Marine Le Pen ‘reincarnation of Hitler’, says her party colleague


This video from France is about French National Front leader Marine Le Pen and German ex-officer of Hitler’s SS and neo-nazi leader Franz Schönhuber, a political ally and personal friend of the Le Pen family.

From daily The Independent in Britain:

Rise of the French far right: Front National party could make sweeping gains at this month’s local elections

However, revelations about the bizarre candidates being fielded mean it may not do quite as well as its 30 per cent support nationwide may suggest

John Lichfield, Paris

Sunday 01 March 2015 …

One FN candidate on Aveyron in south-central France had called on his Facebook page for the “destruction of the Jews once and for all”. Another candidate in Ardèche in the Rhône valley had posted a swastika and the message: “Marine, you are the reincarnation of Hitler. You are going to clean up France.”

Another FN candidate in Puy-de-Dôme in the centre of France was dropped after it emerged that he had had been convicted last year of trying to run over a pedestrian while shouting racist insults. …

There are other telling signs that the FN remains rooted in shallow soil. One far-right candidate in Orne, in Normandy, was imprisoned last month for driving without a licence. He is permitted, under the rules, to remain on the ballot paper.

British ISIS terrorist ‘Jihadi John’ and MI5 intelligence service


This video from the USA says about itself:

It’s Time to Talk About GW Bush’s Role in Creating ISIS

4 February 2015

Thom Hartmann says we need to have a conversation about how U.S. foreign policy under Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan has led to extremist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS.

By Bill Van Auken:

“Jihadi John,” imperialism and ISIS

28 February 2015

On Thursday, the Washington Post revealed the identity of “Jihadi John,” the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) operative featured in grisly videos depicting the beheading of US journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, as well as two British aid workers, David Haines and Alan Henning.

The Post named the ISIS member as Mohammed Emwazi, a 26-year-old who was born in Kuwait and raised in London. He is described in a CNN report as “a Briton from a well-to-do family who grew up in West London and graduated from college with a degree in computer programming.”

The media reporting on this identification has been dominated by discussions of the psychology of terrorism and the role of Islamist ideology, along with speculation as to why someone from such a background would choose to engage in such barbaric acts.

All of these banalities are part of a campaign of deliberate obfuscation. Purposefully left in the shadows is the central revelation to accompany the identification of “Jihad John”—the fact that he was well known to British intelligence, which undoubtedly identified him as soon as his image and voice were first broadcast in ISIS videos.

Not only did Britain’s security service MI5 carefully track his movements, it carried out an active campaign to recruit him as an informant and covert agent. As the British daily Guardian put it Thursday, MI5 has “serious questions” to answer about its relations with Emwazi.

Chief among these questions is whether the intelligence agency was successful in its recruitment efforts. In other words, did Emwazi go to Syria with MI5’s foreknowledge and blessings?

If there is doubt as to whether Emwazi was recruited, it is clear that other ISIS jihadists have been. The BBC reported that British intelligence has refused to name Emwazi for “operational reasons.” It adds: “The practice by intelligence agencies of approaching jihadist sympathisers to work for them is likely to continue. It’s believed both Britain and the US have informers inside the Islamic State ‘capital’ of Raqqa. Yet this seems to have been little help in stopping the actions of Mohammed Emwazi, or bringing him to justice.”

At its heart, the case of “Jihadi John” is of significance because of what it says about the real relationship between Western imperialism and ISIS. In the final analysis, ISIS is a product of the interventions by Washington and its allies in the region.

Armed Islamist movements existed in neither Iraq nor Syria—nor, for that matter, in Libya—before US imperialism intervened to topple secular Arab governments in all three countries.

It is not only a matter of these movements emerging out of the mayhem, death and destruction unleashed by the US military and CIA in these countries at the cost of well over a million lives and wholesale social devastation.

Like Al Qaeda before it, ISIS is a creation of US and Western imperialism, unleashed upon the peoples of the region in pursuit of definite strategic aims. In Libya, Islamists now affiliated with ISIS provided the principal ground forces for the US-NATO war to topple Muammar Gaddafi. In Syria, ISIS, the Al Qaeda-affiliated Al Nusra Front and similar Islamist militias have played a similar role in a war for regime-change that has been backed by Washington and its allies.

By all accounts, so-called “foreign fighters” comprise the largest component of the “rebels” who have sought to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad over the past three-and-a-half years. Estimates have put their number at over 20,000, with recruits drawn from throughout Europe, North America, Central Asia and elsewhere.

While the media presents the flow of these fighters into Syria as something of a mystery, the question of how they have gotten there can be easily answered. The CIA, MI5 and other Western intelligence agencies have not merely turned a blind eye to Islamists traveling from their respective countries to the Syrian battlefield, it has offered them active encouragement. Turkey, a key US ally, has facilitated the flow of these elements across its border into Syria.

It should be recalled that Western governments and media painted forces like ISIS in Syria as democratic “revolutionaries” waging a progressive struggle against a tyrant. The war, which was stoked through orchestrated provocations, was cited as a justification for “humanitarian” intervention.

Arms and funding poured in to back the largely Islamist “rebels,” even as Washington and its allies steadily escalated the threat of direct intervention. The Obama administration went to the brink of launching a savage bombardment of Syria in September 2013, only to beat a tactical retreat in the face of unexpected opposition.

The Islamist forces on the ground in Syria felt themselves the victims of a double-cross. Much like the CIA’s Cuban counterrevolutionaries at the Bay of Pigs a half-century earlier, their promised US air support did not come and they lashed out in retribution. Ultimately, this took the form not only of the serial beheadings of Western hostages, but also the debacle inflicted upon the US-trained security forces in Iraq.

Washington has hypocritically seized upon the beheadings in an attempt to whip up support for its new intervention in the Middle East. But when similar atrocities were carried out by ISIS and its cohorts against Syrian Alawites, Christians and captured conscripts, the Obama administration looked the other way.

In the wake of the revelations about “Jihadi John,” Britain’s Tory Prime Minister David Cameron issued a ringing defense of the country’s security services, describing its members as “incredibly impressive, hard-working, dedicated, courageous.” He declared his sympathy for their “having to make incredibly difficult judgments.” He insisted that “the most important thing is to get behind them.”

If Britain were a functioning democracy, the revelations about the role of MI5 and its relations with Mohammed Emwazi and ISIS generally would be the subject of a parliamentary inquiry that could spell the fall of the government.

However, in London, as in Washington, the government has been largely taken over by the military and intelligence apparatus, whose crimes are systematically covered up with the aid of a complicit corporate-controlled media.

For workers in Britain, the US and internationally, these revelations only underscore the necessity to build up a genuine antiwar movement based on a socialist and internationalist program and in intransigent opposition to all attempts to exploit the crimes of ISIS—the Frankenstein’s monster created by imperialism—to justify the escalation of war abroad and repression at home.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), now threatening Baghdad, was funded for years by wealthy donors in Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, three U.S. allies that have dual agendas in the war on terror: here.

USA: Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, speaking Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), an ultra-right political conference held in suburban Washington DC, compared the working class and student protesters who thronged the streets of Madison in 2011 to ISIS terrorists. “If I could take on 100,000 protestors, I could do the same across the world,” he said, boasting that his defeat of the unions in Wisconsin qualified him to wage war in the Middle East: here.

Japanese government lies on ‘comfort women’, people protest


This video from South Korea says about itself:

“Herstory” Comfort Women Animation – English

15 January 2014

Produced with actual voices of the victims of the Japanese Military’s ‘Comfort Women‘ [policy].

By Ben McGrath:

Opposition to Japanese government’s lies on “comfort women”

27 February 2015

Opposition to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s attempt to whitewash the history of the Japanese military’s war crimes has emerged in Japan and also the United States. Earlier this month, a group of American historians issued a statement criticizing the Abe government’s attempts to pressure a US publishing company McGraw-Hill to amend its textbook’s treatment of so-called “comfort women.”

During the 1930s and 1940s, some 200,000 Korean, Chinese and other women were coerced into sex slavery in “comfort stations” established for Japanese officers and soldiers. Abe and other right-wing nationalists falsely claim that the women were not forced but willingly acted as prostitutes. This revision of history is bound up with the government’s plans to remilitarize and to end the current constitutional restrictions on the dispatch of the Japanese military in overseas interventions and wars.

Abe’s efforts to rewrite history could cloud plans for him to address a joint session of the US Congress, which, according to the Japan Times last weekend, could take place in late April. He would become the first Japanese prime minister to speak to Congress since 1961 when Hayato Ikeda addressed the House of Representatives. Abe’s grandfather, Nobsuke Kishi, also spoke before Congress as prime minister in 1957.

A bipartisan group of US lawmakers who visited Japan last week raised questions about Abe’s view of history. Democrat Congresswoman Diana DeGette warned that the issues surrounding World War II “could really put some cracks in the relationship… It’s really important that Japan not be seen as backtracking… on the comfort women issue and some other issues around the end of the war.”

Republican congressman James Sensenbrenner told the Wall Street Journal that Abe’s “revisionist history” was hurting “Japan’s standing with its neighbors. That has to be cooled down.” His warning reflects concerns in Washington that the Abe government’s whitewash of Japanese war crimes was undermining relations with South Korea, the other major US ally in North East Asia.

Regardless of these misgivings, Abe’s congressional address appears to be going ahead. The Obama administration regards Tokyo as a crucial ally in its “pivot to Asia” and military build-up throughout the Indo-Pacific region against China.

It should be noted that the criticisms of Abe’s stance on Japan’s atrocities are rather hypocritical. The US political establishment remains silent on its own crimes during World War II, including the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians in the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities.

Within Japan, right-wing nationalist groups continue to wage a vicious campaign against the Asahi Shimbun after it retracted a series of articles last August based on the testimony of Seiji Yoshida, a former soldier, who claimed to have forcibly rounded up “comfort women” on Korea’s Jeju Island. Yoshida later admitted that he had made up parts of his story, which has been seized on to claim there is no evidence that women were coerced into sex slavery and to demand the retraction of Japan’s 1993 Kono statement—a formal, but limited apology over the abuse of “comfort women.”

In an interview last month with the Asia-Pacific Journal, Yoshiaki Yoshimi, a leading historian on comfort women, said in, “As early as 1993 at the latest, no one took seriously Yoshida’s testimony claiming that he had witnessed the Japanese Army’s forcible relocation of women in Jeju Island. The Kono Statement was not based on Yoshida’s testimony. Nor do scholars researching the comfort women issue draw on it for their argument. In short, Asahi’s retraction of Yoshida’s testimony due to its falsity should not affect the discussion.”

Other former Japanese soldiers have provided evidence of the military’s system of sexual slavery. Masayoshi Matsumoto, currently 92, has spoken out against the crimes he witnessed as an army medic. “I feel like a war criminal. It is painful to speak of such things and I would rather cover it up. It is painful, but I must speak,” he said in a 2013 interview with Reuters.

In a more recent interview in the Asia-Pacific Journal in October 2014, Matsumoto described working at a base in Yu County in Shanxi Province in China during the war. “Our battalion had approximately one thousand men. We took about 5 or 6 ‘comfort women’ with us. I was a corpsman…I had to help the army doctor to do tests for venereal disease on comfort women.”

After describing the instruments and testing methods, Matsumoto said, “These [women] had definitely not arrived there of their own will. Nobody would be willing to travel to such a remote area. The money was handled by Japanese civilians employed by the military, who took care of the women.”

Matsumoto made clear that rape of captured village women was rampant and that the setting up of the “comfort stations,” where soldiers forced women to have sex, was an attempt to curb the spread of disease among the troops. Matsumoto described finding several women in a captured village.

“When we raided a village, there happened to be some villagers left behind. Normally during a raid all the villagers would flee. Among them were seven or eight women. The soldiers grabbed them and took them away to the barracks. Knowing that they would be killed if they resisted, these women came along without resisting. The women were made to live inside the barracks, and whenever the soldiers felt like it they would visit them to have sex,” he said.

Matsumoto explained why he spoke out: “While reading all kind of things, I realized that if we don’t face our past squarely, we’re bound to repeat the same mistakes. When I look at Abe, I think he’s starting to do exactly that. Someone needs to speak up.” Asked about Abe’s claim that there was no coercion of women, Matsumoto responded: “Such a thing is not true! It’s…nonsense. A lie.”

The evidence proving that the Japanese army engaged in the wide-scale and systematic coercion of women into its “comfort stations” is not limited to such personal accounts, but has been found in wartime documents unearthed by historians. Nevertheless Matsumoto’s first-hand testimony is not only telling refutation of Abe’s lies but also points to the fact that the whitewashing of war crimes is the preparation for new ones.

British child abuser Sir Jimmy Savile and his political connections


This video from Britain says about itself:

Jimmy Savile & Margaret Thatcher

16 October 2012

Why were Savile and Thatcher, strange bedfellows however you look at it, so close?

From daily The Morning Star in Britain:

End the culture of cover-ups

Friday 27th February 2015

HEALTH Secretary Jeremy Hunt pledges, in the wake of the Lampard report into the crimes of Jimmy Savile, that the power of celebrity or money must never again prevent people from exposing wrongdoing.

Savile was utterly brazen in daring NHS officials and police officers to take action against him.

He felt secure in his position as a major charity fundraiser for Stoke Mandeville, where he had a bedroom, a plush office and a master key with access to all areas despite having no qualifications or experience.

His wealth and political connections, not least with Margaret Thatcher at whose Downing Street New Year’s Eve parties he was a permanent fixture, persuaded people not to take him on.

However, Tory MP Dr Phillip Lee, who worked briefly at Stoke Mandeville, is surely correct in saying that, if junior staff were aware of what Savile was doing, senior managers and clinicians must also have done.

Turning a blind eye to abuse of patients, visitors, staff members and others for fear of losing the charity funds his activities generated was a gross betrayal of the victims’ right to personal security.

Labour shadow health secretary Andy Burnham’s call for a formal inquiry into accountability for failure to investigate this serial predator’s crimes must be supported.

Those in positions of influence who chose not to speak to the Lampard inquiry should be subpoenaed to give evidence and explain their roles.

Many people will be shocked to learn that there is no legal compulsion on NHS staff to blow the whistle on people suspected of abusing patients.

That legal loophole must be closed so that people in authority cannot encourage embarrassing suspicions to be swept under the carpet.

Above all, Savile’s reign of abuse and terror must not be seen as a one-off aberration.

Too many children and vulnerable adults have been disbelieved in a variety of institutions and forced to carry their torment with them.

That culture must end. Complaints must be recorded, investigated and taken as far as required.

Politicians should also consider whether our essential health services should be better funded through taxation rather than being dependent on celebrities organising charity drives for self-aggrandisement.

British child abuser Sir Jimmy Savile and the Thatcher government


Jimmy Savile with the prime minister Margaret Thatcher in 1980, the same year she appointed him as a fundraiser for Stoke Mandeville hospital, where he sexually abused people as young as eight. Photograph: PA

From daily The Guardian in Britain:

Jimmy Savile given free rein to sexually abuse 60 people, report finds

Damning reports point finger at politicians, civil servants and senior NHS staff but stop short of holding anyone accountable

Sandra Laville and Josh Halliday

Thursday 26 February 2015 19.28 GMT

Politicians, civil servants and NHS managers gave Jimmy Savile free rein to sexually abuse 60 people, including children as young as eight, over two decades at Stoke Mandeville hospital, two damning reports have concluded.

Savile’s celebrity status, his connections with the then prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, and with royalty, and his role as a fundraiser allowed him unfettered access to patients, staff and visitors at the Buckinghamshire hospital. Over 20 years he brazenly used that power and access to rape, sexually abuse, harass, intimidate and silence his victims who ranged in age from eight and 40.

A report into Savile’s activities at Stoke Mandeville by Dr Androulla Johnstone and Christine Dent said the BBC celebrity’s reputation as a sexual predator was an “open secret” yet he was able to go about his business not only unchallenged but also with the perception of sanction from the senior hierarchy. The report stopped short, however, of holding senior managers accountable, saying there was no evidence they were aware of Savile’s behaviour, despite junior staff saying it was widely known.

On 10 occasions, vulnerable patients complained about his sexual abuse to staff, their parents and to teachers, but they were either not believed or ignored, the report said. A supervisor tried to raise concerns to higher management but was reprimanded, patients who complained to nurses were told to stay silent, and one victim who told his headteacher was laughed at.

Kate Lampard, who carried out an independent review of Savile’s activities across the NHS, said in her report, also published on Thursday: “Savile’s status and influence … was enhanced by the endorsement and encouragement he received from politicians, senior civil servants and NHS managers. His access within NHS hospitals gave Savile the opportunity to commit sexual abuses on a grand scale for nearly 50 years.”

Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, said in a statement to the Commons that the power of celebrity or money must never again blind people to repeated clear signs that vulnerable individuals were being abused.

He said people were “too dazzled or too intimidated by the nation’s favourite celebrity to confront the evil predator we now know he was”.

However, Liz Dux, a lawyer at Slater and Gordon who represents 44 of Savile’s victims, said the report had been met with “crushing disappointment” because it held no one accountable.

“It beggars belief that a report which has revealed Savile was widely known as a sex pest at Stoke Mandeville can find no evidence of management responsibility,” Dux said.

“Ten victims had reported their assaults to nursing staff on the ward, including one complaint being made to management, yet still his deviant and sickening behaviour continued.”

She said the revelation in the report that three other doctors had committed serious sexual offences at the hospital in the past four decades suggested “something seriously amiss”.

Savile abused victims as soon as he started frequenting Stoke Mandeville in 1968, the report said. He became a porter at the hospital, having been invited in by a fellow porter who had worked with Savile at Leeds General Infirmary, where the DJ had also abused patients.

“He was a nightmare … he was vile,” a staff nurse told the inquiry. Others described how, when he turned up in a ward, a “Jimmy Savile alert would go out and we’d all disappear”.

Savile’s victims at Stoke Mandeville included an eight-year-old boy, and a girl, also eight, who was raped at least 10 times by Savile when she visited relatives there. One victim was systematically abused in the chapel by Savile, who was often accompanied by another, unnamed man. “Every time I went in that room I just knew he would touch me wherever he wanted to touch me,” she said.

A 12-year-old girl was raped by Savile in the television room. She returned to her ward and told a nurse that a porter, Savile, had “hurt me, down there”. She was told not to say anything, otherwise the nurse would get into trouble. Later that night Savile appeared at the girl’s bedside and sexually assaulted her again. Alone in her room afterwards, the child tore a page from a Bible in the room and wrote two notes asking for her father.

She posted them into a red post box in a corridor outside the ward, hoping someone would contact him; no one did.

In 1980 a clinical supervisor tried to escalate the concerns of students who had told her of sexually inappropriate behaviour by Savile at their accommodation block. But the supervisor was “reprimanded for interfering”.

Between 1972 and 1985 nine informal verbal complaints and one formal report were made about Savile by his victims. Johnstone found that none of the complaints were “either taken seriously or escalated to senior management”.

The formal complaint in 1977 came from the father of an 11-year-old girl who was sexually abused by Savile in a treatment room. The girl screamed hysterically, and a senior nurse arrived but told her to be quiet, saying Savile would not do such a dreadful thing and he raised a great deal of money for the hospital.

The incident “was serious and should have led to Savile’s suspension from the hospital and a formal police report being made”, Johnstone said. “There can be no excuses made in relation to ‘what was acceptable at the time’ or ‘how children were perceived’. This was a serious allegation and should have been investigated fully as it was reported to a hospital manager.”

The report revealed how Savile’s charitable work and status within the hospital were boosted by Thatcher, who in 1980 sponsored him as the lead fundraiser and commissioning project manager for a £10m campaign to rebuild the spinal injuries unit (NSIC) – a move which gave him “virtually uncontested authority and control”. Savile flattered Thatcher during several meetings, including trips to Chequers, the prime minister’s country residence.

In one letter to Thatcher, he wrote: “Dear PM I waited a week before writing to thank you for my lunch invitation because I had such a superb time … My girl patients pretended to be madly jealous and wanted to know what you wore. All the paralysed lads called me Sir James, they all love you, me too!!”

He was also supported in his new position by Dr Gerard Vaughan, a health minister at the time, who rode roughshod over concerns and policies to give Savile free rein, the report said.

“No member of parliament or the Department of Health and Social Services, to our knowledge, knew about Savile’s sexual abuse activities,” but there were major consequences of their actions.

“First there was an ongoing dependence on Savile’s charitable funds which ensured his continued position of power and influence at the hospital which was often detrimental to service management,” she said. “Second, Savile was able to access a new cohort of victims for his sexual abuse in the guise of young charity fundraisers to the hospital.”

David Clay, who was made general manager of the NSIC in 1983, said Savile acted as if he was God. “It was Jimmy Savile’s kingdom.”

By the time Ken Cunningham was appointed in 1991 as unit general manager at the hospital he was shocked by the power wielded by Savile, who by then had a bedroom/office installed with a Berber carpet, a flip-down bed, a large leather sofa and a gold letter box.

“This was a man who had the ear of royalty, prime ministers … It worried me that there was someone who could buy the loyalty and friendship of senior staff,” he said.

In 1993, when Stoke Mandeville became an NHS trust, Savile’s rule began to be challenged and the inquiry said his sexual abuse stopped around 1992. But the patients he attacked were left to deal with abuse which was not believed and continues to scar their adult lives.

“I didn’t know what had happened,” said one victim. “I didn’t understand what had happened. I knew it felt wrong and I felt dirty and I wanted to clean myself and I just wanted to wash myself again and again … I did not understand … I could not even explain to myself what had happened.”

PROLIFIC sex offender Jimmy Savile was able to gain a “position of authority and power” at Stoke Mandeville Hospital due to the backing of Margaret Thatcher and her ministers, a damning new report found yesterday. Savile was “sponsored” in his role as lead fundraiser and project manager in the 1980 rebuilding of the hospital’s national spinal injuries centre by the Tory leader, report author Dr Androulla Johnstone said: here.