Patriot Letter. Dated 2/19/05.

Archived by k0nsl.



Dear Fellow Patriot!

The answer to yesterday’s quiz comes from the winner:

“Martin Borman”

The winner is…………………… Archer Frey


Today’s Quiz:


The winner will receive another set of the beautiful
collectible beer coasters from Bavaria and it’s


“The last days of Hitler” was released in selected
theatres. It is your usual Jewish dictated bashing
script, however, the New York Times in it’s movie
review, complains that several characters in the movie
were portrayed to sympathetic. Well, read for


February 18, 2005

The Last Days of Hitler: Raving and Ravioli

According to “Downfall,” one of the last meals Adolf
Hitler ate before he killed himself in his Berlin
bunker was ravioli. Cheese, of course, for as this
painstaking (and sometimes painful) film reminds us,
the Führer did not eat meat. Apparently, he enjoyed
the ravioli, complimenting the cook who made it and
cleaning his plate while his dinner companions, who
included his secretary, Traudl Junge, and his lover,
Eva Braun, were too preoccupied to do much more than
pick at their food and smoke cigarettes.

Their distraction is understandable. The Soviet Army
was a few blocks away, and the once-fearsome Nazi
military machine had all but collapsed. Hitler’s calm
demeanor may have been a sign of his own increasingly
demented state, as, at least in the movie’s rendition
of his last days, it came between bouts of raving
paranoia and delusional schemes to revive his
shattered armies to fight off the advancing Allied

Directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel, “Downfall” shifts its
gaze back and forth between the crumbling military
situation on the ground in Berlin and the bizarre
domestic situation in the bunker underneath it,
combining high wartime drama with a sense of mundane
detail that verges on the surreal. It is fascinating
without being especially illuminating, and it holds
your attention for its very long running time without
delivering much dramatic or emotional satisfaction in
the end.

At times the German movie, which is one of five
finalists for the Academy Award for best foreign film,
has the self-conscious intimacy of a behind-the-scenes
celebrity portrait. More often, it has the starchy
staginess of one of those made-for-cable historical
dramas that give actors of reputation (usually
British) the chance to put on vintage uniforms and
impersonate figures of world-historical importance,
either monstrous or heroic.

Bruno Ganz, the fine Swiss-born actor who, in the
course of a long career, has tended more toward
world-weariness than monstrosity, tackles the biggest
monster of them all with appropriate sobriety and a
touch of mischief. He does some scenery chewing, and
while he looks, at 64, older than Hitler did at 56
(and also kindlier), he has clearly studied Hitler’s
vocal and physical mannerisms closely.

The challenge Mr. Ganz faces, which Mr. Hirschbiegel,
working from a screenplay by Bernd Eichinger, does not
quite allow him to meet, is to make Hitler a plausible
character without quite humanizing him. To play Hitler
is to walk into a paradox. Sixty years after the end
of World War II, he continues to exert a powerful
fascination: we still want to understand not just the
historical background of German National Socialism,
but also the psychological and temperamental forces
that shaped its leader. At the same time, though,
there is still a powerful taboo against making him
seem too much like one of us. We want to get close,
but not too close.

A few years ago, Menno Meyjes’s “Max,” a flawed but
not dishonorable attempt to explore Hitler’s earlier
life as a failed artist in Vienna, was widely
criticized (often by people who had not seen it) for
giving him too much humanity. Curiosity carries with
it a sense of moral risk, as if understanding Hitler
might be the fateful first step toward liking him.

But of course, millions of Germans – most of them
ordinary and, in their own minds, decent people –
loved Hitler, and it is that fact that most urgently
needs to be understood, and that most challenges our
own complacency. Accordingly, the real subject of
“Downfall,” Mr. Ganz’s intriguing, creepily
charismatic performance notwithstanding, is not Hitler
at all, but rather his followers: the officers,
bureaucrats and loyal civilians who were with him at
the end.

Some of these are well known, like Eva Braun (Juliane
Köhler), the architect Albert Speer (Heino Ferch) and
Joseph Goebbels (Ulrich Matthes), who died, along with
his wife, Magda (Corinna Harfouch), and their six
children, in the bunker with their leader. Other
people who figure in this story – which manages to be
at once sprawling and claustrophobic – are lesser
officers in the SS, and members of Hitler’s bodyguard
and household staff, including Traudl Junge (Alexandra
Maria Lara).

Together, these characters form a shifting group
portrait, and while Mr. Ganz’s Hitler is obviously the
central figure, he is frequently offstage. Even Eva
Braun, who knows Hitler best, confesses that he is
ultimately unknowable, and the filmmakers are less
interested in exploring the absolute evil he
represents than in surveying the behavior of his
followers – cowardly, confused, cruel and occasionally
brave – as their world collapses.

Apart from a brief prelude set in 1942, “Downfall”
takes place at the moment the Nazi project shifted
from murder to suicide. In the streets of Berlin,
bombarded by Russian artillery, small children wield
anti-tank guns, while death squads execute civilians
for supposedly collaborating with the Red Army.
Hitler, meanwhile, alternates between coolly plotting
his own end and denouncing his most loyal lieutenants
as traitors. Those around him try to choose among the
available choices of flight, surrender or death and
wonder at the limits of their own loyalty. The purest
– which is to say the most pathological – expression
of fidelity comes from Magda Goebbels, who in the film
forces ampules of cyanide into the mouths of her
sleeping children rather than subject them to the grim
prospect of “a world without National Socialism.”

The most disturbing aspect of “Downfall” – and the
reason it has been attacked in Germany – is the way it
allows the audience’s sympathy to gravitate toward
some of these characters. Next to the Goebbelses, and
to Hitler, many of the others don’t look too bad. In
part, this is a result of the conventions of film
narrative, which more often than not invite us to
identify with someone on screen, even if nobody is
especially admirable.

Thus, General Monke (André Hennicke) starts to look
like a crusty, straight-talking old officer out of an
American World War II picture, while the open, earnest
features of Prof. Ernst-Günther Schenck (Christian
Berkel) bespeak an uneasy conscience and a good heart,
in spite of the SS lightning bolts on his collar. And
Traudl Junge, who Ms. Lara plays with a winning
combination of pluck and vulnerability, comes to
resemble a Hollywood career girl in a 1940’s

“Downfall,” which was based partly on a memoir Junge
wrote with Melissa Müller (and also on the work of the
German historian Joachim Fest), seems to accept her
image of herself as a naïve young woman drawn to
working for Hitler more by “curiosity” than by
ideological zeal. As “Blind Spot,” an unnerving
documentary about Junge (who lived until 2002) makes
plain, this curiosity did not extend to what her boss
was actually doing. But while “Blind Spot,” true to
its title, allows you to intuit the layers of denial
and selective memory that allowed Junge to live with
herself, “Downfall” implicitly affirms her innocence,
and extends it to the German people at large. When
Goebbels and Hitler refuse to express compassion for
their own civilians, and declare that the Germans have
brought their fate upon themselves, the movie is
sending its domestic audience the soothing message
that ordinary Germans were above all the victims of

Which is true up to a point, but some distinctions
should be preserved. A note at the end reminds us of
the 50 million dead in the war and the 6 million Jews
slaughtered by the Nazis, and then notes the long
lives enjoyed by some of the figures in the film,
including Junge and Professor Schenck, whom the movie
treats as a hero for becoming disillusioned with
Hitler just before the Red Army showed up.


Opens today in Manhattan.

Directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel; written (in German,
with English subtitles) by Bernd Eichinger, based on
the books “Inside Hitler’s Bunker: The Last Days of
the Third Reich” by Joachim Fest and “Until the Final
Hour: Hitler’s Last Secretary” by Traudl Junge and
Melissa Müller; director of photography, Rainer
Klausmann; edited by Hans Funck; music by Stephan
Zacharias; production designer, Bernd Lepel; produced
by Mr. Eichinger; released by Newmarket Films. At the
Film Forum, 209 West Houston Street, South Village.
Running time: 155 minutes. This film is not rated.

WITH: Bruno Ganz (Hitler), Alexandra Maria Lara
(Traudl Junge), Corinna Harfouch (Magda Goebbels),
Ulrich Matthes (Joseph Goebbels), Juliane Köhler (Eva
Braun), Heino Ferch (Albert Speer), Christian Berkel
(Prof. Ernst-Günther Schenck) and André Hennicke
(General Monke).



Adelaide Institute:


Gossip Maims Without Killing

Remember me?
My name is Gossip.
I Have no respect for Justice.
I maim without killing.
I break hearts and ruin lives.
I am cunning and malicious and gather strength with
The more I am quoted the more I am believed.
I flourish at every level of society.
My victims are helpless.
They cannot protect themselves against me because I
have no name and no face.
To track me down is impossible.
The harder you try,the more elusive I become.
I am nobody’s friend.
Once I tarnish a reputation,it is never quite the
I topple governments and wreck marriages.
I ruin careers,cause sleeples nights,heartache and
I spawn suspicion and generate grief.
I make innocent people cry in their pillows.
Even my name hisses.
I am called GOSSIP.
Office gossip.Shop gossip.Party gossip.
I make headlines and headaches.
Before you repeat a story,ask  yourself , is it true?
Is it fair?Is it necessary?
If not-SHUT UP.






here is an assessment of Hariri’s assassination from
the Asia Times:

Looking for a smoking gun
Locally, everybody is a loser with Hariri’s
assassination: the Lebanese; the Syrian government;
and other Arab neighbors as well (Hariri was widely
respected as a strong leader and a factor of

Who benefits?
Only Israel appears to benefit from Hariri’s
assassination. Significantly, one of Hariri’s
consultants, Mustafa al-Naser, told Iranian state news
agency IRNA on Monday that “the assassination of
Hariri is the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad’s
job, aimed at creating political tension in Lebanon”.
An array of Arab Middle East analysts, as well as the
Lebanese government, point out that the blast was
eerily similar to previous Israeli-orchestrated
bombings against former Palestinian leaders.

International public opinion may forget that it was
current Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, then a
general, who invaded Lebanon in 1982, supported by
falangists, practically destroyed Beirut and plunged
Lebanon into civil war. Hariri was Sharon’s opposite:
almost single-handedly he guided Beirut’s

Sharon’s government may now blame its fierce enemy
Syria – as it has already done – for Hariri’s
assassination. Syria and Israel, technically, remain
at war. Moreover, if the accusation sticks, Sharon
benefits from public opinion turning to revulsion
against Syria in the wider Middle East. The logical
progression would lead to a joint Israeli/US attack
against the Syrian regime by early 2006 at the latest
– which, in conjunction with an attack against Iran’s
nuclear facilities, compose what is no secret to
anyone: the ultimate neo-con dream ticket.

The neo-con agenda – which happens to be Sharon’s
agenda – is once again pure divide and conquer: the
aim is to destabilize what neo-cons see as the
emerging “Shi’ite crescent” in the Middle East – Iran,
the new Iraq and Lebanon, with Syria as a key transit
point. A key component of this strategy is to strike a
blow against Hezbollah. It’s important to note that
the new Shi’ite-dominated government in Iraq will be a
keen supporter of Hezbollah.



“Too many Americans are in favor of free speech only
as long as they agree with the speech.”

“There is a profoundly practical basis for protecting
free speech. Nobody has a monopoly on the truth about
anything. Yet we all seek it. The more voices there
are, the greater the probability that the truth will
be found.”



check this out:

“Freitag 18. Februar 2005, 16:15 Uhr  – Beirut (dpa) –
Nach dem Mord an dem früheren libanesischen Premier
Rafik Hariri führt eine Spur nach Australien. Wenige
Stunden nach dem Anschlag am Montag seien sechs
Verdächtige von Beirut aus nach Australien geflüchtet,
so das Justizministerium. An ihren Flugzeugsitzen
seien Spuren von Sprengstoff gefunden worden.”

What Arabs, with traces of explosive material on
their clothes, would leave them behind on their
airplane seats on the way to Australia, hours after
the murder of Lebanese Premier Rafik Hariri?  This
clearly points to another guilty party and poses the
question: who stands to gain the most from
destabilizing Lebanon?  Whose agents could hide the
easiest in Australia, especially with stolen
identification papers and passports, as recently
reported in the news from Australia and New Zeeland?

Do you suppose we will be able to get to the
bottom of this, or will it be another cover up by our
government like the attack on the USS Liberty?



Chris Borleis:


Dear Walter!
After more than sixty years our former enemies have
not seized bashing our country. Our children have been
re-educated and turned against their fathers. Since
1945 the world have seen many small and big wars in
which so-called ‘war-mongering’ Germans did not
participate, even being ridiculed as cowards by the
Americans.Germans cowards?

The remembrance of the Holocaust, the Jewish that is,
reported nowadays as fiction and non-fiction, has been
counterproductive and boring in its constant repeat
even to the believers. The atrocities committed by the

Germans have gone out of proportion and it is the only
Holocaust in need of legislative protection. As a
matter of fact it claims copyright, and in addition it
ignores all other Holocausts occurred elsewhere.
In order that I cannot be accused as a Holocaust
denier I state here once and for all that there was a
Holocaust. Because denial constitutes a hate crime and
is punishable. I hate to go to jail.  The size of the
Holocaust tragedy is unknown, but the beneficiaries
estimated the number of six millions. The number of
six millions appeared first in the Nuremberg Trial.
Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz, quoted this
number. No doubt he was subjected to interrogation
under duress, as were many others German so-called war
criminals. Hoess’s statement of ‘six million killed or

died’ lead to his own indictment. While he might knew
the numbers killed in Auschwitz, he could not have
known the numbers killed or died in other
concentration camps. The number of six millions is
therefore in question.
But on this number rests the myths of the Holocaust.
Many revisionists going to great length in proving
that there were never gas chambers. It is not my
contention here if there was a gas chamber in
Auschwitz or not. However, few points come to my mind
on mass gassing people:
1. Gassing is messy, dangerous, and expensive. The
disposal of the gas after gassing causes the most
health concern for the users and less for the victims,
because they are dead.
2. It goes to the credit of “gassing” that Germans are
humiliated into eternity. ‘Gassing’ seems to be a
worse indictment than ‘shot in the neck
Russian-style’. Germany was the only Western country
resisting Jewish intruders, by giving them in 1933 the
‘marching orders’, see Transfer Agreement.
3. The Germans, usually known for their practicality
and industry astonishing me in regards of choosing
‘cremation’ as the most expensive disposal of six
million cyan kali containing corpses. In hindsight of
the claim that the Nazis manufactured soap and
lampshades out of the victims remains it would be
reasonable to assume that they would have resorted
in converting those bodies into “blood and bones” for
compensating the countries shortage of fertiliser.
A cruel suggestion, but nothing short of barbaric
cruelty in the character of Germans.

The Second World War was a barbaric war, fought
unethically on both sides. So far I have only heard
judgements of the victors, victors who are ashamed
to reveal their own controversies during war and after
the war. I witnessed terror bombing of Bielefeld and
Hanover by the Allies. I saw spitfires strafing
children in Exten. German civilians were the targets.
Civilians died often a slow suffocating death in air
raids. The numbers of those victims during the wartime
are unknown.
The point I make is there is no difference if you die
as a Jew in the gas chamber or you die as a German in
the cellar by suffocation. Neither the death nor the
morality differs of both people involved. It is a
crime. It is unaccusable. And it should never

Why is the definition “Genocide” not befitting for the
Jewish Holocaust? ….Because Genocide stands for the
willful extermination of an ethnic group.
The perversity of this foul smearing campaign has had
no limit ever since the war and is intended to smear
Germany into eternity and live forever on restitution
payouts. While genocide means the termination of a
gene, an ethnic group of people, the Jews are very
much alive today and their statues they have gained
due to their suffering by the Nazis world-wide. In
all Western countries they have assumed their
traditional appearance in media, movies, government
and commerce.
If the Nazis had been determined to liquidate the Jews
(and they have been known for their extreme
efficiency) there would have been no millions of
survivors after the war.

What about the slaughter of German civilians after May
8, 1945.
The German government released a book. A Mandate for
Democracy, p.83, which reads:
“The Potsdam Agreement provided for the ‘orderly and
humane’ transfer to Germany of Germans living in those
(annexed) territories and in Poland, Czechoslovakia
and Hungary. But the expulsion inflicted great
hardship on innocent people. Some 2.11 million
civilians died or were unaccounted (massacred ED) for.
(Federal Office of Statistics. The lists of names
compiled by the ‘Church Tracing Service’ totalled
2.379 million people.
Over 12 million persons, evacuees fleeing before the
oncoming red Army in 1944-45.”

Genocide versus Mass slaughter.
Genocide as mentioned before is the willful
extermination of an ethnic group. Unquestionably the
biggest Genocide took place on the American
continent, where over last centuries native Indians
were slaughtered to extinction. No record exists about
the true numbers, but it is believed the number
exceeds one hundred millions. Those who escaped at the
end of the slaughter were forced to live in reservoirs
only to perish there. That is true Genocide. The
intended elimination of a native people, restricting
its freedom, live style, culture and language is the
meaning of Genocide.
No compensation, no tears to cry. And no history!
Mass slaughter of immense proportion took place in
China (1945) estimating up to 30 million people, while
the Communist purge in Soviet Russia took more than 11
million lives.
For all those mass killings of people elsewhere we
have not seen memorial buildings, or acknowledgments,
movies, days of remembrance or compensation pay-outs
to victims. Those victims have seen little public
recognitions and their fate is almost totally ignored.
If history claims to be accurate, it has to report
fair and accurate events on principles. As the Jewish
Holocaust is overshadowing all other mass killings it
loses its credibility. Nobody did care the million
Iraqis starved to death by the Western nations imposed
food sanction If history wants to be taken serious it
has to record on unbiased facts and not on ethnic
preferences. And facts cannot be branded as hate
Freedom of Speech corrects the lies of the
Freedom of Speech is the tool of the truth seekers!

Christian Borleis,



Mike Reisch:


Dear Walter:

Chancellor Schroeder was ordered through Tel Aviv by
way of Joschka Fischer’s Auswartige Amt to ban the NPD
after some of its members walked out of the Saxony
Landtag in a protest prior to Jan 27.

The Zionists from the land of milk and honey are doing
us all a great favor. Schroeder with the rest of the
Arschkriecher will of course comply and have the NPD
criminalized. The more his government puts the screws
to political dissidents and passes special protection
laws for endangered species the clearer it will become
that Germany has morphed into just another DDR. The
only difference is the DDR received its orders from
Moscow, the BRD from Tel Aviv.

That perception among the people will only hasten the
collapse of the whole rotten edifice. I’m in agreement
with Horst Mahler on this, the days of the BRD as we
know it are numbered. When the people have finally had
enough, pity the man that walks in Schroeder’s shoes.
There will be a settling of scores.






Do Americans Even Care?
Russia, Israel and Media Omissions

As is often the case with AP’s coverage of news having
to do with Israel, there’s a serious omission in its
reporting on the Russia-Israel connection even when it
involves oil and the United States.

The day after the State of the Union Address, two
Interpol fugitives attended the “National Prayer
Breakfast” held in Washington DC. The day before that,
these fugitives from the law were the guests of honor
at an hour-long meeting of the International Relations
Committee on Capitol Hill, invited by ranking Democrat
Tom Lantos (Calif.)

You would think it would be hot news when wanted men
being hunted by European police suddenly pop up in the
US particularly on Capitol Hill and at events attended
by the US president.

Yet, there was not a single AP story in the US on any
of this. [1] Not a single national network television
or radio news program even mentioned these facts. In
fact, Google and LexisNexis searches four days after
these events took place turned up only three newspaper
articles on them anywhere in the entire country. [2]

Who are these fugitives from the law, wanted by
Interpol, who are meeting at the highest levels of the
US government? And why didn’t we learn of them?

Therein lies the story. These two men, it turns out,
are just the tips of a colossal iceberg. And this
iceberg doesn’t just have 90 percent of its mass
hidden under water; this iceberg is almost entirely

They are Mikhail Brudno and Vladimir Dubov,
Israeli-Russian partners in the giant Russian oil
company Yukos. They, along with a number of their
cronies, are wanted by Interpol for allegedly bilking
Russian citizens out of billions of dollars. To elude
Russian prosecution, these men have taken up residence
in Israel. [3]

As the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz explains: “In recent
years Russian authorities began investigating [Yukos],
its managers and major stockholders, many of whom are
of Jewish origin. The probes caused several of the
managers to flee to Israel, and resulted in
Khodorkovski’s [Yukos CEO] arrest and a Kremlin attack
on Yukos.”

The fact is that Israel is an important factor in the
ongoing, nation-shaking power struggle now going on in
Russia. Yet AP virtually never reports this
connection. For example, a few months ago in a typical
AP story on this power struggle, “Report: Russia again
charges Berezovsky,” [4] Moscow AP Bureau Chief Judith
Ingram makes no mention anywhere that Berezovsky is an
Israeli citizen, or of his many connections to Israel.

Such omissions by AP and large swaths of the American
media leave Americans seriously disadvantaged in
deciphering what is going on in Russia, and its
profound significance for the world.

In order to make sense of this Russian power struggle,
and to understand its importance to the rest of us, it
is necessary to understand the usually omitted Israeli
subtext. When this is understood, the friendship of
such pro-Israel Congressional leaders as Rep. Lantos
to fugitive Russian oil tycoons begins to make sense.

To explore this background it is often useful to turn
to the Israeli press. In July a major Israeli
publication, the Jerusalem Post, carried an article
headlined: “Boris Berezovsky: Putin’s Russia dangerous
for Israel.” Before describing what this contained,
let us first go into a little of the background.

The Oligarchs

Boris Berezovsky is one of seven “oligarchs,” as they
are known both inside and outside Russia: massively
rich, powerful manipulators who through violence,
theft and corruption acquired a mammoth percentage
(reports range from 70 to 85 percent) of Russia’s
resources, from its oil to the auto industry to mass
media outlets.

At the same time, the group steadily gained control
over much of the country’s political apparatus. Using
extraordinary financial resources and insider dealing,
the oligarchs handpicked prime ministers and
governmental leaders and barely even bothered to do
this behind the scenes.

In 1997 Yukos founder Mikhail Khodorkovsky, one of the
group and Russia’s sometimes richest man (several of
the oligarchs trade the top spot back and forth) told
an interviewer before he was arrested and imprisoned
by Putin last year:

“If we rank all the fields of man’s activity by
profitability, politics will be the most lucrative
business. When we see a critical situation in the
government, we draw lots in order to pick out a person
from our milieu for work in power.” [5]

Almost all of these oligarchs, it turns out, have
significant ties to Israel. In fact, Berezovsky
himself has Israeli citizenship a fact that caused a
scandal of Watergate proportions in Russia in 1996
when it was exposed by a Russian newspaper. [6]

Do Berezovsky’s dual loyalties really matter? Yes. In
the realm of global dominance, Israel’s interests and
Russia’s are considerably divergent. It is in Israel’s
interests to bring to power a regime in Russia
friendly to Israel, rather than the current one under
Putin, which Israeli leaders feel is supportive of its
enemies. Not long ago, for example, Putin met with
Syrian leaders an action highly disturbing to Israel.

Having an Israeli citizen at the highest levels of the
Russian government is ideal, from Israel’s point of
view. In Berezovsky they had such a man. The Jerusalem
Post article mentioned above is revealing. It
describes Berezovsky as “the Godfather of the
Oligarchs’ and Kingmaker of Russia’s Politics'” and
reports Berezovsky’s statement that “Putin’s Russia is
dangerous for Israel.” Berezovsky goes on to assert
that Putin “supports terror” in the Middle East
through Russia’s previous relations with Iraq and
current relations with Iran. [7]

While Israelis may have been delighted at Berezovsky’s
position in Russia, It is not surprising that Russian
citizens were somewhat less so. Finding that a
powerful leader and member of the Russian Security
Council was an Israeli citizen was disconcerting, at

As a result of the media uproar over Berezovsky’s
Israeli citizenship and other events, the Oligarchs’
connections to Israel are widely known in Russia and
elsewhere. In Israel they are covered frequently,
often with adulation, including a recent hit Israeli
TV series called “The Oligarchs.”

“Some of its episodes,” according to Israeli writer
Uri Avnery, “are simply unbelievable or would have
been, if they had not come straight from the horses’
mouths: the heroes of the story, who gleefully boast
about their despicable exploits. The series was
produced by Israeli immigrants from Russia.”

Avnery writes that the oligarchs used “cheating,
bribery and murder,” as they “exploited the
disintegration of the Soviet system to loot the
treasures of the state and to amass plunder amounting
to hundreds of billions of dollars. In order to
safeguard the perpetuation of their business, they
took control of the state. Six out of the seven are
Jews.” [8]

According to a Washington Post story by David Hoffman,
the group bought and controlled Russian governmental
officials at the highest levels. After financing
Yeltsin’s election in 1996, Hoffman writes: “The
tycoons met and decided to insert one of their own
into government. They debated who and chose [Vladimir]
Potanin, who became deputy prime minister. One reason
they chose Potanin was that he is not Jewish, and most
of the rest of them are, and feared a backlash against
the Jewish bankers.” [9]

In Russia, the oligarchs are deeply loathed,
considered villains who worked to bleed the country
dry; during their reign many Russian citizens saw
their life savings disappear overnight. A new term was
coined for their dominance, “semibankirshchina” (the
rule of the seven bankers), and they were widely known
to have wielded small, murderous armies. There are
rumors that Berezovsky, subject of the respectful AP
article, was even responsible for the gunning down of
an American journalist, Forbes Moscow editor Paul

While no one has been charged with the murder of
Klebnikov, who had written a book on Berezovsky, many
suspect a Berezovsky connection. As a friend of
Klebnikov wrote: “Experienced expatriates in Russia
shared an essential rule: Don’t cross these brutal
billionaires, ever, or you’re likely to go home in a
box.” [10]



Randulf Hansen:


Dresden and the 35,000 number

A Norwegian some years back wrote  a letter to
“Institut fuer Zeitgeschichte” in Munic and asked
about the number of dead persons after the bombing of

According to the institute there were no way anyone
could say the number of people who died during the
bombing. The number could have been as high as 200,000
to 300,000.

So, why does every newspaper or encyclopaedia say
35,000 died during the bombing?

We are left with a few options:

– if could be the estimate of the Jews who died. This
since only Jews are – by themselves looked upon as

– it could be a roughly number cooked up in either
London or Jew York

– it could be the number of those Germans one could
identify after the bombing

– or just a number taken out of the blue which would
give a sum of the digits equal to 7 which surely have
a cabalistic meaning

heil og sael














To order, please send a check or money order to:

Community News
PO Box 191677
Sacramento, CA 95819

or e-mail us and we will send you an e-mail bill
through PayPal.


Walter F. Mueller
“The truth is back in business”

The “Patriot Letter” is a free news service of
Community News, a monthly publication with a
circulation of 20,000. To subscribe to Community News
please e-mail for more information.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *