The Mafia

It is impossible to summarize the power of this Mafia in a few words, under pain of not being believed. We published a 400-page book on the subject in 2008, containing all the information the reader will ever need to prove that the Jewish Mafia is, by far the most powerful Mafia in the world. Here we present a small glimpse of this octopus-like international power, engaged in all illegal activities: Ecstasy, heroin, cocaine, prostitution, gambling, porn, arms dealing, plus money laundering, through the agency, in particular, of the diamond industry.

The production and distribution of Ecstasy all over the world is entirely in the hands of the Jewish Mafia. In fact, all the dealers who have ever been indicted anywhere in the world – without a single exception – (see The Jewish Mafia, 2008) – have been Jewish criminals. And all of them were in possession of Israeli passports, for the simple reason that the State of Israel almost never extradites Israeli citizens.
Liberation, the daily newspaper, of 23 July 2001, in fact, informs us that the Israeli Mafia has “hijacked the market in synthetic drugs”. The 11 August 2001 issue of Le Figaro confirms this: “Ecstasy is theprivate hunting ground of the Israeli criminal underground”.The synthetic drug called “Ecstasy”, which provides a sensation of power and well-being for a few hours, is a veritable chemical garbage can. Its effects, long term, are irreversible: memory loss, behavioural disturbances, sleep disturbances, loss of concentration, and brain damage in the children of drug-addicted mothers. But these complications are of no matter in the eyes of the dealers.

Holland is the most important producer in the world. The drug is produced there in dozens of clandestine laboratories. At the head of the traffic, we find Israelis linked to various “Russian” mafias, which organize the networks supplying Europe, the United States, Japan and Australia. Sometimes the dealers use young Orthodox Jews to smuggle the drug past border check points. For a long time, customs agents never even thought of suspecting these religious Jews in their black caftans, black hats and ringlets. Each of these “mules” transported 35,000 to 50,000 tablets per trip. These smugglers, who criss-crossed between Europe and the United States, were paid 1500 dollars per trip.

The Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz of 6 April 2003, confirms the role of these “Israeli” criminals: “Israel is the hub of the internationalEcstasy traffic, according to a document published by the United StatesDepartment of State. These past few years, organized crime in Israel,linked to criminal organizations in Russia, has taken control ofdistribution of the drug in Europe, according to an official document. This document notes that the Israeli criminal groups have taken controlof the Ecstasy traffic in North America. Over the course of the year2000, 80% of all the Ecstasy sold in the United States originated fromHolland, which is the largest centre ofproduction.”

The Arc, known as “the monthly of French Judaism”, published this information in May 2007:” Zeev Rosenstein, the most famous godfatherof the Israeli milieu, has returned from the United States to complete a12-year prison sentence for drug dealing”. Rosenstein was sentenced for importing 850,000 Ecstasy pills into the United States. The weekly newspaper Marianne, on 18 August 2007, informs us that Rosenstein’s organization was active on four continents, and used “small Latin-American gangs of smugglers for the distribution of his synthetic drug.”At a cost of production of 20 or 25 cents, one single Ecstasy pill, sold to a distributor for 2 dollars, who himself resells it in a discotheque for 10 or 15 dollars, or even 30-40 dollars, can feed quite a large family. What is more, if the discotheque belongs to you, this makes you “King of the Night”.

The reality of “accusatory inversion” is easily verified, for example, by the 1987 film by Gerard Oury , Levy et Goliath: Moise Levy, a Hassidic Jew and diamond dealer at Antwerp, has fallen out with brother Albert, a Parisian cafe owner, ever since the latter married a goy. Moise takes the train for France, where he is supposed to deliver diamond powder to the Renault factory, but he finds himself involved, despite himself, in a coke trafficking deal. The coke dealers and pimps here are tall, blond-haired “Aryans” with blue eyes, very wicked and very anti-Semitic, while the Jews are always very likeable and innocent.

The film Lethal Weapon (USA, 1987), shows the methods of these horrible drug traffickers.

Two cops – one white and one Negro – are assigned to arrest the evil-doers. The two cops are atrociously tortured in the basement of a night club owned by one of the dealers. But you shouldn’t be surprised: the bad guys here are Viet Nam vets, white men, as usual, with blond hair and blue eyes. The poor Jews are completely innocent. The film is signed Richard Donner.

The sequel to Lethal Weapon2 (1989) is even more of a caricature: The two cops, who symbolize the triumphant multicultural society, are, this time, fighting a dangerous gang of South African drug dealers. The villains are all white – always Nordic, blond-haired and blue-eyed, and terribly, terribly racist. Richard Donner’s real name, let us note, is Richard Schwarzenberg. This information may be useful in understanding the messages disseminated through his films.
The film Blood Diamonds (USA, 2007) is a good example of media furtiveness whenever a Jewish criminal type is involved. The film only shows the role of the Jews in the diamond industry in one single image: an Orthodox Jew appears on the screen… for one-half second! The viewers are completely hood-winked. In his genre, the director, Edward Zwick, is a magician. You must realize, in fact, that the international diamond business, legal or illegal, is 100% in the hands of Jewish firms or dealers.

In the French film Taxi (1998), the dangerous criminals are Germans of the Nordic type, as stupid as they are wicked: a film by Gerard Pires.

In The Firm (USA, 1993), a young diplomat has just been recruited by a powerful law firm in Memphis. He gradually comes to the realisation that the company managers are in fact working for a terrible mafia gang in Chicago. All the lawyers present – about thirty of them – are white, Catholic and Nordic. They symbolize the American elite at its hypocritical best. The film is by Sydney Pollack, who also practises the technique of accusatory inversion. Thus it is that the Jews are always portrayed as innocent victims.

The Great Swindles

Not all swindlers are Jews, and not all Jews are swindlers. But, as Jacques Attali said, in 2002, “among Jews, as always, one never doesanything by halves: if you’re going to be a criminal, you might as wellas well be the best”. And the fact is that the really great swindles are exclusively the work of the Jews. We will only present a succinct summary of a few: we advise you to read The Jewish Mafia (2008), to become aware of the details and juicy anecdotes linked to these scandals.

We know that since the signature of the Kyoto agreements, by virtue of the principle that “the polluter pays”, all industrialists must acquire “rights” to compensate for the environmental damage caused by their activity. In 2007, the opening of the financial markets to “carbon credits” attracted international swindlers.

In Paris, it was sufficient to supply a photocopy of your identity card to obtain the status of a “broker”. Between the fall of 2008 and 2009, a colossal embezzlement of VAT on the “carbon tax” permitted the crooks to steal 1.4 billion euros from the French taxpayer. Sitting in Parisian internet cafes, the swindlers, over the BlueNet CO2 exchange system, acquired tons of “CO2 equivalents” for non-existent clients, without paying tax, in foreign countries, with a click of the computer. They then diverted these quotas to different countries to cover their tracks, then resold their cargoes in France to polluting industries, such as cement plants and electricity producers, invoicing them for VAT at 19.6%, which they never paid over to the state. The money evaporated instantly into accounts in Lithuania, Montenegro, or Hong Kong or Cyprus. The brains of the operation, Gregory Zaoui, had begun his criminal career by fraudulently reselling jeans and portable phones. Justice sent dozens of letters rogatory to Israel. As a result, the Ministry of Finance was compelled to reduce VAT on CO2 to zero per cent to restrict the fraud. Europol estimated the extent of the fraud at 5 billion euros. Have you ever heard of this gigantic swindle? No, of course not. Which is quite normal, because these same people control our TV channels.

Here’s another recent scandal: In December 2008, it was revealed that approximately 400 complaints had been filed by tradesmen, merchants and associations in a single year. The swindlers solicited electronic listings by fax or telephone. The inquiries led to the indictment of four persons in France in the month of April, followed by about thirty people in Israel by early December, in which 700,000 euros worth of jewellery and luxury vehicles were also seized. You haven’t heard about this scandal? Perfectly normal.
In March 2008, another gigantic VAT fraud was revealed, the brain of which was a certain Avi Rebibo, “a Franco-Israeli”.
We also recall the Claude Lipsky affair, the “swindler of thecentury”, who was sentenced in 2007 for embezzling the savings of 450 French soldiers.

In 2006, the swindler Gilbert Chickli, who swindled the banks by telephone, fled to Israel with 23 million euros.
In 2001-2004, the scope of the “Sentier” money laundering scandal was estimated at one billion euros. The media, curiously, did not insist on these matters.

There was also the recent case of Jacques Crozmarie, president of the Cancer Research Association, who embezzled money from TV viewers. He was sentenced in 2000. The swindler only repaid 26% of the money entrusted to him by French citizens. He also manifested a classic example of phenomenal chutzpah, declaring before French TV cameras: “I had pocketed even a single penny I would be a criminal. But look at my representation expenses, they are nothing! I don’t evenget my meals reimbursed when I eat at restaurants!”

In the USA, swindles occur in mammoth proportions. In April 2010, for example, a business man was prosecuted for a pyramid scheme. On Wednesday 21 April, the regulatory agency for the American stock market, the SEC, announced that it was bringing proceedings against the President of a Florida investment fund, Nevin K. Shapiro, for a 900 million dollars “Ponzi-type” pyramid scheme.

The year before, in November 2009, another Ponzi-type pyramid scheme, mounted by the lawyer Scott W. Rothstein, amounted to a billion dollars, according to The Wall Street Journal. The star lawyer of Florida was accused of selling shares in extra-judicial agreements to investors, promising 2-digit returns.

In February 2009, a stock market fraud exploded before the London Stock Exchange, for the sum of 600 million dollars. The principal protagonist was a certain Abraham Hochman.
On 18 January 2009, we learn that a Florida business man, Arthur Nadel, disappeared with 350 million dollars he was managing. In 2006, there was the “Abramoff swindle” as well.
All these swindlers were small fry compared to Bernard Madoff. This New York financier was nicknamed “the Jewish Treasury Bond” by members of the Jewish-American community. But the returns which he distributed to his clients were not the result of financial investments: he simply collected funds from new investors and distributed them to old ones. In December 2008, his company went bankrupt, ruining thousands of savers, and, at the same time, numerous influential Jews. He stole the investments of the Stephen Spielberg Foundation and the Elie Wiesel Foundation. Fifty billion dollars disappeared! It was the biggest swindle in the history of the world.

But the Jewish mafia was even more powerful in Russia, after the collapse of the Soviet Regime. In the 1990s, a handful of “oligarchs” got their clutches on the near-totality of Russian wealth, creating a reign of terror in the streets of the big cities, while the little people suffered in silence (see the summary in The Jewish Mafia, 2008). It requires an understanding of the actions of these people – Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Roman Abramovich and other, Boris Berezovsky – to understand the anti-Semitism of many Russians. Starting in 2000, the new Russian President, Vladimir Putin began to clean house. Since then, Khodorkovsky is in prison, and his fellow Jews fled to Israel, London or the Cote d’Azur.

The Pavel Lungin film, Tycoon (2003), of course, shows none of this. This is the scenario: at the end of the 80s, Platon Makovsky and his friends, young brilliant university students, abandon their scientific studies to launch themselves in business. Platon became the richest man in his country. Alas, he is soon killed in an assassination. The people responsible for this cowardly murder – stock “bad guys” – are all Russian patriots, tall, strong, with blue eyes, who are swindling the people and will stop at nothing to eliminate Platon, the likeable billionaire. There is obviously no need to study “Pavel Lungin”’s family tree to guess which “Mafia” he belongs to…

International Pimping

This topic was the object of a long very well documented chapter in our book entitled The Jewish Mafia. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, in 1989, tens of thousands of young women from Eastern Europe have been caught up by prostitution networks and sent to distant destinations.
The collapse of the USSR in 1991 led to a considerable impoverishment of the population. To attempt to escape from the misery and meet the needs of their young families, many young Russian, Ukrainian or Moldovan women answered attractive ads in newspapers. Unfortunately for them, these offers to work abroad proved to be traps laid by international pimps. The media remain extremely discreet on this subject. In the month of May 2000, however, a report by Amnesty International revealed the scope of the phenomenon and pointed the finger at the State of Israel, as the turntable of this traffic.

Here again, we shall only present a few recent incidents: on 20 September 2009, we learned that an international luxury prostitution network had been dismantled in Paris. Three people were charged with “aggravated pimping” and membership in a “criminal organization”. Young women from Eastern Europe had been coerced into relations with business men. The Nouvel Observateur spoke of a “couple from Narbonne”. The head of the network was said to be a 38-year old woman, manager of a clothing store, and “of Moroccan origin”. In the French press, usually, they explain that the persons responsible are “Lebanese”, “Russian”, “Chechen”, or “Armenian”. If the press never gives their names, it is because there is a good reason not to: in fact, one had to read the Egyptian newspaper Al Yom Saabeh to learn that this was the work of the Jewish Mafia.

In December 2008, at Limoges, information was received from an Israeli pimp, Moshe Suissa, adding: “Several thousand women were ‘sold’ to prostitution networks in Israel over the last four years, according to the inquiry of a Parliamentary committee. From 3,000 to 5,000 women were the victims of this traffic, which earned thousands of billions per year. According to a police inquiry, 120 persons were arrested for pimping in the past 15 years and sentenced to from 2 to 15 years in prison”. Let us note that this is a question of 3 to 5 thousand women per year, most of them literally kidnapped in Russia, the Ukraine or Moldova, through deceptive newspaper ads.

Sergio Leone’s beautiful film One Upon a Time in America (1984), tells the story of Jewish gangsters arriving in New York from their native Poland at the beginning of the century. We see them dedicating themselves to smuggling alcohol and all sorts of other sordid rackets. They burglarize a jewellery store, liquidate their competitors, become nightclub owners, and do not hesitate to prostitute women of their own tribe. Later, their leader changes his identity in order to become a Senator.

In L.A. Confidential (USA, 1997), a film by Curtis Hanford, after the novel by James Ellroy, Jewishness is shown with great discretion. The beginning of the film presents the godfather of the local mafia, in the Los Angeles of the 1950s: Meyer Cohen – “Mickey C., to his fan club”. He is, we learn, “the king of junk, racketeering and prostitution. He kills a dozen people per year” and makes big headlines.

At the cinema, some cosmopolitan directors have also very classically projected the guilt of their fellow Jews upon others. In Roger Hanin’s film (real name: “Levy”), The Protector (1974), Nathalie, an 18-year old girl, disappears in the middle of Paris. To find her, her father, Samuel Malakian – a poor Jew – enters the White Slave trade directed by an aristocrat, Baron Metzger.

Take another look at the film Vice Squad, by “Jean Rougeron” (1987); Severine, 18 years old, falls into the hands of a pimp. Alarmed by her disappearance, her loved ones alert the vice squad. The inquiry orients the police to a White Slave network, the “Horsch” network. These villains kidnap girls to resell them to very rich foreigners.

These are all Nazis, Germans, tall, blond, with blue eyes. In the same register, Steven Spielberg’s film on the slave trade, Amistad (USA, 1997), does not show the dominant role played by Jewish merchants in this tragedy (see the chapter in The Jewish Mafia) and throws all the weight of the ignominy onto Christians.

The Organ Traffic

The organ traffic was the topic of a scandal during the summer of 2009. On 24 July, in the United States, about forty local representatives and five rabbis were arrested in New Jersey, and several synagogues were searched. The authorities suspected the suspects of corruption, extortion, money laundering, and… organ trafficking. Rabbi Levy Izhak Rosenbaum was accused of persuading Moldovan donors to sell their kidneys for 10,000 dollars, so as to resell them for 16 times as much in the USA and Israel. “He targeted vulnerable people”, stated Mark MacCarron, substitute Federal prosecutor. Rosenbaum took care of all the formalities required to cover the donor’s trip to New York, where the operation took place. It turned out that Rosenbaum was the principal intermediary of Illen Peri, who remained in Israel, and who was the brains of the operation.
In January 2004, already, a retired Israeli army officer named Geldaya Tauber Gady was arrested in Brazil for his participation in an international organ trafficking network. He then explained to the court that the operation was financed by the Israeli government. The fact is that the Israelis do not donate their organs for religious reasons. Israel is thus the only country in which the medical profession does not condemn the illegal traffic in organs, and where no action is taken against physicians who engage in the practice.
In 2003, Ilan Peri, 52 years old, was indicted in a network discovered in South Africa. It had performed at least one hundred kidney transplants. The operations, which benefited the Israelis, had taken place at the Saint Augustine clinic in Durban. The donors, in turn, were poor Brazilians from the region of Recife, who were paid up to 100,000 dollars per kidney. But the rates dropped quickly: to 3000 dollars.
Mike Levinski, an Israeli citizen, was the pioneer of the Moldovan network. The 15 February 2002 issue of Le Point, a weekly newspaper, provides some information on this traffic. We learn that the Moldovans, citizens of a small country located between Rumania and the Ukraine, were quite poor, and some of them were reduced to selling a kidney to survive. Israeli racketeers prospected on the spot, offering donors 3000 dollars for their “pound of flesh”. The commission received by the racketeers amounted to 30,000 dollars per kidney, while the surgeon’s fees amounted to 100,000 to 200,000 dollars per operation. Donors and patients found themselves in Turkey in the clinic of Dr. Sonmez, who admitted practicing more than 500 transplants over the past 5 years, without ever being bothered by the Turkish police. The traffic was obviously extremely profitable, judging by the number of small ads of intermediaries published in the Israeli press.

The “donors” were not always aware of what was happening to them. After benign operations, for appendicitis or something similar, performed on young Moldovans, they woke up with scars in the wrong places. They were then informed that it had been necessary to remove a kidney which was not functioning properly, or that, as was the case with Serghei, an X-ray later revealed that their surgeon had simply stolen their kidney.

Nancy Scheper-Hughes, of the University of California, the specialist in this field, visited villages in Moldova where, she wrote, “20% of the adult men had been recruited to be kidney vendors”.

In December 2001, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that the Rumanian ambassador in Israel had demanded to be received by the Minister of Social Affairs to discuss the topic of what was beginning to be a scandal in his country. On this occasion, we learn, he demanded explanations and had given the Ministry a list of children born in Rumania who had been brought to Israel to be adopted, “with all theirorgans inside their bodies”. It therefore seems that the adoption of Rumanian infants in Israel is perhaps not just a work of charity.

The “Rabbi Rosenbaum Affair” reopened the case. At the end of 2009, the Swedish journalist Donald Bolström, after an on-the-spot investigation, accused the Israeli army of taking organs from Palestinian prisoners. On the Internet, tongues loosened. Israeli doctors from the medico-legal legal institute of Abou Kabir were accused of having extracted the vital organs (heart, kidneys, liver) from young Palestinians killed by the Israeli army in Gaza or the West Bank. The bodies were sometimes returned to the families, stuffed with cotton and stitched up from top to bottom, but usually guarded in numbered tombs.

During an interview on the Al-Jazira TV channel, the former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat accused the Israelis of murdering infants and young Palestinians so as to collect their vital organs for transplant purposes. “They murdered our children and used theirorgans like the recycling of spare parts. Why did the world remainsilent? Israel benefits from this silence to intensify its oppression andterror against our people”, Arafat charged. Over the course of this interview, which was held on 14 January 2002, Arafat showed photographs of mutilated children.

In early October 2009, it was revealed that the network of rabbi Rosenbaum was also operating in Morocco. Pr. Mustapha Khiarti, president of the National Foundation for the promotion of health and research and development, revealed that the network specialized in kidnapping children in Algeria. The operations were performed in Moroccan clinics located in Oujda. Rabbi Rosenbaum concerned himself with the financing to acquire the necessary equipment for the surgical operations, and the transport of the organs to New York.

In July 2009, we learned that at Bucharest, in Rumania, three persons had been arrested on charge of trafficking in human ova, this time. The two persons responsible for the Sabyc clinic, a father and son, were Israelis. Two other Israelis who worked in this clinic were also booked. The clinic paid the donors sums between 800 to 1,000 lei (approximately 190 to 238 euro), while Rumanian law strictly prohibited the payment for the donation of organs or cells. According to the Rumanian media, most of the recipients were Israelis. They paid between twelve and fifteen thousand euro for the performance of fertilization in vitro. The ovules originated from young Rumanian women in situations of social difficulty.

Accusatory inversion is seen here in a film called Dirty PrettyThings (Britain, 2002): Okwe is a poor black of Nigerian origin who lives in London, England. He is an illegal immigrant, and life is not easy. But he works hard to survive. He works as a taxi driver by day and receptionist at night, in a London hotel. But strange things start happening in the hotel, and Okwe discovers that the hotel where he works is just a front for an organ dealing operation, orchestrated by the person responsible for that floor, who exploits poverty-stricken immigrants. In exchange for a kidney, poor Third World immigrants are promised a passport or a visa: a kidney for a passport. The operation is performed in one of the suites in the hotel by inexperienced physicians. Persecuted by the immigration services (two white Englishmen – very evil people), Okwe does not dare report what he knows. So he attempts to dismantle the traffic by other means, assisted by a Turkish cleaning lady, a black prostitute and a Chinaman working in a morgue. The poor clandestine immigrants (“undocumented aliens”) are the victims of blackmail, pressure, rape and crimes, while the bad guys, once again, are whites. The film was produced by the director Stephen Frears, who is a “white man”, as you may have guessed…

See The Believers (USA, 1987). In this film (do doubt you were expecting this): at New York, young children are kidnapped and serve as victims of ritual sacrifice. The psychologist Jamison discovered the existence of a sect, Santeria, practicing a Cuban variant of voodoo. The film is by John Schlesinger, who is not a member of any voodoo sect…
In the film by Peter Webber, Hannibal Lector, the Origins of Evil (2007), which unveils the childhood of the cannibal psychopathic killer of The Silence of the Lambs we see, in one scene, that a child killer can also be a good Christian, who is anxious for his own children to go to church.
It may be a bit easier to understand now why Jewish intellectuals, as a whole, are fiercely opposed to the death penalty. It is not just the fruit of philosophical reflection, but, rather, of a well-understood self-interest…

Understanding the Jews, Understanding Anti-Semitism

Hervé Ryssen 

Babi Yar

 

Documented History

After German troops had occupied Ukraine’s capital Kiev on 19 September 1941, Soviet partisans blew up several large buildings in the city center on 24 September, killing hundreds of German soldiers, mostly officers. The explosions caused a fire that eventually destroyed a square mile of Kiev’s center, making some 50,000 persons homeless. Efforts to extinguish the fires were also sabotaged by partisans. The Germans found a Soviet mining map showing about 50 objects readied for remote-controlled detonation. Large quantities of mines, explosives and “Molotov Cocktails” were also discovered.

Several reports by the Einsatzgruppen and by other units mention the fatalities and destruction caused by the partisan activities. Since the Germans suspected Jews to have been the main participants in this disaster, the city’s Jews were singled out for reprisal measures, officially by resettling them elsewhere to make room for the homeless. Posters in the city proclaimed that all of Kiev’s Jews had to show up on 29 September at a certain street intersection near the city’s cemeteries close to a ravine called Babi Yar.

The Einsatzgruppen’s Event Report No. 101 of 2 October 1941 states:

“In collaboration with Group Headquarters and two squads from the Police Regiment South, Sonderkommando 4a executed 33,771 Jews in Kiev on 29 and 30 Sept. 41.”

Later German documents repeated this number or a similar, rounded number as the death toll of this alleged blood bath, which allegedly found no opposition among the local non-Jewish populace, or was even supported by them. None of the documents indicate where exactly these executions took place.

Several photos taken by German military photographer Johannes Hähle in Kiev during those days show groups of several dozen people walking along streets; on other photos, numerous people are working with shovels in a ravine; several other photos show the bottom of a ravine littered with clothes and luggage, but with no people anywhere, dead or alive.

Although the radio messages sent by German SS units in Ukraine to Berlin were intercepted and deciphered by the British at that time, not a single reference to this event can be found.

Later Einsatzgruppen reports mention minor events in Kiev, such as the public hanging of three saboteurs or the shooting of a robber, but no large-scale execution.

Propaganda History

On 21 October 1941, the pro-National-Socialist Ukrainian newspaper Krakiwski Wisti wrote that the Jews of Kiev had been driven into barbed-wire enclosures, and from there by foot to an undisclosed destination.

On 4 November 1941, a certain Andrei I. Maremukha, a junior lieutenant in the militia, authored a report claiming that, on 23 September 1941, the Germans had killed a hundred Jews outside the city of Kiev by taken them to a pit that was mined.

On 13 November, a Polish underground radio station reported that Germans and Ukrainians had shot 35,000 Jews in Kiev.

On 16 November 1941, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) published an article claiming that 52,000 Jews had been executed by the Germans in Kiev. On 31 December 1941, the JTA specified that “practically the entire Jewish male population of Kiev” had been executed as spies and partisans, and that the remaining Jews were killed by exploding mines, with any survivors getting machine-gunned. The report repeated the death-toll of 52,000 murdered Jews.

On 19 November 1941, the two Soviet newspapers Pravda and Izvestia reported that “the Germans in Kiev killed 52,000 Jews.”

On 10 December 1941, the Soviet newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda published the report of a regiment commissar about a massacre of Kiev’s Jews, mentioning for the first time the name Babi Yar.

On 6 January 1942, the Soviet Union’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Vyacheslav Molotov, reported the murder of a “large number of Jews” at the Jewish Cemetery of Kiev.

The JTA reported on 15 March 1942 that 240,000 Jews had been executed by the Germans in Ukraine, claiming that people were even buried alive, and that therefore the ground was “moving in waves.”

On 20 July 1942, the Warsaw Ghetto’s underground press agency claimed that all of Kiev’s Jews had been drowned in the Dnjepr River.

On 28 October 1942, the JTA reported that Jews in Kiev were getting murdered, and their bodies dumped into the Dnjepr River.

On 29 November 1943, The New York Times reported that 50,000 Kiev Jews had been ordered to a ravine, where they had been machine-gunned, although the evidence for it was “sparse.”

Late on 28 February 1944, Radio Moscow reported that the Germans had murdered “more than 195,000 Soviet citizens” in Kiev by torture, shooting and poisoning in gas vans. This was a preview of an expert report issued by a Soviet Extraordinary State Commission charged with investigating the claimed mass murder, burial, exhumation and cremation at Babi Yar, which was officially dated and issued the next day, 29 February 1944. (See the section on Forensic Findings below.)

To come to this conclusion, the NKGB interrogated several witnesses who either had witnessed the shootings in late September 1941, or who claimed to have worked on exhuming and burning the bodies of the murder victims.

Witness testimonies about the executions agree that the victims had to undress at the top of the ravine, meaning outside of it. Some stated that the victims had to walk naked to the edge of the ravine, where they were shot at point-blank range, thus falling into the ravine. Others claimed that the victims were shot with (sub)machine guns from the opposite side or from both side of the ravine (e.g., see the entry on Dina Pronicheva). Another witness claimed that the victims had to run through the ravine while getting shot at from the edges (Nadezhda T. Gorbacheva). Children were tossed alive into the ravine.

However, machine-gun fire from the other side of the ravine, up to 100 meters away, would have been very inaccurate, particularly when the targets were moving. Lots of ammunition would have been wasted this way. If shooting at victims standing at the ravine’s edge from the opposite side, stray bullets could have hit any of the guards. Furthermore, if 33,771 Jews were all shot in one spot of the ravine’s edge, they all would have been lying on one big heap that eventually would have reached the ravine’s edge. Hence, someone had to drag away those corpses and spread them out in the ravine while all this wild submachine-gun shooting was allegedly happening. In other words, this most certainly did not happen.

German “perpetrator” witnesses who testified in the 1950s and 1960s (e.g., Fritz Höfer, Kurt Werner) insisted instead that the victims had to walk down into the ravine, then walk on the wobbly surface of wounded and dead victims already lying on the ground to a spot pointed out to them. There, they had to lay face down on the already executed victims below them, and then got shot at close range with a bullet from a submachine gun into the nape of their neck.

Of course, this would have required that all victims went like sheep to the slaughter. Furthermore, the photos taken by German military photographer Johannes Hähle show that people had deposited large amounts of clothes and personal belongings at the bottom of a ravine, hence inside, not at the top (outside). However, there are neither executed people visible on these photos, nor any other traces of a massacre. (See the entry on him.)

Within the so-called Aktion 1005, the mass graves are supposed to have been exhumed and the bodies cremated between mid-August and late September 1943 in order to erase all traces of this crime. Several witnesses, who all claimed to have been forced to do this work but managed to escape, testified about these alleged events. They all told a more-or-less consistent story:

Initially, some 100 inmates from the Syretsky Camp, 5 km from Kiev, were taken on or around 18 August 1943 to the ravine and put in shackles. There, they had to exhume bodies from mass graves, then pile them up on pyres in layers, alternating with layers of wood. These pyres contained some 2,000 to 3,000 bodies, rarely more. After they had burned down, bones in the cremation remains had to be crushed with pestles, and the ashes searched for valuables. After a while, this team of slave laborers was increased to some 320-330 men.

All in all, some 50,000 to 125,000 bodies were allegedly cremated, depending on the witness. On or around September 29, a revolt among the inmates broke out, and some of them managed to flee, among them the witnesses who testified. (See the entries on Semen Berlyant, Isaak Brodsky, David Budnik, Vladimir Davydov, Iosif Doliner, Yakov Kaper, Vladislav Kuklia, Leonid Ostrovsky, Yakov Steyuk, Ziama Trubakov.)

While these witnesses differ in several minor points, by and large they agree on what happened. This is a classic case of the convergence of evidence. However, all these witness statements describe events that cannot have happened the way they are described (see the witnesses’ entries for details):

Almost all witnesses give approximate sizes of the pyres they built, and how many bodies they contained. Yet if we add to the bodies the wood that would have been required to burn these bodies, the resulting pyres would have reached absurd heights. Such pyres could never have been built, neither would they have been stable, toppling over already while getting built or at the latest when burning down.

Sifting ashes with manual sieves and crushing unburned bones would have required that all the remains of a pyre had to be sifted. Wood-fired pyres burn unevenly and leave behind lots of unburned wood pieces, charcoal, and incompletely burned body parts, not just ashes and bones (80% of leftovers would have been from wood, not corpses). Incompletely burned wood and human remains could not have been crushed. If 100,000 bodies were burned, then several thousand metric tons of cremation leftovers had to be processed. Just this task would have required hundreds of men to complete in time. Any manual sieve – allegedly like flour sieves, hence with very small mesh sizes – would have clogged with the first load. Moreover, occasional inevitable rainfalls would have turned any burned-out pyre into a moist heap of highly alkaline, corrosive slush that could not have been processed this way at all. Any reasonable person facing this challenge would have employed industrial-sized strainers, loaded large quantities of cremation remains on them, flushed out all small parts with water, picked out any valuables, then dumped the rest onto a burning pyre for further cremation. The claim that a few inmates were sifting through thousands of tons of cremation remains with manual sieves is preposterous.

Cremating an average human body during open-air incinerations requires some 250 kg of freshly cut wood. Cremating 100,000 bodies thus requires some 25,000 metric tons of wood. This would have required the felling of all trees growing in a 50-year-old spruce forest covering almost 56 hectares of land, or some 125 American football fields. An average prisoner is rated at being able to cut some 0.63 metric tons of fresh wood per workday. To cut this amount of wood within the five weeks (35 days) that this operation supposedly lasted would have required a work force of some 1,134 dedicated lumberjacks just to cut the wood. None of the witnesses mentioned any kind of wood-cutting team. They all stated that everyone was busy digging out mass graves, extracting bodies, building pyres, sifting through ashes, crushing bones, and finally scattering the ashes and refilling the graves with soil. There was just no way to obtain that much firewood at such short notice for such a huge operation – especially not when the fighting front was getting dangerously close.

Hence, this is a classic case of the convergence of evidence on a lie. After all, these witnesses were interviewed not by some mild-mannered, serious prosecutor or judge, but by members of the Soviet state’s terrorist organization NKGB.

Having several mutually consistent witness accounts in hand “confirming” the huge exhumation and cremation activities, the Soviet authorities neglected the other end of the equation: testimonies by locals. 25,000 metric tons of wood transported to the cremation sites with a typical 5-ton truck amounts to 5,000 truckloads. While there are a few witness statements of the local populace about the shootings claimed for the 29th and 30th of September 1941, there is not a single testimony or diary entry about the alleged cremation activities lasting five weeks, involving thousands of trucks driving in and out of Kiev, and smoke blanketing parts of the city.

Add to this the fact that a German report from early 1943 stated that it was impossible to provide Kiev’s civilian population with sufficient firewood due to a lack of means to transport it. By August and September of the year, with the front near Kiev, the transportation situation was far worse. There simply was no wood and no huge truck fleet to haul them.

To bolster the case of mass murder at Babi Yar for presentation at the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal., U.S. and Soviet propagandists collaborated by extracting a coerced affidavit from an unknown (and maybe invented) German in U.S. captivity named Gerhard Adametz. His story has too many similarities with the NKGB-extracted testimonies to be independent, too many absurdities to be real, and too many anglicisms to have been written by a German. (See the entry on Gerhard Adametz.)

Soviet photo of Babi Yar taken in 1943, with no spectacular discoveries at all.

Once the Americans were on their own without any NKGB help to straighten out their stories, they faltered. In 1947, they extracted an affidavit, evidently by means of torture, from their captive Paul Blobel. Blobel is said to have been involved in both the murders and the clean-up action at Babi Yar. What he wrote about the clean-up operation, though, was physically impossible nonsense: bodies lying in mass graves burned right there and all by themselves, right to the bottom of the grave. (See the entry on Paul Blobel.)

When a show trial about Babi Yar was staged in Stuttgart, West Germany, in 1968/69, Soviet propaganda had long since been cast in stone. Gerhard Adametz’s fake testimony played a central role even during that trial, which accepted the Soviet propaganda story. The four defendants played along with this charade, with one of them getting 4 years, another 2 and a half years in prison, while the other two were acquitted: 6.5 years for 50,000 murders, as the court claimed. That’s 41 minutes for every Jewish life taken.

Forensic Findings

If 195,000 persons had been killed in and near Kiev, but only some 50,000 to 125,000 were exhumed and burned, as the witnesses claimed, where are the remaining 70,000 to 145,000 bodies? The Soviet Extraordinary State Commission investigating Kiev forced a few German PoWs to dig for them in several places, among them Babi Yar. But all they allegedly found were the remains of 150 Soviet citizens, and a few traces of burned remains. Even if that is true, who can reassure us that these weren’t NKVD victims from before the war?

No tombstones, rails, iron racks or fences, presumably used to build pyres, were discovered in Babi Yar, although two witnesses insisted that they had been buried there. Lacking any hard evidence, the ravine was later used as a garbage dump by the city of Kiev.

In the late 1970s, the U.S. released German wartime air photos they had captured in Germany and brought to the U.S. after the war. Among them are photos of Kiev dated 26 September 1943, showing the Babi Yar ravine in high resolution. This is supposed to have been at the very end of the claimed daily burning of thousands of bodies. We should see the floor of the ravine and its surroundings mauled by hundreds of trucks delivering firewood for weeks; the ravine’s walls massively damaged by people and vehicles going in and out; ramps allowing vehicles to drive in, unload fuel, and drive back out; large scorched areas of burned-down pyres, blackened by ashes and charcoal leftovers; the smoldering, smoking remnants of the last pyres.

Nothing of that sort can be seen on it, because nothing happened.

(For more details on Babi Yar, see Rudolf 2019, pp. 509-538; 2020a, pp. 153-156; 2023, pp. 317-324; Mattogno 2022c, pp. 523-579, 770-792.)

Repercussions

As mentioned at the beginning of this entry, several German wartime documents exist which mention the murder of 33,771 Jews in Kiev. The exactitude of this number itself is suspicious, because it is highly unlikely that any executioner would have kept such exact details.

If the huge exhumation and cremation in August and September never happened, the corpses should still be in the ground. But if so, why did the Soviets not find them after the war? However, none of these German documents mention Babi Yar. Could those Jews have been murdered and buried elsewhere? But if so, why were those mass graves never found or at least mentioned by anyone?

Maybe the death toll was vastly exaggerated, perhaps by accidentally (or deliberately) adding an extra “3” or “7” – perhaps 3,371 were executed, or maybe even just 371.

Or worse, it is conceivable that the documents reporting this massacre are profoundly wrong simply because nothing ever happened. Or perhaps they were tampered with, or even forged. Anything is possible.

For more information on these issues, see the entry on Johannes Hähle, the Einsatzgruppen and on Aktion 1005.

**

Adametz, Gerhard

Gerhard Adametz was in U.S. captivity after the war at Dachau, where he was interrogated, most likely using the customary torture applied by the Americans to many, if not most of their captives. (See the entry on torture.) He signed a 36-pages-long handwritten statement on 17 October 1945. However, that original has disappeared. All that survived is an alleged transcript of 12 pages. A Russian translation of it was given the document ID USSR-80 at the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal.

According to this transcript, Adametz claimed to have reached Kiev around 10 September 1943 with a group of 40 policemen called “Detachment 1005 b.” There he was led “to an old cemetery about 5 km from Kiev,” where he was led “into the adjacent field.” There he saw about 100 inmates whose legs were shackled with a chain.

One hundred, later some 330 inmates, he claimed, were extracting corpses from mass graves and piling them up on stacks containing about 700 or even about 2,000 bodies each – with no wood in between. These bodies, merely placed “on a wooden base,” were then surrounded by wood leaning against the finished pile, after which the whole pile was set ablaze. This work ended around 1 October 1943. All in all, about 100,000 bodies were exhumed and burned this way.

Rather than placing the mass graves and the resulting pyres in the ravine named Babi Yar, Adametz has this event take place in a field. He never mentions Babi Yar. This indicates that he was describing an event at a location he had never seen.

His description of the incineration technique allegedly used is technically impossible. His piles of corpses, allegedly two to three meters high, were merely sitting on a wooden base and then surrounded by wood leaning against the pile. The wooden base, covered by these large piles of corpses, would never have caught fire, and the wood leaning against the pile would have burned down without transferring any noticeable amount of heat to the bodies in the center.

The survivor witnesses who were interrogated by the NKGB after the war at least had their pyres built by alternating layers of wood and corpses, so in theory those could have worked. However, their calculated sizes would have made them technically impossible, too. (See the entries on Semen Berlyant, Isaak Brodsky, David Budnik, Vladimir Davydov, Iosif Doliner, Yakov Kaper, Vladislav Kuklia, Leonid Ostrovsky, Yakov Steyuk, Ziama Trubakov.)

The total number of 100,000 bodies allegedly cremated accidentally happens to coincide with the number of bodies allegedly buried at Babi Yar, according to the Extraordinary Soviet Commission.

Cremating an average human body during open-air incinerations requires some 250 kg of freshly cut wood. Cremating 100,000 bodies thus requires some 25,000 metric tons of wood. This would have required the felling of all trees growing in a 50-year-old spruce forest covering almost 56 hectares of land, or some 125 American football fields. An average prisoner is rated at being able to cut some 0.63 metric tons of fresh wood per workday. To cut this amount of wood within the five weeks (35 days) that this operation supposedly lasted would have required a work force of some 1,134 dedicated lumberjacks just to cut the wood. Adametz says nothing about huge piles of firewood, and where it came from.

In his affidavit, Adametz made statements about other locations where his unit supposedly guarded other inmate groups exhuming and burning corpses from mass graves. However, his claims as to where his unit went, and how long they stayed at which location, how many corpses were exhumed and burned are highly erratic and inconsistent. Moreover, his unit took extended breaks, recovery periods and furloughs. After having wrapped up Babi Yar, his unit was involved, from 16 October 1943 to 20 January 1944, in the exhumation and cremation of… 6,000 bodies! This is less than 62 bodies per day – a fraction of the hundreds of thousands of bodies that he allegedly just processed. It is also noteworthy that 40 to 50 inmate slave laborers were deployed at each location he mentions, no matter the number of corpses to be processed or the time available for it. In other words, his narrative was invented from scratch with no connection to reality. (See also the entry on Rumbula.)

The German text of Adametz’s statement is riddled with anglicisms both by choice of words and by sentence structure. Hence, the original text of Adametz’s statement was not written by a German in German, but in English, after which it was incorrectly translated into German by an inexperienced translator. Hence, even if Adametz handwrote this text, he did not write down his own words, but copied a poorly translated, originally English-language text. He would never have done this voluntarily. It therefore stands to reason that the American investigators cobbled together a text in English, translated it to German, softened up Adametz to make him cooperative, and had him sign it. This was probably done with assistance from the Soviets to make sure Adametz’s story about Babi Yar aligned with the Soviet version, as the Soviets evidently planned to use it, and then indeed introduced it, as evidence. Hence, they may even have requested this affidavit from the Americans.

Finally, no person by the name of Gerhard Adametz is known to historiography in any other historical context. The whole thing may just have been made up from beginning to end by the Americans and Soviets.

(For more details, see the entry on Babi Yar, as well as Mattogno 2022c, pp. 542-546, 550-563, 598-600.)

**

Berlyant, Semen

Semen Berlyant was a Ukrainian Jew working on a German-run farm near Kiev during the war. In early September 1943, he was taken from there to Babi Yar, a place where tens of thousands of Jews are said to have been shot and buried by the Germans in mass graves in late September 1941 (see the entry on Babi Yar). He was interrogated by the NKGB on 16 November 1943 about his alleged experiences at Babi Yar.

Among other things, Berlyant stated that he and some 320 other slave-labor inmates were put in chains and had to exhume mass graves and burn the extracted bodies on pyres. Those pyres had 300 corpses in one layer, alternating with layers of wood, with a total of 3,000 bodies per pyre. This results in ten layers.

Let’s assume that a running meter of a pyre two meters wide can accommodate four corpses. Each corpse requires 250 kg of freshly cut wood (see open-air incinerations). The density of green wood is roughly 0.9 tons per m³, and its stacking density on a pyre is 1.4 (40% for air and flames to go through). This means that the wood required to burn just one layer of corpses is some 0.75 meters high. Adding the body layer gets us to roughly a meter. Ten such layers result in a pyre ten meters high. It would have been impossible to build such a pyre, and also impossible to burn it down without it collapsing and spilling burning wood and corpses all over the place.

Berlyant claimed that in total 70,000 corpses were burned at Babi Yar. Cremating 70,000 bodies thus requires some 17,500 metric tons of wood. This would have required the felling of all trees growing in a 50-year-old spruce forest covering almost 39 hectares of land, or some 87 American football fields. An average prisoner is rated at being able to cut some 0.63 metric tons of fresh wood per workday. To cut this amount of wood within the five weeks this operation is said to have lasted (35 days) would have required a work force of some 800 dedicated lumberjacks just to cut the wood. Berlyant claims his unit consisted only of 320 inmates, all busy digging out mass graves, extracting bodies, building pyres, and according to other testimonies, also sifting through ashes, scattering the ashes and refilling the graves with soil. Berlyant said nothing about where the firewood came from.

Berlyant also asserted that people murdered in gas vans were brought to Babi Yar for cremation. However, considering that the front was getting very close to Kiev during September 1943, it is unlikely that anyone would have operated gas vans in Kiev’s vicinity. All this apart from the fact that gas vans are a figment of Soviet atrocity propaganda (see the entry on gas vans).

(For more details, see the entry on Babi Yar, as well as Mattogno 2022c, pp. 533f., and 550-563.)

**

Brodsky, Isaak

Isaak Brodsky was a Ukrainian Jew who claimed to have been taken by German units in June 1943 to Babi Yar, a place where tens of thousands of Jews are said to have been shot and buried by the Germans in mass graves in late September 1941 (see the entry on Babi Yar). In an undated interview with the NKGB sometime in November or December 1943, he claimed that he was forced to exhume corpses from mass graves at Babi Yar and burn them on pyres. After that, the ashes were presumably sifted in search of valuables. He asserted that 70,000 bodies were burned at Babi Yar.

Brodsky’s statement is very brief and devoid of any specifics, making it difficult to assess his claims. His dating is noticeably off, though, because other witnesses claim that exhumations and cremation started only in mid-August 1943, not in June.

His claim that the ashes were sifted for valuables is naïve and betrays a lie, that all the remains of a pyre had to be sifted for unburned remains. Wood-fired pyres burn unevenly and leave behind lots of unburned wood pieces, charcoal and incompletely burned body parts, not just ashes (80% of leftovers would have been from wood, not corpses). Any sieve would have clogged with the first load. Moreover, any occasional rainfall would have rendered any burned-out pyre into a moist heap of highly alkaline, corrosive slush that could not have been processed at all. If 70,000 bodies were burned, then several thousand metric tons of cremation leftovers had to be processed. Just this job would have required hundreds of men to complete in time.

Cremating an average human body during open-air incinerations requires some 250 kg of freshly cut wood. Cremating 70,000 bodies thus requires some 17,500 metric tons of wood. This would have required the felling of all trees growing in a 50-year-old spruce forest covering almost 39 hectares of land, or some 87 American football fields. An average prisoner is rated at being able to cut some 0.63 metric tons of fresh wood per workday. To cut this amount of wood within five weeks (35 days) that this operation supposedly lasted would have required a work force of some 800 dedicated lumberjacks just to cut the wood. Brodsky claimed his unit consisted only of 320 inmates, all busy digging out mass graves, extracting bodies, building pyres, and also sifting through ashes, scattering the ashes and refilling the graves with soil. Brodsky said nothing about where the firewood came from.

(For more details, see the entry on Babi Yar, as well as Mattogno 2022c, p. 534, and 550-563.)

**

Budnik, David

David Budnik was a Ukrainian Jew interned in the Syretsky Camp, 5 km from Kiev. On 18 August 1943, he was taken from there to Babi Yar, a place where tens of thousands of Jews are said to have been shot and buried by the Germans in mass graves in late September 1941 (see the entry on Babi Yar). He evidently was interviewed about his alleged experiences for the first time more than 20 years after the event on 14 February 1967. In 1980, during another interrogation in the Soviet Union – although not by court officials, yet by the KGB – Budnik repeated his terse description from 13 years earlier.

Among other things, Budnik stated that he and other slave-labor inmates were put in chains and had to exhume mass graves, and burn the extracted bodies on pyres. During his interrogations, he did not give any specifics about the pyres, other than that up to 2,000 bodies were placed on each of them. He asserted, however, that a total of 120,000 to 125,000 bodies were burned this way.

In a 1993 book containing an essay by Budnik, he describes the pyres used. They were built on an area of 10 m × 10 m, and were at least three meters high. However, this description was at least partially plagiarized from another witness, Ziama Trubakov, who testified in 1967:

“Tombstones and iron fences were brought from the Jewish cemetery, and then an area 10 x 10 m was planned, where they were laid in checker board pattern so that they formed an ash pan;”

In Budnik’s 1993 essay, we read:

“These tombstones were laid on the site 10 meters across by 10 meters in width, like a chessboard. Rails and fences were laid on top of them.”

On the pyre described by Budnik, some 20 bodies would have been placed per square meter. With some 250 kg of freshly cut word needed to burn one body, this would have amounted to 5 metric tons of wood. Fresh wood has a density of roughly 0.9 tons per m³, and when stacked on a pyre, the gaps make up some 40% of the space (for air and flames to go through). Therefore, 5 metric tons of wood on a surface of one square meter stack up to a height of some 8 meters. Add to this the 20 to 25 bodies. This means that the pyres described by Budnik would have been at least ten meters high, not just “at least three meters.” Such a huge pyre could have been built only with cranes. Once lit, it inevitably would have burned unevenly, hence would have toppled over and spilled burning wood and corpses all over the place.

Cremating an average human body during open-air incinerations requires some 250 kg of freshly cut wood. Cremating 120,000 bodies thus requires some 30,000 metric tons of wood. This would have required the felling of all trees growing in a 50-year-old spruce forest covering almost 67 hectares of land, or some 149 American football fields. An average prisoner is rated at being able to cut some 0.63 metric tons of fresh wood per workday. To cut this amount of wood within five weeks (35 days) that this operation supposedly lasted would have required a work force of some 1,360 dedicated lumberjacks just to cut the wood. Budnik didn’t specify how many men were in his unit. The maximum number claimed by other witnesses was just over 300 men, all busy digging out mass graves, extracting bodies, building pyres, crushing bones, sifting through ashes, scattering the ashes and refilling the graves with soil. Budnik said nothing about where the firewood came from.

Budnik claimed that, after the pyres had burned down, unburned bones were ground down, the cremation remains sifted through sieves, and the remaining powder scattered. However, wood-fired pyres burn unevenly and leave behind lots of unburned wood pieces, charcoal, and incompletely burned body parts, not just ashes and bones (80% of leftovers would have been from wood, not corpses). Incompletely burned wood and human remains could not have been ground. Any sieve would have clogged with the first load. Moreover, any occasional rainfall would have rendered any burned-out pyre into a moist heap of highly alkaline, corrosive slush that could not have been processed at all. If 120,000 bodies were burned, then several thousand metric tons of cremation leftovers had to be processed. Just this job would have required hundreds of men to complete in time.

Budnik also insisted that they had to throw bodies of people into the pyres who had been killed in gas vans. However, considering that the front was getting very close to Kiev during September 1943, it is unlikely that anyone would have operated gas vans in Kiev’s vicinity. All this apart from the fact that gas vans are a figment of Soviet atrocity propaganda (see the entry on gas vans).

(For more details, see the entry on Babi Yar, as well as Mattogno 2022c, pp. 539f., and 550-563.)

www.NukeBook.org

www.HolocaustHandbooks.com.

How to Destroy Feminism, "Root & Branch"

 

It is well within our power.

Janice Fiamengo’s devastating new expose of feminism occasions some thoughts about how we might act upon her insistence that feminism is beyond reform or redemption and that it must be, as she says, “destroyed, root and branch”.

And if Dr Fiamengo’s book is not occasion enough, the trial of Lindsay Clancy for the gruesome murders of her own children — and perhaps even more, the chilling, mass-psychotic endorsement of those acts by both feminists (predictably) and millions of women under their influence — would seem to make the elimination of this deadly ideology an urgent imperative.

Dr Fiamengo’s scathing indictment of feminism sits atop mountains of less articulate discontent and legitimate anger. Even before the Clancy trial, the internet generally and the “manosphere” in particular were exploding with debates, arguments, and yes, enormous amounts of pointless chatter — all attesting to the ongoing breakdown of families, marriage, courtship, dating, sex, childbearing, childrearing, “relationships” generally between not only the sexes but also the generations, and finally, as she puts it, “civilization itself”. And now we might extend the list to basic human decency. This fear and anger proceeds from the growing realization that almost all of it results from feminist ideology.

Yet amid the growing consensus that feminism is a plague on our society, I also detect unbroken pessimism about the prospects that we can ever hope to rid ourselves of it. It is the most hazardous agenda of the left to criticize, and so hardly any effective opposition exists. From the quarters where we most expect resistance — conservatives and churches, for example — we find not only silence but active collaborators.

Dr Fiamengo herself refrains from offering solutions, and elsewhere she has expressed doubts about how to put an end to it. Others who attribute impending civilizational collapse to feminism are likewise at a loss to offer much hope. Another harsh academic critic of feminism, Dr Danielle Sulikowski (likewise recently interviewed on The Mansplainers), whose intriguing anthropological theory attributes civilizational decline to dysfunctional, feminist-inspired sexual dynamics, often ends her video interviews saying she sees no hope in checking the trends she describes and admits she can offer no remedies.

All this comes alongside a broader consensus that is now emerging in many fields of public affairs, perhaps most notably international politics, that contemplates the catastrophic decline of western global hegemony and even western civilization itself — predictions likewise frustratedly devoid of solutions. Seldom does this larger consensus connect the decline to sexual trends such as feminism (at least not openly), but the final result is the same.

So, can we really be rid of this pestilence?

Yes, and it is actually simple; it may even happen without our conscious or active effort. Feminism can be eradicated, unlike the way it imposes itself, without resorting to authoritarian measures or censorship or infringing anyone’s personal freedom.

It is true that little will be achieved by traditional political methods: voting, letter-writing, lobbying, litigation. Nor by engaging with the vast, largely feminine media industry catering to feminists and conveying chit-chat about “relationships”, he-said/she-said, celebrity gossip, other gossip, and similar self-indulgences.

Fortunately, the chatter is now superfluous. Janice has exposed the horrors of feminism — radical, liberal, “moderate”, socialist, the lot. Armed with this book, and a few others like it (many of which she cites),¹ the rest of us can concentrate our energy on using the power men still possess, not to complain about the problem but, as men have always done, to solve it.

What Is Needed

Breaking the back of feminism requires that men regain control of the two things that give women and feminists power: sex and children. Men can exercise their natural leadership role and free themselves, women, and their societies from the feminist-driven trainwreck by taking back their authority over the two things that naturally “empower” women and give feminists the leverage to inflict their tyranny over men and the rest of the society: sexuality and the reproductive system. These were the first things that feminists learned to control before they came to control, as Fiamengo shows, almost everything else.

Once men regain control over these two things, everything else will fall into place. Men’s secondary grievances will be easier to rectify. We can then all resume normal lives: finding mates, raising families, rebuilding our deteriorating civilization. We can even once again (strange as it may be to say) entrust children to the care of women.

Here Is How

So how do men regain their control over sex and reproduction? The first is relatively easy and provides the means to the second. In fact, many men have already embarked on this path without realizing it. They just need to do so with more determination and purpose.

Men can regain control over the terms of sex just like women do: by withholding it; by sexual self-control. This is already being provided spontaneously by the Marriage Strike: men’s impromptu boycott of marriage, families, and women generally. This is the larger importance of MGTOW, “incels”, and healthy versions of demands for male self-reliance. This trend is already starting to bite, which is why feminists and tradcons are so annoyed by it.

This in turn provides the leverage men need to re-establish iron-clad rights and authority over their children. Prior to the modern state’s quasi-totalitarian intrusion into private family life, this authority could just be assumed, not only by law, but simply through superior male strength. Nowadays, under the overweening state that effectively supersedes and neuters that strength, it is called “custody”, and it is bestowed by overmighty functionaries, from whom it can be re-acquired only by influencing or controlling the state power, which means taking it back from women and feminized men. Men must therefore use the leverage they are now steadily acquiring from the Marriage Strike to single-mindedly demand custodial authority over all children born within a legally binding marriage contract.

But demands must be backed by strength. Enough women can be persuaded to surrender their monopoly over reproduction, and even enlist themselves as allies to enact laws restoring paternal authority – but only if they are deprived of husbands and male attention for a time. Men exercising sufficient sexual self-control to boycott marriage and families are building the leverage they need to regain control over the reproductive system.

Those with public voices must be the ones to make clear to the world — including women, tradcons, churches, media, and the judicial/bureaucratic authorities — that these are the terms that men demand before they will return to engagement with women, mating, reproduction, and the rest. And they are the terms for resolving those manifestations of the crisis that agitate even the political class and mainstream media: birth dearth, fatherlessness, crime, shootings, plus many more ills from which they avert their eyes and hold their tongues but that lie within our power to remedy.

These conditions are not my opinion. The existing trend shows that they are a matter of objective fact.

Scolding and nagging and demonizing men are pointless. Nothing will change until the injustices of the custody machine are rectified. Change the laws and clean up the courts, and women — along with men, and children, and entire societies — will once again have families, along with the blessings and benefits that accrue from them: an abundance of happy and well-adjusted (and safe) offspring, social stability, law-and-order, economic prosperity, political freedom, constitutional rights, an enduring civilization.

Once men regain their authority over reproduction, feminism will wither. The cat women can still rant on about “inequality,” “wage gaps,” “male violence,” even “reproductive rights”, and whatever petty “unfairness” they care to concoct (“himpathy”? “gender washing”?), but no one will care. With fathers firmly ensconced as heads of their families, the cat women can no longer recruit massive numbers of teenage girls, and they will gradually age out of the population.

Is that not a pleasant thought?

1
An important virtue of this book is that Fiamengo is a professional scholar and cites sources. This is important not only for fairness but because it establishes a body of literature and shows the world that she did not dream all this up last week. Unlike our Tweets, this book and its documentation does not join a gazillion others out there in cyberspace. Politicians, judges, media, other scholars cannot dismiss it as some passing fad. Fiamengo cites a rich body of high-quality literature, published in mainstream publications and going back at least three decades, much of which is in danger of being forgotten. Some authors sacrificed enormously for their honesty, and some were so burned that they turned to other topics and never looked back: University of Arizona psychologist Sanford Braver’s book on divorced fathers; Helen Smith on the Marriage Strike; Melanie Phillips’ scathing book on gender politics; Cathy Young’s numerous articles on fathers and feminism, including a cover story in the The American Spectator; Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young’s books on misandry; plus more recent authors like William Collins, author of The Empathy Gap. She also cites my books, especially Taken Into Custody, where I likewise try to cite the many brave scholars and journalists who risked and often sacrificed their careers to challenge the injustices against fathers and children: Daniel Amneus on father custody; John Waters, who used (and gave up) his post on the mainstream Irish Times to expose the injustices; Kathleen Parker, who wrote a good book on men before being bought off by a cushy job at the Washington Post; Donna Laframboise’s series of exposes of domestic violence shelters in another mainstream newspaper; Canadian Senator Anne Cools’ outspoken criticisms of feminism; anti-feminist campaigner Phyllis Schlafly, who single-handedly defeated the Equal Right Amendment and who valiantly took up the cause of fathers against resistance from her own organization. (I know I have omitted some who deserve mention.)

Links in the original article

StephenBaskerville.com

"Modify the standards of the in-group”: On Jews and Mass Communications

“To be successful, mass propaganda on the behalf of out-groups would have to modify the standards of the in-group.
Samuel H. Flowerman, Mass Propaganda in the War Against Bigotry, 1947.[1]

“The whole story is transparently barmy.” This is what Guardian journalist Jason Wilson had to say in a 2015 article discussing “conspiracy theories” about Cultural Marxism. Barmy, for the uninitiated, is a British informal adjective with the meanings “mad; crazy; extremely foolish.” Wilson continues by attempting to explain “the whole story”:

The vogue for the ideas of theorists like Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno in the 1960s counterculture culminated with their acolytes’ occupation of the commanding heights of the most important cultural institutions, from universities to Hollywood studios. There, the conspiracy says, they promoted and even enforced ideas which were intended to destroy traditional Christian values and overthrow free enterprise: feminism, multiculturalism, gay rights and atheism. And this, apparently, is where political correctness came from. I promise you: this is what they really think … The theory of cultural Marxism is also blatantly antisemitic, drawing on the idea of Jews as a fifth column bringing down western civilisation from within, a racist trope that has a longer history than Marxism.

Re-reading this article recently, I wondered what Mr Wilson would say if I told him I possessed a document wherein an influential Jew linked to Marcuse and Adorno unambiguously sets out a scheme for the capture of the media, the mass brainwashing of White populations with multicultural propaganda, the manipulation of in-group culture to make it hostile to its own sense of ethnocentrism, the spreading of a culture of political correctness, and, ultimately, the co-option of the West by small ethnic clique pursuing its own interests under the guise of “promoting tolerance.” I wonder what he’d say if I told him the same Jew operated a network of hundreds, if not thousands, of other Jewish intellectuals engaged in the same single task — unlocking a psychological “backdoor” to White culture in order to completely reorient it. I think I’m correct in assuming that Mr Wilson would call me “barmy,” and accuse me of regurgitating the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. I suspect he would believe I’m a fantasist and an anti-Jewish conspiracy theorist. I know he’d dismiss even the possibility that such a document might actually exist. And yet it does exist.

The Intellectual Context

It’s quite possible that none of you have heard the name Samuel H. Flowerman, but I can say with certainty that you all, in a sense, know him nonetheless. If you’re even remotely familiar with the Frankfurt School, then you’re familiar with one aspect of his work. And, as we will soon discuss, if you find yourself living in a culture brainwashed into self-hatred then you’re familiar with another, though related, aspect of his work. Flowerman, it must be conceded, has been largely forgotten by history. He lurks in larger shadows left by “the exiles.” But Flowerman was in some respects as crucial a member of the Frankfurt School circle as any other. Of course, he wasn’t German-born. Nor was he a member of the Frankfurt School for Social Research. Instead, he was born in Manhattan in 1912, the grandson of a jeweler who arrived by ship from Warsaw’s Jewish district in 1885. And yet he would later achieve enough influence within his own group, as both activist and psychologist, to act as Research Director for the American Jewish Committee, and, most famously of all, to direct and co-edit the Studies in Prejudice series with Max Horkheimer.

For most who have in fact heard of him, this is perhaps the greatest extent of their knowledge of Flowerman. But for an accident, it would certainly represent the limits of mine. Very recently, however, I was conducting some research on Jewish activism in the cultural background preceding Brown v. Board of Education, and found myself, as I have so many times before, tumbling down the proverbial rabbit hole. After initially focusing on the figures of Jonathan Kozol and Horace Kallen (whose influence extends well beyond the popularisation of what he coined “cultural pluralism”), I came across a 2004 article in the Journal of American History by Howard University’s Daryl Scott titled “Postwar Pluralism, Brown v. Board of Education, and the Origins of Multicultural Education.”[2] Scott mentioned Flowerman because of the latter’s desire (pre-Brown) to inject theories derived from Studies in Prejudice into the education system, believing that moulding children was one of the best methods to achieve long-term and sustained socio-cultural change [see here for evidence the policy is continued to this day by the ADL].

Flowerman, a fan of post-Freudian psychoanalysis, possessed a background in both the study of education and of mass communication, and this heavily informed his thinking and activism.[3] In particular, he was doubtful that mass propaganda could, by itself, directly affect significant change among the White masses and make them abandon their “prejudice and latent authoritarianism” [i.e. acknowledging their own ethnic interests]. He was fascinated instead by the way peer group pressure exerted influence on the individual school children he had studied, along with the potential influence of teachers as shapers of minds as well as mere educators. For example, in a 1950 article for New York Times Magazine titled “Portrait of the Authoritarian Man,” Flowerman argued that, in order to produce “personalities less susceptible to authoritarian ideas, we must learn how to select better teachers and to train them better; we must see them as engineers of human relations instead of instructors of arithmetic and spelling.”[4]

The combined result of his research and thinking in these areas was his argument that it should be desirable for people like him to obtain control over the means of mass communication. Not only, argued Flowerman, should this control be used for blanket “pro-tolerance” propaganda, but it should also actively reshape in-group standards — thus reforming peer group pressures to become antagonistic to in-group ethnocentrism. His (then) highly ambitious goal was a culture that policed itself: a politically correct culture in which Whites, via peer pressure, conformed to new values — values much more user-friendly to Jews. His views and goals were later summarized by Herbert Greenberg, a colleague and co-ethnic in the same field, in 1957:

Flowerman de-emphasized the value and effectiveness of propaganda as a technique for reducing prejudice. He also agrees with the conception that techniques based on group structure and inter-personal relationships are the most effective.[5]

Flowerman and Greenberg were just two members of what was effectively a series of interlinked battalions of Jewish psychologists and sociologists operating with a kind of religious fervour in the fields of “prejudice studies,” opinion-shaping, and mass communications between the 1930s and 1950s, all with the goal of “unlocking” the White mind and opening it to “tolerance.” In a remarkable invasion (and creation) of disciplines similar to the Jewish flood into the medical and race sciences in the 1920s and 1930s, Jews also flooded, and then dominated, the fields of opinion research and mass communications — areas of research that overlapped so often under Jewish scholars like Flowerman that they were practically indistinguishable.

Even a quick review of lists of Past Presidents reveals that Jews were vastly over-represented in, if not dominated, the membership and presidencies of both the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) and the World Association of Public Opinion Research (WAPOR). And of the four academics considered the “founding fathers” of mass communication research in America, two (Vienna-born Paul Lazarsfeld and Kurt Lewin) were Jews. Of the two European American founding fathers, most of Harold Lasswell’s graduate students were Jewish[6] (e.g., Daniel Lerner, Abraham Kaplan, Gabriel Almond, Morris Janowitz, and Nathan Leites) and he also sponsored the Institute for Social Research’s project on anti-Semitism.[7] The fourth, Carl Hoveland, had an equally Jewish coterie around him at Yale, where he operated a team of researchers along with Milton Rosenberg and Robert Abelson. Historian Hynek Jeřábek notes that Lazarsfeld’s influence in particular can’t be understated — by 1983, seven years after his death, “the directors of social research at the three largest media networks in the United States, CBS, ABC, and NBC were all his former students.”[8] Another Jew, Jay Blumler, has been called “a founding father of British media studies.”[9]

In fact, the Jewish dominance of the study of public opinion (and the potential for its manipulation) simply can’t be overstated. In addition to those already named, Joseph Klapper, Bernard Berelson, Fritz Heider, Leo Bogart, Elihu Katz, Marie Jahoda, Joseph Gittler, Morris Rosenberg, Ernest Dichter, Walter Weiss, Nathan Glazer, Bernard J. Fine, Bruno Bettelheim, Wallace Mandell, Hertha Hertzog, Dororthy Blumenstock, Stanley Schachter, David Caplovitz, Walter Lippmann, Sol Ginsburg, Harry Alpert, Leon Festinger, Michael Gurevitch, Edward Shils, Eugene Gaier, Joseph Goldsen, Julius Schreiber, Daniel Levinson, Herbert Blumer, I. M. A. Myers, Irving Janis, Miriam Reimann, Edward Sapir, Solomon Asch, and Gerald Wieder were just some of the hundreds of highly influential academics working in these fields that were born into Jewish families, associated heavily with other Jews, contributed work to Jewish organizations, married Jews, and yet concerned themselves with a degree of fanaticism with White opinion and ethnocentrism in America. This is to say nothing of their graduate students, who numbered in the thousands.

Despite some superficial differences in the titles of “opinion research,” “prejudice studies,” and “mass communications,” these academics all worked with each other to some degree, if not directly (in organisations or in co-written studies or papers) then via mutual associations. For example, it is a matter of historical fact that, in addition to three of the four founding fathers of mass communications research being Jews, all three were also very intimately involved with the Frankfurt School and the broader Jewish agenda to ‘adapt’ public opinion. Paul Lazarsfeld and Kurt Lewin, the two gurus of mass communication, together attended a 1944 conference on anti-Semitism organized by the research department of the American Jewish Committee (headed by Samuel H. Flowerman) and the Berkeley faction of the Frankfurt School in exile (headed by Theodor Adorno).[10] David Kettler and Gerhard Lauer also point out that Lazarsfeld was in regular communication with Max Horkheimer, was “strongly supportive of the Horkheimer Circle and its work,” and even furnished the latter with “notes and recommendations for the Horkheimer Circle’s unpublished ‘Anti-Semitism Among American Labor.’”[11] He was also a colleague at Columbia with and close confidante of, Leo Lowenthal.[12] By the late 1940s, Lazarsfeld’s ex-wife and mother of his child, Marie Jahoda, had even come to act as an American Jewish Committee liaison between Horkheimer and Samuel H. Flowerman, and co-wrote a number of articles on “prejudice” with Flowerman in Commentary.

One should by now begin to see clear connections forming between the American Jewish Committee, the Frankfurt School, “prejudice studies,” Jewish dominance of the academic field of “mass communications,” and, finally, the flow of influence from this field into the mass media (most clearly in the positions at CBS, ABC, and NBC quickly obtained by Lazarsfeld’s students). These connections will be important later.

A reasonable working hypothesis for such a sudden concentration of mutually networking Jews (often from different countries) in these areas of research would be that Jewish identity and Jewish interests played a significant part in their career choices, and that the trend was then accelerated by ethnic nepotism and promotion from within the group. Jeřábek appears to concur when he states that “Paul Lazarsfeld’s Jewish background, or the fact that many people around him in Vienna were Jewish, can help to explain his future affinities, friendships, or decisions.”[13] Setting aside the deep historical context of conflict between Jews and Europeans, a contingent and contemporary explanation might be that Jews were moved into fields involving mass opinion and perceptions of prejudice because they were deeply disturbed by the rise of National Socialism.

A more general, but, perhaps more convincing explanation considering their activities over time, is that these Jews were in fact disturbed by any form of ethnically defined and assertive White host culture. For example, some of the foreign-born academics listed above, such as Marie Jahoda and Ernest Dichter, had even been arrested and detained in pre-Anschluss, pre-National Socialist Vienna as cultural and political subversives in the early 1930s. They then made their way to the United States or the United Kingdom where they more or less continued the same behavior. It is highly likely that these individuals sought both to understand and change the mechanics of opinion and mass communications in their host populations in order to make it more amenable to Jewish interests. When they were effectively exiled from one host population they merely transplanted their ambitions to a new one. The only alternative hypothesis, long used in Jewish apologetics for any similar instance of Jewish over-representation, is that huge numbers of mutually networking Jews convened in these disciplines purely by accident. Nathan Cofnas and Jordan Peterson, for example, might argue that Jews accidentally entered these areas of study en masse simply because they possessed high IQs and liked living in cities.

The problem with such reasoning is that the work produced by these academics and activists was so highly focused against White American opinion, rather than appearing random or accidental, that it strongly indicates these scholars entered the field of mass communications with a clear and common agenda. For example, Jewish mass communications scholar Bernard Berelson was not just a researcher in public opinion, but also conducted a series of propaganda tests on how to make White Americans find their own ethnocentrism abhorrent. In 1945 he conducted a study in which a cartoon was shown to the public that made connections between Fascism and American culture. The cartoon, titled “The Ghosts Go West…,” showed ghosts leaving the graves of Hitler, Mussolini, and Goebbels, and flying to America carrying a banner that read: “Down with Labour Unions, Foreign Born, Jews, Catholics, Negroes.” The message was clearly that “intolerance” in America was basically the demonic ghost of fascism. Interestingly, however, the study found that Jews exposed to the cartoon were so fixated on the banner that they missed the underlying message altogether and believed the cartoon was a far right creation. The potentially confusing nature of the piece meant it was never deployed as a “pro-tolerance” propaganda weapon.[14]

Berelson was also later a colleague and friend of Frederick S. Jaffe, the Jewish then-Vice President of Planned Parenthood. Both Jaffe and Berelson later became somewhat notorious because of a memo (known in history as the Jaffe Memo) sent in 1969 from the former to the latter, in which anti-White sociopath Jaffe put forth his own series of protocols that included a table that summarized many proposals from various sources regarding population control. This table contained proposals such as compulsory abortions for out-of-wedlock births, sterilizations for women with more than two children, encouraging homosexuality, and encouraging women to work. Both would also later work together on the infamous 1972 Rockefeller Commission Report which incorporated many of Jaffe’s proposals. We thus see more links between Jewishness, “prejudice studies,” the discipline of mass communications studies, and anti-White Jewish activism more generally.

In reality, the work of all these scholars orbited the same themes, if not openly, then more secretively (as in the case of Lazarsfeld’s work with the Institute for Social Research). Marie Jahoda, the ex-Austrian subversive, produced a series of studies that were mere variations on the theme of White ethnocentrism, something she pathologized most famously in Antisemitism and Emotional Disorder (1950).[15] In the same year, Morris Janowitz and Bruno Bettelheim worked together to produce Dynamics of Prejudice.[16] Meanwhile Joseph Gittler produced such works as “Measuring the Awareness of the Problem of Group Hostility,”[17] and “Man and His Prejudices.”[18] Herbert Blumer produced “Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position.”[19] Fritz Heider worked with Kurt Lewin and Solomon Asch on unlocking the ways in which conformity could alter group behavior and individual opinions.[20] Ernest Dichter believed his studies of the mass communications in marketing could lead to the development of persuasive techniques that could “stop the new wave of anti-Semitism.”[21] The work of Walter Weiss concerned “mass communication, public opinion, and social change as they bear on changing racial attitudes.”[22] And aside from his secretive work with the Institute for Social Research, Paul Lazarsfeld, while working at the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Columbia University, introduced the notion of “social bookkeeping,” a systematic service that would note and evaluate “prejudice” in any material appearing in mass media of communications. I could go on.

What we see here is the origins of an extensive Jewish joint enterprise in which the unlocking and alteration of White American public opinion is the goal. This is not conspiracy theory, but an established and provable fact. In a sense, the Frankfurt School, or Institute for Social Research, was the tip of an iceberg. The work of Horkheimer, Adorno et al, both drew from, and enthused, a large and growing army of Jewish academics working in the fields of public opinion and mass communications. This was a body of academics and activists keen to translate theories on “prejudice and the authoritarian personality” into action — to change the opinions and thinking of the host population. They would go on to develop forms of testing and analysis to further these goals, and their students would go on to take dominant positions in the fields of the mass media and mass communications. In many cases these academics speak openly of the need for control of the media and the mass dissemination of sophisticated propaganda (all of which could be tried and perfected at the expense of their universities in the name of ‘prejudice research’). Of all these activists, however, none produced a work more bluntly subversive than Samuel Flowerman’s 1947 essay “Mass Propaganda in the War on Bigotry.” It is to the protocols of Samuel H. Flowerman that we now turn our attention.


“Millions of leaflets, pamphlets, cartoons, comic books, articles — and more recently radio and movie scripts — have been produced and disseminated in the propaganda war.”  Samuel H. Flowerman, Mass Propaganda in the War Against Bigotry, 1947.[1]

The Protocols of Samuel H. Flowerman

Samuel H. Flowerman, as Research Director at the American Jewish Committee, as colleague of the Institute for Social Research, and as a kind of hub for the expansive Jewish clique of mass communications scholars, was at the center of the drive to put Jewish “opinion research” initiatives into practical action. The clearest articulation of what this practical action would look like was articulated in his 1947 essay, “Mass Propaganda in the War Against Bigotry.” Flowerman’s foremost concern was that, although millions of dollars were being spent by organisations like the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League on propaganda, propaganda may not by itself be sufficient for the mass transformation of values in the host population — in particular, for the weakening of its ethnocentrism.

Flowerman begins by explaining the format and extent of existing efforts: “Millions of leaflets, pamphlets, cartoons, comic books, articles — and more recently radio and movie scripts — have been produced and disseminated in the propaganda war (429).” Flowerman’s use of the language of warfare is of course interesting in itself and will be discussed further below. For now, we should focus on what Flowerman lists as the five aims of the “propaganda war”:

1. “The restructuring of the attitudes of prejudiced individuals, or at least their neutralization.”
2. “The restructuring of group values toward intolerance.”
3. “The reinforcement of attitudes of those already committed to a democratic ideology perhaps by creating an illusion of universality or victory.”
4. “The continued neutralisation of those whose attitudes are yet unstructured and who are deemed “safer” if they remain immune to symbols of bias.”
5. “Off-setting the counter-symbols of intolerance.” (429)

Flowerman concedes that the level of work and control required to achieve these aims would be extensive, and that the project was highly ambitious, seeking nothing less than “successful mass persuasion in the field of intergroup relations (429).” But he is equally clear in the conditions required for such success.

Flowerman’s first condition is “control by pro-tolerance groups or individuals of the channels of mass communication.” (430) Since Flowerman’s entire context of “pro-tolerance” activism was essentially Jewish, we may assume he is strongly implying that the channels of mass communication should fall into Jewish hands. Since “control” in Flowerman’s phrasing is not qualified, and since many newspapers, radio stations, and movie production companies were already in the hands of “pro-tolerance” Jews, the implication is also present that this control should be absolute. In addition, notes Flowerman, total control of these channels may still not be sufficient in itself. The host population will still need to be exposed to the productions of mass communications, and this was to be assured via “force, commercial monopoly, and/or crisis (designed or accidental).” (430) Only then would ‘pro-tolerance’ forces see “the persuasive devices and techniques of the elite playing upon the susceptibilities of the manipulated.” (430) Flowerman closes here with reference to Erich Fromm’s theory that people have “a desire to be controlled.”

The second of Flowerman’s conditions for “successful mass persuasion in the field of intergroup relations” is saturation. This condition, like that of control and monopoly of the channels of mass communication, is intended as absolute. In other words, the message of “pro-tolerance” was to be ubiquitous and all-pervasive — beyond what was possible in 1947 and probably beyond what could even be conceptualized in 1947. In Flowerman’s words: “In addition to the large sums of money currently being expended on tolerance propaganda, significantly greater sums would probably be needed to achieve the degree of saturation — as yet hypothetical — required.” (430) The general idea here is to increase the “flow of pro-tolerance symbols” as a proportion of “the total stream of communications.”

In November 1946, a three-day convention, partly organized by Flowerman, was held in New York, bringing together “experts in the general field of public relations, including advertising, direct mail, film, radio, and press; professional workers on the staff of national and local agencies specifically concerned with fighting group discrimination; and social scientists from the universities and national defense agencies.”[2] Jews, of course, dominated all of these areas, and the list of attendees included the previously mentioned figures Bruno Bettelheim, Sol Ginsburg, Hertha Herzog (radio research director of McCann-Erickson, Inc.), Julius Schreiber, Paul Lazarsfeld, Joseph Goldsen, and Morris Janowitz. One of the findings of the mass communications scholars present at the convention was that even control and saturation may not be sufficient to ensure a transformation of opinions and values in the demographic majority. This was the case when the propaganda encountered particularly strong-minded individuals, or when the propaganda got lost in the overall stream of communications that one encounters in the course of everyday life. Flowerman thus writes with frustration that “we are developing a nation of individuals who work, worry, love, and play while news commentators, comedians, opera companies, symphony orchestras, and swing bands are broadcasting. This continuous onslaught for ‘something for everyone’ results in a kind of ‘radio deafness.’” (431) In order to overcome this obstacle, Flowerman returns to a key aspect of his first condition — the use of crisis (he writes that this can be “designed or accidental”) to focus attention on delivered propaganda. Flowerman writes:

As for overcoming the ‘radio deafness’ to commercial announcements and the general atmosphere of make-believe of radio entertainment, only symbols associated with acute crisis would seem to have a chance. For the great bulk of American people racial and religious intolerance is not regarded as a critical situation. … The absence of critical stress serves to diminish levels of attention to pro-tolerance symbols. (431)

Practical contemporary examples of what this tactic might look like would be the ubiquity of pro-diversity propaganda in the aftermath of Islamic attacks, Charlottesville, school shootings, moral panics about racism, ADL hype about the ever-present threat of anti-Semitism, murders by immigrants, and migrant drownings in the Mediterranean. The point here is that regardless of context, “crisis” is to be manufactured into almost every situation in order to focus attention on the real goal — the successful delivery of “pro-tolerance” messages, even (or especially) in circumstances in which tolerance has proven deadly, to the host population. Jews or, in the more ambiguous phrasing, “the agents of pro-tolerance,” would thus need to achieve (in Flowerman’s own words) the ambitious trifecta of “control, saturation, crisis.” (432) Crisis is therefore Flowerman’s third condition.

The fourth condition is the achievement of an alteration of predispositions in the individual via modification of their surroundings and peer pressure. Here Flowerman argues that “pro-tolerance” propaganda should not rely on intellectual means but instead on “social perception, which is affected by the predispositions of the audience. In turn, these dispositions are affect-laden attitudes which may have been produced by parents, teachers, playmates, etc.” (432)

The point here is that Flowerman and the mass communications clique believed that their propaganda would be better received by the masses if the psychological context of reception was itself changed. In other words, people raised in the demographic majority who are imbued with a sense of communal pride, social responsibility, cultural achievement, and national purpose are unlikely to be predisposed to be receptive to messages on behalf of outsiders. Some intervention in peer interactions and peer culture was thus necessary in order to break up such an obstacle to the reception of “pro-tolerance” propaganda. As just one example, we return here to Flowerman’s 1950 article for New York Times Magazine in which he argues for the training of teachers “as engineers of human relations instead of instructors of arithmetic and spelling.”[3] Children can thus “engineered” to be more receptive to “pro-tolerance” propaganda in adulthood.

This condition bleeds into the fifth — the manipulation of the basic instinct of humans to conform to group standards. Flowerman writes:

Consciously or unconsciously, individuals use group frames of reference in social situations even when they are physically separated from the group. … The strength of group sanctions is a potent force to reckon with even for an individual with a strong ego. … It would appear, then, that to be successful mass propaganda on behalf of out-groups would have to modify the standards of the in-group. … Mass pro-tolerance propaganda, to be successful, would have to change such values, which would be difficult to imagine without control, saturation, crisis, etc. (432)

What Flowerman is proposing here is essentially a revolution in values, after which a politically correct culture emerges where the demographic majority becomes self-policing and antagonistic to its own ethnic interests. In this environment — achieved via “control, saturation, crisis”— the strength of group sanctions among the White American in-group is directed towards manifestations of in-group ethnocentrism instead of outsiders. It’s nothing less than a proposal for the cultivation of White guilt and pathological altruism, and the diminishment of White ethnocentrism and cultural pride.

The sixth condition is the cultivation of influential figures on behalf of the “pro-tolerance” agenda. This required great subtlety. Flowerman writes that the research of his mass communications colleagues and co-ethics shows the targets of their propaganda:

are willing to assign to some individuals a stamp of approval which they deny to others … We know that many leaflets written and endorsed by popular heroes and accepted even by prejudiced individuals are often dismissed on the ground that they are being distributed by minority groups in their own self-interest. Many prejudiced individuals cannot conceive of such distribution by dominant groups. (433)

What Flowerman is here complaining of is the fact that some members of the demographic majority are perceptive enough to accurately point out the real origin of “pro-tolerance” propaganda, and to dismiss it on those grounds. By “minority groups,” the coy Mr Flowerman of course means Jews. He then cites a specific case:

In an experiment being conducted at the University of Chicago by Bettelheim, Shils, and Janowitz, veterans were exposed to pro-tolerance propaganda including a cartoon by Bill Mauldin. A prejudiced respondent, sharing the general esteem in which this popular soldier-cartoonist is held by ex-GI’s, said that he had regarded Mauldin as a “regular guy” but he supposed that if you paid a man enough you could get him to do anything; this respondent believed that the material he saw was being distributed by “a bunch of New York communists.” (433)

Thus we see the pathologisation of a veteran because he perceived with stunning accuracy the hand of subversion behind the use of a popular icon to promote an agenda entirely alien to his interests. Despite exceptions such as this veteran, the overall susceptibility of the masses was deemed sufficiently high for the strategy of “sponsorship” to be progressed. As a result, reports Flowerman,

propagandists, recognising the need for impeccable sources of authority, are producing material endorsed by popular heroes in sports, entertainment, and in the armed forces. Recently a plan has been developed to promote the insertion of full-page newspaper advertisements paid for and sponsored by “respectable” local business organizations. The effect of this campaign will have to be determined. (433)

Developed alongside his colleagues in the Institute for Social Research and the mass communications clique, these, then, are Flowerman’s six conditions for a radical transformation of values in the White American demographic majority:

1) Control of the channels of mass communications;
2) Saturation with Pro-tolerance messages;
3) Crisis, designed or accidental;
4) Diminishment of Cultural Pride and Self-esteem;
5) Cultivation of Self-Punishment and Group Self-Sanctioning;
6) Sponsorship of willing dupes or traitors.

Although these six conditions form most of the body of “Mass Propaganda in the War Against Bigotry,” Flowerman also spends some time discussing the ideal content of “pro-tolerance” propaganda. In this regard, he comments:

The most striking feature, the spearhead, of propaganda, is the slogan. … Current pro-tolerance or anti-intolerance slogans urge unity and amity, warn against being divided by differences of race and religion, describe our common origin as immigrants to these shores, remove myths about racial differences, and denounce bigots and bigotry. Some popular slogans are: Don’t be a Sucker!, Americans All —– Immigrants All, All Races and All Creeds Working Together etc.

Don’t Be A Sucker! was the name of a wartime film produced by the Army Signals Corps at a time when it was working heavily alongside Jewish Hollywood executives and script writers; its film production center was headed by Col. Emmanuel ‘Manny’ Cohen.[4] According to Wikipedia, the film:

has anti-racist and anti-fascist themes, and was made to educate viewers about prejudice and discrimination. The film was also made to make the case for the desegregation of the United States armed forces. An American who has been listening to a racist and bigoted rabble-rouser, who is preaching hate speech against ethnic and religious minorities and immigrants, is warned off by a naturalized Hungarian immigrant, possibly a Holocaust survivor or escapee, who explains to him how such rhetoric and demagogy allowed the Nazis to rise to power in Weimar Germany, and warns Americans not to fall for similar demagogy propagated by American racists and bigots. In August 2017 the short film went viral on the internet in the aftermath of the violent Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia and various copies have been uploaded to video sharing sites in the past year.

Flowerman was dissatisfied with the slogans of his time, however, believing them to be too “general in nature, vague as to goals, and unspecific as to methods.” (434) He believed that merely defining fascism as the enemy was insufficient because, at that time, the host population believed “fascism was strictly a foreign phenomenon characteristic particularly of Nazi Germany.” Propaganda depicting fascism as the enemy was therefore going to be ineffective in making the host population see its own values as oppositional and requiring destruction. Referring to works like The Authoritarian Personality, Flowerman writes: “Studies abound in which subjects subscribed to tenets of fascism although they rejected the fascist label itself. The pervasiveness of prejudice in so many individuals makes it difficult to set up a real enemy.” (434) He acknowledges that “in much anti-intolerance propaganda” the enemy is defined as “white, native-born Protestants,” but makes it clear that he wishes this to be expanded “for logical and psychological reasons.” One gets the impression that “Diversity is our Strength” and “Fight Hate” would have been much to his satisfaction.

*****

We now find ourselves returning to our point of departure. “The whole story is transparently barmy,” said the Guardian’s Jason Wilson when discussing “conspiracy theories” about Cultural Marxism. Consider again what he says this “conspiracy theory” amounts to:

The vogue for the ideas of theorists like Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno in the 1960s counterculture culminated with their acolytes’ occupation of the commanding heights of the most important cultural institutions, from universities to Hollywood studios. There, the conspiracy says, they promoted and even enforced ideas which were intended to destroy traditional Christian values and overthrow free enterprise: feminism, multiculturalism, gay rights and atheism. And this, apparently, is where political correctness came from. I promise you: this is what they really think … The theory of cultural Marxism is also blatantly antisemitic, drawing on the idea of Jews as a fifth column bringing down western civilisation from within, a racist trope that has a longer history than Marxism.

In light of the facts addressed in this essay, such a theory would seem thoroughly borne out, with the only required alterations being that the process started before the 1960s and involved many more figures than the staff of the Institute for Social Research. The problem with people like Wilson is that they are proof of the very ‘conspiracy theory’ they refute. Raised in a controlled media, saturated with pro-tolerance propaganda, psychologically blasted with crisis after crisis, stripped of cultural pride, consumed by White guilt, and influenced by purchased “sponsors,” he is the perfectly gullible product of the protocols of Samuel H. Flowerman and the mass communications clique.

Not barmy, but more or less ridiculous, Wilson becomes an intellectual pygmy biting at the heels of his betters — those who, like the veteran in the study of Bettelheim, Shils, and Janowitz, see the true origin of the propaganda and are pathologized for their perceptivity.

[1] Flowerman, S. H., “Mass propaganda in the war against bigotry,” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42(4), (1947) 429-439.

[2] S.H. Flowerman and M. Jahoda, “The study of man – can prejudice be fought scientifically?” Commentary, Dec., 1946.

[3] S. H. Flowerman, “Portrait of the Authoritarian Man,” New York Times Magazine, April 23 1950, 31.

[4] See for example, Richard Koszarski, “Subway Commandos: Hollywood Filmmakers at the Signal Corps Photographic Center,” Film History Vol. 14, No. 3/4, (2002), 296-315.

[1] Flowerman, S. H., “Mass propaganda in the war against bigotry,” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42(4), (1947) 429-439.

[2] D. M. Scott, “Postwar Pluralism, Brown v. Board of Education, and the Origins of Multicultural Education,” Journal of American History, Vol 91, No 1 (2004), 69–82.

[3] For an example of Flowerman’s thoughts on Freud and psychoanalysis see S. H. Flowerman, “Psychoanalytic Theory and Science,” American Journal of Psychotherapy, Vol. 8, No. 3, 415-441.

[4] S. H. Flowerman, “Portrait of the Authoritarian Man,” New York Times Magazine, April 23 1950, 31.

[5] Herbert Greenberg, “The Effects of Single-Session Education Techniques on Prejudice Attitudes,” The Journal of Educational Sociology, Vol. 31, No. 2 (1957), 82-86, 82.

[6] Ido Oren, Our Enemies and US: America’s Rivalries and the Making of Political Science, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, (2003), 13.

[7] Thomas Wheatland, The Frankfurt School in Exile (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009), 384.

[8] Hynek Jeřábek, Paul Lazarsfeld and the Origins of Communications Research, (New York: Routledge, 2017), 18.

[9] James Curran, “Jay Blumler: A Founding Father of British Media Studies,” in Stephen Coleman (ed) Can the media save democracy? Essays in honour of Jay G. Blumler (London: Palgrave, 2015).

[10] John P. Jackson and Nadine M. Weidman, Race, Racism, and Science: Social Impact and Interaction (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press), 176.

[11] David Kettler and Gerhard Lauer, Exile, Science and Bildung: The Contested Legacies of German Emigre Intellectuals (New York: Palgrave, 2005),  184.

[12] James Schmidt, “The Eclipse of Reason and the End of the Frankfurt School in America,” New German Critique 100 (2007), 47-76, 47.

[13]Jeřábek, Paul Lazarsfeld and the Origins of Communications Research, 23.

[14] Bureau of Applied Social Research, “The Ghosts Go West”: A Study of Comprehension, (Unpublished), 1945, Directed by Bernard B. Berelson. Cited in Flowerman, S. H., “Mass propaganda in the war against bigotry,” 438.

[15] See for example, “The dynamic basis of anti-Semitic attitudes,” The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 2, (1948); “The evasion of propaganda: How prejudiced people respond to anti-prejudice propaganda” The Journal of Psychology, 23 (1947), 15-25; Studies in the scope and method of “The authoritarian personality. (New York, NY, US: Free Press, 1954); “Race relations in Public Housing,” Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 7, No. 1-2 (1951).

[16] Morris Janowitz and Bruno Bettelheim, Dynamics of Prejudice (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950).

[17] Joseph Gittler, “Measuring the Awareness of the Problem of Group Hostility,” Social Forces, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Dec., 1955), 163-167.

[18] Joseph Gittler, ”Man and His Prejudices,” The Scientific Monthly, 69 (1949 ), 43-47.

[19] Herbert Blumer, ““Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position,” Pacific Sociological Review, 1 (Spring 1958), 3-7.

[20] Irvin Rock and Stephen Palmer, “The Legacy of Gestalt Psychology,” Scientific American, Dec 1990, 84-90, 89.

[21] Ernest Dichter, The Strategy of Desire (New York: Routledge, 2017), 15.

[22] Bert T. King and Elliott McGinnies, Attitudes, Conflict, and Social Change (New York: Academic Press, 1972), 124.