#he is a definitive war criminal and must be judged in world court | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

tenjouu · 5 years

Text

revolvere (2/?)

facetious plot summary: Lancelot loses his magic upon traveling back in time to the day of Alice the Second’s arrival. How will he save the world equipped with only his winning looks and charisma? Read on to find out! lmao!

1 | 2 : delegations

This time around, Lancelot learns to delegate.

No wonder he couldn’t come up with any good plans once he’d entered office. He was overwhelmed with the work and never could ignore the impending doom of his world, so it affected his productivity in some ways. Work smarter, not harder.

His officers reluctantly write yesterday off as an ‘off-day’. He’s back to his aloof persona, which gets them off his case, but he hires two aides to deal with the sheer mountain of paperwork on his desk, which gets them kind of back on his case, but they can’t really say anything about it since they know how busy Lancelot is.

It’s not unreasonable to buckle under the pressure. And with the war brewing, his work literally increases tenfold. Lancelot doesn’t have anything to prove about being able to do all of it himself.

(“What?” Kyle would probably say, if you asked him about it. “He’s obviously an impostor. The real Lance would never pass up the chance to be unreasonable about his workload.”)

But Lancelot begrudgingly admits being king wouldn’t take nearly as long if he didn’t have to read all this shit. The glorious part about kingship is really nothing. Sometimes, he has inspections, meetings with foreign dignitaries, trips to the Civic Center, but those are few and far between.

His daily work is more like managing the salt directed at Hearts Quarter from the Diamonds (claiming political favoritism), charters for new institutions by nobles who have money, grievances and civil cases to be scheduled for later dates, his pet project of reforming the criminal system, marriage proposals from wealthy families within and outside of Cradle, requests for funding, requests for money, requests for more land, requests for a peace treaty—

Necessary, but some of these things are not quite like the others. The problem is that Lancelot never knows which ones he can throw out on first glance because no one reviews the documents before he does. But Lancelot doesn’t really have to address all of these himself.

(He repurposes an unused chamber room into a new office.

“Reject all of the marriage proposals but diplomatically,” he tells his new aides. “If the charters are for a good cause, accept them. I will give you a list of my scheduled council meetings, so arrange court dates as necessary. I don’t care for the time, but not after dinner. Assuage Diamonds Quarter that there’s no favoritism here; I have no patience for either faction and therefore cannot discriminate on principle.” He pauses. “Maybe don’t put it quite like that. If someone asks for an audience with the king, determine for yourself whether it’s of importance and respond. If you have any documents you’re unsure of, place them on my desk, or just ask me.”

The two of them stare at him with wide eyes. The woman looks a little stunned. The man is positively flabbergasted. He must’ve wrecked their impression of him irreparably.

Once again, zero fucks.

Lancelot turns to survey the massive towers on his desk.

“And utilize paper organizers,” he adds as an afterthought. “Label the bins so I know what is what.”)

All in a day’s work. Now that he doesn’t have to read all of those papers himself, he easily has time to join his officers for dinner.

So he does. He never particularly was good at fitting in during social functions, and he might have been too ashamed to do anything about it once before, but he finds himself no longer caring.

Among other things that he says to them, one of them is: “I’m ordering you all to hire aides if you need them.”

Apparently, that’s the straw that breaks the camel’s back, because Jonah finally confronts him after dinner.

“King Lancelot, forgive my forwardness, but recently…” He grits his teeth, clenching his fist in the hallway. Lancelot looks down, impassive. “…Have you been well? My understanding is that you have decided to hold off on annexing the Black Army, but you’ve changed…your usual modus operandi.”

Lancelot claps Jonah on the shoulder, and Jonah jerks from the contact. “I appreciate your concern, Jonah. But this isn’t a worse way to do things. What good is it for a single man to make all of the decisions? It’s good to have fresh, young opinions in the state. It’s the only way we can evolve.”

“Then, about the girl, Alice…?”

“I want her company, even if for just one day,” Lancelot says simply.

Jonah is rendered speechless.

“Now,” Lancelot reminds him gently, “hire an aide. And tell Edgar to as well. Or I’ll punish you two for direct disobedience.”

— . . . —

“I could retrieve Alice for you,” Edgar offers him, like how he had the first time.

Lancelot shakes his head. “You’re busy as is,” he says. “I trust that Sirius Oswald will follow through.” He turns a critical gaze to Edgar. “You heard from Jonah, I assume?”

Edgar is amused about the whole thing. “Well, if my king orders me to, then I can’t disobey,” he says amicably.

— . . . —

Kyle clearly thinks the whole thing is out of character, but he shrugs. “I don’t know what changed, but good for you, Lance,” he says supportively.

Zero hums in agreement.

— . . . —

So the whole magic thing is a bit of a problem.

He had some kind of guarantee of holding his own against Amon, figuring he would use the power vested in him to beat the hell out of that deluded, infantile megalomaniac, but now he’s as magically conductive as a plain rock. And that plan evidently didn’t turn out so well considering he regretfully took his final breath in Harr’s sturdy arms.

Everyone still thinks he can use magic, so he’ll let them think that. Amon’s due to check in on him in a few days, but Lancelot isn’t worried about the timing.

Sirius doesn’t disappoint. Not even a week after the Central Quarter confrontation, and Lancelot wants to laugh when he finds the Black Army’s Ace and Alice being escorted down the hallway by Zero. He keeps himself composed though as he offers Alice a cool smile. Sirius must’ve thought the offer was too good to pass up—and he must have realized that it was a show of trust. That Lancelot was testing him.

“He seriously never does that,” Godspeed mutters to her. “Stay on your guard.”

Alice looks uncertain, nods to her guard, and follows Lancelot into his office.

He closes the door behind him, unfazed by Godspeed’s challenging glare.

“Please sit,” he gestures to the chair before his desk. “I’ve already poured tea. And I’ve prepared your favorite desserts.”

Alice blinks down at the tray in surprise upon registering that the pastries are indeed her favorite. It’s not as if Lancelot was unobservant during her time in Red Headquarters. Edgar was always busying about, finding ways to smuggle in her favorite things. He’d offer to let Lancelot have some too.

“Thank you,” Alice says, tense as Lancelot takes the seat in front of her.

“Relax,” Lancelot says. “You’re here as a guest. You will not be harmed.”

Easier said than done, he thinks wryly as Alice tries and utterly fails to loosen up. He can understand maybe why—he wonders just exactly how Sirius convinced her to come. What was it he said? ‘I would like to get to know her better’?

“I like baking,” she blurts, tracing the rim of her tea cup.

“I know,” Lancelot hums. He definitely knows. She’s damn good at it too.

Alice makes a face, opening her mouth to no doubt follow up with something else out of the blue, in a misguided attempt to let Lancelot ‘know her better’, but Lancelot holds a hand up.

“I actually already know you quite well, Alice,” he says. She doesn’t look reassured—in fact, possibly even more apprehensive than before. “Maybe I should tell you more about myself instead.”

“Please do, King Lancelot,” she says, smiling stiffly, finally looking up.

Lancelot resists the urge to smile at the humor in this situation. She must have a direly wrong impression.

Well, here goes.

“Do you know of the Magic Tower?” he asks. She nods. That saves him the explanation then. “I plan to overthrow a man who is currently looking down from a very high place in there. I’d like your help in passing messages along to the Black Army. The peace treaty needs to be kept under wraps so that this man doesn’t suspect anything.”

“Oh, thank god,” Alice breathes. That’s her first instinctive reaction. Her second is to blush, delightfully red, when she remembers where she is. “Oh, that was terribly rude of me! I apologize—“

Lancelot laughs. “You did well to be wary of strange men,” he commends her, “but you’ll find that there are stranger men out there.”

Alice doesn’t look like she disagrees. But her eyes narrow thoughtfully.

“Forgive me for my forwardness, but...why should I believe you?”

“There’s something that I need to protect,” he says with iron resolve. “I cannot give up on the future of this country. Even if it costs my life, I will protect the people. In another world, I would have tried to go it alone.”

In another world, he did.

“But I think it would’ve turned out differently if I had been honest from the start. I’ve decided to place my faith in the strength of others.”

He inclines his head.

“I cannot make you believe me. I can only ask you to trust me.”

She has always been a good judge of character. She was so good for Edgar. Lancelot finds himself strangely relieved when she finally nods, eyes shining with determination. She believes him.

“I’m telling Ray and the others,” she says. “They’re the ones who can make an informed decision about this.”

“I expect no less,” he replies. “But you must keep the details of our deal from any spies. I’m sure there are bugs planted in Blackwell’s army, just as there are in mine. For now, only tell him and Sirius.”

Alice acknowledges his command and takes a sip from her tea. Peering over the rim of the cup, she asks curiously, “Why are you telling me all of this, King Lancelot? You asked me to trust you, but it seems you’ve risked quite a lot to trust me.”

“I have nothing to lose by telling you,” he responded. “Either the Black Army chooses to believe you or they dismiss your words as ludicrous and baseless. The master of the tower thinks I’m completely under his control, and I’ve built up quite the reputation for belligerence.”

“But you know Sirius will believe you, and Ray believes Sirius,” she muses.

He knew she was clever. He wishes more than ever she’d stay in Red Headquarters. Now that he thinks about it, before death, he was so busy preparing for the final confrontation that the amount of time he had was impossibly little.

He hadn’t seen her for four days then. Now that he thinks about it, he missed the Alice of his world. And if his officers—Jonah, Edgar, Zero, Kyle—were here, they would miss the brightness that Alice brought with her everywhere too. As it stands, he’s the only one in the Red Army who remembers and knows to mourn the loss of her company.

“And I’ve told you already,” Lancelot interjects, amused. “I know you quite well. I knew I could trust you. I even know your birthday.”

“I was going to ask about that, actually,” she gasps. “How do you know everything? Are you psychic? Does magic make you psychic?”

“If you want to think of it that way.”

Her eyes are wide with wonder when he brings up the next topic.

“You will be in even more danger now that I’ve brought you into the fold,” he warns. “We’ll need a believable story, and I already have someone in mind who will protect you from the tower since they’ve certainly caught wind of your existence.”

Knowing better than to disagree about needing protection, she simply accepts it with a nod.

“So I’m to play...the Red King’s lover, who is a ward of the Black Army?” she says slowly.

“It need not be reciprocated by you.” Lancelot has no intention, after all, of actually making a move on Alice. He won’t be stepping over his retainer’s toes in the matter. “Given the public perception of me, it would be laughable for you to fall in love with me. So instead, I suppose I’ll have to fall for you.”

Strangely, her face looks troubled. “King Lancelot, you don’t give yourself enough credit,” she says earnestly.

“Says the woman who came in dreading my declaration of undying love,” he shoots back.

She flushes. “That was before I got to know you better! No one in their right mind would agree immediately, no matter how beautiful the other person is!”

“Thank you, Alice,” he says, dry as sand. “I’m not against pretending that the infatuation is mutual. But it’s better for my reputation if these tea parties appear to be against your will.”

“Isn’t it worse for your reputation?”

“Don’t worry about that,” he replies, unconcerned. “I don’t care for bettering my reputation in the good way. Now, if Blackwell’s Ace asks what happened in here, tell him that you were absolutely disgusted by my arrogance and domineering personality.”

“King Lancelot,” she sighs at him in farewell. He notes that she’s taking the tray of pastries with her.

“Be sure to play your part,” he says, letting slip a trace of fondness.

“I will!” she says, pretending defiance when she opens the door.

“I’ll send for you,” he calls calmly as she closes it.

One of his favorite people, going.

He didn’t realize this is what it’s like to watch the back of a person who is leaving you before you can leave them.

It’s bittersweet.

Godspeed’s repulsed scowl is sour icing on the cake.

— . . . —

The guard that Lancelot has in mind is someone that he knows is powerful. Now that Lancelot actually has time after dinner on week days, he goes to the cat alley in Central Quarter and lies in wait.

Loki shows up without fail.

“Oh,” he says, surprised but also unimpressed. “The King of Hearts.”

His love for cats trumps his wariness of Lancelot, because he doesn’t flee on the spot. He lowers his basket of goodies and the felines swarm him.

A stray cat, enjoying the warmth of Lancelot’s lap and the gentle scritch-scratch of Lancelot’s fingers, is the only one who stays back.

“Didn’t know you liked cats, o’ king,” Loki adds, trying to draw a reaction, when Lancelot doesn’t say anything.

A king befitting Lancelot’s reputation might’ve spouted some pompous line like, ‘They’re elegant, clever little creatures.’

Lancelot opens his mouth and what comes out is, “They’re nice and soft.”

Loki makes no effort to conceal his jaw dropping. “Excuse me?”

He doesn’t take it back. “I like cats,” he says. “I didn’t think it was mutually exclusive with kingship.”

Loki shakes his head. “It isn’t. The Black—oh,” he cuts himself off emphatically, realizing what he was about to divulge.

“How’s Harr?” Lancelot prompts suddenly.

Loki narrows his eyes. “Fine,” he huffs, tetchy, and ignores Lancelot for the rest of the hour.

—

Lancelot kind of has a schedule though. He said he’d send for Alice in a few days to give her time to convince the other two, so he simply can’t wait for Sirius to put him in contact with Harr when the truce hasn’t even been officialized in secret yet.

Without magic, he can’t see past Harr’s invisibility barriers, and therefore he can’t possibly hope to navigate the forbidden forest and find him that way.

So he comes back to the alley two days in a row. This time, he’s the one bearing gifts. Food waste after dinner in the barracks is a big problem, after all. Another thing he’ll have to fix when he topples Amon’s reign in the shadows.

“Cheshire Cat,” he says. “I need to speak with Harr. Tell me where he is.”

“I don’t know,” Loki says, eyeing Lancelot’s payload. “You could check Central Quarter. Can’t you sense him with your magic?”

They both know if Harr doesn’t want to be found, then he won’t be. Lancelot wonders if he can lure Harr out somehow. He has no illusions that Loki is a cunning young man who could just as easily turn the tables on Lancelot. The sooner he’s put into contact with Harr the better.

So he leans close and says casually, “I no longer have magic. And save some of that for Harr.”

“I—I was planning to,” Loki snaps, his face transparent with shock.

— . . . —

He’s a genius.

Harr confronts him two days later.

#ft #ikerev fanfic #lancelot loves his friends #fic: lance changes the world #i'm on a roll!!!!#please enjoy lol #alice & lancelot solidarity #it's canon that lancelot was fond of alice in edgar's route #i guess i'm kind of basing this off of edgar's route then?#but i've literally said 'to hell with pacing' with this one post #harr will soon make his entrance as a hilariously comprehensively lost wizard who's trying to make heads or tails of his old friend lancelot #ready yourself for the harlance you know i only have one thing on my agenda #lancelot: the efficient worker

37 notes · View notes

naturalhairhairgrowth · 4 years

Text

Is Religion Even Necessary?

So you have heard them all, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, New Age, etc. etc., a denomination of this, a denomination of that. Every religion at war with each other, fighting over who’s religion is the right religion. So much confusion! There is only one GOD Almighty and not all of these people holding different beliefs could possibly be right, let’s be honest. Every single one of us have blood flowing through our veins, two legs, the same types of day to day challenges, etc. and we will all be headed to the same place after leaving this earth just like we were all put on this same earth together. We all came into this world the same way, from the same GOD Almighty, and we will all go out the same, to either one of two places created by GOD Almighty, Heaven or Hell. (Where will you go?) So let’s get to the truth of the matter. If all religions take away from the Holy Bible, then why not just rely on what the Holy Bible says? Why make our own rules and traditions? Religion is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements.

So let’s examine things for a moment. Since all religions take something from the Holy Bible then let’s look at the Holy Bible. The KJV (King James Version) Holy Bible to be exact; said to be the best translation, closest to the original, with nothing added or removed as most other translations these days have. There is either scripture missing or added with words that give the scriptures a whole new meaning entirely. Who said we wanted ‘your’ opinion sir, just give it to us straight, right. The Holy Bible gives us the daily instructions (commandments from GOD) that we need to be 'truly’ good people, so the world flows smoothly. Yet people believe religion is necessary for that; have they not taken a look around the world and seen that their way isn’t working?

People have formed the Christianity religion, so most people look at the Holy Bible as a Christian religious book, but is this a fact? You will find that the Holy Bible doesn’t mention anything at all about needing to belong to a certain religion or following traditions of men. It speaks against that in fact. (Mark 7:7-9, Colossians 2:8 KJV). Being a Christian simply means to be Christ-like, an actual follower of Jesus Christ; nothing about the religion and traditions they have formed which in most cases do not even match up with the Holy Bible. Must be why most self-professing Christians blend right in with the world. Jesus Christ and His disciples didn’t form any religious group. They simply went around preaching “Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 4:17 KJV), baptizing, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. They taught the 'Word of GOD’, Who by the way is the Creator of all things, as if His Word isn’t sufficient enough. The bible says “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Revelation 22:18-19 KJV. Sounds like serious business. These people may want to think twice about removing and adding words to scripture.

It’s broken down quite simple. Jesus Christ came and died for our sins because all sin has to be paid for, requiring a sacrifice. All we are required to do is show 'in action’ we believe in Him by being baptized in water (full body immersion, not sprinkled) where we will receive the Holy Spirit, which without we cannot get into heaven, according to John 3:5 KJV. We then must walk in “newness of life”; meaning, turning away from sin and walking how Jesus commands us, according to Romans 6:4 KJV. The scripture is clear in Revelation 14:12 KJV. “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus”. So who made up this thing that “we don’t have to keep the commandments anymore”, or that “it’s ok to sin”, or “once saved, always saved”? The oh-so-famous sinner’s prayer is nowhere in the Holy Bible. Yes, that’s right folks, saying a simple prayer will not, I repeat, will not save you!

Have you ever met the over-righteous religious person who has their nose stuck up in the air like they were born perfect and never made a mistake in life? How about the religious person who goes as far as hating others because they see they are in a certain type of sin? How about the religious self-professing Christian who looks no different from the rest of the world; watches worldly TV series, listens to vulgar music, parties, drinks, uses drugs, uses foul language, thinks their own personal opinion on scripture matters, etc. etc. How about the religious person who believes because they show up to church on Sunday (not even the true Sabbath according to GOD -Exodus 20:8-10 KJV) that they will make it to heaven, as if heaven is earned by how many church services you show up to or claiming to be a “good person” in your own eyes. Most of these people never even pick up a bible and read it! These types of people are called hypocrites and satan loves them because they cause others confusion and discouragement; mission accomplished, satan just caused another to walk away from the gospel of Jesus Christ, causing them to lose Salvation.

Let’s look back at the person calling themselves “a good person”. Can you imagine two criminals in court giving the judge their own personal opinions as to why they are a good person and should get away with a crime. That wont work in court with a judge, they will have to pay for the crime; neither will it work with GOD when we face HIM on judgement day. You don’t say the judge isn’t loving because he punished a criminal, you respect his judgment. So why do people say GOD isn’t loving because HE will do the same? HE is the Ultimate JUDGE, THE JUDGE over the judge. We have to play by HIS rules just like we have to play by the rules of this land. So remember; be baptized, receive the Holy Spirit, turn from sin and repent, obey GOD and Jesus, and walk in His ways to make it to heaven.

Too many people are too busy following passions and obsessions in this world; TV series, video games, celebrities, careers, movies, worldly music, school, night life, sports, activities, relationships, etc, etc. Sure, SOME of the things mentioned are fine to do, but for most it totally consumes their entire life, this is all that’s on their mind 24/7 making no time or consideration for their relationship with their Creator. The list goes on and on, satan has thousands of ways to distract us and keep our attention and focus off of GOD and Jesus Christ our Saviour.

The Holy Bible says clearly that satan is the deceiver and the author of confusion (“For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” 1 Corinthians 14:33 KJV “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” Revelation 12:9 KJV) and he has been appointed hell, he is extremely angry, hates GOD’s creation and wants to take as many of us down with him as he possibly can. What better way to do that than confuse people with a bunch of different religions, leading them away from accepting Jesus Christ. Again, sin has to be paid for, and without Jesus Christ as your Sacrifice you have to do the time, and follow the one you followed in this world (satan) to the same place he is going, hell. So it’s time we wake up, stop being lazy, and read the Holy Bible. There are thousands and thousands of accounts of the Holy Bible being true with prophecy coming to pass, people having near death experiences and actually going to heaven and hell, people having spiritual experiences, seeing Jesus and spirits, receiving healing and miracles in the Name of Jesus Christ, experiencing GOD working in their daily lives, etc. etc.

So now we can see clearly that religion most definitely in fact is NOT necessary. Tell satan he can keep his confusion, GOD’s Word is sufficient for you, that he might be getting over on the majority of the world but no longer over on you! How wicked satan is to deceive us in such a way; not to mention all the other things he puts us through constantly: fear, worry, depression, suicidal thoughts, illness, death, anger, sadness, the list goes on and on. According to 2 Timothy 1:7 KJV “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” Wow, what a wicked devil, is there really any wonder he’s headed to the lake of fire. We can say Thank GOD Almighty for that and mostly Thank GOD and Jesus Christ for His Sacrifice, the Ultimate Love.

#Truth #Jesus Christ #KJV Holy Bible #GOD #Jesus #religion #false religion #false doctrines #doctrines of men #REAL Christians

1 note · View note

dispatchesfrom2020 · 3 years

Text

2020

Week 39: September 21-27

21: The Manhattan District Attorney’s office suggests they are investigating Trump and his businesses over tax and insurance fraud. Their office has spent years fighting with Trump’s legal team to obtain the president’s tax returns for a grand jury investigation. In 2019, Trump’s lawyers argued before a federal court that the president was immune from criminal investigations but, in a 7-2 decision this July, the Supreme Court disagreed. Justice John Roberts, in the majority opinion, wrote. “No citizen, not even the president, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding”.

In Santa Fe, New Mexico, Dimid Hayes built a memorial in their front yard, updating it weekly with new deaths. The United States is home to 1 in 5 of the world’s casualties - Ramsay de Give for The New York Times

22: Cindy McCain, the widow of Arizona senator and one-time Republican nominee John McCain, formally endorses Biden for President. The American coronavirus death toll surpasses 200,000. Brazil, another world-leader in cases and deaths, will be hitting 140,000 by the end of the week.

23: Kentucky’s Attorney General, Daniel Cameron, announces the results of a grand jury investigation into the police killing of Breonna Taylor. Cameron claims that the jurors agreed that the shooting was “justified” - none of the policemen involved her death will face murder charges. One officer, the recently-fired Brett Hankinson, faces felony charges of wanton endangerment. Hankinson sprayed the apartment building with gunfire during the arrest, nearly striking a woman and her small daughter sleeping in the neighbouring unit. Protesters gather immediately to demand justice - protesters are quick to point out that Hankinson shot at Taylor 10 times, but will only be charged for the bullets that missed. In coming weeks, three jury members will come forward to contradict Cameron’s account of the grand jury hearings. The jurors allege they were never presented with the option of pursuing homicide charges and were only asked to evaluate the possibility of charging Haninson with wanton endangerment. The jurors are angry at what they see as a miscarriage of justice - and accuse Cameron of misleading the public. By the end of the month, jurors will file a court motion to release the transcripts from the investigation to the public.

Protesters comfort each other following Attorney General Daniel Cameron’s announcement that Kentucky will not be charging any of the officers responsible for the death of Breonna Taylor. Members of the Grand Jury Investigation allege Cameron mislead the public about their findings - Brandon Bell/Getty Images.

24: Trump refuses to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses the November election, instead saying “We’re going to see what happens”. (January 2021: 👀) . Ruth Bader Ginsburg lies in state, becoming the first woman and first Jewish-American to receive this high honour. Ginsburg’s personal trainer of 20 years, Bryant Johnson, does push-ups beside her casket in a moving tribute to the Justice that definitely made me cry. Ginsburg adopted a firm exercise routine after being diagnosed with colon cancer in 1999. Peep these iconic shots of her doing bicep curls in a “Super Diva” sweatshirt.

Members of congress pay their last respects to Ginsburg, as her casket is carried down the steps of the US Capitol - Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post

25: A federal court rules that the census must continue until the end of October. Trump and his team had sought to end the counts a month early on September 30. Judge Lucy Koh sided with civil rights groups and local governments who argued that moving the deadline was motivated by a desire to undercount people of colour, immigrants, and other oppressed minority groups. The census data is used to allocate congressional seats - undercounting could lead communities of colour to unfairly receive fewer seats, skewing their representation in the House. It isn’t the first time the seemingly-mundane task of citizen-counting has made headlines under Trump. He tried to add a citizenship question to the census, however, opponents argued this would cause lower response rates among immigrants and non-citizens. Supreme Court of the United States blocked the addition of the question in a 5-4 ruling in 2019

Does this look like a good idea to you? Like, any of this? - Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

26: Trump announces Amy Coney Barrett as his nominee to the Supreme Court to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat. Coney Barrett is a hardline conservative and newly-minted federal judge. She follows closely in the shadow of her mentor, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a textualist. She served as one of Scalia’s clerks. Republicans, who scuttled Obama’s judicial picks during his last year of office under the guise that it was an election year and voters should decide who fills the seat, will gleefully race to confirm her in the coming days, cementing conservatives majority in the judiciary. She - and I can’t stress this enough - really sucks. But there is something deeply funny about the fact that the Rose Garden ceremony introducing Barrett will always be remembered as the nucleus of the White House COVID outbreak. Maskless Republicans pack onto the lawn shoulder-to-shoudler, shaking hands and mugging for photos. In coming days at least eight attendees will test positive for the virus - including the President and First Lady, Senators Mike Lee and Thom Tillis, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a journalist, and a former Counselor to the President and mom-to-rising-star-of-the-tiktok-generation Kellyanne Conway.

27: Armenia and Azerbaijan looked poised for war over the disputed Artsakh region. This Armenian-dominated separatist enclave is nestled deep in the heart of Azerbaijan - and is the site of renewed border skirmishes. According to security experts from the West, it seems likely that Azerbaijan struck first, attacking several major Artsakh cities and killing at least seven civilians. Azerbaijan’s president announces that they are preparing to invade Artsakh - they are hoping to regain territories lost to the Armenian province during their 1993-1994 war.

#2020 recap

0 notes

expatimes · 4 years

Photo

Pence, Harris address racism, Supreme Court, COVID-19 in debate

Pence, Harris met for the sole vice-presidential debate of the 2020 campaign.

Susan Page of USA Today moderated the debate from Salt Lake City, Utah.

Their meeting came amid President Donald Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis.

Plexiglass was installed between the candidates as a precaution.

Trump and Joe Biden are scheduled to debate for a second time on October 15 in Miami, Florida.

Hello and welcome to Al Jazeera’s continuing coverage of the vice presidential debate between Vice President Mike Pence and Democrat Kamala Harris, with Al Jazeera Americas senior editor Jennifer Glasse, political editor Steve Chaggaris, William Roberts, Creede Newton and debate analyst Alan Schroeder.

22:51 ET – Analysis: A far more thoughtful discussion

From Al Jazeera Managing Business Editor Patricia Sabga: After the subterranean bar set by the first debate between President Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden, the VP debate offered Americans a far more thoughtful discussion of policy differences.

When it came to economic policy, American voters were offered competing plans underscoring competing ideologies.

Pence pitched Trump’s formula of tax cuts, rolling back regulations and cracking down on “unfair” trading practices as the best medicine for reviving the pandemic-hit economy.

He also said market forces would spur innovations to deal with the challenges of a changing climate. Harris, by contrast, touched on the highlights of Biden’s Build Back Better plan for reviving the economy – a blueprint that includes hiking taxes on the wealthy and corporations, investing $2 trillion in clean energy, improving child and elder care and using the hand of government to spur innovation and create well-paying union jobs.

Trump’s approach will resonate with champions of free markets, while Biden’s plan will appeal to those who want government policy that aims to redress long-standing and now widening inequalities. There are benefits and drawbacks to both approaches.

So much depends on how they are executed – an ultimately, whether the next president can get lawmakers on Capitol Hill on board with their economic policies. After all, it’s not the president who controls taxes and spending. It’s Congress.

US Vice President Mike Pence and Democratic vice presidential nominee and US Senator Kamala Harris covered a range of subjects in the 90-minute debate [Morry Gash/Pool via Reuters]

22:25 ET – Harris, Pence spar on race, justice

The candidates were asked if justice was served in the case of Breonna Taylor, a Black woman who was fatally shot by Louisville police in a botched raid, and Harris and Pence got into a deeper back-and-forth on race and justice.

“I was a part of those peaceful protests,” Harris responded, referring to protests against racial injustice that began after the death of George Floyd, who died in Minneapolis Police custody two months after Taylor. “And I believe strongly, that first of all, we are never going to condone violence, but we always must fight for the values we hold dear.”

Pence said about the Taylor case, in which a grand jury didn’t indict any of the officers on charges directly related to her death, “I trust our justice system, a grand jury that refused the evidence. And it really is remarkable that as a former prosecutor, you would assume that an empanelled grand jury looking at all the evidence got it wrong.”

Protesters march against racial injustice and for Black women following the grand jury decision in Louisville’s Breonna Taylor case, in Denver, Colorado, [Kevin Mohatt/Reuters]

With regards to George Floyd, Pence said, “there’s no excuse for what happened to George Floyd and justice will be served. But there’s also no excuse for the rioting and looting that followed.”

“The presumption that you hear consistently from Joe Biden and Kamala Harris that America is systemically racist and, as Joe Biden said, that he believes that law enforcement has an implicit bias against minorities… is an insult to the men and women that serve in law enforcement.”

22:22 ET – Kamala Harris defends her record as a prosecutor against Pence attack

“When you were DA in San Francisco, when you left, African Americans were 19 times more likely to be prosecuted for minor drug offences than Whites and Hispanics. When you were attorney general of California, you increased the disproportionate incarceration of Blacks in California,” Pence said.

Harris responded, “I will not be lectured by the vice president on our record of what we have done in terms of law enforcement and keeping our community safe and a commitment to reforming the criminal justice system of America,” said Harris, who was the attorney general of California and district attorney of San Francisco before running for Senate in 2016.

22:22 ET – Analysis: Harris highlights Trump’s trade war cost US factory jobs

From Al Jazeera Managing Business Editor Patricia Sabga: Harris also took aim at the US-China trade war, claiming Trump has lost the trade war – that if the goal was to create more US manufacturing jobs, then the trade war backfired because US factory jobs and output started declining after his administration started slapping tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of Chinese imports.

But though saving US factory jobs was clearly an overriding goal, it was not the only one for the Trump administration.

Trump had a long list of grievances against China. Among the top ones: the administration has accused Beijing of intellectual property theft. It also wants to stop Beijing’s practise of forcing US companies to transfer technological know-how to Chinese firms as a condition for doing business there.

22:21 ET – Pence, Harris dispute validity of Judge Barrett’s nomination to Supreme Court and confirmation process

“The American people are voting right now, and it should be their decision about who is serving on (the Supreme Court) for a lifetime,” Harris said.

President Trump has nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the US Supreme Court and the Republican-led Senate is moving forward quickly with her confirmation. Democrats argue the nomination to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg falls to whoever wins the election.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, attends a meeting with Republican Senator Kevin Cramer on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC [File: Erin Scott/Pool via Reuters]

Pence warned that the Democrats are planning to pack the Supreme Court if they win the election.

“If they somehow win this election, men and women, I gotta tell you people across this country, if you cherish our Supreme Court, if you cherish the separation of powers, you need to reject the Biden-Harris ticket come November,” Pence said.

22:15 ET – Analysis: Stretch to solely blame Trump policies for all COVID-19 job losses

From Al Jazeera Managing Business Editor Patricia Sabga: Harris pointed out that Trump could leave office with more jobs being lost on his watch than were created. This could happen. However, it is a stretch to solely blame Trump’s policies for the massive job losses that resulted from the pandemic.

Because it was not just the US economy that tanked. The global economy tanked. Case in point – tens of thousands of US energy jobs were lost to the pandemic because global demand for crude oil plummeted.

22:12 ET – Uninvited guest crashes debate stage

22:12 ET – Analysis: Kudos to the moderator

Al Jazeera debate analyst Alan Schroeder: “Moderator Susan Page of USA Today has done an excellent job keeping this debate on track. Furthermore, her questions have been very well framed. This doesn’t mean the questions are always being answered, but it is clear she has thought very carefully about what she wants to ask.”

22:00 ET – Harris slams Trump for putting US troops at risk in Soleimani attack, failing to address Russian bounties in Afghanistan

“After the strike on Soleimani, there was a counterstrike on our troops in Iraq and they suffered serious brain injuries,” Harris said.

“And do you know what? Donald Trump dismissed them as headaches. And this is about a pattern of Donald Trump’s, where he has referred to our men who are serving in our military as suckers and losers,” Harris said.

She also charged that Trump does not “care” about reports Russia had put “bounties on the heads of American soldiers” in Afghanistan and failed to confront Russia Vladimir Putin about it.

Democratic vice presidential nominee and US Senator Kamala Harris speaks during the 2020 vice presidential debate [Justin Sullivan/Pool via Reuters]

21:55 ET – Harris: Trump ‘doesn’t understand what it means to be honest’

Harris was asked what her “definition of the role of American leadership” is in 2020 and she swiped at Trump’s foreign policy record.

“You gotta keep your word to your friends. You gotta know who your adversaries are and keep them in check. He has betrayed our friends and embraced dictators around the world,” Harris said.

“It’s about relationships. We keep our word, but Donald Trump doesn’t understand that because he doesn’t understand what it means to be honest.”

In his response, Pence referenced Kayla Mueller, who was kidnapped and killed by ISIL (ISIS) and whose family was in the audience at the invitation of Pence. He blamed the Obama administration, and Biden, for not acting to save her life.

“When Joe Biden was vice president, we had an opportunity to save Kayla Mueller,” Pence responded, adding that her family believes “If President Trump had been president … Kayla would be alive today.”

21:50 ET – Pence blames China for the coronavirus outbreak

“China and the World Health Organization did not play straight with the American people,” Pence said.

“They did not let our personnel into China to get information on the coronavirus until the middle of February,” Pence continued.

Mike Pence is doing GREAT! She is a gaffe machine.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 8, 2020

Biden opposed Trump’s decision to restrict flights from China, claiming it was “hysterical”, Pence said

21:48 ET- Harris challenges Pence on Trump’s handling of trade with China

The president lost his trade fight with China and has lost more jobs than any other US president, Harris said, leaving young Americans coming out of college worrying about whether they will be able to find jobs and many Americans worrying about paying rent.

“This is where the economy is right now, and it is because of the catastrophe and the failure of this administration,” Harris said.

Pence retorted that Trump took on a fight with China that “Joe Biden never fought”.

21:46 ET – Analysis: Pence and Harris spin different narratives of Trump’s pre-COVID economy

From Al Jazeera Managing Business Editor Patricia Sabga: Pence and Harris spun different narratives of Trump’s pre-COVID economy.

Harris said Trump passed a tax bill that benefited the rich. While the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act did benefit the wealthy more than low and middle-income workers, it did cut taxes for American households up and down the income scale.

Pence credited Trump’s policies, including tax cuts, regulatory rollbacks and a crackdown on trade practices the Trump administration considers “unfair”, for the economy’s strength pre-COVID.

But the jury is out on how much tax cuts have contributed to pre-COVID growth. Moreover, manufacturing jobs and factory output started to decline after Trump launched a trade war with China in 2018.

Democratic vice presidential nominee Senator Kamala Harris and US Vice President Mike Pence participate in their 2020 vice presidential campaign debate on October 7, 2020 [Brian Snyder/Reuters]

21:45 ET – Analysis: The candidates’ facial expressions

Al Jazeera debate analyst Alan Schroeder: “The tight shots of the candidates tell two very different visual stories: Pence is tight-mouthed, and his eyes regularly flash with anger. Harris beams and seems amused, even when under attack.”

21:40 ET – Fact check: Pence’s claim that the US has the cleanest air and land ever

Pence again claimed something President Trump regularly claims: “According to all of the best estimates, our air and land are cleaner than any time ever recorded, among the cleanest in the world.”

That’s mostly false, according to fact-checking organisation PolitiFact.“No ranking places the United States at the top of their list for cleanliness,” they conclude.

No, the United States isn't the cleanest country. Trump has said this in the past. It's Mostly False: https://t.co/kp3bJhURhp #VPDebate

— PolitiFact (@PolitiFact) October 8, 2020

21:35 ET – Analysis: Compliments as a debate staple

“Saying something nice about your opponent, as Pence did in congratulating Harris on the ‘historic nature’ of her nomination, has become a feature of debates in recent years,” says Al Jazeera debate analyst Alan Schroeder.

“It’s not a bad idea, especially in a time of polarisation – and especially after Trump’s nastiness toward Biden last week.”

21:33 ET – ‘You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts’

21:33 ET – Pence warns Joe Biden would raise Americans’ taxes, Harris corrects him

“On day one, Joe Biden is going to raise your taxes,” Pence said.

“Joe Biden and Kamala Harris want to raise taxes. They want to bury our economy under a $2-trillion ‘Green New Deal’,” Pence said, by banning fracking and fossil fuels.

Harris said Biden has declared he would not raise taxes on Americans making less than $400,000 a year in income.

21:30 ET – Analysis: Pence’s difficult coronavirus task

“Pence has an almost impossible job defending the White House’s response to the pandemic,” Al Jazeera debate analyst Alan Schroeder argues, “but when he uses a phrase like ‘you’ll always be in our hearts and prayers,’ it’s more insulting than comforting.”

21:25 ET – Pence addresses questions about Rose Garden event

The White House Rose Garden event where President Trump announced Amy Coney Barrett as his Supreme Court nominee has been pinpointed as the event responsible for the spread of coronavirus among the White House staff.

Pence addressed that, arguing that holding the event, despite the risks, is about “respecting freedom”.

“President Trump and I trust the American people to make choices in the best interest of their health. And Joe Biden and Kamala Harris consistently talk about mandates, not just mandates with the coronavirus, but a government takeover health care, the green new deal all government control. We are about freedom and respecting the freedom of the American people,” Pence said.

Harris shot back: “Let’s talk about respect of the American people. You respect the American people when you tell them the truth. You respect the American people when you have the courage to be a leader speaking of those things that you may not want people to hear but they need to hear, so they can protect themselves.”

21:15 ET – Pence says President Trump ‘put the health of America first’

“I want the American people to know that the American people to know that from the very first day, President Donald Trump has put the health of America first,” Pence said.

US Vice President Mike Pence and Democratic vice presidential nominee and US Senator Kamala Harris take part in the 2020 vice presidential debate [Justin Sullivan/Pool via Reuters]

“President Donald Trump did what no other American president had ever done. That was, he suspended all travel from China, the second-largest economy in the world. Now, senator, Joe Biden opposed that decision.”

21:20 ET – Pence accuses Harris of ‘playing politics’ with US development of a vaccine

Pence, instead of answering the second question on the role of the vice president, scolded Harris for saying she did not trust the Trump administration’s accelerated efforts to develop a vaccine for the coronavirus.

“The reality is we are going to have a vaccine in record time,” Pence said, telling Harris to “Stop playing politics with people’s lives”.

“Senator Harris, please stop undermining Americans’ confidence in a vaccine,” Pence said.

21:12 ET – Analysis: Harris’ debate strategy

Al Jazeera debate analyst Alan Schroeder: “In her first answer, Kamala Harris previews how she will argue her case: Start with a strong, detailed critique of the Trump administration, then pivot to how a Biden administration would do better.

“This ‘two-for-one’ style of responding is something candidates practice in their mock debate sessions.”

21:05 ET – Kamala Harris says US has witnessed ‘greatest failure’ by Trump on COVID-19

The first question from moderator Susan Page went to Senator Kamala Harris on the coronavirus pandemic. “What would a Biden administration do in January and February that a Trump administration wouldn’t do?” Page asked.

“The American people have witnessed what is the greatest failure of any administration in our country,” Harris responded, adding that the Trump administration “knew” how serious the coronavirus threat was and “covered it up.”

“They minimised the seriousness,” Harris said. Joe Biden has “a national strategy for testing and contacting tracing” that would be implemented, Harris said.

21:00 ET – Moderator announces ground rules for audience

Susan Page of USA Today will be moderating tonight’s debate and, prior to the start, she asked the audience to hold their applause throughout.

“This debate is not about you and me. It is about the millions of Americans who will be watching it,” Page said. “During the debate, please do not cheer, boo, hiss, or laugh.”

“And if you could send me some good karma, that would be appreciated,” she quipped. “But quietly.”

20:35 ET – Inside the debate hall

Tonight’s debate is taking place in Kingsbury Hall at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. The pool reporter inside describes the set -up there: “The stage is set up with three desks and chairs set about 12 feet apart for the two candidates and the moderator, separated by plexiglass screens… Some 20 seats for guests are set up in front of the stage, at least 6ft (1.8m) apart.”

A member of the production staff holds a seating chart while labelling chairs appropriately spaced apart ahead of the vice presidential debate [Julio Cortez/AP Photo]

The University of Utah selected 60 students via a lottery to sit in the audience, and the tickets they distributed included a liability waiver for the Commission on Presidential Debates and the university regarding coronavirus: “The ticket holder relieves the CPD and the event site host of any and all liability … including in the event of … sickness (including Covid-19).”

20:10 ET – This is the third male-female VP debate; the first had some tension

In 1984, the first-ever general election debate between male and female candidates proved treacherous for then-Vice President George HW Bush, Al Jazeera debate analyst Alan Schroeder notes. About halfway through the debate, opponent Geraldine Ferraro delivered a soundbite that resonated with millions of American women: “I almost resent, Vice President Bush, your patronising attitude that you have to teach me about foreign policy.”

For the remainder of the debate, Bush never regained his footing.

Vice President George HW Bush, left, shakes hands with Democratic vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro before the beginning of their debate in Philadelphia, October 11, 1984 [File: Gene J Puskar/AP Photo]

20:00 ET – Women organise watch parties to root for Harris

Various women’s groups around the US will gather as Kamala Harris, the first woman of colour on a major ticket, takes the debate stage tonight.

Activist groups, college associations and individuals around the country have organised mostly online “watch parties” as Harris debates US Vice President Mike Pence.

“I really can tell that Kamala is ready,” said Rahdiah Barnes, president of the National Association for Multi-Ethnicity in Communications in New York, which pushes for diversity in media, who has organised a watch party. “This is history. She has something to prove, and I’ve heard her say a couple of things over the past couple days, so I can know that she’s getting ready for war.”

19:45 ET – Battling over details in the time of coronavirus

Vice President Pence’s campaign initially rejected the proposal to have plexiglass barriers between the candidates as a coronavirus precaution, but later relented.

Pre-debate haggling about production details dates all the way back to the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debates, points out AlJazeera.com debate analyst Alan Schroeder. In past years, on-site negotiators have battled about lighting, lecterns, room temperature, reaction shots – even the colour of the background. Who could have imagined that, in 2020, the dispute would involve plexiglass?

Members of the production crew on stage near plexiglass barriers put up to guard against the spread of COVID-19 as preparations tare finalised for the vice presidential debate [Patrick Semansky/AP Photo]

19:30 ET – Tonight’s debate takes on heightened importance

Even if Donald Trump had not become the international poster child for COVID-19, he was always destined to loom over the vice-presidential debate, especially after his disastrous opening encounter with Joe Biden, writes presidential debate expert Alan Schroeder.

Now, the president’s illness and the uncertainty shrouding the state of his health present Republican running mate Mike Pence with a tricky challenge. It also complicates the task of Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, leaving her with a delicate line to walk. Even in absentia, even from his sickbed, Trump looms over centre stage at the vice-presidential debate.

#world Read full article: https://expatimes.com/?p=11581&feed_id=9107

0 notes

illionoisprelawland-blog · 4 years

Text

Give that Statue Back! On Cultural Repatriation

By Jennifer Kuo, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Class of 2020

June 27, 2020

Italian prosecutor Paolo Ferri, world-renowned for recovering millions of dollars’ worth of ancient cultural artifacts throughout his career, passed away last week at age 72. His legal career began in the role of judge’s magistrate and public prosecutor, but he eventually found his calling in the Italian Ministry of Culture, leading 17 years of “subpoenas, raids, arrests, and trials” to recover trafficked Greco-Roman artifacts. Most notably, he was responsible for recovering the “Medici archives,” a collection of pillaged art housed in the Geneva Free Port, and indicting prominent museum figures such as Marion True and Robert E. Hecht Jr. for art trafficking [1].

The word “trafficking” often conjures up images of dark trucks smuggling bricks of hard drugs and stacks of cash. Rarely does one imagine a worldwide black market of Grecian urns and marble busts. However, in terms of dollar amount, the illegal art trade is the third largest international criminal market, only behind firearms and narcotics [2]. Much of this trade is focused on antiquities and has led to legal implications in the protection of archaeological sites and cultural heritage internationally. The question of cultural repatriation or restitution has been heavily discussed over the past century as the world reckons with the issues of colonialism and national identity.

The governing body behind international law of protection of cultural property and repatriations is UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). Specifically, the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property treaty, which was ratified and adopted by 140 member countries, has become the key set of guidelines for such affairs internationally. The treaty formally defined what “cultural property” is classified as, broadening it to include, among other things, “property related to history,” “antiquities more than one hundred years old,” “property of artistic interest,” “objects of paleontological interest,” and any other object that “is specifically designated by each State.” This broader definition allows for a more flexible application of the term and gives nations more autonomy to decide for themselves what property is considered of cultural and historical importance. Most importantly, the treaty allows for countries to seek repatriation for lost cultural property [3]. However, the treaty is merely prospective; for real action to occur, legislation must be implemented by countries.

The American Bar Association has noted a positive trend in museums and other art institutions acknowledging their heritage of looting and illicit art commerce and repatriating when applicable. For years, many art collectors argued that the pieces were better off in the care of major museums rather than their home countries, especially when such countries are third-world or war-torn. The cultural shifts just preceding and following the 1970 Convention has given major art institutions bad PR for unlawful possession of looted items, and legislation has empowered home countries to finally reclaim cultural property. The illicit trade of art and artifacts has come to be seen as another ugly side effect of colonialism by countries that generally have held the most colonial power. The British Museum, for example, has seen major protests worldwide and domestically regarding its refusal to repatriate a group of statues looted from the Parthenon of Athens, per British law that prohibits removal of objects from the museum’s collection [4].

Beyond an explicit refusal to repatriate cultural property, repatriation has faced multiple challenges and controversy since the mid twentieth century despite international agreements such as the 1970 Convention. Artifact-rich countries that suffer the most from looting generally take two legal approaches to protect their cultural property: banning an export of artifacts and nationalizing artifacts found within borders. For example, Egypt has passed a law that requires all artifacts recovered from excavations in the country to be deposited in the National Museum of Cairo rather than exported [5]. However, the breadth of these laws makes for near-impossible enforcement, as ownership claims are often overly vague. There are many examples of conflicts between such laws of artifact-rich countries and a country like the United States, which is considered a “market country” that benefits from artifacts originating in other countries. The 1983 Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, the American interpretation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, gave the U.S. Department of State broad interpretation powers of what legislation from other countries regarding the protection of cultural property to follow [6]. For example, in the 1987 court case Peru vs. Johnson, the country of Peru claimed state legal ownership of eighty-nine artifacts in the possession of collector Benjamin Johnson and sued Johnson for smuggling the items out of the country. The Peruvian government used the Supreme Decree of February 27, 1985, which states that artistic objects are “part of the national cultural wealth” and that removal of such objects from the country is “categorically forbidden,” to pursue the suit. However, District Judge William P. Gray writes in the memorandum of the decision that such decrees only imply protection and not explicit ownership and have no more power than a simple export restriction. While the United States has an obligation to enforce claims of ownership in prevention of theft, it has none to enforce Peru’s export laws. Furthermore, it could not be established when the archaeological objects were excavated and exported and if they were excavated and exported after the year which such statutes were enacted. Thus, the court ruled in favor of Johnson [7]. It is clear that there are complications in applying such cultural property protection and restitution laws across nations’ borders.

There are also some nations that have imposed almost “draconian” laws against the transport of cultural property out of the country, such as Italy, which have severely impacted art institutions’ abilities to exhibit [8]. There are scholars that argue that any private trade of artifacts damages cultural heritage and should be prohibited. There are also economic arguments regarding whether nations by themselves should convert the “cultural wealth” of artifacts into the “economic wealth” of selling or otherwise trading them. Such differences in concepts, Lisa Borodkin argues, allows for smugglers to profit, being able to buy valuables at a fraction of their rightful price in the black market. Legal burden is at times placed on the smuggler, at times on the purchaser, leading to further complications in successfully litigating antiquities disputes. All of these facts have led to uneven legal protection of cultural property, when it seems like all countries agree on the importance of protection but have little solidified idea on how to enforce and apply such protection [9]. Restitution is thus often done in the weak guarantee of “good-faith” rather than under lawsuit action.

Ferri once said, rather wistfully, that under his prosecution of looting and smuggling that “the few refunds that have occurred concern perhaps 3 percent of what was taken” by looters, having “above all just a symbolic value [10].” Perhaps this is true of cultural restitution and repatriation a whole, a symbolically ethical concept that has little practical effect and meaning.

________________________________________________________________

[1] [10] Mashberg, T. (2020, June 20). Paolo Giorgio Ferri, Hunter of Looted Antiquities, Dies at 72. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/20/arts/paolo-giorgio-dead.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20200622&instance_id=19603&nl=the-morning&regi_id=82123680&segment_id=31531&te=1&user_id=e78c586fbdfb6cfedb4a8687b9774a5e

[2] [5] [9] Borodkin, L. J. (1995). The Economics of Antiquities Looting and a Proposed Legal Alternative . Columbia Law Review, 95(2), 377–417. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1123233

[3] UNESCO. (1970, November 14). Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970. Unesco.Org. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

[4] [6] [8] Seiff, A. (2014, July 1). How countries are successfully using the law to get looted cultural treasures back. ABA Journal. https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/how_countries_are_successfully_using_the_law_to_get_looted_cultural_treasur

[7] Merryman, J. H., Urice, S. K., &Elsen, A. E. (2007). Law, Ethics and the Visual Arts (5th ed.). Kluwer Law International. https://books.google.com/books?id=_8AddekkdZ8C&pg=PA288&lpg=PA288&dq=peru+vs.+johnson+court+case&source=bl&ots=CZwqjATWo1&sig=ACfU3U17Bjd0l6UG9LYB5DTDv0BrlzqjNA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjTr7XzmZ7qAhXXLc0KHWHSB-4Q6AEwCHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=peru%20vs.%20johnson%20court%20case&f=false

0 notes

chiseler · 4 years

Text

What You Need to Know about the ICC Investigation of War Crimes in Occupied Palestine

Fatou Bensouda

Fatou Bensouda, Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), has, once and for all, settled the doubts on the Court’s jurisdiction to investigate war crimes committed in occupied Palestine.

On April 30, Bensouda released a 60-page document diligently laying down the legal bases for that decision, concluding that “the Prosecution has carefully considered the observations of the participants, and remains of the view that the Court has jurisdiction over the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

Bensouda’s legal explanation was itself a preemptive decision, dating back to December 2019, as the ICC Prosecutor must have anticipated an Israeli-orchestrated pushback against the investigation of war crimes committed in the Occupied Territories.

After years of haggling, the ICC had resolved in December 2019 that, “there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation into the situation in Palestine, pursuant to article 53(1) of the Statute.”

Article 53(1) merely describes the procedural steps that often lead, or do not lead, to an investigation by the Court.

That Article is satisfied when the amount of evidence provided to the Court is so convincing that it leaves the ICC with no other option but to move forward with an investigation.

Indeed, Bensouda had already declared late last year that she was,

“satisfied that (i) war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip... (ii) potential cases arising from the situation would be admissible; and (iii) there are no substantial reasons to believe that an investigation would not serve the interests of justice.”

Naturally, Israel and its main Western ally, the United States, fumed. Israel has never been held accountable by the international community for war crimes and other human rights violations in Palestine. The ICC's decision, especially if the investigation moves forward, would be an historic precedent.

But, what are Israel and the US to do when neither are state parties in the ICC, thus having no actual influence on the internal proceedings of the court? A solution had to be devised.

In an historic irony, Germany, which had to answer to numerous war crimes committed by the Nazi regime during World War II, stepped in to serve as the main defender of Israel at the ICC and to shield accused Israeli war criminals from legal and moral accountability.

On February 14, Germany filed a petition with the ICC requesting an “amicus curiae”, meaning “friend of the court”, status. By achieving that special status, Germany was able to submit objections, arguing against the ICC’s earlier decision on behalf of Israel.

Germany, among others, then argued that the ICC had no legal authority to discuss Israeli war crimes in the occupied territories. These efforts, however, eventually amounted to nil.

The ball is now in the court of the ICC pre-trial chamber.

The pre-trial chamber consists of judges that authorize the opening of investigations. Customarily once the Prosecutor decides to consider an investigation, she has to inform the Pre-Trial Chamber of her decision.

According to the Rome Statute, Article 56(b), “... the Pre-Trial Chamber may, upon request of the Prosecutor, take such measures as may be necessary to ensure the efficiency and integrity of the proceedings and, in particular, to protect the rights of the defence.”

The fact that the Palestinian case has been advanced to such a point can and should be considered a victory for the Palestinian victims of the Israeli occupation. However, if the ICC investigation moves forward according to the original mandate requested by Bensouda, there will remain major legal and moral lapses that frustrate those who are advocating justice on behalf of Palestine.

For example, the legal representatives of the ‘Palestinian Victims Residents of the Gaza Strip’ expressed their concern on behalf of the victims regarding “the ostensibly narrow scope of the investigation into the crimes suffered by the Palestinian victims of this situation.”

The ‘narrow scope of the investigation’ has thus far excluded such serious crimes as crimes against humanity. According to the Gaza legal team, the killing of hundreds and wounding of thousands of unarmed protesters participating in the ‘Great March of Return’ is a crime against humanity that must also be investigated.

The ICC’s jurisdiction, of course, goes beyond Bensouda’s decision to investigate ‘war crimes’ only.

Article 5 of the Rome Statute - the founding document of the ICC - extends the Court’s jurisdiction to investigate the following “serious crimes”:

(a) The crime of genocide

(b) Crimes against humanity

(d) The crime of aggression

It should come as no surprise that Israel is qualified to be investigated on all four points and that the nature of Israeli crimes against Palestinians often tends to, constitute a mixture of two or more of these points simultaneously.

Former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian Human Rights (2008-2014), Prof. Richard Falk, wrote in 2009, soon after a deadly Israeli war on the besieged Gaza Strip, that,

“Israel initiated the Gaza campaign without adequate legal foundation or just cause, and was responsible for causing the overwhelming proportion of devastation and the entirety of civilian suffering. Israeli reliance on a military approach to defeat or punish Gaza was intrinsically ‘criminal’, and as such demonstrative of both violations of the law of war and the commission of crimes against humanity.”

Falk extended his legal argument beyond war crimes and crimes against humanity into a third category. “There is another element that strengthens the allegation of aggression. The population of Gaza had been subjected to a punitive blockade for 18 months when Israel launched its attacks.”

What about the crime of apartheid? Does it fit anywhere within the ICC’s previous definitions and jurisdiction?

The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of November 1973 defines apartheid as,

“a crime against humanity and that inhuman acts resulting from the policies and practices of apartheid and similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination, as defined in article II of the Convention, are crimes violating the principles of international law, in particular the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and constituting a serious threat to international peace and security.”

The Convention came into force in July 1976, when twenty countries ratified it. Mostly western powers, including the United States and Israel, opposed it.

Particularly important about the definition of apartheid, as stated by the Convention, is that the crime of apartheid was liberated from the limited South African context and made applicable to racially discriminatory policies in any state.

In June 1977, Addition Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions designated apartheid as, “a grave breach of the Protocol and a war crime.”

It follows that there are legal bases to argue that the crime of apartheid can be considered both a crime against humanity and a war crime.

Former UN Special Rapporteur on Palestinian Human Rights (2000-2006), Prof. John Dugard, said this soon after Palestine joined the ICC in 2015,

“For seven years, I visited the Palestinian territory twice a year. I also conducted a fact-finding mission after the Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2008, 2009. So, I am familiar with the situation, and I am familiar with the apartheid situation. I was a human rights lawyer in apartheid South Africa. And I, like virtually every South African who visits the occupied territory, has a terrible sense of déjà vu. We’ve seen it all before, except that it is infinitely worse. And what has happened in the West Bank is that the creation of a settlement enterprise has resulted in a situation that closely resembles that of apartheid, in which the settlers are the equivalent of white South Africans. They enjoy superior rights over Palestinians, and they do oppress Palestinians. So, one does have a system of apartheid in the occupied Palestinian territory. And I might mention that apartheid is also a crime within the competence of the International Criminal Court.”

Considering the number of UN resolutions that Israel has violated throughout the years - the perpetual occupation of Palestine, the siege on Gaza, and the elaborate system of apartheid imposed on Palestinians through a large conglomerate of racist laws (culminating in the so-called Nation-State Law of July 2018) - finding Israel guilty of war crimes, among others “serious crimes”, should be a straightforward matter.

But the ICC is not entirely a legal platform. It is also a political institution that is subject to the interests and whims of its members. Germany’s intervention, on behalf of Israel, to dissuade the ICC from investigating Tel Aviv’s war crimes is a case in point.

Time will tell how far the ICC is willing to go with its unprecedented and historic attempt aimed at, finally, investigating the numerous crimes that have been committed in Palestine unhindered, with no recourse and no accountability.

For the Palestinian people, the long-denied justice cannot arrive soon enough.

by Ramzy Baroud and Romana Rubeo

– Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of five books. His latest is “These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons” (Clarity Press, Atlanta). Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), Istanbul Zaim University (IZU). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net

- Romana Rubeo is an Italian writer and the managing editor of The Palestine Chronicle. Her articles appeared in many online newspapers and academic journals. She holds a Master’s Degree in Foreign Languages and Literature, and specializes in audio-visual and journalism translation.

1 note · View note

divusborgia · 7 years

Text

Was Rodrigo Borgia a soldier in his youth? If so, did he ever kill someone?

There exists a story of Roderic’s pretended debaucheries and total depravity. This book is an anonymous manuscript of one hundred and twenty pages in quarto, under the catchy title of “Vita di Don etc”, “A Life of Don Roderigo Borgia, afterwards pope Alexander VI, and of Cesar Borgia and brothers, sons of the above said Pontiff, together with the Memoirs of the most hidden events that took place during the above-said Pontificate, the whole of it drawn from the manuscripts of the Vatican Library”.

It was evidently composed or inspired by a man, whom his hatred of the late Alexander VI had deprived of common sense; and it was written at a time when Italian tyrants and barons, whom that Pope chastised, and other complainants of his administration and reforms could with impunity take revenge on him, in the usual way of besmirching his moral character. No printer would lower himself by casting the lampoon upon his press, but it was reduplicated by hand over and over again.

In one of its first folios the anonymous pamphlet states that

Roderic’s father, Goffredo Borgia, had led many caravans for the kings of Spain, occupied the highest positions at their court, commanded many castles, and had, after long year’s service, gathered great wealth. Among several of his sons there was Roderic, who loved sciences and letters, and also proved to be a genius for war and the arms; for, when yet a little boy, he used to go hunting with the luxuries of an arquebuse, a pistol and a poniard. It is said that when twelve years old, he killed a boy of his age, but of low birth, stabbing him several times in the intestines with his poniard, because the child had addressed to him a few disrespectful words, which were perhaps instigated by the little rascal’s own parents, to correct Roderic of his forwardness. This was the first exploit of his ferocity, the first evident token of how, growing in years, he would become another devil Lucifer, and finally the most sanguinary, the most cruel barbarian that the world could conceive.

This is a pretty rude thrust on the pious and diligent schoolboy, as we have found Roderic to be; and it is also an original pattern for subsequent revilers of the Borgias. After reading the indictment we have a right to look next for the arm of justice, taking the juvenile criminal to a reform school; but we are left to suppose that the judge was corrupted, some jurymen bribed, or the prosecuting attorney silenced with “graft”. The pamphleteer himself was not, however, devoid of all sentiment of justice, for he explicitly remarks that young Borgia’s father (who, by the way, was dead and buried years before) ought to have punished his son for the murder but he tamely adds that he dropped the affair without any resentment as if his son had done a favor to his victim; and such, it seems from the manuscript was the opinion of the rest of the world. We shall make but one remark, namely that this interesting detail was too romantic for historians to copy.

His father, Goffredo Borgia (of blessed memory), was making a large fortune, by conducting, in the name of the Spanish Crown, many caravans. He kept his son at school till he was eighteen years old, and then confided to him the management of his own business and Roderic took it up and attended to it with great diligence and a prudence worhy of an old man.

These his first activities in Spain are all the more remarkable, because he was in Italy at that very time, engaged in studying law at the university of Bologna. A vague remembrance of this latter fact may have led the writer to continue with the puzzling assertions that follow:

When he grew older, he privately and publicly gave proof of his genius in the handling of cases at law, and defended many clients, called in turn at many castles, and was rewarded with numerous incomes, which he derived from “benefices”. But he turned away his mind from the ecclesiastical carrer, put aside all his books and resolved to become a knight and travel as his father had done.

Whatever all this may signify, it certainly must have happened about the time that Roderic became a Roman cardinal. Bowler (History of the Popes, vol 2, p. 259) but slightly contradicts his original, by omitting Roderic’s first employment as his dead father’s agent; yet admits the pamphlet, when he says that at the age of eighteen years he betook himself to the stufy of law, and was, in a very short time, employed as an advocate in the most intricate cases, and acquired by that means a considerable fortune; but soon grew tired of law and appeared in the world in a military character. Reumont (Gesch der Stadt Rom, III, 201) admits both the vocations of law and of arms, while Encyclopedia Britannica (Art. Alexander VI) concedes only either one, and strangely prefers the practice of law. Yet a variant copy of the manuscript, kept as Codex 1641, in the Urbinate Vatican Library, very precisely relates that already in his tenderest years he girded the sword, in the service of the grand-duke of Sanseverino, who was then in Spain in conference with the King. The original, less definite, reports only that Roderic was, at times, seen marching in the uniform of a soldier going to war. The later historian, Dennistoun (Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino, vol. 1, p. 302) asserts that his youth was spent in arms, and Roselly de Lorgues (Crist. Columb. I, 327) thinks the evil repute of pope Alexander VI to have been caused by the confusion of his life as a soldier with his unblemished conduct as a Pope. Father Olivier needed and eagerly embraced the theory of Roderic de Borgia’s military career, to build upon it the romance of his “Le Pape Alexandre VI et les Borgia” and also did Clément de Vebron make use of it in writing his defense of that Pontiff’s moral character, in the beginning of his “Les Borgia”. H. de l’Epinois (Rev. des Quest. Hist., t. XXIX, p. 365) further mentions the late historians, Cerri, Rohrbacher (Hist. Univers. de l’Eglise, t. 22, p. 340) and Mgr Févre, as adherents, in this question, to the anonymous manuscript. Chantrel (Le Pape Alexandre VI, p.39), Jorry (Hist. du Pape Alexandre VI, p. 14), Wensing (Paus Alexander VI, bl. 28) and other might be added to the list of deceived recent writers. H. de l’Epinois, however, assures us that their opinion rests upon no text, that is, upon no good authority, and Matagne justly declares (Rev. des Quest. Hist., t. XI, p. 182) that the old pamphlet’s free copy, the Catanense manuscript, quoted by Olivier, is, as commended by Olivier himself, unworthy of considerations. Burchard, Guicciardini, Jovius, Panvinio, Curita, Bzvius, Tomasi, Raynaldi, Mariana, Alexander: all are silent about it. Before Gordon, that is, before 1729, no one hints at it. After showing that Roderic de Borgia never had either time or occasion to follow a military career, we may remove the last shadow of doubt, by adducing the testimony of pope Alexander VI himself. When, in the year 1500, he dispatched the cardinal of Santa Maria Nova to Maximilian, the German emperor-elect, he gave him written instructions, according to which the legate was to propose, in the name of the Pope, certain plans for warfare of the Christians against the Turks; yet, he was ordered to make the apologizing remark, that

The Pontiff had scarcely the faintest idea of science of war, since he had been engaged in matter of religion and had not followed military camps. Licet vel minimam rerum bellicarum peritiam habeamus, utpote qui sacra secuti sumus et non castra.

He makes use of the same expression in the Instructions given to his legate to the king of Hungary; and to the king of Spain he writes

Having been from the beginning of our life, initiated in sacred functions, to which we have always given our attention, and being, at last, placed in this sacred and pontifical chair, We cannot, now that our years become more and more burdensome, treat of anything less than arms and military concerns.

#rodrigo borgia #the borgias #alexander vi #borgia #remember when giulia farnese asked to rodrigo is this rumour was true?#tom fontana did a great work and we all love and praise him

9 notes · View notes

delwray-blog · 5 years

Text

IF WE ARE TO DEFEAT COMMUNISM WE MUST KNOW WHO THE ENEMY IS!

THE SECRET DRIVING FORCE OF COMMUNISM

CHAPTER ONE

COMMUNISM AS DESTROYER

Of all revolutionary systems, which throughout human history have been devised for the destruction of our civilized values, Communism is, without doubt, the most perfected, most efficient and most merciless. In fact, it represents the most advanced epoch of the world revolution, in whose postulates it therefore not only acts to destroy a definite political, social, economic or moral institution but also simultaneously to declare null and void as well as all cultural and Christian manifestations which represent our civilization.

All revolutionary currents of Jewish origin have attacked Christianity in its different aspects with particular one-mindedness. Communism, spawned from this same revolutionary stream of thought, seeks to banish Christianity for the purpose of causing it to vanish from the face of the earth, without even the slightest trace remaining. The destructive fury of this satanic striving, which brings before the eyes of the world the most terrible pictures of terror and destruction which are possible to imagine, can only be based on the essence of Nihilism and the most evil, hate-filled rejection of everything hitherto existing. For otherwise, one would not be able to understand the indescribable insanity of its criminal acts and the spirit of destruction, of annihilation, of insult, of contradiction and of resistance by its leading personalities against everything, which represents fundamental features not only of Catholicism but of religion in general.

The purpose of Communism is, as we have indeed seen in Russia and in the other lands where it has been introduced, none other than to enslave the people in the economic, political, social, human and super-human sense, in order to make possible a minority rule through violence. From an international aspect, the goal cannot be clearer:

“To attain through violence world domination by an insignificant minority, which destroys the rest of humanity by means of materialism, terror and, if necessary, by death, completely indifferent to whether in the process the enormous majority of the population must be murdered.”

The urge to murder, which has characterised the leading Soviet personages, is known well throughout the world. There are few, who upon learning of the bloody purges, which have been undertaken by the Marxists in Russia, will not be seized by shudders of horror. One needs only to recall a few details to fill the most stout hearts with fear and alarm.

“In its beginnings the Red Terror strove above all to exterminate the Russian Intelligentsia.”1 As proof of this assertion S.P. Melgunow affirms the following, in which he refers to the “Special Committees”, which appeared in Russia in the first period of the Social revolution:

“The special committees are not organs of law, but of merciless extermination according to the decisions of the Communist Central Committee. The special committee is neither a commission of investigation nor a court of justice, but itself determines its own powers. It is an instrument of battle, which acts on the internal front of the civil war. It does not pardon whoever stands on the other side of the barricades, but kills them.

“It is not difficult to form ideas of how in reality this extermination proceeds, when in place of the nullified legal code only the revolutionary experience and conscience command. This conscience is subjective and experience allows complete free play to the will, which always, according to the position of the judge, takes on more or less furious forms.”2

“Let us not carry on war against individual persons” – wrote Latsis – “but let us exterminate the Bourgeoisie as a class. Do not investigate, through study of documents and proofs, what the accused has done in words and deeds against the Soviet authority. The first question to be placed before him runs as to what class he belongs to, what is his origin, his education, his training and his profession.”3

During the bloody dictatorship of Lenin, the Committee of Investigation under Rohrberg (Rohrberg, C.), which after the capture of Kiev entered this city with the White volunteers in August 1919, reported the following:

“The entire concrete floor of the large garage (this was the place where the provincial Cheka of Kiev had carried out executions) was swimming in blood, which did not flow but formed a layer of several inches; it was a grisly mixture of blood with brain and skull fragments, as well as strands of hair and other human remains. The entire walls, holed by thousands of bullets, were spattered with blood, and fragments of brain as well as head skin adhered to them.

“A drain ditch of 25 cm width and 25 cm deep and about 10 m long ran from the middle of the garage to a nearby room, where there was a subterranean outlet pipe. This drain ditch was filled to the top with blood.

“Usually, immediately after the massacre, the corpses were removed in lorries or horse-drawn wagons from the city and buried in a mass grave. In the corner of a garden we came upon an older mass grave, which contained about 80 corpses, in which we discovered signs of the most varied and unimaginable cruelties and mutilation. There were corpses from which the entrails had been removed; others had different limbs amputated and others again were cut into pieces. Some had had the eyes poked out, while the head, the face, the neck and the torso were covered with deep wounds. Further on we found a corpse with an axe in the breast, while others had no tongues. In a corner of the mass grave we discovered many legs and arms severed from the trunk.”4

The enormous number of corpses, which have already been laid to the account of Communist Socialism and which increase terrifyingly all the while, will perhaps never be exactly known, but it exceeds everything imaginable. It is not possible to learn the exact number of the victims. All estimates lie below the real figure.”

In the Edinburgh newspaper “The Scotsman” of 7th November, 1923, Professor Sarolea gave the following figures:

“28 Bishops; 1,219 priests; 6,000 Professors and teachers; 9,000 doctors; 54,000 Officers; 260,000 soldiers; 70,000 Policemen; 12,950 estate owners; 355,250 intellectuals and of the free professions; 193,290 workers and 215,000 peasants.”

The Information Committee of Denikin on the Bolshevistic intrigue during the years 1918-1919 records in a treatise about the Red Terror in these two years “one million, seven hundred thousand victims.”5 In the “Roul” of 3rd August 1923, Kommin makes the following observation:

“During the winter of 1920 there existed in the USSR, 52 governments with 52 Special Committees (Chekas), 52 Special Departments and 52 revolutionary courts. Besides countless subsidiary Chekas, transport-networks, courts on the railways as well as troops for internal security, there were mobile courts, which were dispatched to mass executions in the places concerned.”

To this list of courts of torture must be added the special departments, i.e., 16 army and divisional courts. All in all one must estimate 1000 torture chambers. If it is borne in mind that at that time district committees also existed in addition, then the number rises further. In addition the number of governments of the USSR increased. Siberia, the Crimea and the Far East were conquered. The number of Chekas grew in geometrical ratio.

According to Soviet data (in the year 1920 when the terror had still not ebbed and the reporting of news was not restricted) it is possible to establish an average figure for every court; the curve of executions rises from one to fifty (in the great cities) and up to one hundred in the regions recently conquered by the Red Army. The crisis of terror was periodic and then ceased; in this manner one can daily estimate the (modest) figure of five victims..., which, multiplied with the thousand courts, gives a result of five thousand, and thus for the year roughly one and a half million. We recall this indescribable slaughter, not because in its totality it was either the most numerous or the most merciless to arise from the special situation and inflamed passions consequent on the first victories of the Bolshevist revolution, but because today, forty-five years after these mass executions took place, all this might otherwise be obliterated from the present Communist picture, even for the persons who were contemporaries of the events and who today, still alive, have forgotten those tragedies with the ease with which people forget not only unpleasant events which do not directly concern them, but even those to which they fell victim.

Unhappily, time has shown us a truly demonic excess of Communism in its murderous activity, about which we give no details and do not present the monstrous statistics because all this is known to us. Several of these cruel bloodbaths have only taken place recently, so that one still seems to hear the lament of the persecuted, the death-rattle of the dying and the dumb, the terrible and haunting complaint of the corpses.6

It may suffice to recall the recent giant bloodbaths in Hungary, Poland, East Germany and Cuba as well as the earlier mass killings by Stalin and the annihilation of millions of Chinese through the Communist regime of Mao-Tse-Tung. But also the Communist attempts at revolution, which failed to achieve lasting permanence, such as that of Bela Kun who occupied Hungary in such a brutal way in the middle of 1919; of Spain in 1936, where the Bolsheviks gained control of Madrid and parts of the Spanish provinces and murdered more than 16,000 priests, monks and nuns, as well as 12 Bishops; further the happily unsuccessful attempt in Germany, its most successful realisation in the Red Republic of Bavaria in the year 1919. All these attempts were in fact orgies of 1918, which was directed by Hugo Haase, and which had blood and unrestrained bestiality.

One must also not forget that this Apocalyptic storm, which brings a flood of corpses, blood and tears, falls upon the world with the sole goal: to destroy not only the Catholic Church but the entire Christian civilisation.7 Before this shattering picture the world asks itself with heavy heart: who can hate our Christian features in such a form and try to destroy them with such Godless fury? Who has become capable of instigating this bloody mechanics of annihilation? Who can with such insensitivity direct and order this monstrous criminal process? And reality answers us completely without doubt that the [Bolshevik] Jews are those responsible, as will later be proved.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CREATORS OF THE SYSTEM

There is absolutely no doubt, that the Jews are the inventors of Communism; for they have been the instigators of the dogma, upon which that monstrous system is built, which at present with absolute power rules the greatest part of Europe and Asia, which stirs up the lands of America and with progressive certainty floods over all Christian peoples of the world like a deadly cancerous growth, like a tumour, which steadily devours the core of the free nations, without apparently an effective means of cure being found against this disease.

But the Jews are also the inventors and directors of the Communist methods, of effective tactics of struggle, of the insensitive and totally inhuman government policy and of aggressive international strategy. It is a completely proven fact that the Communist theoreticians were all Jews, unheeded of what system the Jews lastingly use, as well as the theoreticians and the experienced revolutionaries, which has veiled from the eyes of the people, where they lived, their true origin.

1. Karl Heinrich Marx was a German Jew, whose real name was Kissel Mordekay, born in Trier, Rhineland, son of a Jewish lawyer. Before his famous work “Das Kapital” which contains the fundamental idea of theoretical Communism, whose concepts he strove with inexhaustible activity up to his death in the year 1887 to spread over the world, he had written and published with the Jew Engels in the year 1848 the Communist Manifesto in London; between 1843 and 1847 he had formulated in England the first modern interpretation of Hebrew Nationalism in his articles, as in the publication in the year 1844 in the periodical “Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbücher” (German-French Year Books) under the title “Concerning the Jewish question”, which shows an ultra-national tendency.

2. Friedrich Engels, creator of the “First International”, and close collaborator of Marx, was a Jew and born in Bremen (Germany). His father was a Jewish cotton merchant of the city. Engels died in the year 1894.

3. Karl Kautski, whose real name was Kraus, was the author of the book “The Beginnings of Christianity”, in which he mainly combats the principles of Christianity. He was the most important interpreter of Karl Marx and in 1887 published “The Economic Doctrine of Karl Marx Made Intelligible for All.” “The Bloodbath of Chisinaw and the Jewish Question”, in the year 1903, “The Class Struggle”, which for Mao-Tse-Tung in China was the fundamental book for Communist instruction; and the work with the title “The Vanguard of Socialism”, in the year 1921. He was also the author of the “Socialist Programme” from Erfurt/Germany. This Jew was born in the year 1854 in Prague and died in 1938 in the Hague (Holland).

4. Ferdinand Lassalle, Jew, born in the year 1825 in Breslau. He had interfered in the democratic revolution of 1848. In the year 1863 he published his work entitled “Open Answers”, in which he outlined a plan of revolution for the German workers. Since then he worked tirelessly for a “Socialist” crusade, which was directed at the rebellion of the workers. For this purpose he published a further work under the title “Capital and Labour.”

5. Eduard Bernstein. A Jew born in Berlin in the year 1850. His principal works are “Assumptions concerning Socialism”, “Forward, Socialism”, “Documents of Socialism”, “History and Theory of Socialism”, “Social Democracy of Today in Theory and Practice”, “The Duties of Social Democracy”, and “German Revolution”. In all his writings he expounds the Communist teaching and bases it on the views of Marx. In the year 1918 he became Finance minister of the German Socialist state, which, however, could fortunately only maintain itself a few months.

6. Jacob Lastrow, Max Hirsch, Edgar Loening, Wirschauer, Babe, Schatz, David Ricardo and many other writers of theoretical Communism were Jews. In all lands are found writers, almost exclusively Jewish, who preach Communism to the masses, although with many opportunities they strive to give the appearance in their writings of a feeling of humanity and brotherhood. We have indeed already seen in practice what this means.8

However theoretical all Jews mentioned may have been, they were not satisfied with setting up the doctrinaire bases, but each one of them was an experienced revolutionary, who busied himself in whatever particular land he found himself, to factually prepare the upheaval, to direct or to give it support. As leaders or members of revolutionary associations known only to one another, they took more and more active part in the development or Bolshevism. But apart from these Jews, who in the main were regarded as theoreticians, we find that almost all materialist leaders, who develop Communist tactics, also belong to the same race and carry out their task with the greatest efficacy.

As indisputable examples two movements of this type can be recorded:

A) In the year 1918 Germany was showpiece of a Communist, Jew directed revolution. The Red Councils of the republic of Munich was Jewish, as its instigators prove: Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, Kurt Eisner and many others. With the fall of the monarchy the Jews gained control of the country and the German government. With Ministers of State Haase and Landsberg appear Kautsky, Kohn and Herzfeld. The Finance minister was likewise a Jew, had his racial fellow Bernstein as assistant and the minister of the Interior, likewise a Jew, and sought the collaboration of his racial brother, Doctor Freund, who helped him in his work.

Kurt Eisner, the President of the Bavarian Councils Republic, was the instigator of the Bolshevist revolution in Munich.

“Eleven little men made the revolution”, said Kurt Eisner in the intoxication of triumph to his colleague, the Minister Auer. It is no more than right to preserve the unforgettable memory of these little men, who were, in fact, the Jews Max Lowenberg, Doctor Kurt Rosenfeld, Caspar Wollheim, Max Rothschild, Carl Arnold, Kranold, Rosenhek, Birnbaum, Reis and Kaisser. These ten with Kurt Eisner van Israelowitsch led the presidency of the Revolutionary court of Germany. All eleven were Freemasons and belonged to the secret lodge N.° which had its seat in Munich at No. 51 Briennerstrasse.9

The first cabinet of Germany in the year 1918 was composed of Jews.

1. Preuss, Minister of the Interior. 2. Freund, Minister of the Interior. 3. Landsberg, Finance Minister. 4. Karl Kautski, Finance Minister. 5. Schiffer, Finance Minister. 6. Eduard Bernstein, secretary of the State Treasury. 7. Fritz Max Cohen, director of the official information service. (This Jew was earlier correspondent of the Jewish “Frankfurter Zeitung”).

The second “German Socialist government” of 1918 was formed of the following Jews:

1. Hirsch, Minister of the Interior. 2. Rosenfeld, Justice Minister. 3. Futran, Minister of education. 4. Arndt, Minister of education. 5. Simon, State secretary of finances. 6. Kastenberg, director of the department of science and art. 7. Strathgen, director of colonial department. 9. Wurm, secretary of food. 10. Merz, Weil, Katzenstein, Stern, Lowenberg, Frankel, Schlesinger, Israelowitz, Selingsohn, Laubenheim, etc., took up high posts in the ministries.

Among the remaining Jews who controlled the sectors vital to life of the German state, which had been defeated through the American intervention in the war, were found in the year 1918, and later:

1. Kohen, President of the German workers and soldiers councils (similar to the Soviet council of soldiers and workers of Moscow in the same year). 2. Ernst, police president of Berlin. 3. Sinzheimer, police president of Frankfurt. 4. Lewy, police president of Hessen. 5. Kurt Eisner, Bavarian state president. 6. Jaffe Bavarian finance minister. 7. Brentano, Industry, trade and transport minister. 8. Talheimer, minister in Württemberg. 9. Heimann, another minister in Württemberg. 10. Fulda, in the government of Hesse. 11. Theodor Wolf, chief editor of the newspaper “Berliner Tageblatt.” 12. Gwiner, director of the “Deutsche Bank”.10

B) Hungary in the year 1919. On 20th March 1919 the Jew Bela Kun (Cohn) took over power in Hungary and proclaimed the Hungarian Soviet republic, which from that moment on was submerged in a hair-raising sea of blood. Twenty-eight (28) Commissars formed with him the new government and of these 18 were Israelites. That is an unheard of proportion, when one bears in mind that in Hungary lived one and a half million Israelites compared to 22 million inhabitants. The 18 Commissars held the actual control of rulership in their hands and the eight Gentile Commissars could do nothing against them.11

“More than 90% of the members of the government and the confidence men of Bela Kun were also Jews. Here follows a list of members of the Bela Kun government:

1. Bela Kun, general secretary of the Jewish government. 2. Sandor Garbai, “official” president of the government, who was used by the Jews as a Hungarian man of straw. 3. Peter Agoston, deputy of the general secretary; Jew. 4. Dr. E. Landler, Peoples commissar for internal affairs; Jew. 5. Bela Vago, deputy of Landler, a Jew with the name Weiss. 6. E. Hamburger, Agriculture Commissar; Jew. 7. Vantus, deputy of Hamburger; Jew. 8. Csizmadia, deputy of Hamburger; Hungarian. 9. Nyisztor, deputy of Hamburger; Hungarian. 10 Varga, Commissar for financial affairs; Jew by name Weichselbaum. 11. Szkely, deputy of Varga; Jew by name Schlesinger. 12. Kunftz, Education minister; Jew by name Kunstater. 13. Kukacs, deputy of Kunfi; a Jew, who in reality was chilled Lowinger and was the son of the director-general of a banking house in Budapest. 14. D. Bokanyi, Minister of labour; Hungarian. 15. Fiedler, deputy of Bokanyi; Jew. 16. Jozsef Pogany, War Commissar; a Jew, who in reality was called Schwartz. 17. Szanto, deputy of Pogany; a Jew named Schreiber. 18. Tibor Szamuelly, deputy of Pogany, a Jew named Samuel. 19. Matyas Rakosi, trade Minister; a Jew, who in reality was called Matthew Roth Rosenkrantz, present Communist dictator. 20. Ronai, Commissar of law; a Jew named Rosentstegl. 21. Ladai, deputy of Ronai; Jew. 22. Erdelyi, Commissar of supply; a Jew named Eisenstein. 23. Vilmas Boehm, Socialisation Commissar; Jew. 24. Hevesi, deputy of Boehm; a Jew named Honig. 25. Dovsak, second deputy of Boehm; Jew. 26. Oszkar Jaszai, Commissar of nationalities; a Jew named Jakubovits. 27. Otto Korvin, political examining Commissar; a Jew named Klein. 28. Kerekes, state lawyer; a Jew named Krauss. 29. Biro, chief of the political police; a Jew named Blau. 30. Seidem, adjutant of Biro; Jew. 31. Oszkar Faber, Commissar for liquidation of Church property; Jew. 32. J. Czerni, commander of the terrorist bands, which were known by the name “Lenin youth”; Hungarain. 33. Illes, supreme police Commissar; Jew. 34. Szabados, supreme police Commissar; a Jew named Singer. 35. Kalmar, supreme police Commissar; German Jew. 36. Szabo, supreme police Commissar; Ruthenian Jew, who in reality was called Schwarz. 37. Vince, Peoples Commissar of the city of Budapest, who in reality was called Weinstein. 38. M. Kraus, Peoples Commissar of Budapest; Jew. 39. A. Dienes, Peoples Commissar of Budapest; Jew. 40. Lengyel, President of the Austro-Hungarian bank; a Jew named Levkovits. 41. Laszlo, President of the Communist revolutionary court; a Jew, who in reality was called Lowy.12

In this government which for a time held Hungary in thrall, the chief of the Hungarian Cheka Szamuelly, besides Bela Kun, distinguished himself through countless crimes and plunderings. While the latter rode through the land in his luxury automobile (with the symbol of a large gallows mounted on the vehicle, and accompanied by his capable Jewish woman secretary R. S. Salkind, alias Semliachkay), the former travelled through Hungary in his special train and sowed terror and death, as a contemporary witness describes:

“That train of death travelled snorting through the black Hungarian nights; where it stopped, one saw people hanging from trees and blood which ran on the ground. Along the railway line naked and mutilated corpses were to be seen. Szamuelly dictated his judgements in his train, and whoever was forced to enter never lived to tell the tale of what he saw. Szamuelly lived constantly in this train. Thirty selected terrorists ensured his security. Selected executioners accompanied him. The train consisted of two saloon wagons, two first-class wagons, which were occupied by the terrorists, and two third-class wagons for the victims. In the latter executions were carried out. The floor of this wagon was stiff with blood. The corpses were thrown out of the windows, while Szamuelly sat comfortably in the elegant workroom of his compartment which was upholstered in rose-coloured damask and decorated with polished mirrors. With a movement of the hand he decided over life or death.”13

CHAPTER THREE

THE HEAD OF COMMUNISM

There exists therefore not the slightest doubt, that the Marxist theory (Communism) is a Jewish work, just as is also its every action, which aims at putting this doctrine into practice.

Before the final establishing of Bolshevism in Russia the directors and organisers of all Communist movements in their entirety were almost solely Jews, just as the great majority of the true organisers of the revolutions were to which they gave the impetus. But in Russia, as the first land where Bolshevism finally triumphed, and where it was and still is the fulcrum or driving force for the Communising of the world, the Jewish paternity of the system of organisation and of Soviet praxis also allows no doubt or error. According to the irrefutable data, which has been fully and completely proved and recognised by all impartial writers who have dealt with this theme, the Communist work of the Jews in the land of the Czars is so powerful that it would be useless to deny this disastrous triumph as their monopoly.

It suffices to recall the names of those who have formed the governments and the principal leading organs in the Soviet Union, in order to know what one has immediately to think of the clear and categorical proof of the evidence.

I - MEMBERS OF THE FIRST COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT OF MOSCOW (1918) (Council of Peoples Commissars)

1. Ilich Ulin (Vladimir Ilich Ulianov or Nikolaus Lenin). President of the Supreme Soviet, Jew on mother’s side. His mother was called Blank, a Jewess of German origin. 2. Lew Davinovich Bronstein (Leo Trotsky), Commissar for the Red Army and the Navy; Jew. 3. Iosiph David Vissarionovich Djugashvili-Kochba (Joseph Vissarianovich Stalin), Nationalities Commissar; descendant of Jews from Georgia. 4. Chicherin; Commissar for foreign affairs; Russian. 5. Apfelbaum (Grigore Zinoviev), Commissar for internal affairs; Jew. 6. Kohen (Volodarsky), Commissar for press and propaganda; Jew. 7. Samuel Kaufmann, Commissar for the landed property of the State; Jew. 8. Steinberg, law Commissar; Jew. 9. Schmidt, Commissar for public works; Jew. 10. Ethel Knigkisen (Liliana), Commissar for supply, Jewess. 11. Pfenigstein, Commissar for the settlement of refugees; Jew. 12. Schlichter (Vostanoleinin) Commissar for billetings (confiscation of private houses for the Reds); Jew. 13. Lurie (Larin), President of the supreme economic council; Jew. 14. Kukor (Kukorsky), Trade Commissar; Jew. 15. Spitzberg, Culture Commissar; Jew. 16. Urisky (Radomilsky), Commissar for “elections”; Jew. 17. Lunacharsky, Commissar for public schools. Russian. 18. Simasko, Commissar for health; Jew. 19. Protzian, Agriculture Commissar; Armenian.

In the Appendix at the end of this volume can be found the interesting and illustrative lists of the Jewish officials in all the government bodies of the Soviet Union, the Communist Party, the Red Army, the Secret Police, the trade unions, etc.

Of a total of 502 offices of first rank in the organisation and direction of the Communist revolution in Russia and in the direction of the Soviet State during the first years of its existence, no less than 459 posts are occupied by Jews, while only 43 of these offices have been occupied by Gentiles of different origin. Who then has accordingly carried out this terrible revolution? The Gentiles perhaps? Another statistic, which was published in Paris by the counter-revolutionary newspaper “Le Russe Nationaliste”, after the victory of the Jewish Communists in Russia, reveals that of 554 Communist leaders of first rank in different offices the racial composition was as follows:

Jews447

Lithuanians43

Russians30

Armenians13

Germans12

Finns3

Poles2

Georgians2

Czechs1

Hungarians1

During the Second World War, and from then on up to our present time, the Jewish clique which rules the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, continues to be very numerous, for at the head of the names stands Stalin himself, who for a long time was regarded as a Georgian of pure descent. But it has been revealed that he belongs to the Jewish race; for Djougachvili, which is his surname, means “Son of Djou”, and Djou is a small island in Persia, whither many banished Portuguese “Gypsies” migrated, who later settled in Georgia.

Today it is almost completely proved that Stalin had Jewish blood, although he neither confirmed nor denied the rumours, about which mutterings began in this direction.14

Let us look at a list of the Soviet officials in the government of Stalin:

1. Zdanov (Yadanov), who in reality was called Liphshitz, foriner commander in the defence of Leningrad during the 2nd world war. Member of the Politbüro up to 1945 and one of the instigators of the decision which excluded Tito from the Cominform in the year 1948 and who shortly afterwards died.

2. Lavrenty Beria, Chief of the M.V.D. Police and of Soviet heavy industry, member of the Soviet Atom industry, who was executed upon orders of Malenkov, and in fact for the same reason for which Stalin liquidated Yagoda.

3. Lazar Kaganovich, director of Soviet heavy industry, member of the Politburo from 1944 to 1952, then member of the Presidium and at present President of the Supreme Presidium of the USSR.

4. Malenkov (Georgi Maximilianovich Molenk), member of the Politburo and Orgburo until 1952, then member of the Supreme Presidium, President of the Ministerial Council after the death of Stalin; Minister in the government of Bulganin since 1955. He is a Jew from Ornsenburg, not a Cossack, as is asserted. The name of his father, Maximilian Malenk, is typical for a Russian Jew. In addition there is a very important detail, which reveals the true origin of Malenkov and also of Khrushchev. The present wife of Malenkov is the Jewess Pearlmutter, known as “Comrade Schans chuschne” who was Minister (Commissar) for the fish industry in the Soviet government in the year 1938. If Malenkov had not been a Jew, it is extremely unlikely that he would have married a Jewess, and the latter would also not have married him. There exists no official description of the life of Malenkov. This is certainly to be attributed to the fact that he does not want his Jewish origin to be discovered.

5. Nikolaus Salomon Khrushchev, present chief (1963) of the Soviet Communist party, member of the Politburo since 1939, i.e. since the year when Malenkov was chosen member of the Orgburo. He is the brother of Madame Malenkov, i.e. of the Jewess Pearlmutter. Khrushchev is a Jew and his real name is Pearlmutter. Also, the present wife of Khrushchev, Nina, as well as the wives of Mikoyan, Voroshilov, Molotov, etc., are Jewesses.

6. Marshal Nikolaus Bulganin, at present first Soviet minister, former bank official, was one of the ten Jewish members of the Commissariat for the liquidation of private banks in the year 1919.

7. Anastasio Josifovich Mikoyan, member of the Politburo since 1935, member of the Supreme Presidium since 1952, Trade Minister and Vice-president in the Malenkov government. He is an Armenian Jew and not a true Armenian as is believed.

8. Kruglov, chief of the M.V.D. after Beria. Upon command of Kruglov the imprisoned Jewish doctors were released who had been imprisoned by Riumin, sub-chief of the police, during the rulership of Beria, in the year 1953. Likewise Jew.

9. Alexander Kosygin, member of the Politburo up to 1952, afterwards deputy in the Supreme Presidium and Minister for light industry and food in the Malenkov government.

10. Nikolaus Schvernik, member of the Politburo up to 1952, then member of the Supreme Presidium and member of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist party; Jew.

11. Andreas Andreievich Andreiev, who was known as the “Politbureaucrat” of 3 A, member of the Politburo between 1931 and 1952, Jew from Galicia (Poland). He writes under a Russian pseudonym.

12. P. K. Ponomareno, member of the Orgburo in the year 1952; afterwards member of the highest Presidium and culture minister in the Malenkov government.

13. P. F. Yudin (Jew), deputy member of the highest Presidium and titulary of the Ministry for building material in the Malenkov government in the year 1953.

14. Mihail Pervukin, member of the Presidium of the central committee of the Communist party since 1953.

15. N. Schatalin, official in the sub-secretariat of the Central Committee of the Community Party.

16. K. P. Gorschenin, Justice minister in the government of Malenkov.

17. D. Ustinov (Zambinovich), Soviet ambassador in Athens (Greece) up to the second world war; defence minister in the Malenkov government.

18. V. Merkulov, Minister for state control at the time of Malenkov.

19. A. Zasyadko, Minister for the coal industry under Malenkov.

20. Cherburg, Soviet propaganda chief.

21. Milstein. one of the Soviet espionage chiefs.

22. Ferentz Kiss, Chief of the Soviet espionage service in Europe.

23. Postschreibitscher (Poschebicheve), former private secretary of Stalin, at present chief of the secret archives of the Kremlin.

24. Ilya Ehrenburg, delegate for Moscow in the Supreme Soviet, Communist writer; likewise Jew.

25. Mark Spivak, delegate from Stalino (Ukraine) in the Supreme Soviet of Moscow.

26. Rosalia Goldenberg, delegate from Birobudjan in the Supreme Soviet.

27. Anna E. Kaluger, delegate of Bessarabia in the Supreme Soviet, Her brother, not Koluger, but Calugaru in Rumanian, is a Communist official in the government of Rumania.

Also Kalinin, one of the great Soviet officials under Stalin who died some time ago, was a Jew.15

It is only too well known, that the Anti-Semitism of Stalin was a misrepresentation of the facts, and that the blood bath among the Jews (Trotskyists) which he carried out in order to assert his power, was performed by other Jews. In the last instance the struggle between the Jew Trotsky and the Jew Stalin was a struggle between parties for control over the Communist government, which they created, it was purely a family dispute. As proof, the following list of Commissars for Foreign Affairs, during the period when Stalin got rid of some certain Jews, who had become dangerous for his personal power.

1. Maxim Maximovich Litvinoff, Minister for Foreign Affairs up to 1939, when he was replaced by Molotov. He afterwards occupied high offices in the same ministry up to his death in February 1952. He was born in Poland as son of the Jew Meer Genokh Moiseevich Vallakh, a bank clerk. In order to conceal his real name Maxim Moiseevich Vallakh, Litvinoff used various pseudonyms during his real career, among them Finkelstein, Ludwig Nietz, Maxim Harryson, David Mordecay, Felix, and finally, when he became an official in the Communist regime of Russia, he took on the name of Litvinoff or Litvinov. When this Jew was replaced by Molotov in the Year 1939, the Jews of the western world and the entire Jewish-Freemasonic press began to cry out that he had been removed by Stalin because he was a “Jew”, but they kept quiet afterwards concerning the fact that up to his death Litvinov remained in the ministry. Why also say this, if it was not of interest for the conspiracy? In the Memoirs of Litvinov, which were published after his death, he wrote that in his opinion nothing would alter in Soviet Russia after the death of Stalin. In fact, Stalin died a year after Litvinov and nothing was altered in the Soviet’s internal and external policies.

What the West calls change in the policy of the USSR, is simply nothing further than a skilled propaganda for the necessities of the plan for world rule through the Jews. Nothing has altered since the death of Stalin. A certain unrest may have arisen on account of the lack of a new leader of the stature of Stalin or Lenin, that is all. For this reason the Jewish-Freemasonic conspirators of the West wish to paint the Soviet-Communist black raven over with the glittering colours of “Pacifism”, “Coexistence”, “Human friendliness”, etc., in order to introduce it to the world as something harmless, until a dictator with the same lusts of his predecessors arises.

When Litvinov asserted that nothing would alter with the death or Stalin, he knew very well, that this would be so, because Stalin was nothing more than one of the handymen of the Jewish band, which rules the USSR, and because after him other Jews would be at hand, to carry on the plan of world domination, for which Bulganin, Baruch, Reading, Thorez, Mendes France, David Ben Gurion and many others are cooperating.

In continuing the list of Jews in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the USSR, we mention:

2. Andreas Januarevich Vishinsky, now dead, who was foreign minister of the USSR before the death of Stalin and afterwards permanent representative of the Soviet Union in the UNO. There he missed no opportunity to sling his obscenities against the non-Communist lands, exactly as in the times when he was “Peoples Judge.” His Jewish name was Abraham Januarevin.

3. Jakob Malik, Soviet representative in the UNO and a great personality in the Soviet diplomatic hierarchy; Jew.

4. Valerian Zorin, for a time ambassador in London and likewise a great figure of Soviet diplomacy, who changes his post according to necessity.

5. Andrei Gromyko, diplomat, Minister for foreign affairs since 1958.

6. Alexander Panyushkin, former Soviet ambassador in Washington, ambassador in Peking during the year 1955, who is regarded as the actual dictator of Red China.

7. Zambinovich (Ustinov), ambassador in Athens up to 1940.

8. Admiral Radionovich, ambassador in Athens between 1945 and 1946, i.e., as the Communist coup d’état in Greece was prepared; Jew.

9. Constantin Umansky, ambassador in Washington during the Second World War and afterwards official in the Ministry for foreign affairs in Moscow.

10. Manuilsky, former representative in the Ukraine and in the UNO, at present President of the Ukraine; likewise Jew.

11. Ivan Maisky, ambassador in London during the war, afterwards high official of the Foreign Ministry in Moscow.

12. Madame Kolontay, ambassador in Stockholm until her death in March 1952; Jewess.

13. Daniel Solod, ambassador in Cairo in the year 1955. The latter, supported by a Jewish group which belongs to the diplomatic corps in Cairo, directs the Israelite conspiracy inside the Arab world under Soviet diplomatic protection, without the Egyptian government noticing this. This government should not forget that David Ben Gurion, first minister of Israel, as well as Golda Meyerson, Israel’s Minister in Moscow, are Russian Jews like David Solod.

At present, according to confirmed data, 80% to 90% of the key positions in all ministries in Moscow and the remaining Soviet republics are occupied by Jews.

“I do not believe that there can be any doubt of the origin of all those who occupy the highest posts in Moscow since the first moment of the revolution; for the Russians it is a lamentable fact that after all this course of time things are much worse, for the number of Jews who live in Russia has increased in frightening degree. All important leading positions are in their hands...”16

As in Russia the countries of Europe where Bolshevism has gained control, are also completely ruled by a Jewish minority; the latter always appears in the direction of the Communist government with an iron, criminal and merciless hand, so as to attain the utter enslaving of the native citizens through an insignificant group of Jews.

More convincing than any other proof is an exact surveying of the most principal leaders of the Bolshevist governments of Europe, which are always found in the hands of the Israelites. We will quote the most principal ones:

A - HUNGARY

1. The most important Communist leader since the occupation of this land by Soviet troops is Mathias Rakosi, an Israelite, whose real name is Mathew Roth Rosenkranz, and who was born in the year 1892 in Szabadka.

2. Ferenk Münnich, First Minister in Hungary in the year 1959 after Janos Kadar.

3. Erno Gero, Minister of the Interior until 1954.

4. Szebeni, Minister of the Interior before the Jew Gero.

5. General Laszlo Kiros, Jew, Minister of Interior since July 1954, simultaneously chief of the A.V.O., i.e. the Hungarian police, which corresponds to the Soviet M.V.D.

6. General Peter Gabor, chief of the Communist political police of Hungary up to 1953, a Jew, who in reality was called Benjamin Ausspitz and was earlier a tailor in Satorai-Jeujhely, Hungary.

7. Varga, State secretary for economic planning; a Jew, who in reality is called Weichselbaum; former Minister of the Bela Kun government. He was also President of the supreme economic council.

8. Beregi, Minister for foreign affairs.

9. Julius Egry, Agriculture minister of the Hungarian Peoples Republic.

10. Zoltan Vas, President of the supreme economic council; a Jew, who in reality was called Weinberger.

11. Josef Reval, the editor of the Hungarian press and director of the Red newspaper “Szabad Nep” (The Free People); a Jew; who is really called Moses Kahana.

12. Revai (another), Minister for national education; a Jew named Rabinovits.

13. Josef Gero, transport minister; a Jew named Singer.

14. Mihaly Farkas, Minister for national defence; a Jew named Freedman.

15. Veres, Minister of State.

16. Vajda, Minister of State.

17. Szanto, Commissar for purging of enemies of the State, in the year 1951 sent by Moscow; a Jew named Schreiber; former member of the Bela Kun government.

18. Guyla Dessi, Justice Minister up to 1955; today chief of the secret police.

19. Emil Weil, Hungarian ambassador in Washington; he is the Jewish doctor who tortured Cardinal Mindszenty.

Among other important Jewish officials to be mentioned are:

1. Imre Szirmay, director of the Hungarian radio company.

2. Gyula Garay, judge of the Communist “Peoples court of Budapest.”

3. Colonel Caspo, Sub-chief of the secret police.

4. Professor Laszlo Benedek, Jewish dictator for educational questions.

The sole important Communist of Gentile origin was the Freemason Laszlo Rajk, former minister for foreign affairs, who was sentenced and executed by his Jewish “brothers” for his “betrayal.”

B - CZECHOSLOVAKIA

1. Clemens Gottwald, one of the founders of the Communist party in Czechoslovakia and president of the country between 1948 and 1953; a Jew, who died shortly after Stalin.

2. Vladimir Clementis, former Communist minister of Czechoslovakia for foreign affairs, “sentenced and executed” in the year 1952; Jew.

3. Vaclav David, present foreign minister of Czechoslovakia (1955); Jew.

4. Rudolf Slaski, former general secretary of the Communist party of Czechoslovakia, “sentenced” in the year 1952; a Jew by name of Rudolf Salzmann.

5. Firi Hendrich, present general secretary of the Communist party; Jew.

6. Andreas Simon, sentenced in the year 1952; a Jew named Otto Katz.

7. Gustav Bares, assistant of the general secretary of the Communist party; Jew.

8. Josef Frank, former assistant of the general secretary of the Communist party, “sentenced” in the year 1952; Jew.

C - POLAND

1. Boleislaw Bierut, President of Poland up to 1954; Jew.

2. Jakob Berman, general secretary of the Communist party of Poland; Jew.

3. Julius Kazuky (Katz), minister for foreign affairs of Poland, who is well known for his violent speeches in the UNO; Jew.

4. Karl Swierezewskv, former vice-minister for national defence, who was murdered by the Anti-Communist Ukrainian country population in south Poland (the mass of the people is not always amorphous); Jew.

5. Josef Cyrankiewicz, first minister of Poland since 1954, after Bierut; Jew.

6. Hillary Mink, Vice-prime minister of Poland since 1954; Jew.

7. Zenon Kliszko, minister of justice; Jew.

8. Tadaus Kochcanowiecz, minister of labour; Jew.

The sole important Polish Communist of Gentile origin is Wladislaw Gomulka who was removed from political leadership since 1949, when he lost his post as first minister. Sooner or later he will share the same fate as Rajk in Hungary.

D - RUMANIA

1. Anna Pauker, Jewess, former minister for foreign affairs of the “Rumanian Peoples Republic”, and spy No. 1 of the Kremlin in Rumania up to the month of June 1952. Since then she has remained in the shadows in Bucharest up to the present day, naturally in freedom. This Jewish hyena, who was originally called Anna Rabinsohn, is the daughter of a rabbi, who came to Rumania from Poland. She was born in the province of Moldau (Rumania) in the year 1892.

2. Ilka Wassermann, former private secretary of Anna Pauker, at present the real directress of the ministry for foreign affairs.

3. Josef Kisinevski, the present agent No. 1 of the Kremlin in Rumania, member of the central Committee of the Communist party and vice-president of the council of ministers. He is a Jew and comes from Bessarabia; his correct name is Jakob Broitman. Also he is the real chief of the Communist party of Rumania, although “officially” the general secretary of the party is the Rumanian locksmith Gheorghe Gheorghiu Dez, who, however, only plays the simple role of a political front. Kisinevski took his present pseudonym from the name of the city of Kisinau in Bessarabia, where before the arrival of the Red Army he owned a tailor’s workshop.

4. Teohari Georgescu, minister for internal affairs in the Communist government of Bucharest between 1945 and 1952; at the present time he has been reduced to a second-rank post, although he was “officially” “expelled” from the Communist party. He finds himself in the same position as Anna Pauker. His real name is Baruch Tescovich. He is a Jew from the Rumanian Danube harbour of Galatz.

5. Avram Bunaciu, likewise a Jew, is the present (1955) general secretary of the Presidium of the great national assembly of the “Rumanian peoples republic”, i.e. the real leader of this assembly, for the “official” president Petru Groza is only an old Freemasonic marionette, who is married to a Jewess and plays only a purely static role. Avram Bunaciu is called in reality Abraham Gutman (Gutman translated into Rumanian is the corresponding name for “Bunaciu”, i.e. the pseudonym taken on by this Jew).

6. Lotar Radaceanu, another Minister of the Communist government of Bucharest “deposed” in the year 1952, but who in 1955 reappeared on the honorary tribune. He is a Jew from Siebenbürgen and is called Lothar Würtzel. Since the “Würtzel” in Rumanian translates “Radicinu”, this Jew has simply transferred his Hebraic name into Rumanian and is now called “Radaceanu”.

7. Miron Constantinescu, member of the central Committee of the Communist party and minister for mining and petroleum. Now and then he changes his ministerial posts. He is a Jew from Galatzi (Rumania), who in truth is called Mehr Kohn, and as is customary among them, uses a Rumanian pseudonym.

8. Lieutenant General Moises Haupt, commander of the military district of Bucharest; Jew.

9. Colonel General Zamfir, Communist “security chief” in Rumania and responsible for thousands of murders, which this secret police has perpetrated. He is a Jew and comes from the Danube harbour of Braila. He is called Laurian Rechler.

10. Heim Gutman, chief of the civil secret service of the Rumanian Peoples republic; Jew.

11. Major-General William Suder, chief of the information service and of counter-espionage of the Rumanian Communist army. He is a Jew, by name Wilman Süder and former officer of the Soviet Army.

12. Colonel Roman, former director of the E.K.P. service (education, culture and propaganda) of the Rumanian army up to 1949, and at the present time Minister in the Communist government. His name as Jew is Walter.

13. Alexander Moghiorosh, minister for Nationalities in the Red government; Jew from Hungary.

14. Alexander Badau, chief of the Control Commission for foreigners in Rumania. He is a Jew who originates from the city of Targoviste whose real name is Braustein. Before 1940 his family in Targoviste possessed a large trading firm.

15. Major Lewin, chief of press censorship, Jew and former officer of the Red Army.

16. Colonel Holban, chief of the Communist “Security” of Bucharest, a Jew named Moscovich, former Syndicate (Union) chief.

17. George Silviu, general governmental secretary of the ministry for internal affairs; a Jew named Gersh Golinger.

18. Erwin Voiculescu, chief of the pass department in the ministry for foreign affairs. He is a Jew and is called Erwin Weinberg.

19. Gheorghe Apostol, chief of the general labour union of Rumania; he is a Jew named Gerschwin.

20. Stupineanu, chief of economic espionage; Jew by name Stappnau.

21. Emmerick Stoffel, Ambassador of the Rumanian Peoples Republic in Switzerland; a Jew from Hungary and specialist in bank questions.

22. Harry Fainaru, former legation chief of the Rumanian Communist embassy in Washington up to 1954 and at present official in the ministry for foreign affairs in Bucharest. He is a Jew named Hersch Feiner. Before the year 1940 his family possessed a grain business in Galatzi.

23. Ida Szillagy, the real directress of the Rumanian embassy in London; Jewess; friend of Anna Pauker.

24. Lazarescu, the “Chargé d’Affaires” of the Rumanian government in Paris. He is a Jew and is really called Baruch Lazarovich, the son of a Jewish trader from Bucharest.

25. Simon Oieru, State under-secretary of the Rumanian state; Jew with name of Schaffer.

26. Aurel Baranga, inspector general of arts. He is a Jew; Ariel Leibovich is his real name.

27. Liuba Kisinevski, president of the U.F.A.R. (Association of anti-Fascist Rumanian women); she is a Jewess from Cernautzi/ Bukowina, and is called in reality Liuba Broitman, wife of Josif Kisinevski of the central Committee of the party.

28. Lew Zeiger, director of the ministry for national economy; Jew.

29. Doctor Zeider, jurist of the ministry for foreign affairs; Jew.

30. Marcel Breslasu, director general of arts; a Jew by name Mark Breslau.

31. Silviu Brucan, chief editor of the newspaper “Scanteia”, official party organ. He is a Jew and is called Brükker. He directs the entire campaign of lies that attempts to deceive the Rumanian people concerning the true situation created by Communism. At the same time the Jew Brükker directs the fake “Antisemitic” campaign of the Communist press of Rumania.

32. Samoila, governing director of the newspaper ‘‘Scanteia”; he is a Jew; Samuel Rubenstein.

33. Horia Liman, second editor of the Communist newspaper “Scanteia”; Jew with the name of Lehman.

34. Engineer Schnapp, governing director of the Communist newspaper “Romania Libera” (Free Rumania), the second Communist newspaper on the basis of its circulation; likewise a Jew.

35. Jehan Mihai, chief of the Rumanian film industry, Communist propaganda by means of films; a Jew, whose name is Jakob Michael.

36. Alexander Graur, director general of the Rumanian radio corporation, which stands completely and solely in the service of the Communist party. He is a Jewish professor and is called Alter Biauer, born in Bucharest.

37. Mihail Roller, at present President of the Rumanian academy, is a sinister professor, a Jew, unknown before the arrival of the Soviets in Rumania. Today he is “President” of the Academy and in addition he has written a “new history” of the Rumanian people, in which he falsifies the historical truth.

38. Professor Weigel, one of the tyrants of the university of Bucharest, who directs the constant “purging actions” among Rumanian students who are hostile to the Jewish-Communist regime.

39. Professor Lewin Bercovich, another tyrant of the Bucharest university, who with his spies controls the activity of Rumanian professors and their social connections; an immigrant Jew from Russia.

40. Silviu Josifescu, the official “literary critic”, who censures the poems of the best poets like Eminescu Alecsandri, Vlahutza, Carlova, etc., who all died centuries ago or more than half a century ago, and alters form and content, because these poems are “not in harmony” with the Communist Marxist ideas. This literary murderer is a Jew, who in truth is called Samoson Iosifovich.

41. Joan Vinter, the second Marxist “literary critic” of the regime and author of a book with the title “The problem of literary legacy” is likewise a Jew and is called Jakob Winter.

The three former secretaries of the General Labour League up to 1950, Alexander Sencovich, Mischa Levin and Sam Asriel (Serban), were all Jews.

E - YUGOSLAVIA

1. Marshal Tito, who with his real Jewish name is called Josif Walter Weiss, originates from Poland. He was an agent of the Soviet secret service in Kabul, Teheran and Ankara up to 1935. The true Brozovich Tito, in origin a Croat, died during the Spanis civil war in Barcelona.

2. Moses Pijade, general secretary of the Communist party and in reality the “grey eminence” of the regime, is a Jew of Spanish origin (Sefardit).

3. Kardelj, member of the Central Committee of the Yugoslav Communist party and minister for foreign affairs; is a Jew of Hungarian origin and is called in reality Kardayl.

4. Rankovic, member of the Central Committee of the Yugoslav Communist party and minister for internal affairs, is an Austrian Jew and was earlier called Rankau.

5. Alexander Bebler, member of the Central Committee of the Communist party and permanent representative of Yugoslavia in the UNO, is an Austrian Jew.

6. Ioza Vilfan (Joseph Wilfan), economic advisor of Tito, in reality the economic dictator of Yugoslavia, is a Jew from Sarajevo.

Since not so many Jews live in Yugoslavia as in other lands, we find a greater number of natives in the Communist government of this land, always however in posts of the second rank; for the abovementioned principal leaders in reality control the Yugoslav government completely and absolutely.17

CHAPTER FOUR

THE FINANCIERS OF COMMUNISM

International Jewry strives in its entirety towards Communistic socialism in accordance with the doctrine of Marx, which has at present been realised by it in the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and all its satellites. The direct goal of Communism is the striving for world domination and complete power over all peoples of the earth. This standpoint it has always manifested and from the beginning onwards striven for this goal. This Communist aim is understood with absolute unanimity by all Jews as their own goal, although many non-Jewish persons, who are lacking in knowledge and who are intentionally deceived, think that the great number of Jewish multi-millionaires which there are in the world and who even control world finance, must necessarily oppose this current, which attempts to snatch their wealth away from them.

At first sight there is nothing more self-evident than to see in a rich financier, a well-to-do trader or an important industrialist, the natural and keenest enemy of Communism. But if the industrialists, traders or financiers are Jews, there is not the slightest doubt that they are also Communists; for the Communistic Socialism of Marx has been created and carried out by them, and in fact not in order to lose their goods and chattels which they possess, but to steal everything which does not belong to them and to hoard together in their own hands the entire wealth of the world, which according to their assertion is unlawfully withheld from them by all who do not belong to the Jewish race.

The well-known Jewish (?) writer Werner Sombart says: “The fundamental characteristic feature of the Jewish religion consists in the fact that it is a religion which has nothing to do with the other world, but, as one might say, is solely materialistic. Man can experience good or evil only in this world; if God wishes to punish or reward, then he can do this only in the lifetime of man. Therefore the just man ( righteous) must attain well-being here on earth and the Godless suffer.”18

“It is useless to dwell upon the difference which derives from this contrast of two outlooks, relating to the attitude of the devout Jew and of the devout Christian, with regard to the acquisition of wealth. The devout Christian who has got into debt with the usurer, was tortured on his deathbed by pangs of regret (repentance) and was ready to abandon everything which he possessed; for the knowledge of the unjustly acquired goods consumed him. On the other hand the devout Jew, when the end of his life approached, regarded with contentment the trunks and cases filled to bursting-point, in which the profits were accumulated, which during his long life he had taken off the wretched Christians and also the poor Musulmans. It was a spectacle on which his devout heart could feast, for every roll of money which lay locked up there, he saw as a sacrifice brought to his God.”19

Simultaneously, Jewish money (which at present represents the greatest part of the money in the world ) is the most powerful tool of all, which in vast extent has made possible the financing of revolutionary movements without the help of which the latter would never have been able to triumph and be able in such manner to destroy Christian civilisation in all its appearances; be it whether the individual is materialistically influenced by it being taught that money is to be preferred to other-worldly values, or be it through the direct methods, which they know how to use so energetically, like bribery and embezzlement in public offices and taxation swindling as well as the general buying of consciences.

The Jewish idea of accumulating all the money in the world through Communism appears in all transparency with many famous Jewish writers like Edmond Fleg, Barbusse, Andre Spire and others; in particular most expressly in the well-known letter that the famous new Messianer Baruch Levy sent to Karl Marx, which was discovered in the year 1888 and published for the first time in the same year. The text is as follows:

“The Jewish people as a whole is its own Messiah. Its kingdom over the universe is obtained through the uniting of the other human races, through the suppression of frontiers and of monarchies, which are bulwarks for particularism and hinder the erection of a world republic where citizenship is everywhere recognised to the Jew. In this new organisation of mankind, the sons of Israel, who at present are scattered over the entire earth surface, will all be of the same race and of the same traditional culture, without, however, forming another nationality, and will be without contradiction the leading element in all parts, particularly if it is successful in laying upon the masses of workers a permanent leadership by some Jews. The governments of peoples all pass with the formation of the universal republic effortlessly into the hands of the Israelites in favour of the victory of the proletariat. Then the personal property of the rulers will be able to be suppressed by the rulers of the Jewish race who will everywhere govern over the property of the Peoples. Then the promise of the Talmud will be fulfilled, that when the time of the Messiah has come, the Jews will have the goods of all peoples of the world in their possession.”20

If one follows these tactics of economic accumulation, then it is completely natural that we see how the richest financiers and the most important bankers of the world finance the Communist revolutions; it is also not difficult, bearing in mind the data mentioned, to explain a situation, which superficially studied appears senseless and absurd, namely that one always sees the richest Jews of the world united with the Israelite leaders of the Communist movements. If the explanations of the most well-known Jews suffice to show us this close connection with clarity, then the evident facts are still all the clearer, so that they wipe away even the slightest trace of doubt.

After the French defeat of 1870 and the fall of the Emperor Napoleon III, the Marxists, led by Karl Marx from London, formed the Commune from the 18th March 1871 onwards. During this period of more than two months, in Paris the National Guard, which had been transformed into an armed organisation, was through and through dependent on the Marxist International.

When the Commune could not resist the attack of the troops of the government, with its seat at Versailles, and the Communists saw their defeat as unavoidable, they devoted themselves to robbery, murder and incendiarism, in order to destroy the capital, in accordance with the plan already proposed by Clauserets in the year 1869:

“Ourselves or nothing! I promise you, Paris will belong to us or cease to exist.”

Upon this occasion was clearly revealed the joint guilt of the French Jewish bankers together with the Communists, when it is established how Salluste in his book “Les origines sécrètes du bolchevisme” alludes to the fact that Rothschild exercised pressure on one side in Versailles with Thiers, the President of the republic, in order to prevent a decisive fight against the Marxist Communists, by his talking of a possible understanding and agreements with the central committee of the Federals (Marxists), and on the other side enjoyed a total protection of his person as also of his property in the city of Paris, which was thrown into a horrible and bloody chaos.

In this respect Salluste tells us in his afore-mentioned work, page 137:

“It is certain that M. Rothschild had good reasons to hold a conciliation possible: his villa in the Rue Saint-Florentin was protected day and night by a guard troop of the Federals (Marxists), who had the task of preventing any plundering. This protective troop was maintained for two months, up to the moment when the great barricade, which was only a few paces away, was taken by the Versailles troops.

“While hostages were shot, the most beautiful palaces of Paris went up in flames and thousands of Frenchmen died as victims of the civil war, it is worth mentioning that the protection granted by the Communists to the great Jewish banker did not cease for a moment.”

In the year 1916, the Lieutenant-General of the Imperial Russian Army, A. Nechvolodof, described secret information which had been received from one of his agents, which on the 15th February of the same year reached the supreme command of the Russian General Staff and read as follows:

“The first secret assembly, which reveals the beginning of the acts of violence, took place on Monday, the 14th February, in the East Side of New York. Of the 62 representatives gathered, 50 were veterans of the revolution of 1905, and the others new members. The greater part of those present were Jews and among them many educated people, as for example, doctors, writers, etc... Some professional revolutionaries were also found amongst them...

“The first hours of this assembly were almost exclusively devoted to testing the methods and the possibilities of carrying out a great revolution in Russia. It was one of the most favourable moments for this.

“It was stated that the party had just received information from Russia, according to which the situation was completely and absolutely favourable; for all previously agreed conditions for a favourable rising were present. The one serious hindrance was the question of money; but scarcely was this remark made, when several members at once answered that this circumstance should cause no reflection, for, at the moment when it was necessary, substantial sums would be given by persons who sympathised with the movement for freedom. In this connection the name of Jakob Schiff was repeatedly mentioned.”21

At the beginning of the year 1919, the secret service of the United States of America provided high officials of the French republic who visited America with a memorandum, in which the participation of the most principal bankers in the preparation of the Russian Communist revolution was categorically revealed:

7-618-6

Provided by the General Staff of the 20th Army.

. 912-S-R.2.

copy

In February 1916 it became known for the first time that a revolution was being promoted in Russia. It was discovered that the following named persons and firms were involved in this work of destruction:

1. Jakob Schiff; Jew. 2. Kuhn, Loeb & Co; Jewish firm. Directors: Jakob Schiff; Jew. Felix Warburg; Jew. Otto Kahn; Jew. Mortimer Schiff; Jew. Hieronymus H. Hanauer; Jew. 3. Guggenheim; Jew. 4. Max Breitung; Jew.

At the beginning of the year 1917, Jakob Schiff began to protect the Jew and Freemason Trotsky, whose real name is Bronstein; the mission given to him consisted in the directing of the social revolution in Russia. The New York paper “Forward”, a Jewish-Bolshevist daily paper, likewise protected him for the same purpose. Also he was aided financially by the Jewish firm of Max Warburg, Stockholm, the Rheinisch-Westfalische Syndicate, the Jew Olaf Aschberg of the Nye Banks, Stockholm, and the Jew Jovotovsky, whose daughter Trotsky married. In this manner relations were established between the Jewish multi-millionaires and the proletarian Jew.

“The Jewish firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. has links with the Rheinisch-Westphalian Syndicate, a Jewish firm in Germany; just as it has links with Lazard-Freres, a Jewish house in Paris, and also with the Jewish firm of Gunzbourg of Paris, and with the same Jewish firm of Gunzbourg of Petrograd, Tokyo and Paris; if we observe in addition that all affairs are likewise handled with the Jewish firms of Speyer & Co., London, New York and Frankfurt/Main, exactly as with the firms of Nye-Banks, who are the agents for Jewish-Bolshevist business affairs in Stockholm, then we can draw the inference from this that the banking firm has relations with all Bolshevist movements; one can see that in praxis it represents the true expression of a general Jewish movement, and that certain Jewish banking houses are interested in the organisation of these movements.”22

In the pamphlet of S. de Baamonde we again find something new about the banking house of Kuhn & Co. Jakob Schiff was an Israelite of German origin. His father, who lived in Frankfurt, was in that city a modest local agent of the firm of Rothschild. The son emigrated to the United States. There he rapidly made a career which soon made him chief of the large firm of Kuhn, Loch & Co., the most important Israelite bank of America.

“In the Jewish banking world Jakob Schiff not only distinguished himself through his knowledge of business and the dare-devilry of his inventive power, but he also occasioned very resolute plans and intentions, even if neither new nor original, concerning the leading political activity that each banking System should exert over the fates of the world: ‘The spiritual direction of human affairs.’ ”

Another of the constant concerns of this plutocrat was mixing at all cost in the political affairs of Russia, in order to bring about a change of regime in that land. The political conquest of Russia, which up to then had evaded the influence of Freemasonry thanks to its regime of reason, should be the best circle of effect to secure the power of Israel over the entire universe.23

In the spring of 1917, Jakob Schiff began to instruct Trotsky, a Jew, how he should carry out the social revolution in Russia. The Jewish-Bolshevistic newspaper of New York, “Forward”, also concerned itself with the same theme:

“From Stockholm as centre, the Jew Max Warburg authorized Trotsky & Co., as did Rheinisch-Westphalian Syndicate, an important Jewish Company, as well as Olaf Aschberg of the Nye Bank of Stockholm, and Yivotousky, a Jew, whose daughter married Trotsky.”24

“At the same time a Jew, Paul Warburg, was found to have such a close connection with the Bolshevists that he was not selected again to the ‘Federal Reserve Board’.”25

The “Times” of London of 9th February 1918 and the “New York Times” alluded in two articles by Samuel Gompers, which were published in the issues of 10th May 1922 and 31st December 1923, to the following:

“If we bear in mind that the Jewish firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. is connected with the Rheinisch-Westphalian Syndicate, a Jewish firm in Germany, with Lazard Freres, a Jewish firm of Paris, and also with the banking house of Gunzbourg, a Jewish firm in Petrograd, Tokyo and Paris, and if we in addition point out that the aforementioned Jewish trading firms maintain close relations to the Jewish firm of Speyer & Co. in London, New York and Frankfurt/Main, as likewise with Nye Banks, a Jewish-Bolshevist firm in Stockholm, then we can establish that the Bolshevist movement in itself is to a certain degree the expression of a universal Jewish movement, and that certain Jewish banking houses are interested in the organisation of this movement.”26

General Nechvolodof alludes in his work “L’Empereur Nicholas II et Les Juifs” (1924) to the strong Jewish financing of the Communist revolution in Russia:

“During the years which preceded the revolution, Jakob Schiff had supplied the Russian revolutionaries with twelve million dollars. On their side the triumphant Bolshevists, according to M. Bakmetieff, the ambassador of the Russian Imperial government in the United States, who died some time ago in Paris, transferred six hundred million gold roubles between 1918 and 1922 to the firm of Loeb & Co.”

According to these convincing proofs I do not believe that it occurs to anyone to arrive at the optimistic conclusion that there exist wicked Jews (the Communists) and good Jews (the Capitalists); further, that, while the ones strive to cut off the wealth of private persons and to cause private property to vanish, the others strive for the defence of both things, so as not to lose their enormous riches. To the misfortune of our civilisation the Jewish conspiracy shows features of unconditional unity. Judaism forms a monolithic power, which is directed at forcing together all riches of the world without exception, by means of Communist Socialism according to Marx.

At the present time one sees in our civilised world the admission of racial discrimination as the greatest sin into which man could fall. It is alleged to be a fault that leaves behind an eternal and ugly world of barbarity and animal nature, always presupposing that the Jewish people does not in practice commit this fault. Thanks to Jewish propaganda, which is controlled almost exclusively in the world by the Israelites (cinema, radio, press, television, publishing, etc.), anti-Semitism is the most disgraceful of all racial manifestations; for the Jews have made out of anti-Semitism a truly destructive weapon, which serves to nullify the efforts of countless persons and organisations who have clearly recognised who the real head of Communism is, in spite of the camouflage and cunning that this race uses to conceal its true activity. Particularly such persons and organisations that have tried to sound the alarm, since they were filled with horror at the fatal end which draws nearer and nearer.

This network of lies is so successful that the majority of anti-Communists who wish to make an end of the Marxist monster, direct their energetic and courageous attacks against the tentacles of the octopus and know nothing of the existence of the terrible head which renews the destroyed limbs, conducts its movements and brings the activities in all parts of its system into harmony. The sole possibility or destroying the Communist Socialism of Marx consists in attacking the head of the same, which at present is Jewry as the undeniable facts and irrefutable evidence of the Jews themselves allow to be discerned.

While the Christian lands are anti-racialist, because they build up their ideas on the concept of loving one’s neighbour, the Jews were and are at present the most fanatical representatives of racial discrimination, which they base on ideas from the Talmud, because they proceed from the principle that the non-Jew is not even a human being.

However, this Christian opposition to racial discrimination is very skilfully utilised by the Jews; and in the shadow of the same they weld their devilish intrigues against the Catholic Church and all Christian order, by their forming the Communist system, where there is neither God nor church nor supersensual norms of any kind. As soon as they are attacked, they protest with crying lamentation and show themselves as victims of inhuman racial discrimination, only for the purpose of crippling that work of defence which opposes their destructive attacks.

In spite of this, one can regard the real defence against Communism, which must be forcefully directed against the Jews (against the head), in no manner as a sinful manifestation of a feeling of revulsion towards a definite race; for the characteristic of racial discrimination is completely alien to our culture and our Christian principles; however, one cannot avoid a problem of such weight and range out of fear of being described as an “Antisemite”, which doubtless occurs with those who do not understand the present situation of the world.

Thus it is not a question of combating a race out of considerations of racial order. If one at present brings the problem under close inspection, the Jews alone must bear the responsibility of leaving us no other choice because of their racial discrimination in life and death, with their absolute disregard of all who are not of their race and with their greed for world domination.

For Catholics in particular, and for the civilised world in general, who still firmly believe in their established principles and other-worldly values, the confirmation cannot be simpler; for it is a problem of self-defence, which is accepted completely in the moral and just order, if the pure dilemma, which Judaism shows us, is the following: “Either Jewish-Communist domination or extermination.”

CHAPTER FIVE

JEWISH TESTIMONY

In spite of their accustomed seclusion, and even in spite of their deceptive and clandestine manoeuvres, by which they have been successful in remaining concealed, so as not to reveal their Communist plan for world conquest, the Jews have had several weak moments, to which they have been induced either through optimism or excessive jubilation in the studying of their successes and which upon different occasions have called forth impetuous but highly factual declarations. Kadmi-Cohen, a highly regarded Jewish writer, affirms that:

“As far as the Jews are concerned, then, their role in world socialism is so important that one cannot pass quietly over it. Does it not suffice to recall the names of the great Jewish revolutionaries of the 19th and 20th centuries, such as Karl Marx, Lasalle, Kurt Eisner, Bela Kun, Trotsky and Leon Blum, so that in this manner it is clear who are the theoreticians of modern Socialism?”27

“What a brilliant confirmation do the strivings of the Jews find in Communism, apart from the material cooperation in party organisations, in the deep revulsion which a great Jew and great poet, Heinrich Heine, felt against Roman law! And the personal and passionate motives for the anger of Rabbi Aquila and Bar Kocheba of the years 70 and 132 after Jesus Christ, against the Roman peace and the Roman law which was understood personally and passionately and felt by a Jew of the 19th century, who had apparently preserved no bond with his own race.”

“The Jewish revolutionaries and Jewish Communists, who dispute the basic principle of private property whose firmly established foundation is the civil law book of Justinian, of Ulpian, etc., only imitate their forefathers who opposed Vespasian and Titus. In reality it is the ‘dead who speak’.”28

The blasphemous Jewish writer Alfred Nossig tells us:

“Socialism and the Mosaic law in no way oppose one another, but there exists on the contrary a surprising similarity between the basic ideas of both teachings. Jewish nationalism may not remove itself, as a danger that threatens the ideal, further from Socialism than the Jew from the Mosaic Law; for both parallel-running ideals must arrive in the same way at execution.”29

“From the examination of the facts of the case it is revealed in a completely irrefutable manner that the modern Jews have cooperated in a decisive way and manner in the creation of Socialism; their own fathers were already the founders of the Mosaic Law. The seed of the Mosaic Law took effect over the centuries upon doctrine and command, in conscious manner for the one and unconsciously for the other. The modern Socialist movement is for the great majority a work of the Jews; the Jews gave it the stamp of their understanding; it was also Jews who had a striking share in the leadership of the first Socialist republics. In spite of this, the enormous majority of Jewish Socialist leaders were divorced from the Mosaic Law; for in an unconscious manner there took effect within them the racial principle of the Mosaic Law, and the race of the old apostolic peoples lived in their brain and in their social character. Present world socialism forms the first State in fulfilment of the Mosaic Law, the beginning of the realisation of the future World State, which was announced by the prophets.”30

In his book “Integral Jews” he confirms this idea of Socialism as Jewish teaching, when he writes the following:

“If the peoples really wish to make progress, they must lay aside the Mediaeval fear of the Jews and the retrogressive prejudices which they have against the latter. They must recognise what they really are, namely the most upright forerunners of human development. At the present day the salvation of Jewry demands that we openly recognise the programme facing the world; and the salvation of mankind in the coming centuries depends upon the victory of this programme.”31

The reason for this Jewish revolutionary conduct is clearly explained by the well-known Jewish writer E. Eberlin in the following excerpt:

“The more radical the revolution is, all the more freedom and equality for the Jews comes about as a result. Every current of progress strengthens further the position of the Jews. In the same manner, every setback and every reaction attacks it in first place. Often, only a simple orientation towards the Right will expose the Jews to boycott. From this aspect the Jew is the pressure-valve for the social (steam) boiler. As a body the Jewish people cannot stand on the side of reaction; for reaction is the return to the past and means for the Jews the continuation of their abnormal conditions of existence.”32

The ill-reputed Jew, Jakob von Haas, says to us in “The Maccabean” quite clearly that “the Russian revolution that we experienced is a revolution of Jewry. It signifies a change in the history of the Jewish people. If we speak openly, it was a Jewish revolution; for the Jews were the most energetic revolutionaries in Russia.”

In the Jewish-French newspaper entitled “Le Peuple Juif” of February 1919, one can read the following: “The Russian Revolution, which we see at present, will be the exclusive work of our hands.”

One finds the following passage in a book by the famous Jewish writer Samuel Schwartz with a foreword by Ricardo Jorge: “When we ascend from the heights of pure science to the place of battle, which the passions and the interests of men clash against each other, there rises before us the oracle of the new social-political religion, the Jew Karl Marx, the dogmatic leader of war for life and death. He finds in the head and in the arm of Lenin the realisation of his confession of belief and sees in him the forefighter for the Soviet State that threatens to overthrow the firm foundations of the traditional institutions of society.”33

In the same way another Jew, Hans Cohen, confirms in the “Political Idea” that “the Socialism of Marx is the purpose of our striving and efforts.”

In Number 12 of the newspaper “The Communist” which was published in Kharkov on the 12th April 1919, the Jew M. Cohen writes:

“Without exaggeration one can make the assurance that the great social revolution in Russia was carried out by the Jews. It is true that in the ranks of the Red Army there are soldiers who are not Jews. But in the committees and in the Society organisations, just as with the Commissars, the Jews lead the masses of the Russian proletariat to victory with courage.”

“At the head of the Russian revolutionaries marched the pupils of the Rabbinic school of Lidia.” Jewry triumphed over fire and sword, with our brother Marx, who had the mandate for the fulfilment of all that our prophets have commanded, and who worked out the suitable plan for the demands of the proletariat.” All these sentences appeared in the Jewish newspaper “Haijut”of Warsaw of 3rd August 1928.

“The Jewish World”, of 10th January 1929, expressed this blaspheming view: “Bolshevism, the very fact of its existence, and that so many Jews are Bolsheviks, further – that the ideal of Bolshevism is in harmony with the most sublime ideal of Jewry, which in part formed the foundation for the best teachings of the founder of Christianity, all this has a deep significance, which the thoughtful Jew carefully examines.”

In order not to range too widely at this point, we quote in conclusion the allusions which the Israelite Paul Sokolowsky makes in his work, entitled “The Mission of Europe”, where he boasts of the predominant role which the Jews played in the Russian Revolution and reveals details concerning the secret codes which they used to reach understanding with each other, even by means of the press, without the attention of the authorities being drawn to themselves, and how they distributed the Communist propaganda that they prepared through the Jewish children, whom they carefully schooled for these services in their settlements.34

The hellish, Jewish-Communist hate, which is chiefly revealed against Christian civilisation, is not unfounded, but it has its very deep causes, which can be judged with full clarity in this following excerpt from the “Sepher-Ha-Zohar”, the holy book of modern Jewry, which represents the feelings of all Jews:

“Jesu (Jesus), the Nazarene, who has brought the world away from belief in Jehovah, who be praised, will each Friday be again restored. At daybreak of Saturday, he will be thrown into boiling oil. Hell will pass, but his punishment and his tortures will never end. Jesus and Mohammed are those unclean bones of offal of which the Scripture says: ‘Ye shall cast before the dogs. They are the dirt of the dog, the unclean, and because they have misled men, they are cast into Hell, from which they never again come out.’

0 notes

nancydhooper · 4 years

Text

Lower Courts Agree — It’s Time to End Qualified Immunity

Earlier this month, Mississippi federal court judge Carlton Reeves reluctantly held that a white police officer who detained, interrogated, and illegally searched Clarence Jamison, a Black man driving a Mercedes-Benz, for nearly two hours despite clearing multiple background checks, could not be held accountable for his actions. Why? Because his hands were tied by qualified immunity. Judge Reeves relates his frustration in his opinion: “Judges have invented a legal doctrine to protect law enforcement officers from having to face any consequences for wrongdoing. The doctrine is called ‘qualified immunity.’ In real life it operates like absolute immunity.” Qualified immunity is a legal defense that can shield police officers from liability for misconduct. Once an obscure legal doctrine, it has become a central focus of activists’ calls for police accountability following nationwide protests over police brutality. In fact, officer Derek Chauvin, the cop who killed George Floyd by kneeling on his neck for over eight minutes in a video seen around the world, might evade accountability in a civil suit through qualified immunity. The Supreme Court created the first version of this defense more than 50 years ago as a limited amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, also known as the “Ku Klux Act” because it was meant to protect the rights of freed slaves after the Civil War in the face of the Klan’s reign of terror. Under Section 1 of the act, now referred to as Section 1983, people were given the right to sue state government officials for violating their constitutional rights and hold them liable for damages. Starting in 1967, though, the court amended the law — officers would be shielded from liability if they could show that they acted in “good faith” and had “probable cause” for their actions. Over time, the court has stretched the doctrine to where it is today: An officer who has violated the Constitution cannot be held liable for damages unless the violation was so “clearly established” in the law that any reasonable officer would have known that their actions were unlawful. This requirement is nowhere to be found in the Constitution or any federal statute. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has developed an absurdly narrow definition of what counts as “clearly established” law. To meet the “clearly established” standard, the burden is now on the victim to find a previous case with facts nearly identical to their own. This is the burden that fell on Alexander Baxter, whom the ACLU represented in a petition that the Supreme Court recently denied. Mr. Baxter, homeless at the time of his arrest, was chased by two Nashville police officers and a police dog into a basement following a report of a residential burglary in 2014. Once there, Mr. Baxter surrendered by sitting on the ground and raising his hands into the air. Still, the officers unleashed the dog, which bit Mr. Baxter’s armpit, sending him to the hospital for immediate medical attention. Without formal legal assistance and with limited access to the prison’s law library, Mr. Baxter later filed a hand-written complaint from prison, but a federal appeals court granted qualified immunity to the officer. The reason for qualified immunity? Mr. Baxter surrendered by sitting on the ground with his hands up, whereas in the closest prior case, the court ruled in favor of a victim who surrendered by lying down. Yep, that’s it. Because Mr. Baxter could not point to a previously decided case where the suspect had also surrendered by sitting down with his hands up, the officer was off the hook. According to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, without a case with identical circumstances, there was no way for the officer to clearly know that what he did was wrong. But it’s even more problematic than that. Because the Sixth Circuit did not reach the question of whether the conduct was, in fact, illegal, the law still doesn’t clearly establish that police may not order a canine attack on a suspect who surrenders by putting their hands up. This means another officer could claim immunity for the same behavior in the future. It’s a never-ending catch-22: A victim must cite exact legal precedent to win their case, but because judges dismiss so many cases over slight twists of facts without deciding whether the underlying government conduct is unconstitutional, it’s increasingly difficult to create any legal precedent. As District Court Judge Reeves writes in his powerful opinion, “Let us not be fooled by legal jargon. Immunity is not exoneration. And the harm in this case to one man sheds light on the harm done to the nation by this manufactured doctrine.” Qualified immunity is one reason why police are emboldened to use excessive force without fear of repercussions. They know the law protects them, even if they may be violating the Constitution — a fact driven home by Judge Reeves as he lists a handful of the Black people killed at the hands of police. Senseless shootings like Jacob Blake’s and Dijon Kizzee’s will continue occurring because police officers are essentially allowed to gun down Black people with impunity. This is the abhorrent cost our society pays for qualified immunity. Still, there is hope. More lower courts and even Supreme Court justices themselves are starting to question the doctrine, as indicated by Justice Thomas’ dissent from the Court’s decision not to take up Mr. Baxter’s case. It is no longer blindly accepted that the need to shield police officers from financial burden is more important than the need to hold them accountable and protect the rule of law. In fact, officers are virtually never at risk of monetary liability and have contributed to payments in less than one-half of 1 percent of civil rights damages actions. Most costs are paid by municipalities, insurance companies, or unions. The Supreme Court should abolish qualified immunity and return Section 1983 to its original meaning. At the very least, it needs to give guidance to lower courts to make clear that a case with identical facts is not necessary to hold officers liable for their conduct. While these reforms will never repair the harm done to many lives or heal the trauma Mr. Baxter experienced, they will deter future police unlawfulness and, when such abuse occurs, increase the chances that its victims are compensated for the harms suffered. Communities must also demand that other actors — Congress, police chiefs, mayors, and prosecutors — abolish the doctrine and begin funneling resources away from law enforcement and into community services like housing, education, accessible health care, and violence prevention programs. If we truly want systemic changes to policing, these are the institutions that will help communities grow and thrive.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247012 https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/lower-courts-agree-its-time-to-end-qualified-immunity via http://www.rssmix.com/

0 notes

tevfikarifbsai461-blog · 4 years

Text

Tevfik Arif – The Story Behind Bayrock Group And Trump SoHo

Working from a 24th-floor office in Manhattan's Trump Tower, Felix Sater spent years making an effort to line up highly profitable sell the United States, Russia and also elsewhere in Europe along with Donald Trump's property organization. For a lot of that time, depending on to courtroom documents and also UNITED STATE officials, Sater additionally functioned as a confidential tipster for the FBI, as well as-- he mentions-- U.S

. As handling director https://www.universityherald.com/articles/76481/20191007/how-to-excel-in-the-business-world-like-tevfik-arif.htm of Bayrock Group LLC, a real property growth agency, the Russian-born business person fulfilled Trump in 2003, court files reveal, when Trump was actually looking to extend his business and also branding organization around the entire world. Although couple of tasks were actually developed, Sater serviced lodging as well as apartment take care of the Trump Association by means of 2010 in Nyc, Florida, Arizona, London, Moscow and also elsewhere even as he covertly helped the FBI infiltrate and take down structured criminal activity numbers, depending on to court reports.

In January, Sater as well as Trump's individual attorney, Michael Cohen, complied with in a New york city lodging along with a Ukrainian legislator who inquired to take the White Residence a pro-Russian love package for Ukraine."I was merely attempting to cease a war," Sater mentioned of his role connecting the lawmaker, Andrei Artemenko, along with Cohen.

He likewise claimed that "no one in the White House" had explained the issue along with Cohen.There is actually no doubt that Sater led a dual life during the course of the years he teamed up with the Trump Institution. In 1998, Sater begged guilty to a federal https://www.reddit.com/r/Kazakhstan/comments/cds4wn/all_about_tevfik_arif_and_bayrock_group_beyond/ fee of racketeering for his duty in a Mafia-linked $40-million sell fraud system.

Article Source:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-sater-trump-20170223-story.html

Judge documents were actually closed to secure Sater's identification, so his part in the scams suit stayed top secret for a decade while he went to Bayrock. After a court hearing in 2009, he was actually fined $25,000 yet was not sentenced or gotten to pay restoration. At his sentencing hearing, numerous FBI officials attested Sater's help.

attorney general why judge records had been actually secured in the fraud claim. Sater had actually privately dealt with government prosecutors and also the FBI for much more than 10 years, "supplying relevant Tevfik Arif information essential to national security as well as the judgment of conviction of over 20 people, including those responsible for committing large financial fraudulence and also members of Los angeles Cosa Nostra"-- the Mafia-- depending on to Lynch, that had worked as USA

Sater's attorney, Robert W. Wolf, provides his customer extra credit rating, stating he functioned with "countless UNITED STATE nationwide safety, intelligence and also legislation enforcement agencies." Sater claims he aided pursuit "United States's biggest adversaries" in Afghanistan and also in other places. There is actually no individual verification of those assertions. Past CIA authorities that operated in counter-terrorism and also Russian events claimed they certainly never was aware of Sater and question his cloak-and-dagger cases of chasing down terrorists."Our company must certainly not take this guy's claims at stated value," claimed Glenn Carle, a previous CIA operations policeman that resigned in 2007.

Sater's service past with Trump is actually effectively documented, nevertheless. In their initial offer, in November 2003, the Trump Company as well as Bayrock announced plans to construct a 19-story condominium high rise as well as accommodation structure in Phoenix metro. Individuals who objected that the project was very large Doyen compelled a citywide vote to block building, however.

Original Article:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-22/trump-linked-real-estate-firm-settles-suit-by-former-executive

The subsequent year, Bayrock licensed Trump's name as well as began building and construction of https://nativenewsonline.net/advertise/branded-voices/tevfik-arif-biography-and-legendary-bayrock-group-business-empire/ a 24-story hotel and also condominium complicated in Ft Lauderdale, Fla. The task lost funds and also was actually reached through legal actions and claims of scams by purchasers. Trump was actually dropped from the lawsuits after asserting he was actually certainly not the developer as well as was exempt for the troubles.

Sater accompanied Trump at a launch event in September 2007. Sater left behind Bayrock the subsequent year after information tales 1st exposed his rap sheet. He remained to team up with the Trump Organization-- he possessed calling card that called him a "unique expert" as well as maintained his workplaces in Trump Tower-- trying to come up with property packages via 2010. Sater mentioned he had actually authorized a number of progression deals with Trump's firm, consisting of one for a Trump High Rise in Moscow, yet none were actually constructed."We were wanting to perform packages in a variety of funds, in Greater london, Paris-- our company had no special alikeness for Moscow," Sater said in the meeting.

A legal representative for the Trump provider carried out not return demands for remark. In a vouched deposition in 2013 in a public match, Trump mentioned he scarcely understood Sater."If he were sitting in the room at this moment, I really definitely would not understand what he appeared like," Trump claimed. Short, the White Home representative, rejected to discuss Sater's role as an FBI source or even on Trump's partnership with him.

0 notes

bountyofbeads · 4 years

Text

THE BATTLE FOR THE CONSTITUTION

The Disintegration of the American Presidency

The president’s job is to oversee the whole of the executive branch, but under Trump the inverse is happening.

By Susan Hennessey, Executive editor of Lawfare and Benjamin Wittes, Contributing writer and editor in chief of Lawfare | Published January 21, 2020 | The Atlantic | Posted January 22, 2020

On January 13, 2020, a political scientist named Daniel Drezner tweeted a screenshot of a Washington Post article, along with a cheeky comment: “I’ll believe that Trump is growing into the presidency when his staff stops talking about him like a toddler.” The screenshot showed a quotation about handling the president from a former senior administration official: “He’d get spun up, and if you bought some time, you could get him calmed down, and then explain to him what his decision might do.”

Drezner’s tweet was part of a lengthy thread. A very lengthy thread. The tweet, in fact, was the 1,163rd entry in a thread that began back in April 2017, with the same comment appended to a screenshot from The Washington Post: “Trump turns on the television almost as soon as he wakes, then checks in periodically throughout the day in the small dining room off the Oval Office, and continues late into the evening when he’s back in his private residence. ‘Once he goes upstairs, there’s no managing him,’ said one adviser.” Drezner had highlighted the quotation from the adviser.

The “toddler-in-chief thread” is surely the most quixotically lengthy Twitter thread in the history of the American presidency. Every time a White House adviser or a Republican member of Congress speaks about Trump in a news story as though he or she were talking about handling a small child, Drezner tweets the relevant passage with the same sentence, adding it to the thread.

Each entry separately documents a news story in which someone—usually a member of the executive branch—talks about managing the president, not the other way around, and talks about doing so in an explicitly infantilizing fashion. The collection is now the subject of a forthcoming book.

The thread is a source of humor, but Drezner is onto something profound. Whereas the president’s job is to supervise the White House staff and the executive-branch agencies that report to the White House, in the Trump presidency the inverse is what’s really happening most of the time, and people don’t even bother to pretend otherwise.

Yes, when Trump gives an actual order in a form directed to a subordinate person or agency, that order has to be carried out—or something has to happen that can be said to count as carrying it out—on pain of possible dismissal. But until the moment of an actual order—and even afterward, for those willing to take risks with their jobs—Trump can be avoided, evaded, cajoled, patronized, manipulated, or misrepresented in public by underlings who purport to serve him.

Infantilizing the president is a natural adaptive response to circumstances—if an entirely extra-constitutional one. Staffers and officials have reason to question the integrity of the president’s oath of office or his mental stability. Confronted with a president who rejects traditional executive-branch processes and management in favor of unfiltered personal expression and a merging of the office with his own personality, they have to do something.

But, of course, it wasn’t supposed to be this way. The Constitution creates a unitary executive branch in which, in the pure version at least, the president supervises the staff and they actually do what he tells them to do—or are removed if they do not. Constitutionally speaking, notwithstanding the internal processes that have built up over time, the executive branch is run by the president, and the president at some level supervises the entire branch.

The federal courts are divided regionally and stratified by the three layers of the judicial system—district courts, appeals courts, and the Supreme Court. Congress has two chambers, each with its own formal rules. But the American presidency is a single person. And the executive branch is little more than the people who work for him. There is a debate, of course, about how unitary the “unitary executive” really is, and that debate is wrapped up in a larger set of arguments about the scope and nature and limits of presidential power. But there is a core to the unitary-executive theory that is not in dispute: There is only one president, and he appoints the leadership of the executive agencies, who serve at his pleasure and thus must follow his direction or risk being fired.

Historically, this core unity has always tolerated some degree of fractiousness within the executive branch. One extreme example from early in the republic’s history is that of Thomas Jefferson, who funded and ran an opposition newspaper while serving in George Washington’s cabinet. Lower executive-branch officials often have statutory responsibilities of their own delegated to them by Congress, and civil servants are not appointed and removed at will by the president. The unity fiction became a bit more strained as the executive developed into an immense series of interlocking bureaucracies, including the supposedly independent federal regulatory agencies, over the course of the 20th century. Presidential lack of control over the State Department has long been a source of some consternation. And, of course, regardless of the president’s status as commander in chief, the military is a world of its own. The question of unity has always been one of degree; it is not absolute. That said, the idea of unity remains true in important respects.

When Trump took the oath of office, he assumed certain powers, all of which Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution vested personally in him: He became commander in chief of the military; he became responsible for appointing and supervising all heads of agencies and cabinet departments—including having the power to remove them from office; he was empowered to pardon criminals and those being prosecuted, to reprieve sentences, and to remit fines; he was empowered to make treaties with foreign governments, and thus to withdraw from them; he was given the power to appoint ambassadors and judges with the Senate’s advice and consent; he was given the power to veto legislation. All these powers came to Trump personally—not to his cabinet officials, not to his staff, not to Republican congressmen, but to him.

Alexander Hamilton’s “Federalist No. 70” is the essential starting point in a discussion of the executive branch. “Energy in the Executive,” wrote Hamilton, “is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks.” The reason? “A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.” Translation: If you want government to do things, you have to have an executive capable of it. Designing the executive branch in this fashion was controversial, with many of the opponents of the Constitution arguing that the president’s broad powers too closely resembled the monarchical power the colonies had only recently shaken off.

The modern presidency has powers Hamilton surely never imagined. In particular, the war powers have migrated—to what degree is a matter of debate, but certainly to some degree—from the legislature to the presidency, bringing unity of action and decision making to the powers of war and peace to a degree the Founders certainly did not envision. Similarly, the rise of informal international agreements that are not subject to the demands of the treaty power has concentrated a great deal of foreign-policy authority in the hands of the president. And the growth of the standing, institutional military transforms the commander in chief’s power in peacetime into something much bigger than it was in Hamilton’s time. What’s more, in many areas, Congress has delegated huge swaths of authority to the executive branch.

The basic structure, however, remains more or less as it was in Hamilton’s day, albeit much larger and with important exceptions that limit presidential control over independent agencies and lower-level officials across the government. The executive branch remains, broadly speaking, a vertically integrated organization with a single person at its apex.

The American presidency, in its unity, is profoundly dissimilar from nearly all other executives in democratic systems that have persisted over time. The founders of other democracies have, quite intentionally, decided differently from the founders of this one. For example, in Israel—another democratic country that faces ongoing security issues and fights wars semi-regularly—the power to take the country to war is generally vested not in the prime minister but in the government, a collective body. What’s more, although the government has legislative powers that in this country the president does not have, the government—and the prime minister himself, for that matter—serves at the discretion of the legislature. So not only is Israeli executive power not unified, but the executive can be dismissed for policy reasons alone. Most parliamentary democracies align far more closely with Israel on these points than with the American separation of powers.

In normal times, the American system has a lot to recommend it. It generates not just decisiveness of action but also political accountability for that action—what Hamilton called “a due dependence on the people” and “a due responsibility.” Divide up the executive authority, and nobody really knows who gets the credit for success and who gets the blame for failure.

But the American system gets sticky when you contemplate vesting the executive power in one person who cannot be easily removed when that person is as mercurial and peculiar as Trump. In such situations, the structure can start to seem downright reckless. In concentrating power so that this person directs the federal government to do things—and in making this person exceptionally difficult to depose for a protracted period of time—one has to have a certain amount of confidence in that person’s intentions and abilities.

The result has been that the executive branch’s unity has dissolved before the public’s eye. As the toddler-in-chief thread showed, in important respects the president ceased to be at the helm of the executive branch and instead became its mascot. Trump represented such a massive and radical change that the rest of the executive branch could not simply continue with business as usual; it had to adapt—and resist. Its response was in equal parts understandable and destructive of important constitutional norms.

Consider only a few of the countless examples of the breakdown in the president’s control over the executive branch. He said repeatedly that he wasn’t convinced that Russia had attempted to interfere in the U.S. election in 2016. He said he believed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s denial of any involvement, regularly calling the allegations a “hoax” and the resulting investigation a “witch hunt.” All his top intelligence officials, however, contradicted him—at a single conference, the 2017 Aspen Security Forum. Indeed, over the first two years of Trump’s presidency, not a single one of his senior national security officials publicly backed his claims on the subject.

The FBI contradicted him on electronic surveillance. Asked about Trump’s claims that President Barack Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower, then FBI Director James Comey testified, “With respect to the president’s tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, I have no information that supports those tweets and we have looked carefully inside the FBI.” The Justice Department later declared in a court filing that both its National Security Division and the FBI “have no records related to wiretaps as described by [Trump’s] tweets.”

When the White House lent its support to the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar, the State Department and the Pentagon openly contradicted it on the subject. Then Defense Secretary James Mattis quickly reassured the Qatari government that it had the United States’ backing, knowing that U.S. military aviation in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen relies on an airfield on the outskirts of Doha. Mattis signed a $12 billion arms deal with the Qataris days later.

When Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan won a referendum granting him new powers, Trump called to congratulate him. This happened even as the State Department noted “irregularities on voting day and an uneven playing field during the difficult campaign period” and used the occasion to call on Turkey “to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all its citizens.” Trump also extended his congratulations to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte on the success of his controversial anti-drug campaign. The State Department nonetheless released its human-rights report finding the campaign to be rife with human-rights violations, including extrajudicial killings and basic disregard for human rights.

When Vladimir Putin won another presidential term, the intergovernmental Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe released a report criticizing the election as irregular and unfair. Perhaps sensing a theme, White House staffers warned Trump against appearing to endorse the election, writing “DO NOT CONGRATULATE” on the notes for his call with Putin. Trump ignored them and congratulated Putin anyway. While reporters noted the discrepancy between Trump’s apparent position and the OSCE report, the State Department spokeswoman at the time, Heather Nauert, said, “We have every reason to believe that the [report’s] conclusions are correct.”

Perhaps the most dramatic example came in the wake of the white-supremacist attack in Charlottesville, Virginia, that killed a peaceful protester. Trump infamously said that “both sides” were at fault for the violence and refused to treat the entire march as a white-supremacist endeavor. In a highly unusual move, the military chiefs took to Twitter to condemn the attacks and the underlying racism, though they didn’t refer to Trump directly. Meanwhile, then UN Ambassador Nikki Haley and Attorney General Jeff Sessions likewise condemned the attacks without rebuking the president. But Rex Tillerson, the secretary of state at the time, was more direct on the matter. When pressed on whether Trump’s “both sides” comments about Charlottesville reflected American values, Tillerson said, “The president speaks for himself.”

Pause for a moment over those words. A subordinate officer of the U.S. government declared—in public and without consequence—that the president of the United States did not speak for the country, the government, or the officer himself. Trump later fired Tillerson, but not for this.

As the scandal over the president’s interactions with Ukraine unfolded, executive-branch officials openly defied his direction to not testify before Congress. Not only did these officials ignore their boss’s instruction by appearing in the House, they went on to contradict the White House’s account of the facts. They then returned to their posts, carrying out the regular business of the executive branch.

In the American constitutional structure, this sort of executive defiance of the president is akin to a body’s rejection of a transplanted organ. The consequences may be a presidency that will be much harder to manage in the future. Trump complains of a “deep state” that operates independently of the president. The slander has a quality of self-fulfilling prophecy. One of the consequences, after all, of Trump’s mismanagement is a presidency with less control over the government; the bureaucracy today is far from a “deep state,” but its actions are less transparent than before. None of this is good.

It might be temporary. If the presidency returns to the mean, the executive branch may snap back toward unity too. There is some reason to expect this. After all, the formal authorities of the president have not changed. A future president could restore the executive to unity by being intolerant of executive freelancing. The executive has fractured only because Trump has let it fracture, because he tolerates a chaotic disunity that other presidents have not allowed and that future presidents can choose not to allow. It’s hard to imagine, in fact, future presidents tolerating the kind of insubordination Trump experiences daily, from which he seems to benefit so little and suffer so much.

But there is an alternative possibility, which is that Trump’s highly expressive presidency, a presidency that has the president in the role of entertaining and engaging the public, may have staying power, and that lessened presidential control over the executive branch is, to one degree or another, an organic feature of the expressive presidency.

There’s a quieter side to the breakdown of the unitary executive—one that is less visible than the public defiance. That’s the daily efforts to manipulate the president and maneuver around him by staff and cabinet alike. The comic side of this is the sort of infantilization that shows up in the toddler-in-chief thread. But there’s a less comic side, too.

In the summer of 2018, The New York Times reported on the machinations of John Bolton—the president’s then national security adviser—to get NATO countries to agree on their joint communiqué before the NATO summit in Brussels, which Trump was planning to attend. The reason? “To prevent President Trump from upending a formal policy agreement” by throwing the kind of tantrum at the summit that his own staff suspected he might. The feverish diplomacy to get an agreement before the summit event began, the paper reported, was “a sign of the lengths to which the president’s top advisers will go to protect a key and longstanding international alliance from Mr. Trump’s unpredictable antipathy.” Bolton, a highly controversial figure, at the time faced little public criticism for shielding U.S. alliance policy from the personality of the president he served.

Other examples of this tendency are legion. Perhaps the most famous came in the anonymous September 2018 op-ed in The New York Times, “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration.” By a writer who claimed to be “a senior official in the Trump administration,” the article asserted “that many of the senior officials in [Trump’s] own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.” The author described how “many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.” Most, he or she said, “are working to insulate their operations from his whims.” And while sometimes “cast as villains by the media … they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.” The anonymous author went on to publish a book-length account, entitled A Warning.

The journalist Bob Woodward’s book Fear is replete with other examples. It opens with Gary Cohn, then Trump’s chief economic adviser, stealing off the Resolute desk (the main desk in the Oval Office) a one-page letter that would have terminated the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Cohn was worried that if Trump saw the draft letter, which was dated September 1, 2017, he would sign it. So he removed it and placed it in a blue folder marked “KEEP.”

“I stole it off his desk,” Cohn later said. “I wouldn’t let him see it. He’s never going to see that document. Got to protect the country.” Trump didn’t notice. And when then Staff Secretary Rob Porter discovered that there were other copies, he and Cohn made sure all of them were removed. “Cohn and Porter worked together to derail what they believed were Trump’s most impulsive and dangerous orders,” Woodward wrote. “That document and others like it just disappeared.”

The defiance wasn’t limited to trade deals or White House staff. Early in his presidency, Trump—horrified by the gas attack by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that killed large numbers of civilians—got on the phone with then Defense Secretary Mattis and declared, “Let’s fucking kill him. Let’s go in. Let’s kill the fucking lot of them.” Mattis agreed and said he would get right on it. When he hung up, however, he said to staff, “We’re not going to do any of that.” The real policy? “We’re going to be much more measured.”

This sort of subterfuge of presidential will is perhaps inevitable when, as Tillerson put it in one argument with then National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster, “the president can’t make a decision. He doesn’t know how to make a decision. He won’t make a decision. He makes a decision and then changes his mind a couple of days later.” Such subterfuge has undoubtedly saved the country from policy disasters. But it’s also poisonous stuff. Nobody elected these men to run the government, after all. One big piece of the argument for the unitary executive is that it creates clear accountability for policy and policy outcomes. But if the president’s staff and cabinet officers openly contradict him and gleefully undermine him internally or just ignore him entirely, who is accountable for what?

The stakes in this question are high. Years ago, while speaking on a panel, Brad Berenson—who served in the White House counsel’s office under President George W. Bush—made an arresting statement about the American presidency. The presidency, Berenson argued, is an office of terrifying power. There is no question, at least as a matter of domestic constitutional law, that the president has the legal authority under some circumstances to order a preemptive nuclear strike on Tehran or Beijing—or any foreign capital of his choosing, for that matter. That decision, and the ensuing consequences for our planet, rests with a single individual.

Berenson observed that there is only one thing more frightening than an American president who has such power in his sole command. And that is an American president who does not have that power. Imagine trying to reach a decision on a nuclear launch by committee in the moment of gravest emergency, the theory goes. The possibilities range from a reduction in flexibility and agility to outright paralysis.

The nuclear-launch power is the ultimate expression of the personal presidency that lies beneath the modern layers of process that have built up around the presidency. By virtue of sheer destructive force, nuclear weapons have a clarifying effect on conversations related to presidential power, unitary command, process, and the conduct of military and foreign affairs.

At noon on January 20, 2017, Trump very personally came into control of the nuclear arsenal. And suddenly a system designed to combine operational effectiveness with accountability—and designed to maximize security benefits—started to seem like not such a great idea after all. The former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper put it succinctly in a television interview: “In a fit of pique, [if] he decides to do something about Kim Jong Un, there’s actually very little to stop him. The whole system is built to ensure rapid response if necessary. So there’s very little in the way of controls over exercising a nuclear option, which is pretty damn scary.”

Reasonable minds will differ on whether Berenson’s argument is generally correct and personal presidential launch authority is the worst idea in the world except for all of the others. But Clapper’s suggestion raises the question of which is scarier: the personal presidency with launch authority in the wrong hands or a non-Hamiltonian executive with its hands tied in a crisis. Clapper’s sentiment was echoed by the commentators and members of Congress who, within weeks of Trump’s taking office, began discussing curtailing the president’s unilateral powers. Some commentators tried to mute the reality that Trump had personal launch authority, speculating that military officers would refuse an illegal or deeply imprudent order to launch a nuclear weapon. Hope springs eternal that process—any process—will save us, after all. But the reality is that the more fateful the decision, the more personal and less process driven the presidency is, or can be.

At least it’s not how the traditional presidency is supposed to work.

But Trump is proposing something new here, even if it’s wholly un-theorized and not thought through. He’s proposing a presidency that does not enforce unity, in which the president imposes no discipline on agencies, staff, or cabinet secretaries—even while demanding unswerving personal loyalty. The executive is characterized less by energy than by mania; meanwhile, the president tolerates the propagation of multiple policies and the undermining of his own authority, thus eroding the core value of accountability that executive control is supposed to bring.

______

This article was adapted from Hennessey and Wittes’s upcoming book, Unmaking the Presidency: Donald Trump’s War on the World’s Most Powerful Office.

*********

0 notes