Britain’s Rumour Factory
Origins of the Gas Chamber Story

An essay published in tribute to Prof. Robert Faurisson on his 88th birthday
25th January 2017
For more than thirty years, historians have been aware of once-secret
memoranda by senior British intelligence official Victor Cavendish-Bentinck in
which he casts doubt on the alleged use of homicidal gas chambers by
National Socialist Germany. Writing to Whitehall colleagues at the end of1
August 1943, Cavendish-Bentinck used dismissive language which today in
most European countries would undoubtedly see him prosecuted for
“Holocaust denial”.
During the trial of British historian David Irving’s libel action against Deborah
Lipstadt in 2000 (now dramatised in the Hollywood film Denial) some of
Cavendish-Bentinck’s remarks were raised by Irving as justification of his
claim that the gas chamber story originated as a propaganda lie. In his
judgment against Irving, Mr Justice Gray accepted the counter-arguments of
Lipstadt’s defence team. Their interpretation has since appeared in a book
by Prof. Sir Richard Evans, who was among Lipstadt’s defence witnesses.
Seventeen years on from the Irving-Lipstadt trial, it is now possible to access
a broader range of British documents, including intelligence material. In this
essay I shall attempt to clarify what these documents tell us about the role of
British propaganda and intelligence in relation to the initial allegations of
homicidal gassing by National Socialist Germany.
The conclusions can be briefly summarised:
• Britain’s Political Warfare Executive and its predecessor first deployed
stories of homicidal gassing as part of propaganda efforts in two areas
unconnected to treatment of Jews. Their objective was to spread
dissension and demoralisation among German soldiers and civilians, and
among Germany’s allies.
Walter Laqueur, ‘Hitler’s Holocaust’, Encounter, July 1980, pp 6-25; this article was a preview of1
the same author’s book The Terrible Secret (Boston: Little Brown, 1981)
• Partly because they knew of these earlier propagandist initiatives, Victor2
Cavendish-Bentinck and his British intelligence colleague Roger Allen
disbelieved later stories that homicidal gas chambers had been used to
murder Poles and Jews. They succeeded in having these allegations
removed from the draft of a joint Anglo-American Declaration on German
Crimes in Poland, published on 30th August 1943.
Part I: The first Revisionists?
In August 1943 Poland’s government-in-exile lobbied the British and
American governments to issue a public statement condemning “German
terror in Poland”. Moray McLaren – head of the Polish section of Britain’s
main propaganda body the Political Warfare Executive (PWE) – advised the
Foreign Office “in confidence that, from his contacts with the Poles, he has
recently gained the impression that they are becoming seriously worried lest
the Germans might shortly succeed in persuading Polish quislings to come
forward and even form some kind of puppet government. The present Polish
request may possibly have some connexion with such fears.”3
Moreover Britain’s own Special Operations Executive (SOE) responsible for
organising and supplying Polish underground fighters, reported that German
anti-partisan operations were increasingly successful in “affecting their work,
in that the cells of the underground resistance movement in the affected
areas are to a great extent liquidated, and materials delivered are liable to be
discovered. SOE would accordingly welcome any form of deterrent that could
be devised.”
In a footnote to his Encounter article (p 15), Laqueur writes that in an October 1979 letter to him,2
Cavendish-Bentinck “wrote that his pre-War experience of Germany had been limited, and that he
therefore disbelieved the atrocity stories in 1942-43. He added that when he visited Auschwitz in
late 1945 and reported to the Foreign Office that millions of people had been killed there, it was still
not believed in the Foreign Office.” This is Laqueur’s paraphrase: neither in his 1980 article nor his
1981 book does he quote the precise words of Cavendish-Bentinck’s letter, nor does he give any
reference for Cavendish-Bentinck’s claimed 1945 report to the FO from Auschwitz. In 1979-80 all
SOE and PWE papers would of course have been closed to researchers, and Cavendish-Bentinck
would still have felt bound by the Official Secrets Act, so it would not be surprising for him to have
given Laqueur a false rationalisation for his earlier scepticism.
Foreign Office minute by Denis Allen, 11th August 1943, FO 371/345513
Page  of 2 18
Denis Allen of the Foreign Office’s Central Department (not to be confused
with the unrelated Roger Allen who also figures in this story) suggested that a
statement should be issued with “some indication that the actions being
carried out by the German authorities in Poland will in some measure be held
against Germany as a whole”. With the British Parliament in its summer
recess and Prime Minister Winston Churchill on his way to Quebec for a
secret summit with U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, the most logical
opportunity would be for a joint Anglo-American statement (issued to the
press rather than to Parliament).
Allen’s department had prepared a draft statement which was discussed with
the Poles. This condemned the “brutality” of German anti-partisan operations
involving mass deportations in the Lublin area of southeastern Poland. The
draft statement (which made no reference to Jews and seemed to relate to
Polish civilians) alleged:
“Some children are killed on the spot, others are separated from their
parents and either sent to Germany to be brought up as Germans or
sold to German settlers or despatched with the women and old men to
concentration camps, where they are now being systematically put to
death in gas chambers.
“His Majesty’s Government re-affirm their resolve to punish the
instigators and actual perpetrators of these crimes. They further
declare that, so long as such atrocities continue to be committed by
the representatives and in the name of Germany, they must be taken
into account against the time of the final settlement with Germany.
Meanwhile the war against Germany will be prosecuted with the
utmost vigour until the barbarous Hitlerite tyranny has been finally
overthrown.”
By 27th August this draft had been agreed with the Americans and was
planned for release three days later: a copy was handed to the Soviets.
However at this eleventh hour the intelligence side of Whitehall stepped in.
The Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) had evolved shortly before the war
and stood between the political and military “consumers” of intelligence, and
the organisations responsible for obtaining it, including MI6, MI5 and GC&CS
(known today as GCHQ). One former JIC chairman describes its role as the
“final arbiter of intelligence”. In a phrase which might equally well apply4
today to historians, its wartime chairman and secretary wrote that the JIC had
Sir Percy Cradock, Know Your Enemy: How the Joint Intelligence Committee Saw the World4
(London: John Murray, 2002), p 261
Page  of 3 18
an important task in ensuring that information and sources were assessed
with critical impartiality:
“…[I]n the Political Departments, e.g. the Foreign Office and Colonial
Office, the officials who receive, collate and assess information are
also responsible for formulating policy. This is not necessarily a bad
thing, but the system does possess a serious weakness. One who is
concerned in devising and recommending policy, and in assisting in its
execution is likely, however objective he may try to be, to interpret the
intelligence he receives in the light of the policy he is pursuing. To
correct this possible weakness, it is clearly desirable that some quite
objective check be placed on all intelligence received. …We believe
that no Department, however experienced and well staffed, has
anything to lose by bringing the intelligence directly available to it to
the anvil of discussion and appreciation among other workers in the
same field.”5
During the war years the JIC was headed by Victor Cavendish-Bentinck,6
who was also in charge of the Services Liaison Department at the Foreign
Office, where his right-hand man was Roger Allen, a pre-war barrister.7
(Since its creation in July 1942, Roger Allen had also served as Joint
Secretary to the War Cabinet’s Committee on the Treatment of War
Criminals. ) Rather belatedly on 27th August, with the draft statement almost8
ready for release, Roger Allen raised the alarm, pointing out that the
statement seemed to be mainly based on an “aide-mémoire” supplied by the
Polish government-in-exile. While he accepted that with regard to
deportations of Polish civilians “the general picture painted is pretty true to
life”, he warned Cavendish-Bentinck:
“On the other hand, it is of course extremely difficult, if not impossible,
for us to check up on specific instances or matters of detail. For this
reason I feel a little unhappy about the statement, to be issued on the
authority of His Majesty’s Government, that Poles ‘are now being
systematically put to death in gas chambers’.”
Victor Cavendish-Bentinck and Denis Capel-Dunn, The Intelligence Machine: Report to the Joint5
Intelligence Sub-Committee, 10th January 1945, CAB 163/6
His most senior military intelligence colleague Kenneth Strong later wrote of Cavendish-Bentinck:6
“He had the scepticism that any good Intelligence officer needs, and a mental alertness which
usually put him that vital step ahead of the other members of his committee.” Maj. Gen. Sir
Kenneth Strong, Men of Intelligence (London: Cassell, 1970), p 118.
Roger Allen should not be confused with his namesake Denis Allen, mentioned above.7
FO 1093/3378
Page  of 4 18
The “gas chambers” reference seemed to be based on two references in the
Polish aide-mémoire’s appendix, both supposedly drawn from telegrams sent
from Poland on 17th July 1943.
The first telegram stated, in relation to deportees sent to the Majdanek camp:
“Commander-in-Chief armed forces Lublin district informed me that he
had evidence that some of these people are being murdered in gas
cells there.”
By “commander-in-chief” this telegram presumably meant the district
commander of the Polish underground army. The second telegram stated:
“It has been ascertained that on July 2nd and 5th 2 transports made of
women, children, and old men, consisting of 30 wagons each, have
been liquidated in gas cells.”
Roger Allen pointed out to Cavendish-Bentinck:
“It will be observed that the first of these reports gives no indication of
the date of the occurrence, or the number of people concerned; the
second is silent as to the place and the source.
“It is true that there have been references to the use of gas chambers
in other reports; but these references have usually, if not always, been
equally vague, and since they have concerned the extermination of
Jews, have usually emanated from Jewish sources.
“Personally, I have never really understood the advantage of the gas
chamber over the simpler machine gun, or the equally simple
starvation method. These stories may or may not be true, but in any
event I submit we are putting out a statement on evidence which is far
from conclusive, and which we have no means of assessing.
However, you may not consider this of sufficient importance to warrant
any action.”9
Cavendish-Bentinck wasted no time in passing this analysis on later that day
to the Foreign Office top brass, adding his own sceptical note:
“In my opinion it is incorrect to describe Polish information regarding
German atrocities as ‘trustworthy’. The Poles, and to a far greater
extent the Jews, tend to exaggerate German atrocities in order to
stoke us up. They seem to have succeeded.
“Mr Allen and myself have both followed German atrocities quite
closely. I do not believe that there is any evidence which would be
accepted in a Law Court that Polish children have been killed on the
spot by Germans when their parents were being deported to work in
Roger Allen to Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, 27th August 1943, FO 371/345519
Page  of 5 18
Germany, nor that Polish children have been sold to German settlers.
As regards putting Poles to death in gas chambers, I do not believe
that there is any evidence that this has been done. There have been
many stories to this effect, and we have played them up in PWE
rumours without believing that they had any foundation. At any rate
there is far less evidence than exists for the mass murder of Polish
officers by the Russians at Katyn. On the other hand we do know that
the Germans are out to destroy Jews of any age unless they are fit for
manual labour.
“I think that we weaken our case against the Germans by publicly
giving credence to atrocity stories for which we have no evidence.
These mass executions in gas chambers remind me of the stories of
employment of human corpses during the last war for the manufacture
of fat, which was a grotesque lie and led to the true stories of German
atrocities being brushed aside as being mere propaganda.
“I am very sad to see that we must needs ape the Russians and talk
about ‘Hitlerite’ instead of ‘German’.”
Cavendish-Bentinck added a handwritten note to William Strang, who as an
Assistant Under-Secretary was joint-third in the Foreign Office hierarchy:
“I daresay that my minute is too late to be of use but I feel certain that
we are making a mistake in publicly giving credence to this gas
chambers story.”10
In fact he was not too late: Cavendish-Bentinck and Allen became in effect
the first successful Holocaust revisionists. Central Department’s first
response was: “it seems too late to make substantial changes. But we could
telegraph to Washington and Moscow.”
At 9.05 p.m. that evening a “Most Immediate” telegram was despatched
(marked “of particular secrecy and should be retained by the authorised
recipient and not passed on”):
“On further reflection we are not convinced that evidence regarding
use of gas chambers is substantial enough to justify inclusion in a
public declaration …and would prefer if United States Government
agree, that sentence in question should end at ‘concentration camps’.
“Please telegraph United States Government’s views urgently.”11
Victor Cavendish-Bentinck to William Strang, 27th August 1943, FO 371/3455110
Foreign Office to Washington, Telegram No. 5741, 27th August 1943, FO 371/3455111
Page  of 6 18
Similar telegrams were sent to the Prime Ministers of the Dominions
(Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) retracting the earlier
reference to “gas chambers”.
The Americans agreed to the changes. Secretary of State Cordell Hull duly
notified his Ambassador in Moscow:
“At the suggestion of the British Government which says there is
insufficient evidence to justify the statement regarding execution in gas
chambers, it has been agreed to eliminate the last phrase.”12
The words “where they are now being systematically put to death in gas
chambers” were removed from the statement before it was published
simultaneously in London and Washington.13
David Irving’s critics have sought to interpret this episode in their own way.
Prof. Sir Richard Evans writes in his account of the Irving-Lipstadt libel trial:
“There was no evidence here or anywhere else, indeed, that the British
Political Warfare Executive had invented the story of the gas
chambers: they had on the contrary received a report from people with
contacts in Central Europe about them. Nor was there any evidence
that the Foreign Office considered reports of gassings to be a lie; they
were simply unsure about them. Moreover, their real doubts related to
claims that Poles were being gassed. Even Cavendish-Bentinck
agreed that the Germans were ‘out to destroy the Jews of any age
unless they are fit for manual labour.’”14
Even when Prof. Evans wrote this fifteen years ago, it was clear that
Cavendish-Bentinck had been sceptical about the existence of homicidal gas
chambers, rather than (as Prof. Evans suggests) merely doubting that they
had been used to gas Poles in addition to Jews. As for the role of PWE, the
Cavendish-Bentinck minute suggests that they had (at least at some stage)
exaggerated (if not actually invented) gas chamber stories. For confirmation
of this, we must turn to the PWE’s own files from earlier in the war.
Cordell Hull (Secretary of State) to William Harrison Standley (U.S. Ambassador, Moscow), 30th12
August 1943, Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1943, General, Vol. 1
(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963), pp 416-417
‘German Crimes in Poland: A British Warning’, The Times, 30th August 1943, p 413
Richard Evans, Lying About Hitler (New York: Basic Books, 2002), p 13114
Page  of 7 18
Part II: Whispers of Gas
In his judgment against David Irving in 2002, Mr Justice Gray ignored or
misinterpreted Cavendish-Bentinck’s words. Gray wrote:
“As to whether the British disbelieved the [gas chambers] story, the
only evidence to which Irving was able to point was the note made by
Cavendish-Bentinck that there was no evidence to support the claim.
That appears to me to be far cry from disbelieving the story.”15
As shown above, Cavendish-Bentinck had gone much further than pointing
out the absence of evidence. He had compared these latest “atrocity stories”
to a “grotesque lie” perpetrated against Germany during the First World War,
and had suggested to a senior colleague that Britain should not be “publicly
giving credence to this gas chambers story”. How on earth could Mr Justice
Gray interpret this as meaning anything else but that Cavendish-Bentinck (at
any rate in August 1943) disbelieved the story!
Mr Justice Gray’s judgment went on:
“As to whether British Intelligence made propaganda use of the story,
the evidence produced by Irving extended no further than second-
hand accounts of BBC broadcasts about the gassing. There was no
indication that British intelligence played any part in these broadcasts.
In my judgment the evidence does not support the claim made by
Irving.”
In fairness to the judge, it is only now becoming possible to trace the detailed
history of British propaganda and homicidal gassing stories. Part of the
problem is that in the early years of the Second World War, Britain’s
propaganda machinery was a tangle of bureaucratic and factional infighting.
A year before the outbreak of war, an official Department of Propaganda in
Enemy Countries was set up at Electra House, the London headquarters of
the Cable & Wireless telegraph company. Around the same time MI6 created
Section D (based at St Ermin’s Hotel near St James’s Park) to study and
prepare methods of unconventional warfare, including propaganda.16
In July 1940 Section D became part of the new Special Operations Executive,
which for a while took over Electra House’s operations as part of its own
propaganda section known as SO1, based after November 1940 at Woburn
Irving v. Penguin Books Limited, Deborah E. Lipstadt [2000] EWHC QB 115 (11th April, 2000)15
M.R.D. Foot, SOE in France (Abingdon: Frank Cass, 2004), p 416
Page  of 8 18
Abbey, a country house in Bedfordshire. Continuing internal disputes led to
the new Political Warfare Executive (PWE) being created in August 1941,
under Foreign Office control. While PWE handled enemy countries,
propaganda at home and in Allied countries was supposedly the domain of
the Ministry of Information.17
The documentary record showing British propagandists’ promotion of
homicidal gassing stories runs from December 1940 (under SO1) to March
1942 (under PWE). In this period the gassing stories did not relate to Jews or
Poles, but Cavendish-Bentinck would have suspected that the Jewish and
Polish lobbies had picked up the story and put their own spin on it, in a case
of what would later be termed “blowback”, defined as follows by intelligence
historian Mark Lowenthal:
“The main controversy raised by propaganda activities is that of
blowback. The CIA is precluded from undertaking any intelligence
activities within the United States. However, a story could be planted
in a media outlet overseas that will also be reported in the United
States. That is blowback. This risk is probably higher today with
global twenty-four-hour news agencies and the World Wide Web than
it was during the early days of the cold war. Thus, inadvertently, a
CIA-planted story that is false can be reported in a U.S. media outlet.
In such a case, does the CIA have a responsibility to inform the U.S.
media outlet of the true nature of the story? Would doing so
compromise the original operation? If such notification should not be
given at the time, should it be given afterward?”18
One of the most secret parts of SO1/PWE work involved the propagation of
rumours, known as “sibs” from the Latin verb sibilare (to whisper), by an
Underground Propaganda (UP) Committee. This dated back to the Electra
House days in 1940 shortly before the creation of SOE, and continued
through the various bureaucratic changes.
From August 1941 the UP Committee was chaired by David Bowes-Lyon,
younger brother of the then Queen (and uncle of the present Queen Elizabeth
II) – he was also a cousin of Victor Cavendish-Bentinck. He later
summarised the purpose of sibs in a “Most Secret” paper for senior
bureaucrats:
Nicholas Rankin, A Genius for Deception: How Cunning Helped the British Win Two World Wars17
(Oxford University Press, 2009), p 280; Eunan O’Halpin, ‘“Hitler’s Irish Hideout” – A Case Study of
SOE’s black propaganda battles’, in Mark Seaman (ed.), Special Operations Executive: A new
instrument of war (Abingdon: Routledge, 2006), pp 201-202
Mark Lowenthal, Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy (Los Angeles: CQ Press, 2015) pp 241-24218
Page  of 9 18
“The object of propaganda rumours is… to induce alarm, despondency
and bewilderment among the enemies, and hope and confidence
among the friends, to whose ears it comes. If a rumour appears likely
to cheer our enemies for the time, it is calculated to carry with it the
germ of ultimate and grave disappointment for them.
“Rumours vary immensely in their degree of credibility, the wideness of
their diffusion and the type of audience for which they are designed;
but they have these factors in common, that they are intended for
verbal repetition through all sorts of channels, and that they are
expected to induce a certain frame of mind in the general public, not
necessarily to deceive the well-informed.”
The UP Committee (which included representatives from PWE, SOE, MI6
and the Ministry of Economic Warfare), was responsible in the first instance
for deciding on suitable rumours, which would then be cleared through the
Foreign Office or JIC:
“Dissemination of those rumours finally approved is the function of
SOE. For this purpose whispering organisations have been set up in
neutral countries and in unoccupied France.
“Lines have also been established by which rumours can be passed to
SOE’s collaborators in Germany, and directives on oral propaganda to
an organisation in Northern Italy.
“It should be emphasised that the method of dissemination is
essentially oral, and this is the most difficult form of propaganda for
enemy security services to deal with.
“Rumours are not deliberately placed in the Press and Radio in
Europe, though they have from time to time appeared in the
newspapers or broadcasts, having been picked up by correspondents
or commentators.
“In the USA, however, a news agency controlled by SOE has been
used to place them in the Press of the American continent; but here
again the newspapers were quite unaware that the material was in any
way inspired.
“Rumours are therefore the most covert of all forms of propaganda.
Although the enemy may suspect that a certain rumour has been
started by the British Government, they can never prove it. Even if
they succeed in capturing an agent engaged in spreading whispers,
there will be no written evidence against him, and should they extort a
confession from him, nothing is easier than for the British Government
to deny the whole story.
“In fact, although more than 2,000 rumours have been disseminated in
the last year, we have no evidence thet the enemy have ever traced
Page  of 10 18
any of them back to a British whispering organisation. Those that
have been denied or otherwise referred to have, as far as we know,
been attributed to other sources.”19
Alongside Bowes-Lyon other members of the UP Committee included Sir
Hanns Vischer (a Swiss-born former missionary and MI6 officer since the
First World War); Sir Reginald Hoare (Cavendish-Bentinck’s brother-in-law, a
veteran diplomat and member of the Hoares Bank family); Leonard Ingrams
(financier, pioneer aviator and father of Private Eye founder Richard Ingrams);
and SOE representative Alec Peterson (an influential teacher, headmaster
and educationalist who later created the International Baccalaureate
system).20
On 3rd December 1940 a sib was launched via SOE “that the Superintendent
of the Bethel Institute for Incurables had been sent to Dachau for refusing to
permit the inmates to be put in lethal chambers. Within two weeks it was
reported that this rumour was circulating in Switzerland and, on the 19th
December, that the Vatican had issued a decree condemning the killing of
physical or mental deficients. The rumour has appeared in intercepted
letters, and last Sunday the Sunday Express carried the story that 100,000
mental deficients had been executed.”21
The Bethel Institution was a well-known Protestant charitable hospital for the
mentally ill and epileptics. In fact its director – Protestant theologian Friedrich
von Bodelschwingh – was not sent to Dachau or any other camp. He
survived the war and died in 1946.22
The main purpose of this sib was to stir up hostility between the Churches
and the National Socialist Govenment over the issue of eugenics and
euthanasia. SO1’s French specialist Prof. Denis Brogan (a Cambridge
political scientist) was said to have “extremely fine Catholic contacts” in
various countries, and “Catholic channels for rumours” were also discussed23
with Douglas Woodruff, the influential editor of the Catholic journal The
Tablet. At this very early stage the gassing rumour was restricted to24
David Bowes-Lyon to David Stephens (PWE Secretary), 1st February 1942, FO 898/7019
Ibid.20
SO2 Executive Committee, Progress Report for Week Ending 23.1.41, HS 8/21621
‘Obituary: Pastor von Bodelschwingh’, Manchester Guardian, 18th January 1946, p 322
SO2 Executive Committee, Progress Report for Week Ending 12.12.40, HS 8/21623
SO2 Executive Committee, Progress Report for Week Ending 30.1.41, HS 8/21624
Page  of 11 18
“incurables” – it was a story about euthanasia rather than political or racially
motivated executions.
A few months later SOE reported with satisfaction that this sib had been
picked up by Vatican Radio. Moreover Elizabeth Wiskemann – a Swiss-
based, Anglo-German journalist, historian and MI6 operative – had acquired
“fresh evidence supplied by Austrian-born Swiss who had just returned from
visiting Vienna to the effect that all elderly people in Vienna were in terror.”25
Among other euthanasia sibs (first circulated in November 1940) was a
“rumour that doctors in military hospitals in France have been instructed to
make death easy for incapacitated soldiers and airmen”. Extra bite was given
to this sib by the suggestion (intended to promote inter-service resentment)
that in the case of infantry the loss of one limb would amount to incapacity,
leading to euthanasia, whereas this “was not to be considered incapacity in
the case of Air Force or SS troops”.26
Intercepted letters from Swiss civilians during August 1941 showed that they
were innocently passing on versions of the gas chamber story. One wrote:
“Somebody from Bern who was in Germany said, the new bombs from
England were awful, they break half a street to pieces, and
somewhere in a shelter, people were all on the ceiling smashed like
flies, it was terrible, and so very many were ill with their nerves as they
had not room for them in the hospitals, and with some which were not
get better, they just open the gas and kill them, like the heavy
wounded too…”
A separate letter gave another variant inspired by the same sib:
“The severely wounded Germans are apparently just gassed! We
have heard several stories about this and from people coming back
from the country.”27
While most sibs originated from PWE, the success of this gas chamber
rumour led to a War Office suggestion passed to Cavendish-Bentinck’s JIC in
November 1941. They had heard it from their military attaché in Berne, Col.
H.A. Cartwright (who was in fact an MI6 officer) as “a story which, with some
SO2 Executive Committee, Progress Report for Week Ending 3.4.41, HS 8/21625
SO2 Executive Committee, Progress Report for Week Ending 3.9.41, HS 8/21826
Ibid.27
Page  of 12 18
variations, has been circulating freely in Berne, and has come in from various
quite independent informants always from apparently reliable sources.”28
In this version of the rumour:
“Guards and superintendents of trains containing wounded German soldiers
from the Eastern Front are ordered at certain places to put on their gas
masks. The trains then enter a tunnel where they remain for upwards of half
an hour. On leaving the tunnel all the wounded soldiers are dead. Severely
wounded soldiers are disposed of in the same manner in so-called
emergency hospitals, of which there are many.”
Cartwright had added:
“The Guard who furnished this information is stated to have been on duty on
one of the trains in which wounded soldiers were ‘gassed’. He was sworn to
secrecy under penalty of death, but stated he could no longer withhold his
secret from the outer world by reason of his conscience, and wanted the
German public to learn the fate of their wounded soldiers.”29
The Inter-Services Security Board (through which PWE and others cleared
their rumours in case they inadvertently clashed with other British secret
operations) had raised no objection, and added: “We recommend this rumour
also as useful propaganda.”
This recommendation might have proved significant in the longer term. The
difference between a rumour/sib and propaganda is of course that the former
(as with “black” propaganda) was intended to be untraceable to British
sources.
During 1941 SOE “disseminated a rumour that the Germans had ordered 500
mobile crematorium units from the Ford works in Cologne and Antwerp to be
ready by the Spring”. This sib came back in the form of a story circulating in
France that “the German army has crematory ovens installed in lorries and
cremate all their own dead. …This enables the Germans to fix a figure for
their losses at whatever they please, and leave no evidence to controvert
them.” Later an intercepted Swiss letter showed a variant of this rumour,30
that the Germans “burn their dead in travelling crematoria and keep their
S.N. Shoosmith, JIC Memorandum, ‘Rumours of a Military Nature Intended to Mystify and28
Mislead the Enemy’, 3rd November 1941, CAB 81/105
Ibid.29
SO2 Executive Committee, Progress Report for Week Ending 2.7.41, HS 8/21730
Page  of 13 18
losses carefully concealed until the campaign is ended. In this way members
of the family wait and hope for the best.”31
It might be relevant that during the summer of 1941 a rumour campaign was
launched against I.G. Farben, the giant German pharmaceutical and chemical
conglomerate. The first hints of this suggest that the campaign was first32
designed for the Ministry of Economic Warfare to cause financial problems for
the company in neutral countries, by for example adulterating samples of its
products so as to undermine Farben’s reputation. By September 1941 it33
was reported with satisfaction that anti-Farben stories were widely believed in
France:
“There is now a conviction throughout the country that the Germans
are attempting to ruin the health of the French people by sending back
French sick and wounded prisoners inoculated by the Germans with
the bacilli of disease, while there have been rumours of the flooding of
the French market with German drugs producing certain forms of
debility.”34
It is unclear whether this campaign was in any way connected to later
allegations that I.G. Farben’s pesticide Zyklon B was used for homicidal
gassings.
Some versions of the Farben rumours combined them with stories intended to
spread panic about typhus, and an interesting variant was added by
suggesting that typhus had become so bad that Jewish physicians had been
called up for service as army medics. The implication of this sib was that35
ordinary Germans (and citizens of German-occupied countries) would react
badly to the idea of Jewish doctors: this is drawn out further in a later sib:
“It is not only because of the plague danger that German doctors on
the East front always wear surgical masks in the wards. So many of
them are Jews now that there used to be trouble when the wounded
were able to see their faces.”36
SO2 Executive Committee, Progress Report for Week Ending 1.10.41, HS 8/21831
SO2 Executive Committee, Progress Report for Week Ending 9.7.41, HS 8/21732
SO2 Executive Committee, Progress Report for Week Ending 16.7.41, HS 8/21733
SO2 Executive Committee, Progress Report for Week Ending 24.9.41, HS 8/21834
SO2 Executive Committee, Progress Report for Week Ending 29.10.41, HS 8/21835
Sib R/867, Minutes of U.P. Committee Meeting, 5th December 1941, FO 898/6936
Page  of 14 18
In November 1941 the Underground Propaganda Committee approved a sib
which cunningly linked euthanasia by gassing to typhus and defeatism:
“These stories about gassing the wounded on the East Front are due
to a misunderstanding. The Gas Vans and Trains are used only for
plague cases and are really merciful since the poor fellows would have
no chance anyhow.”37
Meanwhile a fantastically gruesome sib hinted at mass murder and
industrialised cannibalism:
“The Germans are rounding up healthy Russian prisoners and
transferring them in batches of a thousand at a time to a prison camp
near Kiev. It may be a coincidence that cans of something called
‘Russian beef’ are already being exported from a factory near Kiev to
the most hard hit parts in the Ruhr.”38
Later that month a note from the War Office Deputy Director of Operations,
Col. John Sinclair (who became Chief of MI6 from 1953 to 1956) to David
Bowes-Lyon approved the UP Committee’s new development of the gas
chamber story:
“The Germans need every hospital they have got for their own
wounded, so foreign workers who fall seriously sick are just sent to the
gas-chamber.”39
This was later given a further twist:
“Foreign workers should not go to Germany because they are
transferred to occupied Poland or blitzed districts, gassed if unfit,
sterilised, cheated of their wages, or liable to be treated as
hostages.”40
As the situation on the Eastern Front worsened, the SOE Executive
Committee noted:
“We have now arrived at a situation where it is virtually impossible to
distinguish between ‘come-backs’ on certain of our rumour campaigns
and genuine reports from enemy and occupied territory. We have, for
Sib R/729, Minutes of U.P. Committee Meeting, 14th November 1941, FO 898/6937
Sib R/724, Ibid.38
Sib R/773, Minutes of U.P. Committee Meeting, 21st November 1941, FO 898/69. This gas39
chamber rumour was sent to Cavendish-Bentinck’s JIC for consideration at their meeting on 25th
November 1941, see note by the JIC Secretary, Lt. Col. Stephen Shoosmith, headed ‘Rumours of
a Military Nature Intended to Mystify and Mislead the Enemy’, CAB 81/105
Minutes of U.P. Committee Meeting, 5th December 1941, FO 898/6940
Page  of 15 18
instance, for the last four months been keeping up a steady campaign
on the subject of Fleck Typhus on the Eastern Front. This at first met
with no noticeable reaction, but the number of reports has steadily
grown, until the prevalence of this disease is now an accepted fact. It
seems probable that the reports now refer to genuine outbreaks, but
the rumour campaign can claim credit for putting into the minds of the
German people an exaggerated idea of its seriousness.”41
It is perhaps significant that SOE’s leaders here register the point that – in the
case of typhus – propaganda rumours had become fact. Had he been aware
of genuine use of homicidal gas chambers, Cavendish-Bentinck could have
made a similar point in August 1943: but he didn’t.
In fact when the Daily Mirror on 23rd March 1942 reported euthanasia by
gassing in a report filed by its Lisbon correspondent, it was highlighted by
SOE as a “come-back” of one of their sibs, rather than a potentially true story.
The Mirror report read:
“Through the widow of one of the men concerned, I learn that 300
Germans wounded in hospital at Dresden were quietly disposed of
with gas as they were unlikely to be of further use to the Reichswehr.
All had lost limbs or arms on the Eastern front, or had appalling body
injuries.”42
Conclusion
I have catalogued these very early references to homicidal gassings because
they indicate that Victor Cavendish-Bentinck believed he had good reason, in
August 1943, to disbelieve stories about mass murders of Poles and Jews in
gas chambers. It is of course illegal in many European countries to express
such a view today.
As opposed to the growing tide of historical revisionism, orthodox or
“exterminationist” historians now suggest that the homicidal gassing of Jews
began in February and March 1942, and maintain that the first homicidal
gassings of Soviet and Polish prisoners in Auschwitz took place in August-
SOE Executive Committee, Progress Report of SOE for week ending 17.12.41, HS 8/21941
SOE Executive Committee, Progress Report of SOE for week ending 25.3.42, HS 8/220; David42
Walker, ‘Germans gas 300 of their wounded’, Daily Mirror, 23rd March 1942, p 1. The journalist
David Walker had been an MI6 asset since 1938: he later revealed some carefully selected
highlights of wartime secret work in his memoirs Lunch With a Stranger (London: Allan Wingate,
1957) and Adventure in Diamonds (London: Evans Brothers, 1955).
Page  of 16 18
September 1941. Yet SOE were putting out a rumour or “sib” about the43
gassing of “incurables” (i.e. euthanasia by gas chamber) in December 1940,
and an extension of this rumour to encompass gassing of severely wounded
soldiers was already current by the summer of 1941 – i.e. before the very first
alleged gassings of prisoners at Auschwitz.
Revisionists accept that a euthanasia programme began in Germany at the
start of the war (using lethal injections) but it was abandoned in August 1941
on Adolf Hitler’s orders due to the scale of religious opposition, especially
from the Catholic Bishop von Galen of Münster. The alleged use of gas
chambers in this euthanasia programme has been seen by revisionists as an
attempt to bolster Holocaust myths. British propagandists’ invention of a44
“lethal chamber” aspect to euthanasia could in this context be seen as the
basis for later accretions of myth.
With so many gaps in the documentary record, we might never know
precisely how these stories were built up. What we can say is that existing
SOE and PWE records fatally undermine one of Prof. Richard Evans’
arguments against David Irving. As noted above, Evans wrote:
“There was no evidence here or anywhere else, indeed, that the British
Political Warfare Executive had invented the story of the gas
chambers.”
In fact PWE/SOE certainly did invent stories about homicidal gassings – the
inventions were circulated long before any such gassings are now alleged to
have taken place.
ANDY RITCHIE, London, January 2017
andy_ritchie@yahoo.com
Timothy Snyder, Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin (London: Vintage, 2011), p 18543
Robert Faurisson, ‘A Challenge to David Irving’ in The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1984,44
pp 289-305
Page  of 17 18
Principal Characters
(Sir) Denis Allen (1910-1987), New Zealand-born career Foreign Office official; in
1943 was number two to Frank Roberts in the Central Department, which then
covered Holland, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Spain and Portugal;
British Ambassador to Turkey, 1963-1967; swapped jobs with his namesake below
to become the FO’s Deputy Under-Secretary for Middle East and Africa, 1967-69.
(Sir) Roger Allen (1909-1972), barrister recruited to Foreign Office during Second
World War; liaison between FO and intelligence, in connection with the Joint
Planning Staff and the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), both during and after the
war. Also served as Joint Secretary of the War Cabinet Committee on Treatment of
War Criminals, set up in July 1942. British Ambassador to Turkey, 1967-69 after
swapping jobs with Sir Denis Allen.
(Sir) David Bowes-Lyon (1902-1961), Political Warfare Executive officer and
chairman of the Underground Propaganda Committee which developed “sibs” or
rumours of homicidal gas chambers. Younger brother of King George VI’s Queen
Elizabeth, and uncle of today’s Queen Elizabeth II.
(Sir) Victor Cavendish-Bentinck (1897-1990), career diplomat 1919-1947; chairman,
Joint Intelligence Committee, 1939-45; British Ambassador to Poland, 1945-47;
once tipped to become Chief of MI6, but following a divorce scandal resigned from
the Diplomatic Service and began a business career; late in life succeeded to the
title Duke of Portland in 1980; known to friends and colleagues as Bill
Col. Henry Cartwright (1887-1957), MI6 officer; military attaché in Berne,
Switzerland, 1939-45; passed a version of the “gas chamber” rumour to the JIC via
the War Office in November 1941
Moray McLaren (1901-1971), head of PWE’s Polish section. Scottish journalist and
author; biographer of Sir Walter Scott. Worked for the BBC, 1928-1940; first
Programme Director for Scotland, 1933-35.
Maj. Gen. Stephen Shoosmith (1900-1956), served as JIC Secretary (with rank of
Lt. Col.) in 1941; in this capacity he circulated to Cavendish-Bentinck and his JIC
colleagues the rumours (or “sibs”) devised by black propagandists, mostly
originating with PWE. Later Principal Staff Officer to Field Marshal Montgomery,
Deputy Supreme Allied Commander, Allied Powers, Europe, 1954-56.
David Esdaile Walker (1907-1968), Oxford-educated journalist and MI6 asset; Daily
Mirror and Reuters foreign correspondent, 1936-52; later with the News Chronicle.
Used by MI6 and SOE to circulate “sibs”.
Page  of 18 18

Names to remember

 Micheal Cohen

Gil Dezer
Micheal Dezer
Alan Fishman
alan Garten
Micheal Glassner
Jason Greenblatt
Carl Icahn
Charles Kushner
Jarad Kushner
Yael Kushner
Richard lefrak
Cory Lewandowshi
StephenMiller
Sam Nunberg
Stewart Rahr George Rosi
Phil Ruffin
Felix Sauter
Allen Weisseburg
Steve wynn
Lara yunaska

ALL in the tramp back office campaign team 

 

I wonder what they have in Common ?

Know thy Enemy

The solution is to avoid being drawn into energy draining affairs of no consequences 

The solution is real knowledge over repeated group think

 The solution is not in any mass movement as they are all steered and controlled

 The solution is not getting harvested and controlled whilst having the knowledge of how things are working

 The solution is knowing the real goals underneath the stated objectives

 The solution is not looking for some big event or movement to change things for you, that is part and a big part of the problem Once you know how things work the solution should appear if you have any first hand knowledge of what is being imposed, why and by whom.

 so lets try this;

 

We are an unaffiliated group of local residents concerned about the lack of democratic process in local government planning and policy.

 We will remain unaffiliated as individuals acting collectively and within the law towards a truly inclusive democratic process where all voices are heard. 

We are not affiliated with any group or organization whatsoever. 

This does not mean that we do or do not endorse other groups. We do not agree with arriving at a “Consensus” through being steered into predetermined outcomes by trained facilitators either working for the council or public/private partnerships.

 We deem this to be against the public interest and an affront to democracy.

it's them again boo boo, their history

It's a pretty known fact that the Jews are chosen people and the Jewish homeland is Israel and the Jews believe in the Old Testament and that the Old Testament is about Jews.  

 

However almost none of these facts are true nowhere in the Bible does it call the Jews gods chosen people and only about 5% of the people in the old testament could be called "Jews".

 

 So now that you have branded me an anti-semite we can begin;    The term "anti semite"  literally means against Shem or his descendants however being anti-jewish isn't the same as being anti-semitic.

 

    So let me explain the Semites are the descendants of a man named Shem who would father some of the world's most renowned Empires and dynasties such as the Syrian Empire and Babylonian empires. So why is it "anti-semetic" to say something against the Jews?

 Well, just like stealing your religion, your homes, your money, and businesses some Jews also love stealing names and inheritance.

So, Shem is the son of Noah the guy who built the ark when Mesopotamia flooded the Sumerian Kingdom would be destroyed by the flood and the Semites would descend from the Caucasian Mountains and established the Acadian Empire.

 

                    Shem would have children and one of his descendants could be named Eber.   He would be the father of the Hebrew people and the semites would be called by his name.

So according to the Bible Abraham was a Hebrew and not a Jew who God promised the father of many nations not one single Jewish Nation but many nations and that through him all the families of the world would be blessed.

Abraham would pass this blessing down to his son Isaac but not to Ishmael.

    Isaac would have twin sons named Essa and Jacob;  again the abrahamic blessing would be passed down with the younger brother Jacob who would then be renamed to Israel. Israel would then have 12 sons, who would each become their own tribes and then their own nations. While Esau would conquer the Horites and flee to Mount Seir in 1926 bc. Mix with the local cave dwellers which would later becom the land of Canaan.  ( note the reason why Esau didnt get his fathers blessing, was that Esau married a canaanite woman, going directly against the word of god,Genesis 28:6-8 )

 

              One of his sons would be named Judah who would be the father of the Jewish people and all Jews are related to him.Even though all jews are Israelites.   The majority of Israelites are not Jews as the abrahamic blessing would have to havee been passed to Judah for this to happen.  Judah the father of the Jews would be jealous and conspired with his brothers to have Joseph killed st Joseph into slavery for silver.   As Joesph was the one who recieved his fathers abrahamic blessing, much like judas sold Jesus to the Jews,  so the Bible portrays Judah as a jealous villain and Joseph as the chosen son.

 

 While in slavery Joesph would rise to become the prime minister of Egypt and father two sons Ephraim and Manasseh pass the abrahamic lesson on to them making them the chosen people and dividing Joseph into two tribes making 13 tribes of Israel.   So no we understand that the jews were never intended to bless the world nor were they ever considered the chosen people  We can move on to our second point;

 

Is the Jewish homeland Israel and the answer is yes and not at all Israel was originally called the land of Canaan named after Noahs grandson Canaan and  was conquered by the Israelites after they left Egypt with Moses found in the book of Exodus.   

                The Bible says God commanded the Israelites to punish the Canaanites for their sexuality which lest to child sacrifice and cannibalisim; the word cannibal actually comes from the canaanite practice of eating the children after they were sacrificed to him Canaan and Baal.   hence why we call them Cannibals. So dont feel so bad when we learn that god ordered  us to exterminate them. The borders of the Jewish homeland were established by Joshua who is one of the descendants of Joseph and not from Judah. 

         

           So like the story of Joseph and Judah their children likewise wouldn't get along either after becoming Nations there would be a Civil War the Jews would rule the southern Kingdom of Judea while Joseph sons of rule the northern kingdom keeping the name Israel. They would have different religions,  believe in different gods and while Judas Stayed in Judea,  Joseph would Ally himself with the Phoenicians and established colonies and trade posts all over the Mediterranean.     

                     Israel would be corrupted by Foreign ideologies and like the Canaanites would fall into materialism sexual immorality and child sacrifice which would lead to them being conquered by the Syrian Empire while some of the Israelites and Phoenicians would flee to their colonies and trade posts fulfilling the promise made to Abraham that the world would be blessed through him as he would be the father of many nations.

                        So the sons of Joseph would become fruitful and multiply among the Nations forgetting who they are, which shouldn't surprise us as their name mean; fruitful and forgetful.   

 

Just like the northern kingdom the Jews would fall into sexual immorality and start sacrificing their children if they would be conquered and enslaved by the Babylonians and Freedom reestablished by the Persians by the Greeks and later occupied by the Romans

 

 While under Roman rule the Jews would launch the greatest revolution in roman history , known as "The great revolt",which would fail. Resulting in the destruction of Jerusalem and their temple,   ironically fulfilling Everything Jesus and the Christian side,  ( Mark 13;2)  said would happen.

 

The Jews not being satisfied with losing their Temple and Homeland would stab the Romans in the back by launching two more rebellions killing over half a million Greeks in Romans.      God would bless the chosen people with two more humiliating defeats along with the banishment from the land causing  Judea to be renamed Syria palaestina.    So the reason the jews have been able to take Palestine really rest on the fact that they stole the name Israel and of convinced the Christian West that they are the chosen people and that they alone are Israel but once putting things into perspective we see that just isn't true. Which brings us to our third point;

 Do the Jews believe in the Old Testament?  answer; Kind of  and not really.    while waiving  around the Old Testament as if they believe in it Jews actually have secondary books that they consider just as important the main book being called the talmud

            To explain the Talmud,  we have to understand some basic Jewish Roman history going back to Emperor Claudius who like emperor  Tiberius  tried to ban the jews from Rome and branding them "aggressive trouble makers ". Sadly Claudius didnt understand how to play "The Game of Thrones" and  ended up mysteriously being killed.    

His successor Emperor Nero, would lift the Jewish ban which shouldn't surprises considering the talmud says he was a Jewish convert.  Nero and his Jews would engage in some of the most barbaric acts known to man;  just to give you an idea of how crazy this Pro Jewish Roman Emperor was Nero burned down Rome and blamed it on the Christians causing them to be tortured and killed in the worst ways imaginable. 

 

                  He murdered his entire family and kicked his pregnant wife and child to death and then castrated a young boy ( Sporus) forced him to wear a dress and made him his wife.   With the coming of Jesus the Jews would divide into two main groups those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah,    while the other group of Jews rejected this claim believing that their Messiah would come wielding a sword todestroy the Romans and set up a Jewish Empire which is what led the Jews to revolt against Rome in the first place. That and they just didnt want to pay taxes.  after their failed rebellions the jews retreated to Babylon creating the religion we know today as Judaisim, making Christianity older by about 200 years. The Jews would argue that the Taldud is the oral law passed down "orally" without any mistakes since the time of Moses before finally being written down between 200 and 400 years after Jesus.

 This would place the jews in first place above the Muslims for the longest most successful game of broken telephone ever played.

 

 The Talmud speaks of its love for Christians by calling the mother of Jesus a w**** and calling Jesus Ambassador sorcerer who is in Hell boiling in human s*** .  

 

             Which brings us to our last point.  Is the old tesament about Jews?  The answer is no not really because the Jews have stolen the name Israel,  you would never guess that the majority of the people in the Bible are not Jewish

 

The Apostle Paul for instance, even though everyone calls him a Jew,   noticehow quickly separates himself from the Jews and says "I am Israelite of the seed of Abraham and of the tribe of Benamin" . God also sent Paul to preach umongst the Israelites  and funnily enough Pauls ministry wasnt in Judea  but in asia minor, to the greeks in greece  and the romans in Rome.

 

The Bible is constantly separating the Kingdom of Israel from the kingdom of Judah as it is constantly separating Joseph from Judah the entire Jewish deception and hijacking of the Bible depends on them stealing the terms Semites, Hebrews and Israelites for example Moses the man who wrote the first five books Known as the TORAH  did not come from the tribe of Judah nor was he part of the kingdom of judea, but somehow he is a "jew"

          

             The reality here is the majority of the people in the Old Testament are not Jewish the Bible is the book that tells the history of many nations and peoples like the Semites Hebrews Israelites Egyptians Phoenicians Babylonians Assyrians Armenians Persian Greeks Romans and many others it's not only about Jews

Alinsky’s 13 rules for radicals.

1.       ‘Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.’ Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. 

2.        ‘Never go outside the expertise of your people.’ the result is confusion, fear, and retreat. 

3.       ‘Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.’ Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat. 

4.       ‘Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.’ You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity. 

5.       ‘Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.’ It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage. 

6.       ‘A good tactic is one your people enjoy.’ If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic. 

7.       ‘A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.’ Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment, like going to church on Sunday mornings. New issues and crises are always developing, and one’s reaction becomes, “Well, my heart bleeds for those people and I’m all for the boycott, but after all, there are other important things in life”—and there it goes. 

8.        ‘Keep the pressure on. Never let up.’ [Use] different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose. 

9.       ‘The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.’ 

10.   ‘The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.’ It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign. It should be remembered not only that the action is in the reaction but that action is itself the consequence of reaction and of reaction to the reaction, ad infinitum. The pressure produces the reaction, and constant pressure sustains action. 

11.    ‘If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside [positive].’ This is based on the principle that every positive has its negative. We have already seen the conversion of the negative into the positive, in Mahatma Gandhi’s development of the tactic of passive resistance. 

12.    ‘The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.’ You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying ‘You’re right—we don’t know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us.’ 

13.   ‘Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.’ the opposition must be singled out as the target and “frozen.”…in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a constant…passing of the buck. …Obviously there is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks… If an organization permits responsibility to be diffused and distributed in a number of areas, attack becomes impossible.

The Boy who cried wolf a small sample of failed climate predictions

 From the epoch Times

 

As the failed predictions pile up, climate experts appear to be more cautious in making their predictions too specific. The current general consensus among climate change proponents is that extreme weather events, such as droughts and storms, will become more prevalent or intense.

The recently released short-form report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that unless carbon emissions are cut drastically and promptly, the planet will warm roughly an additional 1.1-2.4 degrees Celsius by 2100 (pdf). That would lead to “high” or “very high” risk of wildfire damage, permafrost degradation, biodiversity loss, dryland water scarcity, and tree mortality on the land, and loss of warm-water corals in the sea. Most of the severe risks are asserted with moderate or low confidence, meaning that underlying evidence is lacking or inconclusive.

The full IPCC report hasn’t been released yet.

One of the most famous climate experts, Michael Mann, criticized the IPCC for being “overly conservative” in predicting catastrophic consequences of climate change, “including ice sheet collapse, sea level rise, and the rise in extreme weather events,” Inside Climate News reported.

But it’s been exactly these kinds of bold predictions that have undermined experts’ credibility in the past.

Environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg has collected some such failed predictions in his book, “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.” Geologist and electrical engineer Tony Heller, who frequently criticizes what he considers fraud in current mainstream climate research, has made it a recurring theme of his climate science blog to point out failed and dubious predictions.

Examples are plentiful, stretching far into the past:

December 1939

“All the glaciers in Eastern Greenland are rapidly melting,” the Harrisburg [Pennsylvania] Sunday Courier reported.

“It may without exaggeration be said that the glaciers—like those in Norway—face the possibility of a catastrophic collapse,” the paper quoted Prof. Hans Ahlmann, a Swedish geologist, saying from a report to the Geographical Society after his Arctic expedition.

In fact, arctic ice was seen receding since 1918, according to a 1923 New York Time article.

“Last Winter, oceans did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitzbergen,” article said.

By comparison, this winter, sea ice did reach the shore of Spitzbergen, though in low concentrations.

Back then, however, the meltdown seemed nowhere near done.

May 1947

“The possibility of a prodigious rise in the surface of the ocean with resultant widespread inundation, arising from an Arctic climate phenomenon[,] was discussed yesterday by Dr. Hans Ahlmann, a noted Swedish geophysicist at the University of California Geophysical Institute,” an article in The West Australian read.

“The Arctic change is so serious that I hope an international agency can speedily be formed to study the conditions on a global basis,” Ahlmann said.

February 1952

“The glaciers of Norway and Alaska are only half the size they were 50 years ago,” said Dr. William Carlson, an Arctic expert, according to a newswire run by The Cairns Post in Australia.

March 1955

“There are now six million square miles of ice in the Arctic. There once were 12 million square miles,” said Arctic explorer Adm. Donald McMillan, according to Rochester, New York’s Democrat and Chronicle.

October 1958

“Some scientists estimate that the polar ice pack is 40 percent thinner and 12 percent less in area than it was a half-century ago, and that even within the lifetime of our children, the Arctic Ocean may open, enabling ships to sail over the North Pole,” The New York Times reported, noting that the Arctic ice sheet was about 7 feet thick at the time. Currently, the ice is about 7 feet thick, too.

By the 1960s, it appears that worries about a melting Arctic became not as immediate, only to be supplanted by other environmental concerns.

November 1967

“It is already too late for the world to avoid a long period of famine,” The Salt Lake Tribune reported, citing Paul Ehrlich’s prediction of famines by 1975.

Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist and author of “The Population Bomb,” proposed lacing staple foods and drinking water with sterilizing agents to cut the growing population of the United States, according to the report.

April 1970

“Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century,” The Boston Globe reported, saying that pollution expert James Lodge predicted that “air pollution may obliterate the sun and cause a new ice age in the first third of the new century.”

October 1970

Ehrlich went on to predict that America would be rationing water by 1974 and food by 1980, California’s Redlands Daily Facts reported.

July 1971

“The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age,” said atmospheric scientist S. I. Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Columbia University, The Washington Post reported.

January 1972

“We have 10 years to stop the catastrophe,” said Maurice Strong, then-U.N. environmental secretary, regarding world’s environmental problems, according to a Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter.

December 1972

Two Brown University geologists wrote a letter to President Richard Nixon, reporting that a conference attended by “42 top American and European investigators” concluded “a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.”

“The present rate of cooling,” they said, “seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century, if continuing at the present pace.”

January 1974

“Space satellites show new Ice Age coming fast,” The Guardian reported.

June 1974

“Another Ice Age?” a Time Magazine headline asked.

“Telltale signs are everywhere—from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest,” the article said.

January 1978

“An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere,” The New York Times reported.

A year later, the paper was reporting the opposite.

February 1979

“There is a real possibility that some people now in their infancy will live to a time when the ice at the North Pole will have melted, a change that would cause swift and perhaps catastrophic changes in climate,” The New York Times said.

May 1982

Mostafa Tolba, then-executive director of the U.N. environmental program, said that if the world didn’t change course, it would face “an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible, as any nuclear holocaust’’ by the year 2000, according to The New York Times.

September 1988

The small island nation of Maldives was threatened to be completely covered by “a gradual rise in average sea level” in 30 years, Agence France-Presse reported, noting that “the end of the Maldives and its people could come sooner if drinking water supplies dry up by 1992, as predicted.”

Tourists pose for pictures at the Velana International Airport in the Maldives on July 14, 2022. (AFP via Getty Images)

Maldives are still nowhere near under water. In fact, despite the COVID-19 pandemic’s decimation of tourism, the nation still attracts new developments. Just last week, Emirati development company awarded a $148 million contract to build 120 luxurious over-water and beachfront villas on Maledives’ South Male Atoll, Hotelier Maledives reported.

June 1989

“A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000,” California’s San Jose Mercury News reported.

“Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos,” said Brown, then-director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program.

March 2000

A snowman at the High Plains Bar and Restuarant at Dinner Plains at Mount Hotham, in Mount Hotham, Australia, on June 17, 2005. (Mark Dadswell/Getty Images).

“Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past,” The Independent wrote. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” said David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of England’s University of East Anglia, noting that within a few years, winter snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event.”

While snow is rare in southern England, it still comes pretty much every winter.

December 2001

“The changes in climate could potentially extirpate the sugar maple industry in New England” within 20 years, according to George Hurtt, co-author of a 2001 global warming report commissioned by the U.S. Congress, according to Albuquerque Journal.

Today, New England still produces plenty of maple syrup.

February 2004

The Guardian reported on a secret Pentagon report that predicted climate change will lead to nuclear war, major European cities will sink into the ocean, and Britain would descend into “Siberian” climate by the year 2020.

January 2006

“Unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return,” The Associated Press wrote, paraphrasing Al Gore, a prominent global warming advocate.

November 2007

This year was the “defining moment” of the climate change fight, according to Rajendra Pachauri, then-head of the U.N. climate panel. “If there is no action before 2012, that’s too late,” the official said, according to The New York Times.

November 2007

“The Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in the summer as soon as 2010 or 2015—something that hasn’t happened in more than a million years,” Canada’s Canwest News Service reported, paraphrasing polar researcher Louis Fortier.

December 2007

“Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?” said an Associated Press headline.

“At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012,” said Jay Zwally, a NASA climate scientist, according to the article.

December 2007

“Artic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’” the BBC reported.

“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” a researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, told the BBC.

“So given that fact, you can argue that maybe our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”

March 2008

“If Norway’s average temperature this year equals that in 2007, the ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away, which is highly possible judging from current conditions,” said Olav Orheim, head of the Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat, according to Xinhua, China’s official propaganda mouthpiece.

Norway’s average temperature did slightly increase from 2007 to 2008. The ice didn’t melt.

April 2008

“North Pole could be ice free in 2008,” reported New Scientist.

“There is this thin first-year ice even at the North Pole at the moment,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, according to the article. “That raises the specter—the possibility—that you could become ice free at the North Pole this year.”

June 2008

“We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” said David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, according to National Geographic News.

June 2008

“In five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of ice in the summer,” The Associated Press reported, paraphrasing James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Sciences.

December 2009

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore makes a speech during the COP24 U.N. climate summit in Katowice, Poland, on Dec. 12, 2018. (AP Photo/Czarek Sokolowski)

“The Arctic Ocean may be nearly ice-free in summer as early as 2014,” Al Gore said, according to USA Today.

September 2012

“Enjoy snow now … by 2020, it’ll be gone,” The Australian reported. It still snows in Australia. Last year’s snowfall was, in fact, significantly above average.

July 2013

“Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe—scientist,” The Guardian reported.

February 2014

“The End of Snow?” asked a New York Times op-ed headline, talking about declining snowpack in Western United States. The past decade overall has marked no significant snowfall decline in the region.

July 2017

After then-U.S. President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the U.N. Paris Climate Agreement, physicist Stephen Hawking said, according to BBC: “We are close to the tipping point, where global warming becomes irreversible. Trump’s action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees [Celsius] and raining sulfuric acid.”

August 2017

“Snowy retreat: Climate change puts Australia’s ski industry on a downhill slope,” The Sydney Morning Herald reported. It’s been snowing quite as usual in Australia in recent years, weather data indicates.

January 2018

“The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero,” said James Anderson, a Harvard University professor of atmospheric chemistry, according to Forbes.

Elementary, high school and college students gather in front of the Parliament building in Oslo on March 22, 2019, to rally for the climate and against politicians who they dont think are doing enough to halt climate change. (TOM HANSEN/AFP/Getty Images)

July 2020

“The end of snow,” said an Australian Geographic headline. “Could a warming climate be putting Australia’s magnificent alpine landscapes at risk?”

There was no particular lack of snow in Australia in either 2021 or 2022.

December 2021

The Los Angeles Times ran a story headlined, “A ‘no snow’ California could come sooner than you think.”

 

 

A few weeks later, the UC Berkely Central Sierra Snow Lab announced that California just had the snowiest December on record.

August 2022

“The End of Snow Threatens to Upend 76 Million American Lives,” Bloomberg reported, referring to predictions of snow disappearance in the western United States.

A few months later, Sierra Nevada mountains would see its second snowiest winter on record.

March 2023

“Arctic ice has seen an ‘irreversible’ thinning since 2007, study says,” The Washington Post reported.

The ice hasn’t thinned much over the past decade.

Since 1979, the summer minima have seen a record low every 5-7 years. Since 2012, however, there has been no new record, the data shows.

 

PAUL HARVEY'S 'IF I WERE THE DEVIL' TRANSCRIPT - 1965

 ~ EVEN AS WE SEE IT TODAY 2019 ......2023

“If I were the devil … If I were the Prince of Darkness, I’d want to engulf the whole world in darkness. And I’d have a third of its real estate, and four-fifths of its population, but I wouldn’t be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree — Thee. So I’d set about however necessary to take over the United States. I’d subvert the churches first — I’d begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: ‘Do as you please.

To the young, I would whisper that ‘The Bible is a myth.’ I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would confide that what’s bad is good, and what’s good is ‘square.’ And the old, I would teach to pray, after me, ‘Our Father, which art in Washington…

And then I’d get organized. I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting, so that anything else would appear dull and uninteresting. I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies and vice versa. I’d pedal narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.

If I were the devil I’d soon have families at war with themselves, churches at war with themselves, and nations at war with themselves; until each in its turn was consumed. And with promises of higher ratings I’d have mesmerizing media fanning the flames. If I were the devil I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, but neglect to discipline emotions — just let those run wild, until before you knew it, you’d have to have drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.

Within a decade I’d have prisons overflowing, I’d have judges promoting pornography — soon I could evict God from the courthouse, then from the schoolhouse, and then from the houses of Congress. And in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and deify science. I would lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls, and church money. If I were the devil I’d make the symbols of Easter an egg and the symbol of Christmas a bottle.

If I were the devil I’d take from those who have, and give to those who want until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious.

And what do you bet I could get whole states to promote gambling as the way to get rich? I would caution against extremes and hard work in Patriotism, in moral conduct. I would convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging is more fun, that what you see on the TV is the way to be. And thus, I could undress you in public, and I could lure you into bed with diseases for which there is no cure. In other words, if I were the devil I’d just keep right on doing what he’s doing.”

Paul Harvey, good day.

Correspondence to Media council

 I cannot post on any you tube channel it just gets removed INSTANTLY  

My email;  24th April

Dear M;
So, even though this Poem has clearly broken the law and the media
council now is aware of the breach. Would you not be also complicit
in the breach of the law and thereby liable for the remedies as listed in the act?

Sorry, that poem is not art and clearly is incitement as laid out in the legislation. The act, I assume triumphs over your "12 principles".

As you are unwilling to reverse the decision and by doing so promote this "hate speech" You will then accept the remedies laid out in the Human Rights (Incitement on Ground of Religious Belief) Amendment Bill

Government Bill 209—1 Which as I understand it amounts to;


"Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 who contravenes or refuses to comply with any other order of the Tribunal made under section 92I or an interim order of the Tribunal made under section 95."  


A sum the media council could well afford, though in these difficult times an individual may find difficult. 


Why Margot are you protecting these vile people Irrespective of race or religion. you know in yourself the actions you and your team are pursuing are wrong. 

Please retract your position.

Kind Regards Stephen Watson
 

 Date; 26/4 

Good morning Stephen
Thank you for you email. 

The Media Council carefully considered the issues raised by you and the other complainants regarding this poem and will not be retracting its decision. 

Regards  (M/c hammer)

Ps I noticed she stopped using Maori !

 

 Date 24th April 

 

My Email for context  Dear Ms C;    Thank you for your reply with regards to (TUISATA AVIA POEM) CASE NO: 3392 RULING BY THE NEW ZEALAND MEDIA COUNCIL;   However, I cannot accept such a ludicrous finding.    I Quote from legislation:  Human Rights (Incitement on Ground of Religious Belief) Amendment Bill   Government Bill   209—1; Quote" Clause 5 amends section 61, which makes it unlawful for anyone to publish, distribute, or use threatening, abusive, or insulting written matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group on 1 or more of the following prohibited grounds of discrimination: colour: race: ethnic or national origins. Clause 5 adds religious belief to that list. Religious belief is an existing prohibited ground of discrimination under section 21."   The poem in question clearly violates Clause 5.  The poem in Question is;  "threatening, abusive, or insulting written matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group"   In all fairness I offer you the right to ammend your decision or to reply before this complaint is taken further and the matter escalates.    Kind Regards    Stephen Watson  M/c Hammers Reply; Kia ora Stephen Thank you for your email.    The Media Council considers complaints under its twelve Principles.   The Human Rights commission hears complaints under the Human Rights legislation that you quote. If you wish to make a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, this is the link https://tikatangata.org.nz/   Nga mihi

Dear Ms C; 

 

Thank you for your reply with regards to (TUISATA AVIA POEM) CASE NO: 3392 RULING BY THE NEW ZEALAND MEDIA COUNCIL;

However, I cannot accept such a ludicrous finding. 

I Quote from legislation:  Human Rights (Incitement on Ground of Religious Belief) Amendment Bill

Government Bill

209—1; Quote" Clause 5 amends section 61, which makes it unlawful for anyone to publish, distribute, or use threatening, abusive, or insulting written matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group on 1 or more of the following prohibited grounds of discrimination:

• colour:
• race:
• ethnic or national origins.

Clause 5 adds religious belief to that list. Religious belief is an existing prohibited ground of discrimination under section 21."

The poem in question clearly violates Clause 5.  The poem in Question is;  "threatening, abusive, or insulting written matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group"

In all fairness I offer you the right to amend your decision or to reply before this complaint is taken further and the matter escalates. 

Kind Regards 

Stephen Watson 

On Wed, 2023-04-12 at 17:33 +0000, M/C Hammer wrote:

Morena

Please find attached the NZ Media Council’s ruling in the eleven complaints against Stuff’s publication of Tuisata Avia’s poem about James Cook.

 

Nga mihi

 

Dear Stephen,

If you would like the council to consider your complaint, please send dated copies of your emails with Stuff regarding this article.

Thanks and kind regards,

M/v

MV Administrator

e: office@mediacouncil.org.nz p: +64 4 473 5220 w: www.mediacouncil.org.nz

 
NEW ZEALAND MEDIA COUNCIL | Te kaunihera ao pāpāho o Aotearoa

-----Original Message-----
From: stephen <stephens.mess@gmail.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2023 4:27 PM
To: Info-Media Council <info@mediacouncil.org.nz>
Subject: Re: 475-23 Watson v Stuff

Dear Sir, Madam;

I quote "Stuff.co.nz" reply to my complaint.

I have, therefore complied with your request and have recieved a reply.

Therefore I ask, most strongly to take action: remove and reprimand this organisation for inciting racial hatred.

Racial hatred in most civilised countries is a criminal act. 

organizations in those "civilised countries" that promote and support racial hatred are liable for prosecution.

I assume that you do not condone or support racial hatred and,or the organisations that promote such vile opinions.

I ask most strongly for you to take action asap. I have forwarded this correspondence to the relevant Ministers of parlement.



Regards

Stephen Watson
On Mon, 2023-02-20 at 02:35 +0000, Info-Media Council wrote:
> Kia ora Stephen,
>  
> Thank you for lodging your complaint with the NZ Media Council.
>  
> Our procedure requires you first complain to the publisher so they 
> have an opportunity to resolve the matter. If you have already done 
> this can you please forward your complaint and their response to the 
> Media Council by 6 March or as soon as possible.  We will then be able 
> to assess your complaint .
>  
> We will wait to hear from you.
>  
> Thanks and kind regards,
>  
> mv
>  
> From: Stephen <stephens.mess@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, 20 February 2023 3:16 PM
> To: Info-Media Council <info@mediacouncil.org.nz>
> Subject: Cannot lodge a complaint via website
>  
> Dear Sir, Madam;
> I would like to lodge a very strong complaint about a vile article 
> masquerading as an "opinion piece" in the online newspaper; 
> https://www.stuff.co.nz/ The article in question quite clearly 
> promotes Racial hatred.
> https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/sunday-magazine/131236724/tusiata-a
> via-cant-wait-to-make-you-uncomfortable
>  
> I quote from the article, showing clear and explicit unequivocal 
> Racial hatred.  ( see the quote at the bottom of this Email)
>  
> If this is allowed to continue then similar views expressed in Germany 
> earlier this century also would be valid.
>  
> Please remove this vile article masquerading as an opinion piece as 
> soon as possible and issue a public reprimand.
>  
> Yours Faithfully
> Mr Stephen Watson
> Christchurch New Zealand
>  
> Quote " 
> 250th anniversary of James Cook’s arrival in New Zealand Hey James, 
> yeah, you in the white wig in that big Endeavour sailing the blue, 
> blue water like a big arsehole F… YOU, BITCH.
> James,
> I heard someone
> shoved a knife
> right up
> into the gap between
> your white ribs
> at Kealakekua Bay.
> I’m gonna go there
> make a big Makahiki luau
> cook a white pig
> feed it to the dogs
> and F… YOU UP, BITCH.    ( my note,  this is CLEAR INTENT )
> Hey James,
> it’s us.
> These days
> we’re driving round
> in SUVs
> looking for ya
> or white men like you
> who might be thieves
> or rapists
> or kidnappers
> or murderers
> yeah, or any of your descendants
> or any of your incarnations
> cos, you know
> ay, bitch? 
> We’re gonna F… YOU UP.
> Tonight, James,
> it’s me
> Lani, Danielle
> and a car full of brown girls
> we find you
> on the corner
> of the Justice Precinct.
> You’ve got another woman
> in a headlock
> and I’ve got my father’s
> pig-hunting knife
> in my fist
> and we’re coming to get you
> sailing round
> in your Resolution
> your Friendship
> your Discovery
> and your f…ing Freelove.
> Watch your ribs, James
> cos, I’m coming with
> Kalaniōpu‘u
> Kānekapōlei
> Kana‘ina
> Keawe‘ōpala
> Kūka‘ilimoku
> who is a god
> and Nua‘a
> who is king with a knife.
> And then
> James,
> then
> we’re gonna
> F…. 
> YOU. 
> UP. 
> FOR. 
> GOOD.
> BITCH.
> - Tusiata Avia
> Image removed by sender. Sunday magazine logo
>