Heinz Neukirchen, a naval commander stationed in Norway, was held in the USSR during 1945-1949. In 1949 he joined the NDPD and served as a party political department manager until 1950, and then as deputy chairman of the party Board for the Berlin District. During 1954-1956 he served as chief of staff for the Sea Police, and was appointed rear admiral in 1952, and later as chief of staff of the People’s Navy.

Rudolf Bamler was a section head of the Abwehr, German military intelligence. Achieving the rank of lieutenant general, Bamler was captured on the eastern front in 1944. He served as an officer in the DDR’sStasi secret police during 1946-1962, and held the rank of Major General in the KVP.

Arno von Lenski served in both world wars. Promoted to lieutenant general in 1943, he was captured at Stalingrad, and joined the National Committee for a Free Germany in 1944. Returning to Germany in 1949, he became a council member of the NDPD in 1950. He worked with the Berlin municipal administration, joined the KVP, and became a major general of the National People’s Army. In 1952 he served as a member of the Volkskammer, for the NDPD.

Major General Kurt Haehling, returning from Russian captivity in 1951, served with the NDPD as district chairman for Dresden (1953-1960).

The final electoral performance of the NDPD, by then apparently keen to rid itself of “right-wing” tendencies and appear “liberal”, rebuffing efforts at entryism by the National Democratic Party (NPD),59 was in the local elections for Helbra, Mansfeld in 1990, where the party obtained 2%, then disappeared into the Free Democratic Party.

Conclusion

The NDPD seems to have mostly disappeared down the “memory hole.” Yet right up to the final days of theDDR the party was an important constituent of the governing National Front bloc. According to one of its last office holders, Dr. Ludwig, the party had accrued a considerable amount of assets.60 NDPD officials, and particularly high-ranking military officers from the Third Reich, many with the most distinguished military awards of that regime, were propelled to the top of the DDR in politics, police and military. While the NDPD is distinct from the NPD that was founded in West Germany, when Germany was reunited, the German radical Right, such as the NPD and others, received an influx of especially young recruits from the East. It might be asked whether this was because the youth in particular, having lived under a nominally “communist regime,” would naturally turn into the most avid anti-communists? However, an alternative explanation might be offered: these youth had lived under the Spartan discipline of the DDR, its militarism, duty, unencumbered by “war guilt,” schooled in anti-Zionism and anti-liberalism, even if with Marxian rhetoric, where the state youth organizations for boys and girls seem strikingly similar in form to the Hitler Jugend and the BDM. If these youth had rejected their past under the DDR their tendency would surely have been, once freed from the discipline of the old regime, to embrace the liberalism, commercialism, and American pop culture that was the basis of the Bonn regime and, now, reunited Germany. Instead, many have chosen another “authoritarian ideology” and have still eschewed democratic-liberalism. With the eclipse of a liberalized NDPD in 1990, theNPD, heir to the Socialist Reich Party, garners its highest votes from former DDR states: Saxony, Thuringia, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, and Brandenburg.

Notes:

1  Historical and Documentary Department, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The USSR and the German Question. 1941-1949. Documents from the Archives of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation, M. “International Relations,” 2003, pp. 244-253.

2 Lev Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed (1936). See especially chapter 7, where Trotsky laments the restoration of family life as particularly un-Bolshevik.

3 K. R. Bolton, Stalin: The Enduring Legacy (London: Black House Publishing, 2012).

4 Historical and Documentary Department, op. cit.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 That is, the states that had been incorporated into the Reich.

8 W. Ulbricht, Die Welt, February 9,1940.

9 Margarete Buber-Neumann, from what can be discerned from a brief biography, had some typical psychological traits of Communist leaders, growing up in a dysfunctional family, and displaying a more nebulous love for “humanity’ than for her own family. She became a leading agent for the Comintern. She and her husband Heinz Neumann fled to Moscow in 1933, and he “disappeared’ in 1937. Shortly after, she was sent to a labor camp in Siberia, and with the Hitler-Stalin Pact, she was deported back to Germany in 1940 where she resumed her work at “hard Labor.” See: “Margarete Buber-Neumann,” Fembio, http://www.fembio.org/english/biography.php/woman/biography/margarete-buber-neumann/

10 K. R. Bolton, Stalin: The Enduring Legacy, op. cit., p. 8.

11 Historical and Documentary Department, op. cit.

12 K. R. Bolton, Stalin: The Enduring Legacy, op. cit., pp. 125-136.

13 Ibid., pp. 28-54.

14 James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies (London: Little Brown & Co., 1997).

15 Oswald Mosley, “Dr. Naumann,” The European, March 1953; in Mosley: Policy and Debate (Euphorion, 1954), p. 126.

16 Historical and Documentary Department, op. cit.

17 The entirety of the Central Committee of the Polish Communist party in Soviet exile was liquidated. See K. R. Bolton, Stalin, op. cit., p. 8.

18 NDPD program, June 1951.

19 NDPD appeal for German unity, 4th Party Congress, 1952.

20 The event is described by Wolf Rüdiger Hess in My Father Rudolf Hess (London: W. H. Allen, 1986). Note 6 for the chapter “Special Treatment,” states that Maser left a typewritten note on his meeting with Grotewohl when Maser was working at the Institute for Research into Imperialism, East Berlin Humboldt University, which was directed by the pre-war “National Bolshevik” Ernst Niekisch, who was present at the meeting between Maser and Grotewohl.

21 Wolf Rüdiger Hess, ibid., p. 251.

22 Spandau was administered by the Four Powers (Britain, France, USA and USSR) on an alternating monthly basis.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid., pp. 252-253.

25 Martin Lee, The Beast Reawakens (London: Little Brown and Company, 1997), p. 49.

26 Ibid., pp. 50-51.

27 Ibid., p.58.

28 US State Department report, June 22, 1951; cited by Lee, ibid., p. 65.

29 Ibid., pp. 80-81.

30 L. O. Bogstad, “Francis Parker Yockey,” FBI Summary Report, July 8, 1954, pp. 11-12. See K. R. Bolton, “Foreword” to F. P. Yockey, Imperium (Abergele, UK: The Palingenesis Project, 2013), p. xlviii.

31 Alex Kurtagic, “Yockey Chronology,” Imperium, ibid., p. lxxviii.

32 Paul Lendvai, Anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe (London: Macdonald, 1971), pp. 243-259. Others mentioned together with Slansky et al included French colonial minister Georges Mandel, “a Jewish nationalist;” “Jewish nationalist Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter,” and “Titoist Jewish ideologue” Mosha Pijade, as well as US President Truman, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, former Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr., [who gave his name to the infamous plan to exterminate the German nation]; and Israelis Ben Gurion and Moshe Sharrett. Lendvai, ibid., p. 245.

33 Yockey wrote an analysis of the trial, “What Is behind the Hanging of Eleven Jews in Prague?” (1952), which was republished in Yockey: Four Essays (New Jersey: Nordland Press, 1971).

34 Lehren aus dem Prozeß gegen das Verschwörerzentrum Slansky, Beschluß des Zentralkomitees der Sozialistischen Einheitspartei Deutschlands, December 20, 1952, p. 13.

35 Czechoslovak indictment cited by Lendvai, op. cit., p. 245.

36 Lehren aus dem Prozeß, op. cit., p. 55-56.

37 “Reparations for Whom?, Neues Deutschland, November 25, 1952.

38 Simon Wiesenthal, The Same Language: First for Hitler – Now for Ulbricht, (Vienna: Eine Dokumentation der Deutschland-Berichte. Jüdisches Dokumentationszentrum, Simon Wiesenthal Centre, September 6, 1968).

39 Germany’s New Nazis, The Anglo-Jewish Association, London (Jewish Chronicle Publications, 1951), “Conclusion,” p. 72.

40 K. Radek, “Leo Schlageter: The Wanderer into the Void,” speech at a plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, June 1923, online: http://www.marxists.org/archive/radek/1923/06/schlageter.htm

41 Michael David-Fox Doing Medicine Together: Germany and Russia between the Wars (University of Toronto Press, 2006), p. 136.

42 Bernice G. Rosenthal, New Myth, New World: From Nietzsche to Stalinism (Penn State University Press, 2004), p. 378.

43 Thomas R. Nevin, Ernst Junger and Germany: into the Abyss, 1914-1945 (Duke University Press, 1996), p. 106.

44 O. Spengler, The Hour of Decision (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1934, 1963), pp. 204-230.

45 O. Spengler, “Two Faces of Russia and Germany’s Eastern Problems,” speech to Rhenish-Westphalian Business Convention, Essen, February 14, 1919.

46 K. R. Bolton, “Junger and National Bolshevism,” in Troy Southgate, ed., Junger: Thoughts and PerspectivesVolume 11, (London: Black Front Press, 2012), p. 18.

47 See ibid.

48 Martin Lee, op. cit., p. 84.

49 Lee’s interview with Remer, April 16, 1992, cited by Lee, ibid., p. 193.

50 For the view that China will eventually conflict with Russia, regardless of historically inorganic alliances such as BRIC and the Shanghai co-operation agreement, see: K. R. Bolton, Geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific(London: Black House Publishing, 2013).

51 Martin Lee, op. cit., p. 194.

52 Ibid., pp. 194-195.

53 “Fidel Castro Recruited ex-Nazis to Train Troops during Cold War,” The Economic Times, October 16, 2012, online: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-10-16/news/34499057_1_bundesnachrichtendienst-bnd-german-secret-service

54 Martin Lee, op. cit., p. 127.

55 An obvious allusion to the “Werewolf” guerrilla movement established during the closing days of the Third Reich, which harassed the Western occupation authorities and their German collaborators for several years thereafter. See SS Werwolf, Combat Instruction Manual, Translation Michael C. Fangan (Colorado: Paladin Press, 1982).

56 Martin Lee, op. cit., p. 198.

57 Recht und Wahrheit archives, online:http://www.vho.org/D/ruw/Archiv/index.html

58 Thierry Lalevee, “The Revival of the Nazi-Communist Pact: Soviets Foster Worldwide Terrorism,”Executive Intelligence Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, January 3, 1984.  This article, from a LaRouche source, contends that 1983 was the year for a Soviet-based international Nazi terrorist offensive that would allow the USSR to assume world control.

59 According to Dr. Christian Dirk Ludwig, who had been NDPD Berlin District Board member, September 4, 2007, Online: http://www.wahlrecht.de/forum/messages/42/804.html?1191478580

60 Ibid.

Source: Spring 2014 issue of Inconvenient History

_________________________________________________________________________

Gilad Atzmon on his support for Dieudonne—interviewed on Al Jazeerah—I had the honor and privilege of meeting Gilad Atzmon last week in New York

I have been following Gilad Atzmon’s writings and advocacy for about six years now, and I consider him one of the foremost cultural, ethnic, socio-historical and political philosophers of our time.  Gilad is traveling in the United States and, if you get a chance to listen to his lectures or music, I urge you to do so.  I have NEVER met anyone quite like him.  I met him last week in New York City when he was staying as the guest of Michael Santomauro on the Upper East Side.  The several days spent with these two were one of the most intense intellectual experiences of my life, fully comparable to any seminar discussion on historical formation or cultural process, micro-or-macro evolution and ethnic identity or politics that I ever had in Anthropology, Biology, or History at Harvard or in Law at the University of Chicago—the level of feverish debate was (in my personal memory anyhow) closest to in chambers meetings between law clerks and Externs for the Ninth Circuit between clerks for Stephen Reinhardt and Alex Kozinski….  Everyone concerned with American, European, or Middle Eastern Culture, Economy, or Politics today needs to read Gilad Atzmon’s latest book The Wandering Who?

Al-Jazeerah: Cross-Cultural Understanding

Opinion Editorials, February 2014




Dieudonné, Alain Soral, and Zionism:Gilad Atzmon Interviewed By Alimuddin UsmaniAl-Jazeerah, CCUN, February 24, 2014

AU: What led you to offer Dieudonné such support in his struggle against the French government?

GA: Dieudonné is the true meaning of resistance.  Being cogent and coherent, he has managed to expose in France the corrosive bond between contemporary Zionised socialism and Jewish political power.

For some time now, many of us who, in the 60s and 70s, were inspired by Left thinking have been confused by contemporary ‘progressive’ politics. For some reason, the so-called ‘New Left’ was very quick to compromise on crucial issues to do with labour and working class politics. Instead of siding with the workers and those struggling in society, the post-68 Left  adopted an identity-politics discourse that was actually aimed at breaking up society and the working class into isolated marginalisd groups. This led to political paralysis which in turn prepared the way for the invasion of big money, monopoly culture and globalization. It is this that Dieudonné, has managed to expose. He has also identified the power of the Holocaust religion and Jewish lobby power at the very heart of political establishment. Being the author of The Wandering Who – the book that took apart Jewish identity politics, I see Dieudonné as a continuation of myself. He is my twin and I stand up for both him and his cause.

AU: Dieudonné’s detractors accuse him of antisemitism and as evidence they offer that in his show, (now banned) he said this about a prominent Jewish radio journalist: “You see, when I hear Patrick Cohen speak, I think to myself : Gas chambers…too bad”. His supporters explain that Dieudonné was simply responding to a provocation from this journalist who said that Dieudonné must be blacklisted from mainstream media and that people with “mental illness ” shouldn’t be invited to comment publically. What do you think? Did he go too far or do you think he had the right to respond to someone who wished for his social, economic and professional demise?

GA: Those Jews who insist that the Holocaust become our new state religion must accept that such a claim comes with a price. If you choose to identify yourself with gas chambers, Auschwitz and victimhood you must also accept that you will be identified as such by others.  I have no problem with Dieudonné’s reaction to Cohen. Dieudonné is an artist, his duty is to reshape and revise the vision of the world around us. Accordingly, placing a mirror in front of Cohen was a most appropriate thing to do.

AU: The only main political party in France who didn’t join in this “Dieudonné bashing” is the nationalist National Front founded by Jean-Marie Le Pen. What is your explanation of that?

GA: It obviously means that in terms of tolerance and multi-cultural/ethnic openness your Nationalists are way ahead of any so called ‘progressives’ and the Left. But this does not surprise me. The Left has always found it difficult to bond with working people, in fact, the entire ‘progressive’ ethos is elitist to the bone. And again, this should come as no surprise. After all. identifying oneself as  ‘progressive’ surely means that someone else must be ‘reactionary’ – and that someone else is the working man or woman. This may explain why being ‘progressive’ is so attractive to so many Jews – it offers a godless alternative to their traditional choseness. It also explains why the workers generally stay away as far from the Left as they can. They much prefer identifying with the whole, the grand collective narrative, with the flag and with the language. rather than be progressive, they prefer to be patriotic and nationalist. And the outcome is clear: The  left eventually drifts away into a state of total detachment which is the exact state of the French socialist at the moment.

Now, Dieudonné, has managed to galvanize this Left detachment. Here we have a black person who enjoys the support of the National Front and is cheered on by a massive popular movement consisting of migrants and White working class – and all this has now matured into one giant Left collective neurosis. How amusing is this?

AU: Thanks to Nicolas Anelka, the British Media started to talk about Dieudonné. According to Alain Soral, the  BBC conducted quite fair interview with him : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8gdbXHsVks

Can you explain to us why the French media seem unable to give the same fair treatment to this story?

GA: To start with, let’s not delude ourselves. It is easy for Brits to mock French kosher totalitarianism but believe me, no one in the BBC dares discuss the embarrassing fact that 80% of our Tory MPs are Conservative Friends of Israel. No one in the BBC has ever been brave enough to delve into the embarrassing fact that when Tony Blair took us into an illegal war in Iraq, his chief fundraiser was Lord Levy and the LFI (Labour Friends of Israel). But let me answer your question as concisely as I can.

Jewish power is the capacity to control and limit the discussion on Jewish power. CRIF and BHL are not the essence of Jewish power, they are just symptoms of this power. The real Jewish power is the capacity to silence all discussion of the Lobby, CRIF and HBL. So Alain Soral should carry the ban against him as a badge of honour. It only reaffirms that the media doesn’t find within itself the intellectual capacity to challenge him and his work. This is hardly surprising, I’ve now begun to realise that George Orwell might well have been the last thinking person in the Left. The contemporary Left is a soundbite culture far removed from any dialectical thinking or intellectual exchange. It is indeed a tragedy.

AU: In our last interview you told us that you “learned that most Palestinian NGOs are funded by liberal Zionist George Soros’ Open Society Institute.”  A French cartoonist named Joe le Corbeau, who was briefly arrested over a photo of a quenelle http://www.crescentcityjewishnews.com/man-arrested-over-photo-of-quenelle-in-front-of-toulouse-jewish-school/, suggested in one of his cartoons that Femen are funded by Soros : http://judeologie.com/2013/05/28/the-femen-powers-prostitutes-par-joe-le-corbeau/

Do you think that may explain why these women perform only in mosques and churches and never in synagogues?

GA: Obviously, I don’t know whether Femen is funded by Soros but it wouldn’t surprise me if they are. Soros’ philosophy, as far as I understand it, is very simple. He is a Liberal Zionist who funds a lot of ‘good causes’ – causes that just happen to also be ‘good for the Jews’.

Now, let me address Femen’s preferred choice of ‘artistic’ venues. As you probably know, Post-Structuralism is pretty much a French philosophical school of thought and may be  defined as an attempt to dismantle all ‘grand narratives’ except the Jewish one. In concert with the spirit of the 68 students’ revolution and the Frankfurt Yeshiva, Femen are more than happy pull apart every French cultural heritage – except the Jewish ones. Just follow the money trail, those people who facilitated their move to France – the record label and the ANR who signed them. Surely, you’ll find the answers within just a few minutes.

Here is an interesting anecdote that may throw some light on the topic. It was recently pointed out to me that in spite of the fact that Jewish radicals despise the Talmud and the Rabbinical culture and have been caught burning many religious congregation houses, mainly churches in Spain and the Ukraine etc.,  they have never burned a single synagogue.

AU: People who support the right of Femen to blaspheme are often the same people who call for the banning of Dieudonné’s shows. Don’t you think that these kinds of double standards will lead people to rise up against the elite?

GA: No doubt at all, and as we see, it’s already happening.

AU: Former Israeli minister Shulamit Aloni, who recently passed away, once said that accusation of antisemitism is a “trick” used to shut down critics of Israeli policy:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLbtu0-mgvw  How do you explain the current weakness of the Israeli left?

GA: ‘Weakness’ is an understatement. The Israeli left is non-existent and for a good reason: Jewish Left is an oxymoron. While ‘Left’ is a universal concept, Jewishness is a tribally driven ideology. Even Aloni,  whom I admired, wasn’t exactly a ‘universalist’. She didn’t really campaign for the return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes and villages, she was mainly concerned with Israel being a ‘Jewish civilization’ as opposed to a universal one.

It is not a secret that the so-called ‘Jewish Left’ is in practice, a form of National Socialism. Those ‘radical’ Israeli leftists support a racially-driven ‘egalitarian’ philosophy – which applies to Jews only. In other words, they are full of contradictions so it’s hardly surprising that they are now pretty much extinct. On the other hand, right wing Israeli politics,  is as consistent as it is crudely unethical. It postulates that Jews are entitled to return to Palestine, and it draws on a vile, militaristic ideology and practice that aims to maintain this  Jewish hold on the land. Right-wing Zionist  leaders admit daily to not being ethical – but they justify their national project in terms of survival. Since Israel defines itself as the Jewish State, it is only natural for Israelis to identify with a consistently tribal right-wing ideology instead of some half-baked, convoluted and totally inconsistent (but always kosher), socialist clap-trap.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity politics and Jewish Power in particular – available on Amazon.com  Amazon.co.uk

Interview: Atzmon on Dieudonné, Alain Soral and Zionism

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/interview-atzmon-on-dieudonne-alain-soral-and-zionism.html

Interviewed by Alimuddin Usmani

http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah & ccun.org.

editor@aljazeerah.info editor@ccun.org

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2014/February/24%20o/Dieudonne,%20Alain%20Soral,%20and%20Zionism,%20Gilad%20Atzmon%20Interviewed%20By%20Alimuddin%20Usmani.htm

Gilad Atzmon on his support for Dieudonne—interviewed on Al Jazeerah—I had the honor and privilege of meeting Gilad Atzmon last week in New York

I have been following Gilad Atzmon for about six years now, and I consider him one of the foremost historical revisionists and political philosophers of our time.  He is traveling in the United States and, if you get a chance to listen to his lectures or music, I urge you to do so.  I have NEVER met anyone quite like him.  I met him last week in New York City when he was staying as the guest of Michael Santomauro on the Upper East Side.  It was one of the most intense intellectual experiences of my life, fully comparable to any seminar I ever had in Anthropology, Biology, or History at Harvard or in Law at the University of Chicago—closest to in chambers meetings between law clerks and Externs for the Ninth Circuit between clerks for Stephen Reinhardt and Alex Kozinski….  Everyone concerned with American, European, or Middle Eastern Culture, Economy, or Politics today needs to read Gilad Atzmon’s latest book The Wandering Who?

Al-Jazeerah: Cross-Cultural Understanding

www.ccun.orgwww.aljazeerah.info

Opinion Editorials, February 2014

Al-Jazeerah History

Archives

Mission & Name

Conflict Terminology

Editorials

Gaza Holocaust

Gulf War

Isdood

Islam 

News

News Photos

Opinion Editorials

US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar’s Articles)

www.aljazeerah.info

Dieudonné, Alain Soral, and Zionism:Gilad Atzmon Interviewed By Alimuddin Usmani

Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, February 24, 2014

AU: What led you to offer Dieudonné such support in his struggle against the French government?

GA: Dieudonné is the true meaning of resistance.  Being cogent and coherent, he has managed to expose in France the corrosive bond between contemporary Zionised socialism and Jewish political power.

For some time now, many of us who, in the 60s and 70s, were inspired by Left thinking have been confused by contemporary ‘progressive’ politics. For some reason, the so-called ‘New Left’ was very quick to compromise on crucial issues to do with labour and working class politics. Instead of siding with the workers and those struggling in society, the post-68 Left  adopted an identity-politics discourse that was actually aimed at breaking up society and the working class into isolated marginalisd groups. This led to political paralysis which in turn prepared the way for the invasion of big money, monopoly culture and globalization. It is this that Dieudonné, has managed to expose. He has also identified the power of the Holocaust religion and Jewish lobby power at the very heart of political establishment. Being the author of The Wandering Who – the book that took apart Jewish identity politics, I see Dieudonné as a continuation of myself. He is my twin and I stand up for both him and his cause.

AU: Dieudonné’s detractors accuse him of antisemitism and as evidence they offer that in his show, (now banned) he said this about a prominent Jewish radio journalist: “You see, when I hear Patrick Cohen speak, I think to myself : Gas chambers…too bad”. His supporters explain that Dieudonné was simply responding to a provocation from this journalist who said that Dieudonné must be blacklisted from mainstream media and that people with “mental illness ” shouldn’t be invited to comment publically. What do you think? Did he go too far or do you think he had the right to respond to someone who wished for his social, economic and professional demise?

GA: Those Jews who insist that the Holocaust become our new state religion must accept that such a claim comes with a price. If you choose to identify yourself with gas chambers, Auschwitz and victimhood you must also accept that you will be identified as such by others.  I have no problem with Dieudonné’s reaction to Cohen. Dieudonné is an artist, his duty is to reshape and revise the vision of the world around us. Accordingly, placing a mirror in front of Cohen was a most appropriate thing to do.

AU: The only main political party in France who didn’t join in this “Dieudonné bashing” is the nationalist National Front founded by Jean-Marie Le Pen. What is your explanation of that?

GA: It obviously means that in terms of tolerance and multi-cultural/ethnic openness your Nationalists are way ahead of any so called ‘progressives’ and the Left. But this does not surprise me. The Left has always found it difficult to bond with working people, in fact, the entire ‘progressive’ ethos is elitist to the bone. And again, this should come as no surprise. After all. identifying oneself as  ‘progressive’ surely means that someone else must be ‘reactionary’ – and that someone else is the working man or woman. This may explain why being ‘progressive’ is so attractive to so many Jews – it offers a godless alternative to their traditional choseness. It also explains why the workers generally stay away as far from the Left as they can. They much prefer identifying with the whole, the grand collective narrative, with the flag and with the language. rather than be progressive, they prefer to be patriotic and nationalist. And the outcome is clear: The  left eventually drifts away into a state of total detachment which is the exact state of the French socialist at the moment.

Now, Dieudonné, has managed to galvanize this Left detachment. Here we have a black person who enjoys the support of the National Front and is cheered on by a massive popular movement consisting of migrants and White working class – and all this has now matured into one giant Left collective neurosis. How amusing is this?

AU: Thanks to Nicolas Anelka, the British Media started to talk about Dieudonné. According to Alain Soral, the  BBC conducted quite fair interview with him : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8gdbXHsVks

Can you explain to us why the French media seem unable to give the same fair treatment to this story?

GA: To start with, let’s not delude ourselves. It is easy for Brits to mock French kosher totalitarianism but believe me, no one in the BBC dares discuss the embarrassing fact that 80% of our Tory MPs are Conservative Friends of Israel. No one in the BBC has ever been brave enough to delve into the embarrassing fact that when Tony Blair took us into an illegal war in Iraq, his chief fundraiser was Lord Levy and the LFI (Labour Friends of Israel). But let me answer your question as concisely as I can.

Jewish power is the capacity to control and limit the discussion on Jewish power. CRIF and BHL are not the essence of Jewish power, they are just symptoms of this power. The real Jewish power is the capacity to silence all discussion of the Lobby, CRIF and HBL. So Alain Soral should carry the ban against him as a badge of honour. It only reaffirms that the media doesn’t find within itself the intellectual capacity to challenge him and his work. This is hardly surprising, I’ve now begun to realise that George Orwell might well have been the last thinking person in the Left. The contemporary Left is a soundbite culture far removed from any dialectical thinking or intellectual exchange. It is indeed a tragedy.

AU: In our last interview you told us that you “learned that most Palestinian NGOs are funded by liberal Zionist George Soros’ Open Society Institute.”  A French cartoonist named Joe le Corbeau, who was briefly arrested over a photo of a quenelle http://www.crescentcityjewishnews.com/man-arrested-over-photo-of-quenelle-in-front-of-toulouse-jewish-school/, suggested in one of his cartoons that Femen are funded by Soros : http://judeologie.com/2013/05/28/the-femen-powers-prostitutes-par-joe-le-corbeau/

Do you think that may explain why these women perform only in mosques and churches and never in synagogues?

GA: Obviously, I don’t know whether Femen is funded by Soros but it wouldn’t surprise me if they are. Soros’ philosophy, as far as I understand it, is very simple. He is a Liberal Zionist who funds a lot of ‘good causes’ – causes that just happen to also be ‘good for the Jews’.

Now, let me address Femen’s preferred choice of ‘artistic’ venues. As you probably know, Post-Structuralism is pretty much a French philosophical school of thought and may be  defined as an attempt to dismantle all ‘grand narratives’ except the Jewish one. In concert with the spirit of the 68 students’ revolution and the Frankfurt Yeshiva, Femen are more than happy pull apart every French cultural heritage – except the Jewish ones. Just follow the money trail, those people who facilitated their move to France – the record label and the ANR who signed them. Surely, you’ll find the answers within just a few minutes.

Here is an interesting anecdote that may throw some light on the topic. It was recently pointed out to me that in spite of the fact that Jewish radicals despise the Talmud and the Rabbinical culture and have been caught burning many religious congregation houses, mainly churches in Spain and the Ukraine etc.,  they have never burned a single synagogue.

AU: People who support the right of Femen to blaspheme are often the same people who call for the banning of Dieudonné’s shows. Don’t you think that these kinds of double standards will lead people to rise up against the elite?

GA: No doubt at all, and as we see, it’s already happening.

AU: Former Israeli minister Shulamit Aloni, who recently passed away, once said that accusation of antisemitism is a “trick” used to shut down critics of Israeli policy:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLbtu0-mgvw  How do you explain the current weakness of the Israeli left?

GA: ‘Weakness’ is an understatement. The Israeli left is non-existent and for a good reason: Jewish Left is an oxymoron. While ‘Left’ is a universal concept, Jewishness is a tribally driven ideology. Even Aloni,  whom I admired, wasn’t exactly a ‘universalist’. She didn’t really campaign for the return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes and villages, she was mainly concerned with Israel being a ‘Jewish civilization’ as opposed to a universal one.

It is not a secret that the so-called ‘Jewish Left’ is in practice, a form of National Socialism. Those ‘radical’ Israeli leftists support a racially-driven ‘egalitarian’ philosophy – which applies to Jews only. In other words, they are full of contradictions so it’s hardly surprising that they are now pretty much extinct. On the other hand, right wing Israeli politics,  is as consistent as it is crudely unethical. It postulates that Jews are entitled to return to Palestine, and it draws on a vile, militaristic ideology and practice that aims to maintain this  Jewish hold on the land. Right-wing Zionist  leaders admit daily to not being ethical – but they justify their national project in terms of survival. Since Israel defines itself as the Jewish State, it is only natural for Israelis to identify with a consistently tribal right-wing ideology instead of some half-baked, convoluted and totally inconsistent (but always kosher), socialist clap-trap.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity politics and Jewish Power in particular – available on Amazon.com  Amazon.co.uk

Interview: Atzmon on Dieudonné, Alain Soral and Zionism

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/interview-atzmon-on-dieudonne-alain-soral-and-zionism.html

Interviewed by Alimuddin Usmani

http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah & ccun.org.

editor@aljazeerah.info editor@ccun.org

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2014/February/24%20o/Dieudonne,%20Alain%20Soral,%20and%20Zionism,%20Gilad%20Atzmon%20Interviewed%20By%20Alimuddin%20Usmani.htm

Truly Eggciting News from Fresno, Federal District Court, Missouri sues California over HHH (Humane Housing for Hens) as the Chicken Coop Wars begin in Fresno)

The bottom line to what follows is that: Chris Koster’s act in bringing suit on behalf of Missouri Chicken Producers against California for its Draconian Laws regulating Egg production exemplifies what Constitutional Law has become in the United States: the struggle over how “in how much detail shall the government control every aspect of life on earth.”  Nothing about human freedom or the original intent of the Constitution or Bill of Rights is anywhere NEAR as mainstream as this suit about the dormant or “negative commerce clause” which restricts what states can do to each other by way of the regulation of goods which truly do cross state boundaries in interstate business. 

There is so much that one could say about this news item and the new lawsuit filed underlying the news item.  You see, Human Beings are still being turned out of their homes in record numbers by residential home foreclosure, and so it is refreshing to see that an extremely well-framed and superbly presented lawsuit has been filed in the US Eastern District regarding the Constitutional Right to decent housing…. Trouble is, the Constitutional Rights to Housing at Issues are those which belong, if they exist at all to CHICKENS (laying Hens, to be precise—do I see a future sex discrimination issue here?)  Yes indeed, Fresno is a REALLY EGGCITING PLACE THESE DAYS.  Yes indeed it is, because it is the site of the latest Eggsample of the “Fruits and Nuts” madness which is the state of California colliding with the legal and value systems of other states.   Let me make this clear: I am not taking a position against humane conditions for Hens.  I am saying that only in this crazy place would there be stronger legislation protecting the right of hens to a decent home and secure place to live out their sad and miserably brooding lives than there is for humans.  The California laws in question in this lawsuit basically say something like “Give me your poor, your wretched  huddle masses of CHICKENS” to the rest of the United States and the World.  As a proud Homo Sapiens Sapiens, it makes me both sad and angry to see that human life and security take a second place to the mothers of all omelets….

California seeks to set the standard for the world in many things, and now it has expanded its world leadership to the field of telling everyone else in the world how to raise their chickens.   This is the news article in question: February 3 2014 Missouri attorney general challenges California egg law; claims it infringes on commerce – Yahoo Finance Canada.

Being who I am, (i.e. an extremely nerdy, crotchety old man with academic instincts) I was unsatisfied with the report of this article, even in Yahoo Canada, which typically offers more detailed presentations than US on-line articles.  I guess they have more time to read up in the cold northern wastelands, either that or the traditions of our grandparents haven’t been quite so thoroughly erased north of the 49th Parallel to the West and the Great Lakes to the East…. I have spent many happy months in both the French and British extremes of Canada (British Columbia and Quebec), although, in the middle, the University of Calgary was the seen of one of my most bitter disappointments and defeats in life…. but I digress.

It seems that Chris Koster, the current Attorney General of Missouri, third lineal successor in time and position to the infamous John Ashcroft (who was followed by Jay Nixon, William Webster, now Chris Koster), has filed a suit in Fresno, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, seeking a both injunction and declaratory injunction against Kamala D. Harris, the first lifeless  person sitting as “active” attorney general of the State of California, from ever enforcing certain California Statutes relating to the Humane Housing of Hens.  That’s “HHH” just like former Minnesota Senator, Vice-President, and 1968-72 miserably failing Presidential Candidate Hubert Horatio Humphrey (“once a fiery liberal spirit, ah but now when he speaks, he must “clear it”; second fiddle’s a hard part, I know, when they don’t even give you a bow”)—oh well, I show my age….  White Supremacists, similarly, like to salute each other “88” for “Heil Hitler”, so this would be California Initiative “888”….”Humane Housing for Hens”—I just can’t get over it.

On the positive side, I think Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster has done an exemplary job of framing and “front end loading” a complaint that will pass Bell Atlantic v. Twombley Scrutiny (2007 May 21 Bell Atlantic Corp v Twombly 550 US 544 127 SCT 1955 167 LED2d 929 (SCOTUS Rule 8 Pleading Standards 2007).

I have been advocating heavily “front end loaded” complaints for a long time, only because Twombly basically makes them mandatory.  Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster passes all aspects of the Twombly test, I think for over pleading and over-preparing one’s complaint, by attaching 14 Exhibits including several voluminous expert reports on the EGGSISTENTIAL matters of chicken housing and hen coops….  Because I think Koster’s Complaint is worthy of emulation, from a strictly practical standpoint, I attach it and all its exhibits here.

However, it continues to sadden me to think that California Hens have more legislators concerned about their welfare than California mothers who are being thrown out of their homes with children.  I think we live in a very sick society where “distraction issues” take precedence in the legislature over protecting fundamental rights such as THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THIER PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS AND EFFECTS.   The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures now truly takes a backseat, both in legislative enactment and now constitutional litigation, to these same rights imputed to HENS.  

Where are the California legislators seeking to protect the rights of California homeowners by abolishing non-judicial foreclosure?  Where are the  California Assembly’s investigations into the criminal deformation of common law and constitutional rights effected by mortgage finance lending and practice based on securitized and pooled notes?

Here is Chris Koster’s Complaint, followed by its 14 Exhibits—I recommend that EVERY COMPLAINT filed have at least 14 Exhibits these days… (13 being an unlucky number [both for Panem and the Confederate States of America], and 12 being just much too common a structural number—the number of months, the number of Apostles, etc.).  

REMEMBER FOLKS, THIS IS A STRUGGLE OVER THE FOLLOWING FUNDAMENTAL VALUES: THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE IN ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLED HAS GUARANTEED HEALTHFUL WHOLESOME EGGS FOR ALL THE HOMELESS PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA…. EVICTED, FORECLOSED, DESTITUTE BUT GUARANTEED TO BE EATING ONLY EGGS LAID BY HAPPY HENS…..OR NO EGGS AT ALL….

State of Missouri ex rel Chris Koster v Kamala D Harris AG Cal EDCAL FRESNO 2-14CV00341_DocketEntry_02-03-2014 Complaint

Missouri v Harris CIVIL COVER SHEET 3 February 2014 2-14CV00341_DocketEntry_02-03-2014_1

Missouri v Harris Exhibit A Aug-9 2007 %22Ballot Initiative-The California Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act%22 2-14CV00341_DocketEntry_02-03-2014_2-1

Missouri v Harris Exhibit B %22DETERMINATION OF SPACE USE BY LAYING HENS%22 UC DAVIS 2-14CV00341_DocketEntry_02-03-2014_2-2-2

Missouri v Harris Exhibit C %22ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS ON EGG-LAYING HOUSING IN CALIFORNIA%22 2-14CV00341_DocketEntry_02-03-2014_2-3

Missouri v Harris Exhibit D Assembly Bill 1437 Chapter 51+ EGGS FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION + 2-14CV00341_DocketEntry_02-03-2014_2-4

Missouri v Harris Exhibit E California Eggs Requirements 2015 in Fresno 2-14CV00341_DocketEntry_02-03-2014_2-5

Missouri v Harris Exhibit F %22ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF ALTERNATIVE CALIFORNIA EGG PRODUCTION SYSTEMS%22 2-14CV00341_DocketEntry_02-03-2014_2-6

Missouri v Harris Exhibit G %22RETAIL SALE OF SHELLED EGGS%22 Cal Health & Safety Code Sec 25996 2-14CV00341_DocketEntry_02-03-2014_2-7

Missouri v Harris Exhibit H %22Cal Admin Code Title 3 Sec 1350—Healthful & Wholesome Eggs in CA%22 2-14CV00341_DocketEntry_02-03-2014_2-8

Missouri v Harris Exhibit I %22Epidemiology of Salmonella infections in laying hens%22 2-14CV00341_DocketEntry_02-03-2014_2-9

Missouri v Harris Exhibit J %22The Effects of Housing Laying Hens as Groups in Conventional Cages%22 2-14CV00341_DocketEntry_02-03-2014_2-10

Missouri v Harris Exhibit K %22Shelled Eggs-Sale for Human Consumption-…animal care standards%22 2-14CV00341_DocketEntry_02-03-2014_2-11-2

Missouri v Harris Exhibit L %22Bill to Prohibit the Sale of Eggs for Human Consum if Hen was Caged%22 2-14CV00341_DocketEntry_02-03-2014_2-12

Missouri v Harris Exhibit M %222009 Bill to Prohibit Selling of Eggs Still in the Shell for Humans….%22 2-14CV00341_DocketEntry_02-03-2014_2-13

Missouri v Harris Exhibit N %22Schwarzenegger signs bill requiring %22humane%22 out of state eggs%22 2-14CV00341_DocketEntry_02-03-2014_2-14