Monday 31 August 2009

Stonehenge Was Built By Blacks

Image - Icelandic children. Why is they not black ? They have been eating primarily fish for 1,200 years and should be amongst the darkest people in Europe - but as we can see they are Nordics, and amongst the lightest skinned people in Europe. If not eating fish turned us white, why hasnt eating fish as the primary part of their diet not turned the Icelandic people back into blacks ?

Image - the Aurochs, ancestor of domesticated cattle.

You may have read the articles in the papers that White skin of Europeans only evolved 5,500 years ago as a result of agriculture which allowed the lack of Vitamin D to be solved via nutrients in agricultural foodstuffs ;

White Europeans could have evolved as recently as 5,500 years ago, according to research which suggests that the early humans who populated Britain and Scandinavia had dark skins for millenniums.

It was only when early humans gave up hunter-gathering and switched to farming about 5,500 years ago that white skin began to be favoured, say the researchers.

This is because farmed food was deficient in vitamin D, a vital nutrient. Humans can make this in their skin when exposed to sunlight, but dark skin is much less efficient at it.

In places such as northern Europe, where sunlight levels are low, the ability to make vitamin D more efficiently could have been crucial to survival.

Johan Moan, of the Institute of Physics at the University of Oslo, said in a research paper: “In England, from 5,500-5,200 years ago the food changed rapidly away from fish as an important food source. This led to a rapid development of ... light skin.”

Moan, who worked with Richard Setlow, a biophysicist at Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York state, said vitamin D deficiency could be lethal. Research links it with heart disease, diabetes, arthritis and reduced immunity.

Their research says: “Cold climates and high latitudes would speed up the need for skin lightening. Agricultural food was an insufficient source of vitamin D, and solar radiation was too low to produce enough vitamin D in dark skin.”

Then whilst reading the article below the following statement jumped out at me ;

According to authors J. P. Mallory and D. Q. Adams, the Proto-Indo-European lexicon which has been carefully reconstructed by scholars through generations of comparative linguistics contains words which indicate a diet that included meat, broth, salt, dairy products and the consumption of alcoholic beverages such as beer, mead and possibly wine:

The consumption of milk by adults also has genetic implications in that many people become lactose intolerant after childhood, i.e. become ill when they consume milk. This situation is particularly prevalent in the Mediterranean while lactose tolerance increases as one moves northwards. The ability to consume milk has been seen as a selective advantage among northern Europeans in that it helps replace the necessary quantities of vitamin D which is reduced in regions of poor sunlight. The processing of milk into butter or cheese reduces the ill effects of lactose intolerance.

I looked up when the domestication of cattle began in Europe, which is widely believed to have been in the Neolithic ( about 15,000 years ago ) to around 10,500 years ago ;

Therefore the theory that the change from fish to farming wheat as part of the great agricultural leap forward led to white skin is undermined by just two important facts ;

The first Great Leap Forward in relation to Vitamin D production was nothing to do with agriculture, but when the domestication of cattle occured.

The domestication of cattle occured nearly 12,000 years ago - and at that point the milk produced by cattle allowed Vitamin D to be ingested via milk, butter and cheese, far better producers of Vitamin D than agricultural foodstuffs.

Therefore the idea that only when europeans grew wheat were they capable of getting enough Vitaim D from sources other than sunlight is total nonsense.

Europeans had already been getting Vitamin D in milk, butter and cheese for over 5,000 years before they grew wheat etc when they domesticated cattle - and the fact that lactose tolerance is a unique European racial trait suggests that the relationship between Indo-Europeans and cattle is more likely to have led to skin lightening than wheat.

The fact that wheat and agricultural crops were grown first in the Middle East around 9,000 years ago, and those populations in the Middle East are not white today even though they have been eating wheat etc for thousands of years longer than White Europeans, suggests that agriculture had bugger all to do with skin colour.

This is one of the problems of science - the fact that science has become compartmentalised into esoteric sub-sections, means the bloody obvious can be missed by myopic experts in their fields who have no common sense or wider learning.

For the 'scientists' who issued this research to not take into account the fact that the domestication of cattle preceded the transition from fish to farming is simply sloppy research - or that this research is simply anti-white propaganda issued to the gullible lemmings in the media who will seize upon it to advance their ' we are all descended from blacks, we all are Africans, One world, One race' bullshit.

The fact that Vitamin D supplements were being ingested via milk for around 10,000 years suggests that the theory that a lack of Vitamin D caused by the use of wheat caused white skin to appear 5,500 years ago does not appear in any way logical.

The idea that white skin only appeared when we stopped eating fish, when milk was already bolstering Vitamin D levels for 5,000 years before then, and when we started to eat agricultural products is an absurd thesis.

The idea that eating sea fish would have been sufficient to ensure the retention of black skin in the European environment is unprovable - the fact is that white skin appeared when the first human cro-magnon populations established themselves 30,000 years ago in Europe.

It was the establishment of human populations in Europe that led to skin change colour not the transition from sea food to agricultural products.

The fact is that science can prove conclusively that white skin appeared as a environmental response mechanism to change in exposure to sunlight, to link that proven fact with some absurd theory about eating wheat as a driver for the change in skin colour is pseudo-science.

If eating fish ensured that early europeans would stay black, then why are Icelandic people not black ?

They have been living on fish as the main staple of their diet since they colonised the island in the 9th century, but they are white.

If the consumption of fish leads to skin colour remaining black in Europe, then the Icelandic people must be the darkest people in Europe - when they are Nordics and amongst the most pale skinned and blonde.

One would have though that in the 1200 years since the colonisation of Iceland and the consumption of fish, they would have got darker instead of getting lighter.

Add to Technorati Favorites

The New World Order Defined

Someone posted a comment on my blog a while ago how they saw the New World Order and it gave me the idea to create a succinct definition of the term ;

The use of national State power under the control of a global government in order to maximise Corporate profits.

Now we know why the endless succession of government ministers who come from big business backgrounds want to be elected as MP's, so as to represent the interests of the corporations they work for, and why so many ex-government ministers end up as directors or working for corporations and big business when they leave Parliament, in order to get their payoffs for representing the interests of their corporate masters instead of the people whilst they were in power.

The New World Order is the creation of a Global Corporate Fascist Government where individual nations use the power of the State to repress internal dissent and democracy in order to maximise the profits of the corporations that control and fund the election campaigns of the political parties in power and who own the media corporations that get politicians elected into power.

Add to Technorati Favorites

The Vipers Of Evil

The vipers of evil are spawned in cesspools,
By moral fools with the best of intentions,
Transforming all mankind into their vassals,
Constructing hells from dreams of heaven.

A ripe apple grew from the Tree of Life
In the Garden of Eden, so red and tempting,
But such succulent sensuality had its price,
The curse of death is the cross of freedom.

Upon a rough wooden crucifix, Christos died,
Yet with his final breath still forgives,
All those who conspired to murder with lies,
In a trial the Pharisees and Romans rigged.

The bomb dropped from the womb of Enola Gay,
Sowing the steel seed of our sinful victory,
Turning the sun black and darkening the day,
Staining with shame, the annals of history.

The rotting carcass of a shot British soldier,
Hangs from a tree like an over ripe fig,
Murdered in the streets of the Jewish quarter,
So Palestine will die and Israel may live.

Add to Technorati Favorites

White Child Slavery - Australias Shame

For decades we have had self loathing white idiots banging on about the plight of the Aborigines, when young White British children were being treated even worse than the Aborigines were.

It is time for the suffering of Whites to be publicised and revealed, not hidden away whilst anyone with a non-white skin is made into some fetishised epitome of victimhood.

Whites suffered, and now its time our story was told instead of the endless propaganda movies about Jews and the Holocaust or blacks and slavery.

Australian PM to apologise to 10,000 forced British migrant children abused in homes
By Mail Foreign Service

Last updated at 3:58 PM on 30th August 2009
Comments (0) Add to My Stories

Thousands of British children who suffered abuse in Australian institutions after being sent there by UK authorities are to receive an official apology, it emerged today.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will publicly say sorry after his government said their treatment in care homes was ‘unacceptable’.

Up to 10,000 youngsters, including orphans and children forcibly taken from unmarried mothers and impoverished families, were sent to Australia between 1922 and 1967.

With the encouragement of organisations like the Salvation Army and Barnardos they were sent as migrants to boost the country’s population with “good white stock”.
But many of those who made the 10,000-mile journey went on to lead to a life of starvation, slave labour and sexual abuse.

Mr Rudd’s apology will come eight years after a 2001 Senate report on child immigration recommended his predecessor John Howard to express his government’s regret for the misery endured by half a million children who lived in horrific institutions and apalling foster homes.

It follows his historic apology to Aborigines who taken from their mothers placed in state care during the last century.

Jenny Macklin, the Families and Indigenous Affairs Minister, today said a formal apology would probably take place before the end of the year.

She added: 'Many former child migrants and other children who were in institutions, their families and the wider community have suffered from a system that did not adequately provide for, or protect children in its care.

‘This is a significant national step in the healing process for forgotten Australians and former child migrants.’

TMany of the he British victims, whose average age was eight, often developed drug and alcohol addictions found it impossible to hold down jobs or marriages.

As soon as they arrived at an insitution they were given a number which replaced their name, and dressed in rags – with shoes becoming a luxury.

They were uniformly fed rotting food - ‘maggoty, mouldy, weevilly,’ a former child migrant described it in a submission to the 2001 inquiry.

Another said: ‘The freshest part of the food actually moved.’

They faced regular beatings with straps, canes and even cricket bats were common as was sexual assault.

In some Christian Brothers institutes, small boys were forced into bestial acts.

Many of the institutions farmed the children out to industrial laundries and local farms as slave labour.

And, even into the 1970s, hundreds of children and babies as young as seven months old were used as guinea pigs for new vaccines that did not work or failed to pass safety tests in animals.

The announcement of the apology has been welcomed by the Alliance for Forgotten Australians, which represents those who suffered in state care.

Caroline Carrol, chairwoman of the AFA, said: ‘As children, many of us experienced horrors in the places that were supposed to care for us,’ she said.

‘As adult survivors, we need acknowledgment of and an apology for the harm that was done to us.

‘The apology is an excellent beginning to what we hope will be a comprehensive government response.’

The apology, which may be delivered jointly by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull.

Read more:

Add to Technorati Favorites

Chomsky On The Media

Noam Chomsky is bang on the money when he defines the nature of the US and UK media in this article here ;

Chomsky also addressed the media and freedom of expression in the U.S. "In the United States the socio-economic system is designed so that the control over the media is in the hands of a minority who own large corporations... and the result is that the financial interests of those groups are always behind the so-called freedom of expression," he said.

If the corporations that control the media dont like what you say then you dont get to say it to the public.

All those 'revolutionaries' who are allowed access to the media, such as leftists, liberals and environmentalists, are simply products of the system - in that the system allows 'dissent' but only dissent that the system can control and that the corporations can profit from by peddling the trite, castrated ideologies and books of the liberals and left to the public.

Leftism, Liberalism and the Green Party type of environmentalism are allowed to be broadcast and propagandised in public as they are products of the system and run and controlled by agents of the system.

The only ideologies that are attacked by the system and the media, such as Nationalism and the BNP, are attacked simply because they represent the ONLY threats to the system.

Leftists, Liberals and Green Party Environmentalists and anti-Capitalist groups serve the system, as they ensure that the energy and money of the revolutionary masses are directed into the impotent farce of posturing and profiteering instead of into revolutionary nationalism that could bring down the entire system itself.

Add to Technorati Favorites

More on the Joys of Die-versity

The article below does not include those immigrants who have been given a bit of paper that says they are 'British' by the traitors who run this country.

Those immigrants that have a bit of paper called a passport that says they are 'British' are deliberatly ommited from these figures so as to obscure the reality that most gun crime, murders and rapes in this country are related to Naturalised British citizens, not indigenous British citizens.

If the crime statistics were classified according to their true status and differentiated between Indigenous Britons and Naturalised British Citizens, then we would see that the majority of serious crime is linked to Naturalised British citizens and not Indigenous Britons.

One out of every five killers is an immigrant By Matthew Hickley and Jason Bennetto
Last updated at 2:15 AM on 31st August 2009

Comments (2) Add to My Stories Foreign influence:

Immigrants are twice as likely to commit or be charged with an illegal killing, like murderer Marek Harcar

Up to a fifth of killers in England and Wales are foreign, police figures suggest. Out of 371 individuals accused or convicted of murder or manslaughter last year, 79 were from abroad - more than 21 per cent.

Foreign immigrants make up only around a tenth of the UK population, meaning they are statistically twice as likely as native Britons to be charged with or found guilty of an illegal killing.

In London, almost 40 per cent of those in such cases in the past year were from overseas, or of unknown origin.

Opposition critics said the findings reflected the Government's failure to deport foreign criminals, and the ease with which offenders from abroad can slip through border controls.

The most common nationality for foreigners involved in murder and manslaughter cases was Polish, followed by Nepalese, Lithuanian, Somalian and Sri Lankan.

Around half the police forces across England and Wales provided data under the Freedom of Information Act, revealing strong regional differences.

The highest figures were in London where in the year to April 2009, 93 of the 233 people accused or convicted of murder and manslaughter were either non-British or from unknown backgrounds.

In West Mercia, five out of 22 were foreigners - 23 per cent - from Lithuania, Poland, and the Republic of Ireland. Nottinghamshire showed the same proportion, with three out of 13 cases.

But some forces - including Cheshire, Humberside, Hampshire, and Merseyside - recorded no cases with foreign killers. The figures may be an underestimate as 11 out 30 forces which responded claimed they did not record nationalities of either killers or murder victims, and others had gaps in the information.

As foreign suspects are typically harder to identify and trace, meaning that crimes are less likely to be solved, the real proportion could be significantly higher.

The figures showed foreigners were also more likely to be victims of murder or manslaughter, accounting for 20 per cent of all those killed in England and Wales in 2007-8, and 13 per cent last year.

Concerns about convicted offenders entering Britain were underlined in April by the case of Marek Harcar, 33, who was sentenced to a minimum 25 years in jail for the abduction, rape and murder of businesswoman Moira Jones.

Slovakian Harcar was allowed into Britain despite having 13 convictions, four of them involving violence. He abducted the 40-year-old just yards from her home on May 28 last year. Her semi-naked body was found in Queen's Park in Glasgow the next day.

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said: 'The Government seem to have completely failed to get to grips with foreign nationals' crime in the UK.

'These figures underline the scale of the problem, but we know the Government are simply failing to deport offenders in the way they should be.'

Earlier this year Detective Chief Inspector Murray Duffin, of the Scotland Yard Extradition and Intelligence Unit, warned: 'Britain is becoming a magnet for increasing numbers of criminals from the former Eastern bloc countries which are now members of the EU.'

Read more:

Add to Technorati Favorites

Asian thugs attack cops - blame BNP Ghosts

Image - Tourism brochure for Luton. It reads ;

" Welcome to Luton, home of the Bedfordshire Taliban. Twinned with Kandahar in Afghanistan, Luton is a welcoming town for all Islamist radicals and anti-white racist thugs. The local police are castrated by Political Correctness, so we Islamists run the town. We can even get democracy, free speech and the right to peaceful protest cancelled and banned in Luton as we threaten to attack the Kuffar when they dare excercise their democratic rights to protest our presence in the town. The police are so busy kissing our arses, under the orders of the Labour Party and the government who want our votes in the forthcoming general election, that we can virtually do as we want "

It appears that the real face of thuggish extremism has appeared from behind the mask of UAF and liberal media bullshit.

Apparently the Asian rioters in the article below are going to claim that they were driven to attack the police, local shops and local shoppers by the presence of BNP ghosts seen floating around the area going 'whhooooo' to Asian youths who were busy constructing a local art project which neccesitated them roaming the area whilst carrying bricks, fireworks and rocks.

Because the 'fascist' police and 'nazi ghosts' were in the area without the permission of the local Taliban commander, then this drove the local members of the Taliban militia to attack the police and seek out the BNP ghosts they all saw in their tiny little minds.

I wonder how the UAF are going to spin this away - as there were no football groups, no casuals and certainly no BNP to blame for their violence and attacks on the police.

When you take away all the excuses all you are left with is the local Taliban using violence against the police and local people.

The job of the UAF is to provide a semi-plausible cover story for the Taliban when they attack people, by blaming everything on the victims of the violence instead of the perpetrators of the violence.

Next week - stoning of unmarried mothers comes to Luton and women seen on the streets without Burkhas will be whipped by local Taliban commanders and their militia.

Riot police break up mob of protesters

Published Date: 30 August 2009

Riot police were forced to break up a mob of 200 youths in Luton after they threw fireworks at officers.

Officers wearing helmets and carrying shields were sent to Bury Park in Luton after Asian youths attacked local police.

A statement from Bedfordshire Police said the protesters were deterred from entering the town by a banning order approved by Home Secretary Alan Johnson last week.

The force added: "Sunday's disorder follows weeks of engagement and public consultation by Bedfordshire Police and Luton Borough Council in response to tensions within the community after the town was identified as a potential location for a march by right-wing supporters."

Police had to send in an extra 50 officers and six police horses at 4.30pm as the violence escalated. Two people were arrested for public order offences.

The force said there was a strong police presence to ensure the safety of local residents and the disorder was dealt with by 7pm.

Chief Superintendent Andy Frost, from the force, said: "I am extremely disappointed that some members of the Asian community have used today as an opportunity to commit disorder and undo much of the excellent work that has been done by both the police, council and community leaders to ensure today passed without incident.

"There has been extensive public consultation and work behind the scenes to ensure Luton was not the chosen venue for any kind of march or protest but it would seem that for no apparent reason disorder has broken out in Bury Park.

"Although this incident was contained within Bury Park it has again put Luton under the spotlight for the wrong reasons.

"The town has enjoyed excellent community relations for a number of years but it seems a small minority has let Luton down."

Add to Technorati Favorites

Sunday 30 August 2009

The Poison Tree

Political Correctness is the new Poison Tree.

The Poison Tree

I walked a wild wood of Liberty,
Where no fruit was forbidden,
I found a coppiced forest of laws,
With each pleasure in a prison.

I plucked the fruits of liberty,
Then felt myself rise free,
I ate the gall of an angry god,
And became a slave to the sod.

I spoke the name of liberty,
In my mortal captivity,
I heard the mantra of greed,
Exulted as a holy creed.

I saw traitors steal our liberty,
And feted for their larceny,
I see the honest poor despised,
As the media print their lies.

I dare not speak of our lost liberty,
Unless politically correctly,
I swaddle truth in lies and flowers,
To be sacrificed upon evils altars.

I saw tyranny banish all liberty,
And liberals become as Nazis,
I saw diversity worshipped,
As everything was corrupted.

I gathered the bones of liberty,
Then cast them into the sea,
I saw a wall of white water arise,
As Liberty came back to life.

I felt the divine fury of liberty,
As she began her wild mutiny,
I stood atop the cliffs of Dover,
Where gathered our peoples army.

I saw the world turn and liberty,
Replace all lies with honesty,
I felt the joy of revolution,
As traitors fled from retribution.

I saw a crown upon the head of liberty,
And the rout of all our enemies,
I saw Britain reborn, a phoenix arise,
As our destiny came back to life.

Add to Technorati Favorites

The Inglorious Basterds of The Victory of Democracy

Image - No, not the Holocaust. German prisoners of war slaughtered after surrendering and being kept in Polish prison camps run primarily by Jews.

Behind An Eye for An Eye

Revenge, Hate and History

John Sack

Three years ago I was scheduled to speak at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The speech was announced in this brochure and also on the Internet. But then the Museum canceled it.

For the next forty-five minutes, I'll say here what I'd planned to say at the Holocaust Museum, and then, just as I'd have done at the Museum, I'll stay here as long as you'd like, answering questions. The audience at the Museum would have been historians, mostly, and I'd have said something like ...

Thank you. Thank you for inviting me, thank you for listening to me. What I'm going to talk about happened fifty years ago. And for fifty years, no one, no historian, no one at all has spoken about it in public anywhere in the world. Not until now.

Now myself, I'm not an historian, I'm a reporter. And what I write is the raw material of history, something that historians will -- I hope -- someday make some sense of. I go places. I watch events. I listen to people. And then I tell stories. And I'll start by telling one now. A true story about a teenage girl.

Blonde hair, brown eyes, very pretty. In high school she's doing the flying rings, trapeze, acting in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. She's one of the title characters. She comes home. She's skipping through the streets singing, "On the Good Ship Lollipop ..." Not exactly. She's really singing [in accented English], "On the Good Ship Lollipop ..." Because she's a Polish girl, and she's in Bedzin, Poland, in the 1930s. Her name is Lola Potok.

And when she's 18 years old, the Nazis invade. Lola is put on a train to the town of Oswiecim -- we know it as Auschwitz. Her baby, one year old, is ripped from her arms; she never sees the baby again. She isn't sent to the cyanide chamber, but her mother is. Her mother is killed, her brother and sister, nieces and nephews are killed. Fourteen people.

(You know, I wasn't going to say this at the Holocaust Museum, but in this particular room I know there are people who don't believe there were cyanide chambers at Auschwitz. I believe, and Lola believes, there were cyanide chambers at Auschwitz.)

Her mother was killed. Her brother and sister, nieces and nephews were killed. Fourteen people. The one brother at Auschwitz who's still alive stands on the gallows and says in Yiddish, "Nem nekumah! Take revenge!" Then he's hanged.

In January 1945, Lola escapes. She weighs sixty-six pounds. Her eyes are hollow. Her hair is this short. Her back has been broken. Her hand is mangled. She's wearing two left shoes. All the people she loves are dead, or she thinks so, and she is just bursting with hate. She wants to release that hate, to spew it onto the Germans. One of her childhood friends is in the Polish government, and Lola goes to him and tells him, "I want revenge."

And two months later the war is still going on, and Lola is now in Germany, the part occupied by the Russians and administered by the Poles. Lola's in an olive-colored uniform. On her jacket are brass buttons. On her collar, what the GIs call scrambled eggs. On her shoulders are stars. On her hip is a Luger. Lola is working for the Polish government, she is the commandant of a prison for Germans, and she is attempting to take revenge for the Holocaust.

Now, Lola is a Jewish girl. She's studied the Torah, and the Torah says, "You shall not take revenge." Lola knows that. She's disobeying that. But is there any of us here who'd condemn her? Any of us who can't understand her? I can understand her, and I can have rachmanis, compassion, for her.

I met Lola Potok. It was in April 1986. I'm living in Hollywood. I'm a writer, and I have a meeting at Paramount. And the secretary there, she's reading something I wrote about the Billionaire Boys Club. She tells me, "I like it. It reminds me of my family."

I say, "The Billionaire Boys Club? Your family?" Secretary says, "Yes, all those murders. My mother, Lola, was at Auschwitz." I say, "Oh." Secretary says, "And after that, my mother commanded a prison full of Nazis." I say, "What? She commanded ..." I say, "Do you know there's a movie there?" I say, "You should tell Lynda," Lynda is the producer, the secretary's boss, but the secretary tells me, "I know there's a movie. I won't tell Lynda. I want to produce it myself!"

There's a saying in Hollywood: a producer is someone, anyone, who knows a writer. I'm a writer, the secretary knows me, and therefore she's a producer. We're in business together. The deal is, I'll write a magazine article on Lola, her mother, and the secretary will make a movie from it.

Cut. A few days later. Hollywood, the Moustache Cafe. I'm having spinach crepe. I'm having dinner with Lola. An elegant woman. Coral lipstick, black eyeliner, like on a femme fatale. Speaks five languages fluently. She's sixty-six years old. And Lola starts telling me her story.

At the end of World War II, she tells me, she commanded a prison in Gleiwitz, Germany. She says the inmates were German soldiers. But she says some were Nazis, even SS, pretending to be German soldiers, and Lola was looking for them. Looking for Höss and Hössler, the commandants at Auschwitz. Looking for Mengele, the man who once said to her mother, "Go left, you die"; who said to Lola, "Go right, you live." And if Lola ever found him, she didn't know what she'd do. But she'd do it.

And Lola tells me: One day in her prison she found a Gestapo man. Fat, forty years old. Under his arm was a tattoo. It said A or B. It was his blood type. Everyone in the Gestapo had it. Lola freaked out. She started screaming, "Du schmutziges Schwein! Du verfluchtes Schwein! Du ... How many Jews did you kill?" She slapped him. The man was down on the floor. He was hugging her boots, saying, "Gnade! Gnade! Have mercy on me!," and Lola was kicking him and kicking ...

This story of Lola's: Is there anyone here who likes it? I didn't like it. I didn't want to write it. I thought it was ugly. Lola didn't like it. She told me her mother, if she were alive, wouldn't like it. Her mother used to read to her from the Torah and tell her, "You mustn't hate. It only hurts you. It corrodes your soul."

And Lola said that after some months in Gleiwitz, she remembered this. She was in the prison one day. And there was a Jewish guard there. His face was red. His teeth were bare. There was spit on his teeth. Ugly, ugly. The man had a whip. He was screaming in Polish, "You son of a whore." He was whipping a German prisoner. Lola said, "Stop." Lola said, "Why are you whipping him?" The man said, "Well, the Germans did it to me!" Lola said, "And now you hate them?" The man said, "I despise them!" Lola said, "Well, if you despise them, why do you want to be like them?" Because to Lola, to Lola, this man, this Jew, he looked, talked, acted just like the Nazis she'd known at Auschwitz.

At that time, Lola didn't care about the Germans, the German prisoners. They could have dropped dead for all she cared. But she told me she cared about the Jewish guard. For years the Nazis had called him a pig, a dog, and if now he'd truly become a beast, then who had won, the Jew or the Nazis? So according to Lola, she called all the guards to her office and said to them that from now on, we'll treat the Germans like human beings. And from then on, Lola told me, that's what she did.

Writing Lola's Story
Now, this story I liked. If it was true, this was a story worth telling. I had this dream: maybe the Serbs and Croats will read it, the Irish Catholics and Protestants will read it, the Hutus and Tutsis, the Israelis and Palestinians ... Maybe they'll read it, and maybe they'll learn, as Lola did, that to hate your neighbors may or may not destroy them, but it does destroy yourself. And maybe these people will stop their revenge, stop their genocide.

We Jews always say of the Holocaust, "Never again. Never again will people hurt us simply because we are Jews." But Lola was apparently saying, "Yes, and never again will I hurt a German simply because he's a German." Fifty years ago, Lola was apparently saying, "Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me." This story I wanted very much to write. So ...

I start interviewing Lola. At the Inn of the Seventh Ray in Los Angeles. At a Jewish cemetery in New Jersey. On the Champs Elysées in Paris. I interview Lola on and off for two-and-a-half years. Her memories just pour out, and she also introduces me to a dozen other people, all Jews: people who knew her in Gleiwitz, prison guards in Gleiwitz, even the man who appointed her the commandant in Gleiwitz.

I write a twenty-page article on Lola's revenge and Lola's redemption. Lola reads it and likes it. The story runs in California magazine. Lola, at her own expense, comes to Washington to promote it on National Public Radio. The story is sold internationally, and it's reprinted in Best Magazine Articles, 1988. We have movie offers. Bette Midler and Suzanne Somers want to play the Lola part.

And then I write a book proposal. I write, "It's Lola's redemption, not Lola's revenge, that this book's about." I'll go to Germany. I'll find some prisoners maybe. I'll go to Poland. I'll find some more guards, maybe. I'll write a book. The title will be Lola. And in August 1988, the publisher Henry Holt in New York City says, "Okay! We want it!" Good news, and I phone it to Lola.

And Lola on the telephone says, "Listen, John, I don't want you to write it." I say, "Lola? Lola, this is the first time you've told that to me." I say, "Lola, we signed a contract." We had signed one. Lola had written, "I grant you the exclusive right to write and to publish a book about my life."

That night I go to Lola's apartment in Hollywood. Anyone here ever been in an encounter group? Remember your first night? Everyone shouting and screaming. You're just sitting there stupefied. You're thinking, "What is going on?" Well, I'm in Lola's condo. Lola is saying, "Lookit, John. I don't like the way you write. You write like a reporter. If you start writing this book, I will stop you. I will stop you!"

Lola's daughter is there. She's saying, "John, give it up. I'm begging you to give it up. John! Give it up!" Another daughter of Lola's is there. She's a lawyer, and she says, "John! You're going to have instantaneous and very expensive litigation!" Lola's saying, "I'll go to court." The daughter's saying, "John, I want you to sign this release. John! Sign the release!" The other daughter's saying, "John! Just leave us! Just go!" Lola's saying, "John! Get out of our lives!"

I leave. I telephone Lola but she doesn't answer. I write her, but she sends the letters back, unopened, inscribed "refused."

And not just Lola. Lola's second-in-command at the prison in Gleiwitz was Moshe, also a Jew. He won't talk to me. His wife on the telephone says, "We don't give you the permission to write this." I say, "I ... You ..." That's what I say, "I ... You ... One doesn't need permission!" I have permission, from the Constitution of the United States. Moshe's wife hangs up.

And then there is Jadzia, also a Jew, she was one of Lola's guards in Gleiwitz. Jadzia says on the telephone, "I was never in Gleiwitz!" Then she says, "Yes, I was in Gleiwitz, but I'll never talk about it!" And then she talks for an hour saying, "I don't know nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing. Nothing! Nothing!"

People won't talk to me. People tell other people, "Don't talk to John Sack." People talk to me, and they lie to me. People say they'll sue me, they'll destroy me, they'll kill me. One man takes my driver's license, writes down my address, and says, "If you write about me, I will call the Israeli Mafia."

Here's some advice. Never tell a reporter, "You'd better not write this." I have a contract with Henry Holt. I've made a promise to Henry Holt. I keep my promises.

Doing the Research
In April 1989, I fly to Germany. I go to this castle, this concrete castle, high on a hill above the Rhine. It's the German Federal Archives, and they've got forty thousand statements there by Germans who lived in what now is Poland during World War II. The statements of course are in German, in German script, and I find five statements from Germans who were in Lola's prison.

I go to another place in Germany: a great medieval hall, with banners on the stone walls. It's a reunion of a thousand people from Gleiwitz. They're drinking beer. They're eating sausages and sauerkraut. They're laughing and singing, "Ein prosit, ein prosit ..." And I'm like a little flower girl. You know, the girl who goes from table to table selling roses? I'm going around asking, "Uh, excuse me. Anyone here who was in prison in Gleiwitz?" Yeah, I am a party pooper. I admit it. But eventually I find five of Lola's prisoners.

I take the train to Gleiwitz. Now it's Gliwice, Poland. And going through Communist East Berlin, I'm arrested, taken off the train, and locked up in a little room because with me I have a copy of the book Die Vertreibung der deutschen Bevölkerung aus den Gebieten östlich der Oder-Neisse ["The Expulsion of the German Population from the Territories East of the Oder-Neisse," published in the 1950s by the Bonn government]. Hours later I'm let out and I get to Gleiwitz/ Gliwice at four in the morning. It's a city of two hundred thousand people, almost none of whom speak English. I don't speak Polish, but I find three of Lola's guards. They remember her well.

It's 1989, Poland is still Communist, but I get into Lola's prison, into the prisoners' cells. I tell them, "Djien dobre. Good morning." I see the prison records. Remember when, according to Lola, she went to the Polish government and said, "I want revenge"? Well, I find her application, in her own handwriting. She wrote, "I want to cooperate against our German oppressors." I find the official document appointing her commandant in Gleiwitz.

After that, I go to Germany eleven more times, to Poland three more times, to France, Austria, Israel, Canada, and all around the United States. Through interpreters I talk to two hundred people in Polish and Russian, Danish and Swedish, German and Dutch, French and Spanish, Yiddish and Hebrew. I left out English. I get three hundred hours of tape-recorded interviews, and I see thousands of documents.

And what do I learn? Well: Lola was telling the truth. She was the commandant in Gleiwitz. And she was taking revenge. She slapped the Germans around. And just as she said, she stopped. I remember one day in 1989, I'm having lunch with one of her guards at the Hotel Leszny. We're eating wienerschnitzel. And out of the blue the man says, "You know, Lola stopped. She told us, 'Stop!' She said, 'We're going to show the Germans we're not like them.'"

The Facts Come Out
So Lola was telling the truth. But, she wasn't telling the whole truth. Lola had told me the people in her prison were German soldiers. And yes, twenty of them were German soldiers, men who worked as painters, carpenters, and such. But there were a thousand other prisoners there, and they were German civilians: German men, German women, German children.

One prisoner was a fourteen-year-old boy. He had been out in Gleiwitz wearing his boy scout pants. A man cried out, "You're wearing black pants! You're a fascist!," and he chased the boy and tackled him at the Church of Saint Peter and Paul, and then took him to Lola's prison. Now, the boy was completely innocent. So were most of the people in Lola's prison. They weren't Gestapo. They weren't SS. They weren't even Nazis. Out of a thousand prisoners, just twenty were ever even accused of it.

But the Germans in Lola's prison were slapped and whipped. And I'm so sorry to have to say it, but they were also tortured. The boy scout: the guards poured gasoline on his curly black hair and set it on fire. The boy went insane. The men: they were beaten with a Totschläger, a "beater-to-death." It's a long steel spring with a big lead ball at the end. You use it like a racketball racket. Your arm, your wrist, the spring: they deliver a triple hit to a German's face.

Lola didn't tell me, but the Germans in her prison were dying. I found their death certificates in Gleiwitz city hall. One of Lola's guards told me, "Yeah, the Germans would die." He told me, "I'd put the bodies in a horse-drawn cart. I'd cover them with potato peels so no one would see. I'd ride to the outskirts and, after I threw the potato peels out, I'd take the Germans to the Catholic cemetery. To the mass grave."

We all know about Auschwitz. But I have to tell you, the Germans in Lola's prison were worse off than Lola had been at Auschwitz. Lola at Auschwitz wasn't locked in a room night and day. She wasn't tortured night after night. She herself told me: "Thank God, nobody tried to rape us. The Germans weren't allowed to." But all of that happened to German girls at Lola's prison in Gleiwitz.

One woman I talked with wasn't even German. She was Polish. In 1945 she was twenty years old: a tall, blonde, beautiful medical student. The guards at Lola's prison pulled off her clothes and told her, "Let's do it!" They beat her and beat her, night after night, until she was black and blue. One morning, she came back to her cell and fell on the floor, sobbing. Her cellmate asked her, "What, what is that blue thing you're wearing? Oh, oh, it's your skin."

And ten feet away was Lola's office. Lola in her brass, braid, and stars. I once asked her, "Lola, where did you get that uniform?," and Lola said, "Well, the Russians must've given it to me." That wasn't the whole truth either.

Lola was in the Polish secret police. Its name was the Office of State Security, in Polish the Urzad Bezpieczenstwa Publicznego. The Germans called it the Polish Gestapo. One of its missions was to round up Nazi suspects. But for all practical purposes, if you were a German, you were a Nazi suspect. So the mission was to round up Germans, imprison them, interrogate them, and if they confess, prosecute them.

In the Office of State Security, the lower ranks were Polish Catholics, but most of the leaders were Polish Jews. The chief of the Office in Warsaw was a Jew. (When I was in Poland he wasn't alive, but I met some of his family.) The department directors, all or almost all of them, were Jews.

In Silesia, the province where Lola was commandant, the director of the Office of State Security was a Jew. I met him in Copenhagen, a little bald-headed man. The director of prisons was also a Jew. I met his whole family in Tel Aviv. The secretary of state security was a Jew. I met him time and again at his home in New Jersey. And in the Office of State Security in Silesia in February 1945, of the officers -- not the enlisted men, not the guards, but the lieutenants, captains and such -- one-fourth were Catholics, and three-fourths were Jews.

Solomon Morel
I interviewed twenty-four of them. And I learned that the Office of State Security ran 227 prisons for German civilians like Lola's. It also ran 1,255 concentration camps, and I interviewed four of the commandants. They were also Jews. One was Lola's boy friend, a man who'd lost in the Holocaust his mother, his father, all his brothers (he had no sisters), all his uncles and aunts, and all but one of his cousins. I hope that, like me, you can all have compassion for Solomon Morel.

But one night in February, 1945, Solomon went to his concentration camp in the city of Swietochlowice. He went into the Germans' barracks, and said, "My name is Captain Morel. I am a Jew. I was at Auschwitz. I swore I would take revenge on you Nazis." They weren't Nazis, but Solomon said, "Now! Everyone! Sing the Horst Wessel song!" That was a Nazi anthem. No one wanted to sing it. One boy, fourteen years old, didn't even know it.

Solomon had a club. He said, "Sing it!" Some people began, "Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen ..." "Sing it! Sing it, I say!" They started singing, "Clear the streets for the brown battalions. Clear the street for the Storm Section men." Solomon had all this hate inside him, and he released it. He picked up a wooden stool and he started beating the Germans to death. For this one camp, I found the death certificates for 1,583 Germans.

Death Toll
In other camps and other prisons, thousands of German civilians died. German men, women, children, babies. At one camp there was a barracks for fifty babies. They were in cribs, but the camp doctor, Dr. Cedrowski -- he was a Jew who had been in Auschwitz -- he didn't heat the barracks, and he didn't give the babies milk. He gave them only some soup, and forty-eight of the fifty babies died.

All in all, sixty to eighty thousand Germans died. Some were killed by Jews, some by Catholics, and many by typhus, dysentery, and starvation, but sixty to eighty thousand died in the custody of the Office of State Security. Now, someone, a German, once told me that this was another holocaust. Well, I'm sure it seemed like a holocaust to the Germans.

But let's not forget: sixty thousand is one percent of the number of Jews who died in the capital-H Holocaust. Jews didn't do what the Germans did. We didn't plot to exterminate the German people. We didn't mobilize all the Jews and the Jewish state. (There was no Jewish state.) We didn't send the Germans systematically to cyanide chambers.

But let's also remember that sixty to eighty thousand civilians is more than the Germans lost at Dresden, and more than, or just as many as, the Japanese lost at Hiroshima, the Americans at Pearl Harbor, the British in the Battle of Britain, or the Jews at Belsen or Buchenwald.

All this was covered up for nearly fifty years. Jews who were involved didn't talk about it. For example, the chief of police in occupied Breslau, Germany, in 1945, who was Jewish, later wrote a book about the Holocaust. And in telling about his time as chief of police in Breslau, all he says is, "We moved westward to Breslau and ... from there ... to Prague." That's it. And Jewish reporters who knew didn't write about it. There's a working reporter right now in New York City who was in Poland right after World War II. He told me, "Whatever, whatever the Germans tell you, believe me, it's true." But he himself, he never wrote about it.

The truth was covered up, and was still being covered up. In 1989, I went to Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, Israel's central Holocaust center. As you may know, they have fifty million documents there about the Holocaust. I ask them, "Well, what do you have on the Office of State Security?" They have nothing. I ask them, "What do you have on the Jews in the Office of State Security?" Nothing. I say, "Well, there were Jewish commandants, Jewish directors, Jewish ..." The chairman of Yad Vashem responds, "It sounds rather imaginary," and the director of archives says to me, "Imm-possible! Impossible!"

Denial, denial. I know that denial is a very human thing. But historically I don't think it's a Jewish thing. When Abraham, Isaac and Jacob committed sins, we Jews didn't deny it. Yes, Abraham, the father of our people, sinned. God told him to go to Israel, instead he went to Egypt, and we admitted it in the Book of Genesis. Judah (the word "Jew" comes from Judah) made love to a prostitute. We admitted it in Genesis. Moses, even Moses sinned, and God didn't let him into the Promised Land. We admitted that in Deuteronomy. Solomon -- good, wise, old King Solomon -- did evil. He "worshipped idols." We didn't cover it up. We admitted it in the Book of Kings.

It seems to me that that's the Jewish tradition. How can we say to other people -- to Germans, to Serbs, to Hutus -- "What you're doing is wrong," if we ourselves do it and cover it up? I wish it were someone else who was here today. Abraham Foxman. Elie Wiesel. I wish he or she would simply say yes, some Jews, some Jews, did evil in 1945. But when the Jewish establishment didn't say it, then I had to say it.

I'm a reporter. That's what reporters do. Someone kills sixty thousand people, we report it. If we don't report it, it might become common, or more common, than it already is. But also I'm a Jew, and the Torah says (Leviticus 5:1), that if someone does evil, and if I know it and don't report it, then I am guilty too.

So I start writing this book. The title now won't be Lola. It'll be An Eye for an Eye. And on the third page I write, "I hope that An Eye for an Eye is something more than the story of Jewish revenge: that it's the story of Jewish redemption." I write about Jews taking revenge, yes. But that is one tenth of An Eye for an Eye. Mostly I write ...

I write about Zlata, Moshe, Mania, and Pola. They were Jews who refused to look at, much less work at Lola's prison. I write about Ada, who visited the prison once, just once, and then fled to Israel. I write about Shlomo, who was in the Office of State Security and, at the risk of his life, told people in it, "You must stop doing this."

I write about Lola. I write that in Gleiwitz she finally remembered how a Jew should act and, at the risk of her life, she got bread, her own bread from her own home, and smuggled it to the German prisoners. Now this isn't something that Lola told me. No, the prison guards told me. They said that if Lola had been caught, she'd have gone to prison herself.

And I write that at Yom Kippur, 1945, Lola -- again at the risk of her life -- escaped from Gleiwitz, just as she had escaped some months earlier from Auschwitz, and came to the United States. Almost all the Jews in the Office of State Security escaped, at the risk of their lives, in September, October, and November 1945. And I write that too. They crept through the woods into Germany, or climbed the pass into Italy. They did what the SS never did: they deserted, they defected.

I was crying while I was writing this. My advance from Henry Holt was $25,000, and for three years I was writing An Eye for an Eye. In September 1991 I finally finished it, wrapped it up, and mailed it to Henry Holt in New York. And I told myself: "Okay. I've done it. That's the end of the cover-up."

No. Because then the people at Henry Holt say, "We don't want it." They don't say it's wrong. They know it's right. They just say, "We don't want to publish it. Keep the twenty-five thousand." Okay. My agent and I send the manuscript to other publishers: to Harper's, to Scribner's -- you name it, we sent it -- to two dozen other publishers.

And let me tell you. The letters we get from these people, they're practically blurbs. The publishers say: "well-written," "extremely well-written," "chilling," "compelling," "disturbing," "dismaying," "shocking," "startling," "astonishing," "mesmerizing," "extraordinary," "I was riveted," "I was bowled over," "I love it!" And the publishers all reject it. The letter from St. Martin's Press says, "I am always moved by Holocaust books, but I'd have trouble distinguishing this book ... from other books ... in this vast area of literature."

Okay. My agent and I agree that if we can't sell a book, we'll try magazines. One of the chapters is on Solomon Morel. Remember? The man who lost his mother, father, all his siblings, uncles, and aunts in the Holocaust. The man who had so much hate for the Germans, he had to disgorge it, who commanded a concentration camp at Swietochlowice, and beat Germans to death.

Solomon is still alive. He's wanted by Interpol for crimes against humanity. Interpol has an international warrant out for his arrest. But he's fled to Israel. He's taking refuge in Tel Aviv, and no one in America -- no newspaper, magazine or television network -- has ever reported it.

So we send the chapter on Solomon Morel to Esquire magazine. I've been a contributing editor there, a war correspondent in Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia. Esquire says, "No." We send it to GQ magazine. GQ says, "Yes!" The editor says it's the most important story in GQ's history. He even tells that to an editor of Esquire at a bar in Greenwich Village. He tells him, "Ha, ha! You don't have it! We do!"

For six weeks GQ is fact-checking. They don't find a single error. They send me the galley proofs, the page proofs, and on Wednesday the presses will roll. And then the telephone rings at my home in the Rocky Mountains. The editor of GQ says, "John, this isn't a happy phone call. We aren't going to run it." He tells me to keep the $15,000 and to sell the story somewhere else.

So once again my agent and I are making calls, sending faxes, passing out the GQ page proofs. Harper's magazine says no. Rolling Stone says no and "I'm sure you'll understand." Mother Jones, that great exposé magazine ("Extra! Extra! Cigarettes are bad for you!") doesn't even call back. The New Yorker (which has published ten pieces by me) refuses even to look at it.

The Attacks Begin
But finally, finally, in March 1993, the story of Solomon Morel is published in the Village Voice. And in November, An Eye for an Eye is published by Basic Books, a division of HarperCollins. So, thank God, now it's all over. I can relax now. Not.

Because one day later there's a telephone call to Basic Books. It's from the executive director of the World Jewish Congress. He says he wants an immediate retraction, and if he doesn't get it he'll call a major press conference tomorrow. He says he'll denounce me, Basic Books, and HarperCollins, and say, "They are all anti-Semites." Well, we don't retract, and the World Jewish Congress doesn't denounce. But ...

Then the reviews come out. And the reviewers say that An Eye for an Eye isn't true, that what I wrote there never happened at all.

Please! Much of An Eye for an Eye had been fact-checked by California magazine, fact-checked by GQ, and, for the Village Voice, fact-checked by a woman who is the Fact-Checker from Hell. She and I checked every single word, even if we had to call up Poland. And when, after two weeks of this, night and day, we were finally done, the editor of the Voice gave an interview saying, "This may be the most accurate story in the history of American journalism."

Much of An Eye for an Eye was corroborated by 60 Minutes, which found eight eyewitnesses I hadn't found. It was corroborated by the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune. Historians hired by major newspapers in Germany went to the German Federal Archives and wrote, "The facts are true," "The facts are right," "The facts are iron-bound."

But in the United States, one review was entitled "False Witness." Another was headed "The Big Lie, Continued."

The Jewish paper Forward said, "Sack is transparently writing docudrama," and told readers that Lola Potok was not the commandant of the prison in Gleiwitz. Well, Lola herself had told me, "I was the commandant," and thirty-five other people, including the current commandant, including the current director of prisons, said yes, Lola was the commandant. I have the document that says, "We appoint Citizen Lola Potok Commandant," and I have a document signed by Lola Potok, Commandant. But still the Forward said, "The unlikelihood is overwhelming but Sack ... seems ... oblivious." As I read this, I felt I was being lectured by Chico Marx. Remember? "Who you gonna believe? Your own two eyes or me?" I wrote a letter to the Forward. Over the last seven years, I've had to write, at last count, about 1,500 letters about An Eye for an Eye. And all those letters, added up, are twice as long as the book is.

Maybe you're wondering. What sort of a crazy man am I? Why don't I just say the hell with it? Why do I carry on?

I'll tell you. There are eighty-five thousand books about the Holocaust. And none of them, if you ask me, has an honest answer to the question, "How could the Germans do it?" How could the Germans -- the people who gave us Beethoven, the Ninth Symphony, the Ode to Joy, "Alle Menschen werden Brüder, All men will be brothers" -- perpetrate the Holocaust?

This mystery, we've got to solve it. We've got to, or we'll keep on having genocides in Cambodia, Bosnia, Zaire. Well, what I report in An Eye for an Eye is that Lola has solved it. The Jews from the Office of State Security have solved it. Because in their agony, their despair, their insanity, if you will, they felt they became like the Germans -- the Nazis -- themselves.

Wages of Hatred
And if I had been there, I'd have become one too, and now I understand why. Lola, like a lot of Jews, understandably, were full of hate in 1945. They were volcanoes of red-hot hate. They thought if they joined the Office of State Security, and spit out their hate at the Germans, then they'd be rid of it.

No. It doesn't work that way. Let's say I'm in love with someone. I don't tell myself, "Uh, oh. I've got inside of me one, two pounds of love, so if I love her and love her, then I'll use all of my love up, and I'll be all out of love." No. We all understand that love is a paradoxical thing, that the more we send out, the more we've got.

So why don't we understand that about hate? If we hate, and if we act on that hate, then we hate even more later on. If we spit out a drop of hate, what happens? Well, we stimulate the saliva glands, and we produce a drop and a quarter of it. If we spit that out, we produce a drop and a half, then two drops, three, a teaspoon, tablespoon, a Mount Saint Helens. The more we send out, the more we've got, until we are perpetual-motion machines, sending out hate and hate until we've created a holocaust.

You don't have to be a German to become like that. You can be a Serb, a Hutu, a Jew. You can be an American. We were the ones in the Philippines. We were the ones in Vietnam. We were the ones in Washington, DC, for ten thousand years the home of the Anacostia Indians. They had one of their camp grounds at what now is the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

We all have it in us to become like Nazis. Hate, as Lola discovered, hate is a muscle, and if we want to be monsters all we have to do is exercise it. To hate the Germans, to hate the Arabs, to hate the Jews. Hate. The more we exercise it, the bigger it gets, just as if every day we curl forty pounds, far from being worn out, in time we are curling fifty, sixty pounds. We become the Mr. Universe of Hate. We all can be hate-full people, hateful people. We can destroy the people we hate, maybe, but we surely destroy ourselves.

That's what the Jews in the Office of State Security have taught us. That's what I tried to write, what I did write, in An Eye for an Eye. The very first words are the dedication. I'd like to read them: "For all who died and for all who because of this story might live."

That's what I'd planned to say at the Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Questions from the Audience
Question: I'm very much moved by your presentation. I wish to commend you for your courage. Did you mention that Solomon Morel was also the commander at Jaworzno? At Jaworzno, there were young people, young boys -- fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen -- Poles, Germans, and Lithuanians -- and other ethnics were tortured and murdered there. There is now a group of Jaworzno, and also Swietochlowice, survivors (as they use the term), who are getting together, Poles, Germans, Lithuanians, whoever.

John Sack: Morel was at Jaworzno afterwards. Jaworzno was a camp for Poles. By that time they were putting Poles in the camp, rather than --

Q: There were Germans there also.

JS: There were? Thank you.

Q: What would you recommend on the hate train that we're on here in the United States and the hate laws that are being promulgated?

JS: Well, I don't think that we're on a hate train. I'm writing an article for Esquire magazine about the revisionists and in the three conferences that I've been to, and certainly at this conference, I have not seen hate manifested. I don't see people who feel hate. Even people who are called neo-Nazis, like Ernst Zündel, who is not a hate-filled man.

Q: No, I mean in the United States, we're seeing hate laws, thought police, politically correct speech, people are winding up ... as many have here, for that matter ...

JS: Well, of course I'm for free speech, and even if what Fred Töben said was hateful -- and it wasn't -- and even if what Germar was saying was hateful -- and it certainly wasn't -- and what Ernst was saying and what Faurisson was saying was hateful -- and none of it was -- even if it was, it should be allowed, of course, and I'm glad it's allowed in the United States.

Q: What has Lola's reaction been to the book?

JS: Lola actually called me right before the book came out. We had a nice talk. We chatted. I sent her the book. It took her about half a year to read. Her only comment on it was that I had made a mistake, that she was first in Germany and then she came to Paris and there she met her husband and she went back to Germany and got married, and I had it the other way around. That was her only comment. She's now living in Australia and I understand she has Alzheimer's disease.

Q: Would I be correct in assuming that these people should be brought to justice, given a fair trial, and hanged? After all, we're still prosecuting seventy-five-year-old German corporals.

JS: Well, I wish we wouldn't. I think it's too late for anybody to be brought to justice. But I think there should be a trial of Solomon Morel, if for no other reason than to bring out the facts. I would hate to see him go to jail, and as a matter of fact most of his prisoners at Swietochlowice, his former prisoners do not want to see him go to jail, but they want the facts to come out. They would like him just to apologize.

Q: Both the German government and the Polish government are wishy-washy on this. They aren't really seeking to have Solomon Morel extradited from Israel.

JS: That's true. The German government had a prosecution of him going and that just fell by the wayside, disappeared, and the Polish government was very strange. They could have accused him of murder. There were witnesses that saw him commit murder. They just accused him of brutality and other things that expired under the statute of limitations in 1965.

Q: Not only that, but Solomon Morel, living in Israel, is collecting a pension from the Polish government and the "Polish" government is not Polish. The Polish government is a Communist government, and most of them, not all, are Jewish -- they call themselves "former Communists." So, the "Polish" government is not Polish, and we heard about what's happening in Germany a little while ago. So, what chance is there of catching this monster and exposing him to the world?

[Voice] Kidnap him like the Israelis did Eichmann.

JS: I suppose that would be one answer. As I understand it Solomon Morel cannot collect his pension unless he's in Poland -- that's why he wanted to stay there -- I don't know whether that may have changed.

Q: Has Solomon Morel said anything?

JS: Solomon Morel, people keep going up to his door every couple of weeks. Once they camped in front of his door for a couple of days, and his daughter comes to the door and says that he doesn't want to give interviews and says that he's writing a book about all of this. That's just what they say. I don't know if it's true.

Q: You say that you believe in the gas chambers. Have you gotten far enough into it that you could produce any evidence that you could present here tonight?

JS: Do I have any evidence here tonight about the existence of gas chambers? No. I accept that people of good faith, honest people, can really look at the evidence and feel that there's not enough evidence that there were gas chambers. I hope that you accept that other people can look at the evidence and conclude that there is enough evidence, and that's my conclusion. I don't think that anybody who disagrees is a "neo-Nazi" or an "anti-Semite" or a hate-filled person. I think that you just happen to have a different opinion from me.

Q: Can you talk about your own experience being discriminated against and called an "anti-Semite," and yet you're a Jew. These reviews and articles were obviously libelling you.

JS: On the Charlie Rose show I was called an "anti-Semite" and a "neo-Nazi" by Deborah Lipstadt. [laughter and applause] I called her up after that and reminded her that I'd read her book, and I sent her a nice note about it and told her what I was trying to do in my book, and I said "How could you have said that about me?" She said "You are worse than a 'Holocaust denier,'" and I said "Deborah, I'm worse than a 'Holocaust denier'?" and she said "You are worse than a 'Holocaust denier.'" I said "Could you explain why?," and she said "No. I have a faculty meeting," [laughter] and that's the last I talked to her. It doesn't scare me. It doesn't hurt me. It amuses me.

Q: Are there any Jewish organizations, major Jewish organizations which would permit our principal speakers to speak in front of them?

JS: Not only that, are there any major Jewish organizations that would permit me to speak in front of them? [laughter and applause] So far, none, and believe me I've asked. I asked Hillel at UCLA. I certainly asked the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and no, so far, none.

Q: You refer to Nazis as a model for hate. As a German-American I consider the model for hate to be the Jewish Bolshevik regime that killed anywhere from thirty to sixty-six million people. I've just become aware of that by reading Solzhenitsyn's three books and I'm wondering if you have read these books?

JS: I haven't, but you know, when you talk about the Jewish Bolshevik regime be aware that just because, if most of the Bolsheviks, I don't know, were Jews, please be aware that most of the Jews weren't Bolsheviks, and never were.


About the author
John Sack is one of America's most eminent literary journalists. His reporting over more than half a century, from North and South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia, has appeared in such periodicals as Harper's, The Atlantic, and The New Yorker. He has been a war correspondent in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Yugoslavia, as well as CBS News bureau chief in Spain. He is the author of nine non-fiction books, including M, Lieutenant Calley: His Story, and Company C, as well as An Eye for an Eye (available from the IHR). The founding editor of Esquire magazine has compared his writing to that of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernst Hemingway. For more about Sack and his career, see his Web site:

This essay, slightly edited, was presented on May 29, 2000, at the 13th IHR conference. For more about his travails with the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, see "Suppressing the Story of Genocide Against Germans," in the Sept.-Oct. 1997 Journal. "Inside the Bunker," a lengthy article by Sack based on his participation at the 13th IHR Conference, appeared in the February 2001 issue of Esquire.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Jewish Guilt and Hollywood Fantasies

Eli Roth, who plays the Bear in the film is director of the sadistic Saw torture porn films.

The pornography industry and the production of torture porn films in Hollywood have to be lain at the feet of the people who fund, produce, direct and peddle the movies they make.

Hollywood is run, owned and controlled primarily by Jews.

Those who deny this are the same sort of people who support the genocide of the Palestinians by the Zionists that control Israel.

Most of the films produced by Hollywood are simply symptoms of the mental illness of those that produce them or are propaganda as part a conspiracy to undermine Western Civilisation.

In the UK the British government has banned torture pornography yet allows the sickest, most sadistic torture porn movies to be peddled in every high street.

Only one film bas been banned for being too extreme in recent years - a Japanese one.

British politicians do not ever bite the hidden hand that feeds them.

Fictional film 'Inglourious Basterds' hyped while true story of revenge hidden

August 29,

Over the last year or so, there have been countless movies about the Nazis and the Holocaust, such as the “The Reader,” “Valkyrie,” “Defiance” and “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas.” A popular new film, the "Inglorious Basterds" directed by Quentin Tarantino and produced by the Weinstein brothers is promoted by Hollywood and the press as a fictional tale of a group of Jewish American GI's led by a redneck Lieutenant played by Brad Pitt, who seek vengence against the Nazi's in occupied France during WWII. Throughout the film there are many gruesome scenes of vengence, including scalpings and torture.

Eli Roth, who plays a leading role in the film as the "Bear Jew", says that the idea of vengence is "...almost a deep sexual satisfaction of wanting to beat Nazis to death, an orgasmic feeling. My character gets to beat Nazis to death. That’s something I could watch all day. My parents are very strong about Holocaust education.” On a similar note, one of the films producers, Lawrence Bender told Tarantino that “As your producing partner, I thank you, and as a member of the Jewish tribe, I thank you, motherf--ker, because this movie is a f--king Jewish wet dream.”

In the ADL Statement they say that the film " an allegory about good and evil and the no-holds barred efforts to defeat the evil personified by Hitler, his henchmen, and his Nazi regime. If only it were true!"

There is no need to come up with a fictional story while there is a true chapter of WWII history most people have no clue about. A Jewish American Author named John Sack risked his career and even his life to tell the story of Jews who sought revenge in his controversial book An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945. The story tells of Jews who oversaw prison camps in Poland under the Communist occupations. According to Sack, they not only sought revenge against German soldiers, but also innocent German and Polish civilians.

Sack states in his book that the revenge included torture and rape of women and children. Sack estimates 60-80,000 died in these camps. Sack interviewed one survivor named Lola, who was an official at the prison and lost most of her family in the Holocaust. She admited that they treated the prisoners much worse than she was treated at Auschwitz by the Nazis. Sack said "Lola at Auschwitz wasn't locked in a room night and day. She wasn't tortured night after night." She told Sack: "Thank God, nobody tried to rape us. The Germans weren't allowed to." But all of that happened to German girls at Lola's prison in Gleiwitz"

Solomon Morel who lost most of his family in the holocaust brutally oversaw the prison camp. Morel fled to Israel after the book was published. Israel has refused to extradite Morel to Poland to face war crimes.

Most major publishers refused to publish Sack's book and major media outlets ignored it once it was published. John Sack was villified by the Jewish Establishment, such as the Executive Director of the World Jewish Congress. He was labeled a self-hating Jew and even an anti-semite. Self Proclaimed fighter of Holocaust Denial, Deborah Lipstadt, stated, on "the Charlie Rose Show" that Sack was a Neo-Nazi and anti-semite and told him personally he was worse than a holocaust denier, despite the fact that he shares the mainstream view of the holocaust.

The media and major Jewish organizations were opposed to the book because they percieved it as portraying Jews in a negative light, possibly stirring up anti-semitism and weakening their power to exploit the tragedies commited by the Nazi's for their own political agenda. However these same organizations are promoting Tarantino's fictional film.

Sack's message from his book was not to promote hatred against Jews. Instead, the books purpose was to prove that Jews are no different from any other group of people who have suffered from persecution but aren't immune from committing autrocities against others.

Behind an Eye for An Eye: Revenge, Hate and History by John Sack

Add to Technorati Favorites

Saturday 29 August 2009

EXPOSED - The National Black Police Officers Association

For a while now the BNP have been seeking to expose the blatant hypocrisy and double standard that allows the Equality Commission to regard the BNP as 'racist' but which allows the National Black Police Officers Association to operate with utter impunity in our society, without censure or restriction.

This what the NBPA says on its website ;

Welcome to the National Black Police Association

The NBPA is open to all in policing on application, there is no bar to membership based on colour.

The definition of "Black" does not refer to skin colour.

The emphasis is on the common experience and determination of the people of African, African-Caribbean and Asian origin to oppose the effects of racism.

Yet also its says on the website ;

Our vision:

“The NBPA will work in the interests of the UK police services and be an integral partner to ensure equitable service for all & for the Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) staff who we represent.

We will also advocate the needs & expectations of BME communities by delivering and supporting strategies & initiatives which have a positive impact on all”

Do you see the logical disconnect here - on the website it says it does not discriminate against on the grounds of race, as its membership is not based on race, but then it states on the same page that it works for BME staff.

So we need to analyse how someone who is white can join the NBPA, if it is as its says it is, non-racist.

This is because under Section 25 of the Race Relations Act 1976 any organisation with more than 25 members cannot discriminate in its membership on the grounds of race.

So if a White South African wishes to join the NBPA, as they say he can, then all he has to do is self classify himself as Black according to the criteria used by the NBPA.

The problem is though that the NBPA does not work for the people it says it is set up to serve, its members who are defined not in the terms of their race, but for the BME community and staff - WHO ARE DEFINED BY THEIR RACE.

Therefore this is an illegal organisation under section 25 of the Race Relations Act 1976.

The problem is though that the NBPS is protected by the usual suspects as details of their forthcoming conference speakers will reveal ;

Doreen Lawrence OBE – Chair of the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust
Linda Johnson – President, National Black Police Association
Chief Constable Steve Otter - Head ACPO Race & Diversity
Denise Milani - Director of Diversity & Citizen Focus
Rt Hon Keith Vaz - Parliamentary Select Committee (TBC)
Jack Straw MP - UK Justice Minister (TBC)
Dr Richard Stone(BSC) - Lawrence Inquiry Advisor

The NBPA is further damned by its regional groups membership statements such as here ;

Membership Requirements

Full membership Open to all black Police Officers, Civilian Support Staff and Special Constables directly employed by the Gloucestershire Constabulary.

So we see that the NBPA definition escapes the problem of Direct Racial Discrimination, but the fact remains that it is guilty of Indirect Racial Discrimination in that its membership policy INDIRECTLY discriminates against applicants who are white.

This can be proved by the fact that NO members of the NBPA are white.

The concept of Indirect Racial Discrimination relates to those policies, procedures and operations of bodies like the NBPA that operate in a way that seems to be lawful, but in reality the effect of their operations is that racial discrmination occurs but in an insidious and indirect manner.

That Indirect Discrimination exists in relation to such a scenario is legally established ;

Indirect Discrimination

Indirect racial discrimination may fall into one of two categories depending on the racial grounds of discrimination. The first is on grounds of colour or nationality, under the original definition in the Race Relations Act. The second is on grounds of race, ethnic or national origin. This was introduced by the race Relations Act (Amendment) Regulations 2003 to comply with the EC Race Directive.

On grounds of colour or nationality

This occurs when an apparently non-discriminatory requirement or condition which applies equally to everyone can only be met by a considerably smaller proportion of people from a particular racial group; and which is to the detriment of a person from that group because he or she cannot meet it; and the requirement or condition cannot be justified on non-racial grounds.

For example, a rule that employees or pupils must not wear headgear could exclude Sikh men and boys who wear a turban, or Jewish men or boys who wear a yarmulka, in accordance with practice within their racial group.

On grounds of race, ethnic or national origin

This occurs when a provision, criterion or practice which, on the face of it, has nothing to do with race and is applied equally to everyone: puts or would put people of the same race or ethnic or national origins at a particular disadvantage when compared with others; and puts a person of that race or ethnic or national origin at that disadvantage; and cannot be shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The definition of indirect discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnic or national origin is in general terms broader than on the grounds of colour or nationality and as a result it may be easier to establish racial discrimination than previously on that ground.

Aina v Employment Service [2002] DCLD 103D

A Black African employee applied for the post of equal opportunities manager in his organisation. He was assessed as having the skills and ability for the job. However, his application was rejected because, unknown to him, the post was open only to permanent staff at higher grades than his. Monitoring data showed that the organisation had no permanent Black African employees at the grades in question.

The employment tribunal held that there was no justification for the requirement, and that it amounted to indirect discrimination on racial grounds.

On grounds of colour or nationality

This occurs when an apparently non-discriminatory requirement or condition which applies equally to everyone:

can only be met by a considerably smaller proportion of people from a particular racial group

which is to the detriment of a person from that group because he or she cannot meet it

the requirement or condition cannot be justified on non-racial grounds.

For example, a rule that employees or pupils must not wear headgear could exclude
Sikh men and boys who wear a turban, or Jewish men or boys who wear a yarmulke, in accordance with practice within their racial group.

On grounds of race, ethnic or national origin

This occurs when a provision, criterion or practice which, on the face of it, has nothing to do with race and is applied equally to everyone:

puts or would put people of the same race or ethnic or national origins at a particular disadvantage when compared with others

puts a person of that race or ethnic or national origin at that disadvantage
cannot be shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The definition of indirect discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnic or national origin is in general terms broader than on the grounds of colour or nationality and as a result it may be easier to establish racial discrimination than previously on that ground.

The facts are that ;

1) There are no white members of the NBPA thereby proving the racist nature of the NBPA, or in the event of their being a tiny minority of the membership being white, that such a tiny white membership reveals the racist nature of the organisation itself in relation to the ability of white applicants to join the NBPA

2) The NBPA works for the benefit solely of the BME community and staff and not its 'white' members who it allows to join and therefore is guilty of Diorect Racial Discrmination in relation to the provision of its good and services

3) No officers or staff of the NBPA are white thereby proving the racist nature of the NBPA and its racist membership policy

4) That white applicants for membership of the NBPA suffer Indirect Racial Discrimination on the grounds of their race as they are less likely to be allowed into membership of the NBPA on the grounds of their race.

These facts reveal that the NBPA is guilty of Indirect Racial Discrimination against whites, and also that it operates in an unlawful Direct Racist Discriminatory manner by representing only BME communities and staff.

The fact that the constitution of the NBPA states that its membership is not based on race, but that in reality it excludes non-whites from membership, disables any defence it may have been able to run under the terms of Justification under the Indirect Racial Discrimination provisions.

Protection under the RRA may have been able to be claimed by the NBPA if its constitution and aims as an organisation was to explicitly represent only black police officers due to some objective and verifiable need in society based on evidence for such a body to represent Black police officers, but its constitution states that its membership should be open to all applicants regardless of race, but that in reality it only allows in black and BME police officers and that in effect it is operating an illegal and racist membership policy.

Friday 28 August 2009


The New Labour Corporate Fascist State = privatise the NHS, the British Army, our prisons, our security around nuclear weapons.

Serco is part of the CIA Wackenhut global empire ;

Wackenhut and the CIA
Frequent rumors that his company was in the employ of the Central Intelligence Agency, particularly in the 1960s, were never substantiated, but Wackenhut, who was obsessive about high-tech security gadgets in his private life, did not discourage the suggestion. Several of his senior executives were former CIA operatives, and his company's board of directors included former FBI director Clarence M. Kelley, former National Security Agency director Bobby Ray Inman, and former Defense secretary and deputy CIA director Frank Carlucci.[citation needed] On rare occasions, the company's clandestine work did land in the headlines.[citation needed] In 1991, a U.S. House of Representatives committee investigated charges that a Wackenhut executive, working for a consortium of oil companies, illegally spied on a whistleblower, former independent oil executive Chuck Hamel, exposing environmental damage caused by the Exxon Valdez oil spill.[4] The executive, who had also discussed trying to implicate a California congressman in his sting, resigned immediately after a meeting with George Wackenhut.[citation needed]

Magazine Issue 11 Summer 2000
Issue 11 Contents
CW11 Picture Gallery
Magazine Back Issues

Prison Privatisation

Private prison building is one of several projects being run under the Government’s Private Finance Initiative (PFI). CAGE reports on the corporations involved in the UK programme.

The current prison system in the UK is imported from America, one of the few countries with a higher proportion of its population behind bars than the UK. Many of the same companies are involved. These companies are paid per inmate per day so the more people are locked up, the more money they make. Private prisons hold people for longer than state prisons, fund right-wing ‘law and order’ politicians and lobby the Government for harsher sentences.1

In the UK more people are being sent to prison and sentences are getting longer.2 The prison population has been rising since 1993, when it was 45,000,3 to its current figure of around 65,000.4 At the same time, a massive prison building programme has been underway involving three prisons currently under construction, three more planned, and extensions to existing prisons.

The Government has estimated that the most recent draconian legislation, for example, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, will cause the prison population to rise to between 71 900 to 80 000 by 2007.5 In January 2000, Prison Privatisation Report International noted that "[the Crime and Disorder Act] could create the need for more prisons. Since all new prisons in England and Wales are to be privately financed, designed, built and run this could allay the private sector’s fears about future prison contracts." The Prison Service aims to have three sites with full planning permission available at all times.6 Expect more to be announced next year when the number of prison places needed for 2001/ 2002 is published in the next spending review.7

Five more prisons for young people are planned to cater for the 2 500 extra 10 to 19 year olds expected to be locked up at any one time as a result of the Crime and Disorder Act. From April 2000 the Youth Justice Board will deal with all places for 10 to 19 year olds.8

Main prison building companies in England and Wales include –
A Consortium of Group4 and Carrillion (formally the construction arm of Tarmac)
Group4, Farncombe House Broadway Worcs WR12 7LT
Chairman and owner: Jorgan Phillip Soresen
Head of Group4 prisons in the UK: Martin Seddon
Carrillion, Ward St, Wolverhampton, WV2 2PT
Chairman: Neville Simmons
Premier Prison Services Ltd (PPS), owned jointly by Wakenhut and Serco Wakenhut Corrections Corporation, 4200 Wakenhut Drive, Palm Gardens, Florida 334104242
Chairman: George Wakenhut
Serco, Serco House, Hayes Rd, Southhall, Middlesex, UB2 5NJ
Chairman: George Gray

UK Detention Services, owned jointly by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and Sodexho
CCA 100 Burton Hills Boulevard, Nashville, Tennassee
Chairman: Tom Beasly
Sodexho, Kenley House, Kenley Lane, Kenley, Sussex
Chairman: Pierre Bellon
Head of Custodial Services: Jean Cluny

Securicor is a minor player.

Back to top Wackenhut Plc
Wackenhut Plc is almost entirely owned by its founder George Wakenhut, ex-FBI agent, hard-line right winger and multimillionaire. George Wackenhut made his fortune building files on left-wingers, civil rights activists and anti-war protestors and selling the information to anyone with the money to pay.9 By 1965 he had files on 2.5 million Americans. In 1966 he had 4 million after acquiring the private files of Karl Barslagg, former staff member of the infamous House Committee on Un-American Activities. When Congress investigated companies with private files in 1976, Wackenhut gave its files to the Anti-Communist Church League of American Activities, an organisation that worked closely with the Red squads on police departments in New York and Los Angeles.10

In November 1999 Wackenhut was profiting from more than 38,600 people behind bars and had plans to expand to take 9000 more.11 Wackenhut lost its contract to run Travis County Community Justice Centre because of physical and sexual abuse of prisoners and has faced over 40 writs from inmates in its prison at Hobbs, New Mexico.12

Wackenhut provides security for American Embassies and almost all the US Government’s most strategic facilities including the Alaskan oil pipeline, Hanford Nuclear Waste Facility, the Savannah River Plutonium mine and Nevada nuclear test sites.13

The company was investigated by Congress after Wackenhut agents kept businessman George Hammel under surveillance and stole documents to prevent him turning over information to the Environmental Protection Agency, which was investigating the Exxon Valdez oil spill.14

In the 1970s, after the Senate Intelligence Committee revelations of the CIA’s covert operations overseas, the CIA needed to be seen to clean up its act. It has been alleged that since then Wackenhut has been doing the dirty jobs for them in return for Government contracts. In 1992 Spy magazine uncovered evidence that Wackenhut had organised and provided security for shipping the raw materials for chemical weapons to Iraq.15

Wackenhut and Serco Plc (a UK facilities management company that manages the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System at RAF Fylingdales and manages Manchester trams16 ), own Premier Prison Services (PPS) which builds and manages prisons in the UK. It runs three prisons and has two under construction (in Bristol and Northamptonshire). It also holds the contract to build an Immigration Detention Centre in Manchester. Probation Officers, health authorities and families of prisoners have made complaints about conditions in PPS prisons.17 Wackenhut and Serco also own Premier Monitoring Services, the company that electronically tags released prisoners in the Midlands, Wales, London and the southeast.18 Wackenhut has the contract for transporting imprisoned asylum-seekers and for security at ports and airports.19

Back to top Group4
Group4 is the largest private security company in the world and is wholly owned by its chairman and founder Jorgen Philip Soresen. Its UK headquarters is a heavily guarded manor house in Worcestershire, where Group4 staff are trained by teams drawn from the Police, Fire Service and Armed Forces.20

Group4 provides security from building sites to the Pentagon and Nato HQ.21 Its security guards were used at Twyford Down22 and Stanworth Valley road protest sites.23 Group4 manages Accuread (the company that reads gas meters in the UK); does prisoner transport; runs cells at courts; and builds and manages prisons in partnership with Carrillion.

In 1992 Group4 won the contract to manage the first private prison in the UK, Wolds Remand Centre in Humberside. Prisoners at Wolds rioted24 and the prison was condemned in a report by the Prison Reform trust.25

This didn’t set them back because, like Wackenhut in America, Group4 has a cosy relationship with the state. Barrie Grane, ex-deputy head of MI5, joined Group4 in 199326 and Norman Fowler, then chairman of the Conservative Party, was a non-executive director for 3 years. He resigned on September 1st 1993; the night before Michael Howard announced the second phase of prison privatisation.27 Group4 now runs HMP Rochdale, Buckley Hall and Altcourse. They are in the process of building the new GCHQ spy base and another prison.

Group4 also runs Campsfield House, an immigration detention centre in Oxford. Refugees are locked up here while their applications for asylum are processed. More immigration detention centres are being built and there are likely to be more after that.

Group 4 has a childcare division called Rebound ECD (Education Care and Discipline) which manages Secure Training Centres (STCs) and has the contract for prisoner transport. Malcolm Stevens, manager of all Group4 STC’s, used to be a Government adviser on STC contracting.

Medway STC is managed by Rebound, a company slated by a team of social services, prison and education inspectors in a report published last year. The report found that virtually all the staff were unqualified and inexperienced at working with young people. They used restraint as the main means of control. They had injured young people by using wrist and neck locks, even though these methods have been criticised by the medical profession and were against the STC’s own rules. The inspectors noted that "not all these incidents were recorded in an appropriate way". Concerns have also been raised over the quality of education and over management’s inability to deal with bullying, self-harm or detox. In the first 6 months two senior managers and 30% of staff resigned and 21 staff, including a 12-person ‘restraint squad’, were drafted in from other Group4 prisons.

Penal reform organisations called for Medway to be closed but were ignored by the Government, perhaps because the Director, Sue Clifton, is an advisor to the Youth Justice Board, on how to deal with young offenders! Unsurprisingly, the Government awarded Group 4 a contract to build another STC.28

Back to top Corrections Corporation of America (CCA)
Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) specialises in prisons. It was founded in 1983 by Chairman Tom Beasley, an advisor on corrections for the Governor of Tennessee; Dr R Cronts; and Don Hutto, national president of the America Correctional Association and the investors behind Kentucky Fried Chicken. CCA finances, designs, constructs, renovates and manages prisons in the US, Puerto Rico, Australia and the UK. CCA has been accused of abusive treatment of prisoners and inadequate healthcare. Three inmates at CCA’s prison in Youngstown, Ohio have sued the company for abuse and failure to protect them from staff and other inmates.29 Last year the Colorado Department of Corrections investigated CCA’s Kit Carson prison over allegations that guards were involved in drug smuggling, sexual misconduct and brutality. The Warder was put on administrative leave and guards were charged with bringing contraband into the prison. So many of the staff quit or were fired that CCA was offering guards bonuses of $100 to recruit friends and family with a further $100 if the new recruit stayed for 3 months.30

CCA’s share value has risen from $8 in 1992 to $30 in 1997. It is so proud of itself that it posts its daily share index on the gates of its prisons.31

In June 1994 CCA entered an alliance with French company Sodexho to pursue prison management outside the US. Sodexho is distributing the pitiful handful of vouchers that asylum-seekers in the UK live off and telling supermarkets that the Home Office’s order to pocket the change is "an unmissable revenue making opportunity".32 CCA and Sodexho each have a 50% share of Corrections Corporation of Australia and UK Detention Services.33 UK Detention Service Ltd is a late starter in the UK market but it has already built HMP Blakenhurst in Redditch, has almost finished another prison in Salford, Manchester, and has one of the regional Prisoner Transport Contracts.

The CAGE network supports resistance to prisons. See or contact email Phone 07931 401 962.
Contact CAGE for details of Bastille Day on 14th July when a range of groups will take action by occupying a space related to the prison industry.

Back to top Footnotes
[1] artical10,4273,38504000,00.html
[2] Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts 97/98
[3] Home Office Projections of Long Term Trends in Prison Population to 2007
[4] Prison service Web Site
[5] Home Office Projections of Long Term Trends in Prison Population
[7] P Boeteng Hansard 28/04/2000
[8] Prison Service Press Release 31/3/2000
[9] The Age of Surveillance Frank Donner
[10] Spy Magazine September 92
[11] Prison Privatisation Report International November 99
[12] Prison Privatisation Report International November 99
[13] Spy magazine September 92
[14] Statements of George Miller and Sherree Rich before the United States Congress Committee of interior and Insular Affairs
[15] Spy Magazine September 92
[17] Canadian Union of Public Employees website
[18] Prison Report no 46 February 99
[19] Prison Privatisation Report International November 99 (published by the Prison Reform Trust)
[20] Group4 website
[21] Group4 Web Site www.group4
[22] marketing week 4/6/93
[23] Green Party Press Release 11/4/95
[24] Independent 26/6/92
[25] Independent 6/4/93
[26] Guardian 26/5/93
[27] Guardian 2/9/93
[28] Prison Privatisation Report International Jan 99
[29] Washington Post 16/11/97
[30] Prison Privatisation Report November 99
[31] Washington times 16/11/97
[32] Observer 23/4/2000

Have you heard about the company that runs Britain?

It inspects schools, trains our armed forces, helps protect our borders, maintains our nuclear weapons, runs our trains and operates our prisons.

By Graham Ruddick
Published: 12:18PM BST 26 Aug 2009

Previous1 of 2 ImagesNext The Docklands Light Railway runs out from the City to east London
Belmarsh maximum security prison in southeast London
Most of the public will never have heard of Serco, a FTSE 100 company that does all of the above and more.

Led by South African Chris Hyman, Serco is also making money doing it and today underlined it is proving one of the recession winners. Profits in the first six months of the year - one of the toughest the UK economy has faced for decades - jumped 33pc to £83.4m.

Related Articles
US 'concerned Taliban will snatch Pakistan's nuclear weapons'
Gordon Brown's dreams of a new era of nuclear detente will go up in smoke
Hillary Clinton sends strong warning over future of North Korea
North Korea prepares to test long-range missile
John McCain: Israel's enemies threaten us allHowever, Serco's journey into the DNA of Britain's public infrastructure, like those of rival support services companies Capita and Interserve, began before the recession arrived.

All have benefited from the growing culture of outsourcing services under Labour, and Serco expects this trend to continue as the gaping hole in the public finances forces the Government to cut back.

Serco has secured a record number of contracts in 2009 so far, worth £4bn, as its revenues climbed 30pc to £1.95bn.

The deals includes a contract to design, build and operate Boris Johnson's cycle hire scheme for London and to operate two new prisons at Belmarsh in London and Maghull in Liverpool.

These come on top of Serco's existing services, which include operating London's Docklands Light Railway, running the Northern Rail and Merseyrail train networks, providing the Ministry of Defence with air surveillance and control systems, and delivering infrastructure and intelligence to the UK Border Agency.

To complete the list, Serco also has a six-year contract with Ofsted to run inspections in the Midlands at schools and further education colleges. In defence, the company is battling to win the rights to run the Army's recruitment programme and already helps to train armed forces about using Britain's fleet of aircraft, such as the Chinook and Apache helicopters.

In partnership with Lockheed Martin and Jacobs Engineering, Serco also manages the Atomic Weapons Establishment, which provides and maintains Britain's atomic warheads.

Revenues from civil government work increased 49pc in the period and a bullish Serco expects this trend to continue, giving it even more control of Britain's infrastructure. The company estimates that local authorities have endured a £4bn deficit in income for over the last two years as a result of the recession and that, by 2012 it will have revenues of £5bn.

In the results, Mr Hyman says: "The financial crisis and subsequent economic slowdown means that governments around the world are contending with increasing demand for high quality services whilst also facing a sharp deterioration in public finances. They continue to experience growing demand for quality services from their citizens.

"We believe this is also leading to a greater acceptance of innovative ways of achieving these changes, a broader range of markets to be addressed, and an increase in the size and term of change programmes in order to achieve the scale of efficiencies required.

Not surprisingly, the shares rose 4pc following the results.

Add to Technorati Favorites