The saddest of news. Nobel prize nominee and hero Robert Green passed away last night.

Robert Green Guitar 2015

I am very very sorry to say that Mr. Robert Green died at about midnight, 10th April 2019.

Rest in peace, George Robert Green, a Great Man.

The world is a lot poorer today and it’s up to us to make it better.

via The saddest of news Nobel prize nominee and hero Robert Green dies last night




First and most importantly, there are some fools in the YouTube community who think Hampstead is a hoax. Because they keep reporting it as such, they are allowing the raping and Satanic Ritual Abuse to take place because they have helped the police and those in the UK cover all this up. Way to go Jungle Surfer!

Leaked Medical Reports End All Doubt About Sexual Abuse Claims.

The medical reports end any debate regarding the fact that children A and G were the victims of child sexual abuse in Hampstead and underline the criminal nature of the police interviews of September 17th, 2014. The question now is who is being protected? Who has the influence and power to cause the British police such an obvious and inexplicable mid investigation rethink? Clearly there is much more than a Z grade actor and the reputation of a school at stake here. Neither would logically merit the police choice to destroy this investigation and cover up these heinous crimes.

Background Chronology
September 5th 2014.
“A referral was made to the Barnet CAIF by (mother’s partner’s) brother in law who is a special constable. Following a disclosure by A and G that they had been sexually abused by their father and “teachers” and were part of a cult. This disclosure had been made when they were in Morocco over the summer. And the parents stated they were unsure who to inform as many people seemed to be involved, (including allegedly police and social workers.)

Initial police interviews conducted.
8/9/14. Initial strategy meeting held.
10/9/14. Visit to family home ahead of ABE interview.
11/9/14. Emergency Police Protection Order issued after the ABE yesterday evening during which witness A, witness G and witness E (mother) were interviewed separately.
Allegations of physical abuse from the mother’s partner towards both children and sexual abuse against both children by their father and “teachers”. They are now in Emergency Foster Placement.”17/9/14.

Police conduct the retraction interviews in transparent attempt to bury the truth and vandalise justice.
Interviewing officers clearly bully false retractions from the children for unknown reasons that can only be sinister.
22/9/14. Police inform the mother E that they have found that the crimes against the children cannot be confirmed. The investigation is over.
22/9/14. Dr. Hodes writes the second medical report affirming the veracity of the sexual abuse allegations despite the retractions. Dr. Hodes cites a specific research finding that found that 16% of victims will retract the allegations and affirming therefore that the physical evidence of abuse should outweigh the retractions.

Lindsay C Malloy, MA Thomas D Lyon JD, and Joia A Quas
Fillal Dependency and recantation of Child Sex Abuse Allegations.
J.Am Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry. 46:2, 2007.
These statements were made without reference to the disgraceful performance of the interviewing officer in the retraction interviews, which only strengthen Dr. Hodes’ assertions.
The Medical Reports. Who wrote them and are they authentic?

There are two Medical Reports, one dated September 15th, 2014, the other September 22nd. Written on the stationary of the University College of London in a way that leaves no doubt as to their authenticity. Background checks on the names of the people who signed the documents end any doubt . To illustrate this I will cite the best known of the Doctors who have signed these reports Dr. Deborah Hodes (FRCPCH) Consultant Community Paediatrician. A cursory internet search indicates that Dr. Hodes is employed in that role at the University College London and is an expert in the field of child abuse having more than twenty years experience.

Dr Deborah Hodes
Dr Deborah Hodes Consultant Paediatrician an expert with decades of experience and she is unequivocal. Abuse occurred.

The first report dated September 15th appears to have been written by Dr Harriett Gunn (SHO Senior House Officer)* but is also signed by Dr. Hodes, The second Report of September 22nd appears to have been written entirely by Dr. Hodes, as she is the sole signatory. The Medical Examiners are highly experienced and well qualified.

This does not mean that they are infallible, of course, but these medical reports have been signed by medical practitioners considered to be authorities in the field with decades of experience.
Dr, Deborah Hodes, part of the examination and assessment team that physically examined the children on several occasions is absolutely unequivocal, even after the retraction interviews that the children have physical injuries, that substantiate their claims of physical abuse at the hands of the mother’s partner and more importantly the sexual abuse at the hands of the father and cohorts.
A Brief Overview of the Facts that Emerge from the Medical Reports.

The counter narrative states that the children’s stories were coached and fed to them by their mother’s partner who was himself guilty of minor physical abuse of the children.
The police retraction interviews tried to construct a narrative that the children had been denying the actions of the mother’s partner whilst making the claims against the father and school, yet the Medical Reports show that the children made the claims concurrently and were concurrently examined for both the injuries related to the minor physical abuse at the hands of the mother’s partner and the extremely serious sexual abuse at the hands of the father and staff at the school.

The male has one scar on his anus consistent with blunt force trauma, the female has several and has actually been physically damaged by the abuse in ways that really do not bear mentioning suffice to say that she has multiple injuries “consistent with the application of a blunt instrument.”

They could not be clearer. Someone has been doing deeply unpleasant things to these children, the more lurid claims relating to this case may be exaggerated, but there is a very simple and unmistakeable truth expressed in those medical reports.

After they were taken into Foster care, the children were heard to discuss the use of Vaseline as a lubricant their abusers used on them. They are no longer in the presence of the mother’s partner, there is no need for any story to be told, yet they were speaking about it in a matter of fact way.

The children independently told their story on multiple occasions to numerous Doctors and other disinterested parties and were consistent in their claims against both parties. There was medical evidence to support the claims that were made against both parties. Both children were observed to be suffering the symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Both children complained at their treatment at the hands of the mothers partner, yet it was absolutely clear to the examiners that it was the father they feared. Each child independently expressed the fear that their father would kill them, one had nightmares about it. Expressions of fear do not get more profound than that. The details outlined in these reports are deeply unpleasant. Unfortunately it is necessary to do this and I will ensure that only the completely necessary information is included. There is a duty to attempt to spread the truth in a matter of gross injustice such as this case represents and I have sought not to identify anyone by name other than the Doctors whose role appears to have been an honourable one.

Key Excerpts from the Two Medical Reports.
September 15th, 2014.
“Witness G “does not report any history of constipation or diarrhoea . However he does report that it does often hurt and he has often bled when opening his bowels although this had decreased significantly in the past two months which his sister says is because it is two months since they have seen their father. (the children were also removed from the school). He opens his bowels everyday and reports that his stool is soft. “( a detail that is unfortunately necessary due to later events)

Physical Abuse.
“Both G and A report that they have been hit multiple times with a metal spoon by mother’s partner over the head and the legs. They also report they have been pushed into walls. They also allege that mother’s partner holds his hand over their mouth till they “can’t breathe.” On a recent visit to Morocco over the summer witness G explains that he was hit on the ear by the mother’s partner in the left ear which caused his ear to bleed and his left eye to be swollen and bruised. G and A said that G was then not allowed to leave the holiday home until the bruises had disappeared.”
(Note: the details contained here completely destroy the notion that these allegations were made as the result of coaching. Did the mother’s partner also coach the children to make all these detailed and specific allegations against him? Of course he didn’t. The fact that these allegations against the mother’s partner were made at the same time as the allegations of sexual abuse is clearly overwhelming evidence that these children spoke the truth to the best of their ability about both issues and were not under external control of either party to a custody dispute as they made the allegations.)

Sexual abuse allegations.
“A has explained that at school a teacher named Mr. H calls children over and makes them take off their underwear. A explained that she and other children including G are made to bend over and a “plastic willy” is inserted into the anus. Whilst Mr. H holds onto their hips. A also stated that Mr.H “makes noises” while this is done.
Of note, she says that he gives them a refresher bar to eat as a reward and to chew on while this is happening so they “can’t scream or make a noise” and they are asked to face forwards and not look backwards. G has said that the same thing has happened to him. G says that after this has happened he has bleeding from the anus and subsequently. it is very painful when he opens his bowels.”

Victim G Physical injuries described.
His (G) anus was examined in the left lateral position using gentle buttock separation for 30 seconds. He had one anal fissure scar at 9 o’clock on examination of the anus. There was no reflex anal dilation.”

“In both the general physical examination and the genital examination of G today. There are physical signs consistent with the allegations given by G and A. The scar in the anus is from a healed fissure, secondary to the application of a blunt penetrating force that he (G) has alleged. In summary, G has physical signs consistent with his allegations of both physical abuse and sexual abuse. “

Dr. Harriett Gunn (SHO) to
Dr. Deborah Hodes.
Medical Report Dated September the 22nd 2014.

The report begins with Dr, Hodes outlining her extensive experience in the field. Twenty four years worth.
Dr.Hodes states that she was present at two strategy meetings and two physical examinations relating to this case. In addition Dr. Hodes has spoken to Camden area social workers and also reviewed the photographic evidence pertaining to the children’s injuries. Victim and WItness A on September 17th 2014. Victim and Witness A during a Police interview.

Summary of Relevant Evidence Victim A..
“She alleged that lubrication was used prior to the insertion of the penis or plastic penis and identified and discussed this with her foster carer.. She also told me about having had an injection. She alleged that bleeding occurred after the event and then had pain on opening her bowels.” “She told me that she has difficulty getting to sleep and she has bad dreams including dreaming of her father killing her ”

Physical Findings.
“Below is a list of injuries found in a physical examination of A shown in body maps and the police photographs.”
1.“3 x 4mm abrasion to the pinna of her left ear and 3mm laceration posterior to her left ear overlying the mastoid, A alleged she was pinched and picked up by her ear on Morocco.”
2. “7mm longtitudinal abrasion (excoriated) on the right lateral aspect of her right ankle. A alleged she had been pushed against an outside wall and “had picked it” when she was in Morocco.”
3. “2.0cm x 0.5cm healing abrasion on the left side of the chin. A alleged that she was hit across the face with a metal spoon while in Morocco.“

Below is a list of injuries found on ano-genital examination of A recorded in the DVDs. (Warning Note: This is deeply unpleasant and awful and a quick summary is that there are multiple and in my opinion horrific injuries to A’s nether regions)
“1. In the left lateral position with gentle buttock separation there was anal laxity and a brief view of the rectum. In the knee chest position with gentle buttock separation, there was reflex anal dilation (RAD) after 5-10 seconds. The reflex anal dilation continued and there was a view into the rectal ampulla and there was no stool present.
2. There was a healed scar in the ruggae at the 10 -11 o’clock position extending from the anal orifice to the anal verge. It was seen in both the left lateral position and the knee to chest position. The abnormalities in the ruggae at the 4 0′ c;ock and 5 o’clock positions may represent healed scar tissue or variation in the ruggae.configuration.” There are between two and four injuries, with two undoubted and two speculative.

Conclusions regarding the allegations.
“The physical injuries found on her skin are consistent with the physical abuse she described. In the absence of a history of constipation, medical illness or accidental trauma according to the GP’s notes, the anogenital findings of the scar and the RAD are consistent with her allegations of the application of a blunt penetrating force to her anus (2); sexual abuse.” She has described symptoms of post traumatic stress.”

Summary of A and G by Dr. Hodes.
“In my opinion A and G are suffering significant harm as evidenced by the following:-
1.Both children have physical signs of physical abuse that support their allegations.
2.Both children have physical signs of sexual abuse that support their allegations.
3.They have symptoms of post traumatic stress.
4. It is now understood from a 2007 substantiated study of child sexual abuse that retraction occurs far more commonly (16% in this series) than previously thought.
5. In my opinion, the extensive and detailed accounts given by both children that were repeated to different professionals contain details of sexual acts that such young children would need to have direct experience of.” (Note: in order to be able to describe them is the unwritten implication.)

To put it simply, Dr. Hodes is stating that there is physical evidence in support of both sets of allegations which really highlights how farcical the entire “they were coached” counter-narrative really is. Because children who have been coached to make false allegations in order to influence a custody battle we are told, were not even coached to lie about the minor physical injuries they suffered at the hands allegedly of the mother’s partner. What kind of coaching is that? It really shows the desperation to protect that this preposterous and absurd notion was even floated as the counter-narrative. It is pathetic and insulting. Truly laughable.

Dr Hodes signature
Dr. Hodes signs off on the September 22nd report. She plainly rejected the retractions.

Ethical and Legal Issues.
The leaking of these documents may constitute a criminal offense, I honestly do not know, but it is obvious that these records have been released in the broader public interest in order to oppose and expose a clear and outrageous injustice. These are exceptional circumstances in which otherwise unethical or even unlawful actions are necessary and just in my opinion. Why is this happening?
It beggars belief that this investigation was curtailed and destroyed in order to protect a Z grade actor or even the Staff and Institutional reputation of the school and church involved. Something far more important is being protected here, but it is completely unclear whom or what have managed to engineer the stunning travesty that led to the Investigating Police coaching and bullying retractions from the child victims, Witnesses and Victims A and G.

The real mystery at this point is who is protecting this and why? The way it is being covered up you would almost get the on it’s face ludicrous idea that this was some type of mad, satanic leadership induction program. The people involved may believe they are doing what is right for their children in some sick parallel universe sense. We Are Living in a Twilight Zone of Serial Denial.
It is completely possible that elements of the stories the children tell that do not relate to events they actually witnessed may be embellished or even incorrect. There is sadly no doubt that whatever the veracity of the claims the police made a decision, a bizarre and inexplicable decision to destroy the case and conduct a cover up. Unless and until the police have a rethink as is inevitable but may take decades, there is little that can be done to even begin to seek justice for the Hampstead victims beyond trying to expose this to enough people that it causes an uproar that requires an immediate police rethink. We seem to exist in a bizarre twilight zone where anyone with any connection to power can apparently do what they like to children and expect to suffer only the infamy of the grave. As long as you are not fussed about your reputation when deceased and you are connected you do not even have to be discreet. Once you die it will all emerge of course and your name and reputation will be destroyed but other than that there is no penalty.

While it has become clear again and again that the unthinkable has actually been rather routine, that these unbelievably evil crimes have been happening for decades and yet when confronted with a genuine contemporary cover up, the entire “official” British media have literally not a word to say. Other than the Hamptead and Highgate Express. The local weekly paper had their say recently, they covered the story from the point of view of the alleged perpetrators, predictably, so the reference to the case was rather incidental, but telling. Google under fire after leaked personal details of Hampstead residents remain on web – Crime & Court – Hampstead Highgate Express

The real story is instantly dismissed thus “The claims, which the mainstream media is barred by court order from reporting on, are said to have been investigated by police and found to be baseless.” Which I think can be fairly claimed to be a downright lie. Perhaps gratitude is the right response to the total lack of mainstream news coverage. Please note the brazen hypocrisy of the Hampstead and Highgate Express stating that “ which the mainstream media is barred by court order from reporting on” before continuing “are said to have been investigated by police and found to be baseless.” Clearly reporting (and indeed completely mendaciously and inaccurately) without naming or even alluding to a source, let alone any evidence to back up their dishonest claim. I hope they are proud of their work at the Hampstead and Highgate Express. Their efforts in support of evil will be rewarded in the deserved manner eventually I am sure, one way or another. It’s only a matter of time.

Return #WhistleblowerKids and #AbuseSurvivors to their Russian Family!
Sabine Kurjo McNeill | Voluntary Public Interest Advocacy
Petitioning EU Parliament
14 09 15 Medical report.pdf – Google Drive
14 09 22 Medical report.pdf – Google Drive
Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead to be investigated over links with Jimmy Savile – Health – Hampstead Highgate Express
PLAYLIST of 45 videos re #Whistleblower and #WhistleblowerKids | ‘Whistleblower Kids’ in the Court of Public Interest
JUSTICE DENIED: Live Recording as Police raid Pedophile Ring Whistle-blower kids mum’s home
Abusers Online | ‘Whistleblower Kids’ in the Court of Public Interest
‘Whistleblower Kids’ in the Court of Public Interest | From Child Snatching and the Secrecy of Family Courts to Forced Adoptions, Child Sexual Exploitation and Satanic Ritual Abuse
JOINING Video Dots with #WhistleblowerKids: Exposing World run by Powerful #Paedophiles | ‘Whistleblower Kids’ in the Court of Public Interest
Dr Deborah Hodes
FORWARD UK on Twitter: “FORWARD Trustee, Dr Deborah Hodes, announces opening of the first specialist #FGM clinic in London
ZeeklyTV – Anonymous’s Channel
Dr Hodes Sources.
Lindsay C Malloy, MA Thomas D Lyon JD, and Joia A Quas
Fillal Dependency and recantation of Child Sex Abuse Allegations.
J.Am Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry. 46:2, 2007.
Bradley Ar, Wood, JM, How Do Children Tell?
The disclosure process in child sexual abuse.
Negl. 20 881-891. 1996
The British Medical Association Confidentiality Guide for Staff.(called the confidentiality toolkit)

Who is Melanie Shaw, why is she in prison, and what do her supporters want?

She was one of the first people to talk about abuse at Beechwood

By: David Whitfield Digital Content Editor, 11 JAN 2019
Melanie Shaw supporters hold posters outside the Old Bailey in London before former English Defence League (EDL) leader Tommy Robinson arrives accused Melanie Shaw supporters hold posters outside the Old Bailey ahead of a court appearance by Tommy Robinson in September
Melanie Shaw supporters hold posters outside the Old Bailey ahead of a court appearance by Tommy Robinson in September (Image: David Mirzoeff/PA Wire)

Over the last year, an average of more than 14,000 people have searched for her name every month.

There are at least ten different Facebook groups dedicated to her.

And at a recent court appearance by Tommy Robinson, it was her name that was being chanted by supporters.

But who exactly is Melanie Shaw, why is she in prison – and what are her supporters calling for?

The simple answer is that Melanie was one of the very first people to make allegations of sexual abuse at Beechwood children’s home in Nottingham.

But have a quick browse of the internet and you will find a host of further answers involving buried bodies, secret court hearings, and Westminster paedophile rings.

We have therefore attempted to tell Melanie’s story below, as best as we can. It won’t answer all of the questions about her, but it will hopefully provide some detail which might not be immediately available to everyone.

Melanie’s story

Melanie was born in October 1970, and was placed in foster care at a young age.

She grew up in Kirkby-in-Ashfield, and from 1981 to 1987 she was at Ashfield Comprehensive School in the town.

When she was 16 she was sent to Beechwood children’s home in Mapperley. She stayed there for around a year.

The Redcot unit at Beechwood children's home pictured in September 2002 after the death of a child at the home.
The Redcot unit at Beechwood children’s home pictured in September 2002 after the death of a child at the home.

When she left, she overcame drug problems, started doing voluntary work.

In an interview broadcast in 2015, she described how she was a full-time mother for 24 years before she decided to speak out about what had happened at the children’s home.

In 2010 she went to the police to report what had happened to her at Beechwood, and was one of the first people to do so.

In more recent years she has lived in Sherwood and Sneinton.

What does Melanie say happened to her in Beechwood?

Melanie said that she was raped in the basement of the Lindens unit at Beechwood in Mapperley, and was physically and sexually abused.

She has spoken about one particular member of staff who she said had threatened to kill her ‘like the others’ if she spoke out over abuse. She said he told her that he had already murdered and buried two children in the grounds of Beechwood.

And she also said that, while she had never been abused by a politician, she was aware of young boys from Beechwood being taken by minibus down to London to be abused by ‘the rich and elite’.

No charges have been brought against anyone who she alleged had assaulted her at Beechwood. And she has said she has a fear that she is going to be found dead.

Why is she in prison?

As far as Nottinghamshire Live is aware, Melanie has been either convicted of or found to have carried out offences on five different occasions since 2014.

In December 2014 at Nottingham Crown Court, she was convicted of arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered, and damaging property. She was given a community order for three years and a five-year restraining order.

In February 2016 at Nottingham Crown Court, she was given three restraining orders, fined £200, and handed a three-month prison sentence for displaying threatening, abusive, insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour to cause another harassment, alarm, or distress; and two counts of pursuing a course of conduct which amounted to harassment.

Melanie Shaw pictured in 2015
Melanie Shaw pictured in 2015

In January 2017 at Nottingham Crown Court, she was given two years in prison; six months for breach of a suspended sentence order, nine months for breach of a restraining order, and nine months for breach of a separate restraining order.

In March 2017 at Derby Crown Court she was given eight months in prison; eight months in prison for making a threat to kill; three months(concurrent) for common assault, and one month (concurrent) for damaging property.

And in October 2018 at Leeds Crown Court, a jury found that Melanie – who was deemed unfit to stand trial – had committed three counts of arson being reckless as to whether property was damaged or destroyed. She will sentenced for this on January 14.

The Ministry of Justice does not give out information on release dates for individual prisoners.

Obviously, even in the event that Melanie served the full term of her two-year sentence from January 11, 2017, she would be due for release in January 2019.

However, she has been remanded in custody in connection with the arson offences which she is being sentenced for on January 14.

You can see a list of Melanie’s court appearances at the bottom of this story.

Where has she been held?

Melanie has been held in a number of different prisons. These include, but are not necessarily limited to, HMP Peterborough, HMP Foston Hall in Derby, HMP New Hall in Flockton near Wakefield, HMP Eastwood Park in Gloucestershire, and HMP Styal in Cheshire.

Foston Hall prison
Foston Hall prison

There have been a number of rumours online about Melanie being moved to Rampton in north Nottinghamshire. But her supporters sent her Christmas cards to HMP Styal.

What do the authorities say?

In terms of the allegations made by Melanie, Nottinghamshire Police said: “Nottinghamshire Police investigated all of the allegations thoroughly. Where the threshold was met, the CPS considered the evidence.

“Unfortunately, it was determined that the evidential test was not passed and, as such, no prosecutions brought.

“Our enquiries have also not identified any unaccounted-for people at Beechwood Children’s Home.

“Searches were carried out at Beechwood in February 2012.

“The work was undertaken by us in conjunction with national search advisors and searches were made of the grounds and building. It included the use of search dogs and radar following concerns reported by a member of the public.

Nothing was identified at the time that supported the reports.”

Nottingham East MP Chris Leslie said: “Melanie Shaw first contacted me several years ago, since when I have offered support as I would to any constituent in her circumstances. I have continued to enquire after Melanie’s welfare, including with the prison.

“It would be inappropriate and not responsible of me to discuss the details of these highly sensitive matters with anyone other than Melanie or her legal representatives, who are always welcome to contact me at any time.

“However, over many years now there have been stories circulating about Melanie’s case, and most of the posts circulating on social media are wildly inaccurate.”

Chris Leslie MP
Chris Leslie MP (Image: PA Wire)

Paddy Tipping, Nottinghamshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner, said: “I’ve known Melanie for many years and we have talked about the difficulties she has faced.

“It’s disappointing that she is in prison while she waits for sentencing later this month, but we are doing what we can to help her and we are regularly in touch with the professional people who support her.

“However, in the short term this is a matter for the Crown Court.”

The two legal firms in Nottingham which represent Melanie for civil and criminal matters said they could not comment without explicit permission from their client, which has not yet been obtained.

The Ministry of Justice said they do not comment on individual cases.

What do her supporters want?

Although the various groups come from slightly different angles – with some focusing more on the what happened at Beechwood and others on the London/Westminster allegations – they all want Melanie out of prison.

A member of the Justice for Melanie Shaw group, which has been running since 2014, said that, taking into the account the time Melanie had spent on remand, she should have been released from prison in June 2018 following the completion of her two-year sentence.

She said: “I think she is being persecuted, and I can’t help thinking it’s a set-up. They wanted her in prison, and they’ve got her in prison.

“I’m not going to pretend Melanie is an angel. She can be a bit of a handful. Even if you think she’s all right, you still have to be a bit wary of how she can react, which is because of what she’s been through.

“But what is happening to her now is disproportionate to what she is supposed to have done. Prisoners set fire to their cells every day of the week.

“If it isn’t a conspiracy, why are they making it look like one?”

A protest against child abuse outside the Council House in Nottingham's Old Market Square in 2014
A protest against child abuse outside the Council House in Nottingham’s Old Market Square in 2014

She added: “We’ve always believed that the police weren’t trying their hardest to investigate the fate of children who had allegedly died at Beechwood – allegations I believe there is truth in.

“I’m prepared to believe that when Melanie went to the police she produced quite a bit of evidence about what she was saying.

“Melanie said she gave evidence to the police and it disappeared. I can’t prove that’s true, but that’s what she said.

“I think it’s accepted that the authorities didn’t know how many children were in care – and what happened to those who disappeared.”

Melanie’s court appearances

Nottinghamshire Live contacted eight courts – Nottingham Crown Court, Nottingham Magistrates’ Court, Derby Crown Court, Derby Magistrates’ Court, Peterborough Crown Court, Peterborough Magistrates’ Court, Cambridge Crown Court and Leeds Crown Court – in order to try and get a full picture of Melanie’s court appearances.

Nottingham Magistrates’ Court declined to provide information about Melanie’s court appearances. However, some information about her appearances at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court was provided by another court.

It remains a slightly confusing picture, with different parts of the criminal justice system giving – at times – conflicting information about her court history.

But as far as we can best establish, these are Melanie’s court appearances since 2014. Not all will necessarily have been appearances in person, as some may have been by videolink.


Melanie Shaw’s court appearances

  1. December 11, 2014 (Nottingham Crown Court)

    Found guilty of arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered at an address in Bonnington Crescent, Sherwood on February 1, 2014; and damaging property at the same address on June 26, 2014.

    She was given a community order for three years with supervision from the probation service. She was also given a five-year restraining order banning her from contacting the victims of the arson attack or going to their home.

  2. August 26, 2015 (Peterborough Magistrates’ Court)

    Pleaded not guilty to a charge that between June 22, 2015 and July 13, 2015 at Peterborough she pursued a course of conduct which amounted to the harassment of [a named person] and which she knew or ought to have known amounted to the harassment of her in that sending flowers, gifts and card to HMP Peterborough, telephoning and camping outside HMP Peterborough, harassing members of staff on their way in and out of work, contrary to section 2(1) and (2) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

    Remanded on bail for trial at Peterborough Magistrates’ Court on Nov 11, 2015.

  3. November 11, 2015 (Peterborough Magistrates’ Court)

    Pleaded guilty to the charge above. Remitted to Nottingham Magistrates’ Court on conditional bail for sentence on December 4, 2015.

  4. December 4, 2015 (Nottingham Magistrates’ Court)

    Appearance for sentencing over the above charge. Remitted to Nottingham Magistrates’ Court to Jan 20, 2016. Remanded on bail.

  5. January 20, 2016 (Nottingham Magistrates’ Court)

    Appearance for sentencing over the above charge, sent to Nottingham Crown for sentence on February 10, 2016.

  6. February 17, 2016 (Nottingham Crown Court)

    Given three restraining orders, as well as other penalties, after being convicted on three counts.

    (1) Pleaded guilty to displaying threatening, abusive, insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour to cause another harassment, alarm, or distress on July 21, 2015 in Nottingham. She was also fined £200 for this offence.

    (2) Pursuing a course of conduct which amounted to harassment from June 21 to July 6 in Nottingham. She was also given and a three-month prison sentence (suspended for two years) for this offence.

    (3) Pursuing a course of conduct which amounted to harassment from June 26 to July 13 in Nottingham. She was also given and a three-month prison sentence (suspended for two years) for this offence, concurrent.

  7. June 3, 2016 (Peterborough Magistrates’ Court)

    Appeared charged with attending HMP Peterborough on June 1, 2016 – which she was prohibited from doing by the restraining order imposed by Nottingham Crown Court on February 17, 2016. Case sent for trial at Peterborough Crown Court on July 1, 2016.

  8. September 16, 2016 (Peterborough Crown Court)

    The above matter was transferred to Nottingham, as the restraining order was issued at Nottingham.

  9. January 11, 2017 (Nottingham Crown Court)

    Sentenced to a total of two years in prison.

    (1) Six months in prison for a breach of a suspended sentence order in relation to the indictment of February 2016;

    (2) Nine months in prison (consecutive) for breach of the restraining order in relation to the indictment of February 2016;

    (3) Nine months in prison (consecutive) for the breach of the restraining order dated June 1 at HMP Peterborough.

  10. February 8, 2017 (Derby Magistrates’ Court)

    Appeared charged with one count of criminal damage on August 25, 2016, one count of making a threat to kill on August 20, 2016, and one charge of assault by beating on September 24, 2016. All sent to Derby Crown Court for March 8, 2017.

    (Also, one charge of assault occasioning ABH in February 2016 was withdrawn; and one charge of threatening to destroy and damage property in August 2016 was withdrawn.)

  11. March 8, 2017 (Derby Crown Court)

    Given a total of eight months in prison for the offences listed above. This was:

    (1) Eight months in prison for making a threat to kill on August 20, 2016;

    (2) Three months in prison (concurrent) for common assault on September 24, 2016;

    (3) One month in prison (concurrent) for damaging property on August  25, 2016.

  12. January 10, 2018 (Derby Magistrates’ Court)

    Appeared charged with two counts of arson on February 8 and February 10, 2017, and one count of sexual assault on February 15, 2017; all sent for trial at Derby Crown Court on Feb 7, 2018.

  13. March 16, 2018 (Derby Crown Court)

    The arson cases above were transferred to Leeds Crown Court.

  14. July 21, 2018 (Derby Magistrates’ Court)

    Three charges of criminal damage and one count of sexual assault dating from February 2017 were all withdrawn.

  15. October 16, 2018 (Leeds Crown Court)

    A jury found that Melanie – who was deemed unfit to stand trial – had committed three counts of arson being reckless as to whether property was damaged or destroyed.

    She committed the offences on February 8 and February 10, 2017, at HMP Foston Hall, Derby; and on June 21 at New Hall prison in Wakefield, West Yorkshire. She is being sentenced on Jan 14.

Roland Perry, The Fifth Man – Victor Rothschild a Communist Spy

Roland Perry, The Fifth Man
Pan Books London 1994. Selections by Peter Myers, September 12, 2001; update May 4, 2006.

Comments within the text are shown {thus}.

This book alleges that the “Fifth Man” in the Cambridge spy-ring was Lord Victor Rothschild.

{p. xi} Some of the key information. in this book came from interviewees – scientists, politicians, diplomats, businessmen and intelligence agents – who did not wish to be acknowledged, for understandable reasons. …

I am grateful particularly to my contacts in British Intelligence … they were responsible for leading me to a key revelation in 1978, which finally fitted the Fifth Man jigsaw in the 1990s.

Thanks also to my CIA contacts …

Acknowledgement must also go to the seven main KGB respondents …

Documentary film-maker, Jack Grossman, who fought with both the

{p. xii} RAF in the Second World war, and the Haganah after it, was of assistance with background and Israeli Intelligence. … Appreciation for explanations of some of the more esoteric bomb and radar technology goes to Sir Mark Oliphant …

{p. xx} The Fifth provided Stalin almost on a daily basis with what Churchill and Roosevelt were saying about the USSR. The spy also had particular links to the US military and intelligence during and after the war.

His work and that of the others in the ring went on for longer than originally believed by investigators. They were all involved in spying for the Russians before, during and after the war. Their espionage was wide-ranging and included the 1943 Anglo-American discussions on the opening of a second front in the west; information on major war projects such as the atomic bomb and biological weapons; data on Eastern European nations in exile in London (who were anti-Stalin); background to discussions on the post-war Marshall Plan to redevelop Western Europe. Furthermore, while calling the Five a ‘ring’ implies they worked

{p. xxi} together, they mainly operated independently of each other. However, at times two or more would combine. Often their linking revolved around Blunt, who was the middleman most closely in contact with Soviet Controls in London from 1942 to 1963, the year Philby defected and Blunt was exposed to MI5 investigators.

Another important clue, on which those who knew the Fifth Man’s identity all agreed, was that after his main spying days for the KGB finished in the UK in 1963, he went on to have a ‘successful career’ in both business and public life.

This again cut down the list.

Apart from fitting the many facts and dues to the Fifth Man jigsaw, intangibles such as motivation were vital. This had to go beyond the altruistic obligations of those who felt it their duty to defend Western civilization against Hitler’s barbarity. The spy in question had to be inspired on a higher level than his belief, shared with the others in the Ring of Five, that Soviet Marxist ideology was superior and would eventually dominate Western capitalist democracies.

The Fifth Man’s original motive was survival, for himself, family, race, and country. He was compelled to supply the Soviet Union with information that would smash Hitler, for over the duration of the war its people were prepared to sacrifice and suffer more than any other to defeat him. But after the war, the Fifth Man’s ideological commitment caused him to go on spying for the KGB. In so doing, he became caught in a web of betrayal and tragedy, which lasted half a century.

The Fifth Man was Nathaniel Mayer Victor Rothschild (1910 to 1990), better known as the third Lord RothschildHe was the British head of the famous banking dynasty, which apart from prolific achievements in art, science, wine and charity, had shaped recent history by such acts as the financing of the British army at the Battle of Waterloo and the purchasing of the Suez Canal for Great Britain and Prime Minister Disraeli.

Victor Rothschild’s purpose was to go a step further and change the course of history …

{p. xxxiv} … Rothschild had been on the inside through the war until 1945, and since then on the outside as an intelligence man who had a unique relationship with his wartime employer.

He had left them officially, yet unofficially still ran agents after the war in Israel, Iran, China and other nations from 1945 to at least 1969. He was the classic outsider-insider. His special place in the Establishment as a power-broker, with unsurpassed connections in every major institution in Britain, allowed him to bypass the usual restrictions on lesser-born citizens. He couldn’t actually pull the files in M15 or M16, but he could always find someone who would do it for him, if he needed access. Rothschild was a regular visitor to British Intelligence offices. He lunched and dined constantly with its directors at his favourite pubs, Pratt’s and White’s, and always made it a pleasure when he picked up the tab for expense account-conscious spy chiefs.

Rothschild had been on intimate terms with most of them: Guy Liddell, Roger Hollis, Dick White, Maurice Oldfield. He became a sort of father confessor, someone who understood the machinations of intelligence and was compassionate about the chiefs’ problems in defending the realm. Rothschild was always there to give sound advice, or pick up the phone to help with a contact. In dealing with directors-general, he transformed from an aloof, even sullen character to an effusively charming, extremely helpful and trusted friend. The demure, introverted lord vaporized and was replaced by the communicative fixer.

Rothschild provided relief for intelligence chiefs from the pressures of the office. He was the confidant with whom they could share the intrigues of the espionage game. In their time, every one of them in varying degrees had divulged the key intelligence secrets to him, the ones which the Russians were after.

In 1958, Rothschild’s fostering of Peter Wright turned quickly to patronage on the basis that they were scientists who got on awfully well. Wright was an easy prey for the sophisticated peer. Although talented, Wright was not Oxbridge educated and therefore an outsider in a service which was run by the old-school ties. He felt snubbed by those too ignorant to comprehend his great value in the intelligence war. Wright was also ambitious, prepared to put in many hours of overtime to achieve his goals, whether it was developing a new device, or gaining an expanded budget. His

{p. xxxv} diligence and intelligence may have been unsettling to those used to the antiquated methods of defending HM, the realm and the masses.

Not so with ebullient Victor, who took him under his golden wing. For the first time in his professional life, Wright felt wanted, understood and appreciated. In this atmosphere, Wright spilled everything that was happening inside MI5. Rothschild offered help. He was in the oil group Shell, overseeing scientific development. He seconded staff to MI5. Wright told him about every piece of espionage technology under development. Rothschild offered ideas of his own and actually devised some new technology himself. He made introductions to heads of major British organizations like the AWRE (Atomic Weapons Research Establishment), which led to further expansion of MI5’s R & D.

This new, powerful chum, who impressed Wright more than anyone else in his life, was in effect responsible for expanding British Intelligence budgets. This was an individual to be almost worshipped, especially in the niggardly world of Whitehall departments. It was damned hard to convince the bean-counters that Intelligence needed more funds. Why should we give you more money? the Government accountants would ask. The war is over. We’re not under threat, are we?

Here was a noble obliged, apparently by his breeding, conscience and generosity, to dispense largesse and influence for the good of the services, and the nation. This way, Rothschild developed enormous goodwill within and without the services. No one was respected more, not just amongst the worker bees such as Wright and Arthur Martin, or the chiefs. Captains of industry, mandarins of Whitehall, ministers of the crown and successive prime ministers knew of his help and activity. Many wanted his services, but until 1970 – apart from the occasional Government committee – Rothschild preferred to keep the mystique of the outsider-insider and a little distance from those with whom he worked and consulted in Intelligence. His job at Shell, particularly from 1958 to 1969, allowed him all the freedom of activity and travel he desired.

It’s accepted among MI5 agents that during the 1945 to 1963 period, the Russians were receiving vital information which enabled them to thwart British operations run against the Soviet Embassy and the KGB. All Russian interviewees said that the Moscow Centre received the data. Ex-KGB Colonels ‘F’ and ‘B’ and Modin admitted

{p. xxxvi} that the Fifth Man was at least prominent in gathering the data and informing the Russians about MI5 missions.

All through the post-war years to 1963, the Fifth Man was active in passing on vital information about MI5’s plans and projects concerning the Russians and the KGB. Because of the failures, breakdown, conflict and fear this caused within British Intelligence everyone on the inside believed that MI5 had been penetrated by someone. The inference was always that it had to be an insider. But as this book will show it wasn’t Hollis or Mitchell. Even one of the leading Russian double agents working for MI6, Oleg Gordievsky, who defected to Britain in 1985, denied that the Russians had anyone of importance on the inside of M15 in the contentious years from 1945 to 1963.

Wright, Martin and the various committees over the decades that chased around the British Intelligence maze searching for a mole, did not consider that he or she never existed. If that was correct, and all the evidence overwhelmingly suggested it was, then there was never penetration. In that case, the Fifth Man had to be an outsider who looked in often enough and listened with an expert technical ear hard enough to be more effective in compromising British Intelligence than any insider, including Philby, and for far longer.

Modin and ex-KGB Colonels ‘F’ and ‘B’ confirmed that the Fifth Man worked in tandem with the Fourth Man, Blunt, who after 1945 was the key middleman, the main receiver of espionage data from the Fifth Man and others to be passed on to the KGB Controls. That is why, under interrogation in 1964, Blunt made much of the definition of the word spying. No, he confessed, he had not spied for Russia, lately.

‘Lately’ implied after 1945. He, Burgess and Philby and several others interrogated, sang the same refrain. They had all done the right thing by the Allies, who included the Russians, in the Second World War by passing on information to the Moscow Centre in the drive to defeat Hitler. But they claimed they had not continued after 1945.

This was inaccurate. According to Modin and several other KGB agents, all of the Ring of Five went on operating after the war, in increasingly dangerous circumstances, as did many of the second-rank spies such as Cairncross (which Cairncross denies). Modin has become an unofficial spokesperson for Russian Intelligence in recent

{p. xxxvii} years. His status in KGB ranks and fame in the West is based on running the Ring of Five after 1945. He did not take up residence in Britain until 1947.


In the late 1950s, the Cold War was in deep freeze as the clandestine techno-battle expanded between the USSR and the West. The US was using Britain as a floating aircraft carrier in its preparation for an expected conflict with the Communists, which the Americans wished to confine, if that were possible, to Europe. US bomb, defence, military and communications bases linked with British bases and formed a mosaic across the length and breadth of the country.

The Moscow Centre knew about every extension to the Anglo-American network, and planned to counter it. At first it didn’t know how this could be done without detection. Many Anglo-American military installations were placed in obscure locations in the country.

An ingenious suggestion to the KGB Controls from one of their British agents was that a petrol retail outlet chain should be set up. Pump stations could be built on back roads near the installations and could be used to spy on the network by, for instance, intercepting the microwave communications between bases. In preparation for war, the pump outlets could be taken over by special Soviet military forces in order to destroy the bases.

The idea seemed outstanding in principle, but any Russian-controlled company selling petrol would have to appear legitimate to fool the CIA and British Intelligence. The Russians had never set up such a capitalist enterprise before. It would have to compete with major Western retail corporations in Britain. Specialist products would have to be developed by scientists. Marketing and distribution know-how would be needed.

By coincidence or otherwise, Rothschild joined Shell in 1958 in a relatively lowly job as a part-time adviser to its research section. He immediately made his presence felt and his role was quickly expanded.

A year later, Nafta Great Britain, a Soviet retail outlet chain began operations in the UK. By the eariy 1960s, it was competing

{p. xxxviii} with the bigger Western companies. Its marketing strategy was unique in the business. Nafta set up pump stations on out-of-the-way B roads, far from the population centres and competitive outfits such as Shell and Mobil. The Russian company’s managers claimed that it would compete where the big boys would not bother to go. Scores of these Nafta stations never made money in the thirty years they were open for business. They were suspiciously close to the most important defence installations in Britain.

Was Rothschild the mastermind behind Nafta? The timing for his move to Shell and the creation of the Russian company would suggest he was a prime suspect. So would his background. He had investigated commercial espionage early in his career at MI5. As its security offficer during the war, he learned all there was to know about how to steal equipment and documents. Rothschild’s scientific expertise also made him a candidate as Nafta’s founder. His early work at Shell covered research into gas, oil, petroleum, diesel engine fuel oil and several other products, all of which were found among Nafta’s offerings to the British market. But he didn’t restrict his interest to science and research. Fellow executives at Shell were stunned by his inquisitiveness in all fields from production to packaging, distribution, marketing and advertising.

His great hunger for knowledge allowed him to absorb it all, and his skills did not go unnoticed at Shell. He gained quick promotion. By 1963, he was Shell’s scientific research and development supremo worldwide, even though the company never quite sorted out whether their distinguished lord was a full-time employee or not. His power and position allowed him to be around when he liked, which gave him the chance to carry on his clandestine activities, such as running agents for Dick White in Israel, Iran and China. The Shell position was just right as a cover for his frequent travels to the Middle East, where the company produced its raw petroleum.


After Burgess and Maclean defected to Russia in 1951, Rothschild spent the next four decades – the rest of his life – covering trails which linked him to them as the Fifth Man. Internal British

{p. xxxix} Intelligence investigations began in late 1951, and like every other person connected to the defectors, he was questioned. It was mild then, but when Philby defected in 1963, and Blunt ‘confessed’ in exchange for immunity from prosecution in 1964, the interrogations increased.

Many, including Rothschild, took Blunt’s lead and opted for the immunity card. Some made the deal which prevented prosecution then made certain admissions, such as ‘yes, I passed on data to people like Blunt during the war, but never to the Russians directly.’ Others said ‘thanks for the immunity’ to avoid first, being falsely accused, and second, guilt by association. They then proceeded to give away precisely nothing. Rothschild was in the latter category. Yet no matter what he did after that, the issue dogged him. He protected himself legally against defamation by threatening to sue anyone who accused him of being the fifth Man. But Rothschild never sued an accuser. Nor did he ever act like an innocent person. Someone with his clout, who was innocent, could have calmly waited for an accusation or innuendo, then pounced. No one, unless it was an intelligence insider with specialist knowledge, could have presented evidence which would have indicted Rothschild. Only a confession was strong enough evidence to convict major spies. The trouble with a court action would be the skeletons it would reveal which would have increased the suspicion that the accused was in fact a Soviet agent. This was the danger that forced him to keep up his legal threats and bluff, but to avoid the courts.

In defending himself, Rothschild instead chose the indirect but effective media route to keep the lid on accusations and deflect them from him. He wrote books and articles, and made highly publicized speeches. These improved his image away from the secret world which preoccupied him for fifty years of his life. He spoke and wrote only rarely and evasively about his links to those in the ring of five. He could hardly dismiss his close friendships with Blunt and Burgess, but he tried to distance himself from them.

He used intelligence, press and publishing contacts to create books which deflected suspicion away from him and on to others, such as the long-suffering ghost of Roger Hollis.

{p. xl} The Third Lord Rothschild was camouflaged as the Fifth Man by virtue of his powerful position in the Establishment. The vast wealth of his banking dynasty embedded him in the power elite more than the other members of the Ring of Five. It was a perfect cover and served to shield him. He seemed the epitome of the ruling class of twentieth-century Britain, and therefore the least likely to be a traitor. Yet a closer scrutiny showed that he had other allegiances, which over time and on specific occasions ran contrary to British interests.

Rothschild was more loyal to his Jewish heritage than anything English. He showed this in his long commitment to his race’s problems. After his political awakening at Cambridge in 1930 he supported refugees from Soviet and German pogroms. In the war, he feverishly fought the Nazis. Once Hitler was defeated, Rothschild assisted in the creation of a homeland for the Jews who had been dispossessed. When the new nation was established he again helped in guiding Israeli leaders to the people, technology and weaponry which would defend it.

He was never so committed to his country of birth and its established order. In fact, more than once when confronted with a conflict between race and country, he chose race. For instance, when the British tried to thwart the birth of Israel, which would have upset its power base in the Middle East, Rothschild intrigued against British interests. It would not have been difficult for him to make another commitment, this time to another power – the Soviet Union – and what for decades he considered was a superior cause.

As a secret communist and professed socialist he would like to have seen the collapse of the old Establishment order in Britain. There was some irony in Rothschild’s secret desire to destroy the House of Lords and capitalism. These sources of power developed his own privilege and prestige, which in turn allowed him to contemplate being in the vanguard of change.

His background again gave him an international view of the world, which paralleled the aspirations of the communist movement. Its emphasis between the wars on science as the vehicle for brave, new Marxist societies appealed to him and many of his colleagues at Cambridge. It was put to him as an experimental phase in the build

{p. xli} towards a grand, classless society. Like all experiments there would be failures, but in the end the logic of it would lead to success.

Rothschild’s deep involvement in Britain’s power structure protected him and may partly explain why he lived longer than anyone else in the Ring of Five. All were under enormous strain while involved in espionage. Burgess, Maclean and Philby were from the upper class but none had the wealth, privilege and prestige of the lord who bestrode politics, business, science and society. Only Blunt, as the monarch’s art curator, was guarded in a similar way. But he didn’t have the money to buy further protection if required.

This extra protection provided security of mind and it’s not surprising that the other four were afflicted by alcoholism in varying degrees. Burgess and Maclean were killed by it. Philby nearly was too, whereas Blunt could not stand pressure without being anaesthetized by gin or Scotch. Rothschild liked his wines and spirits but remained in control.

Another factor not to be ignored in Rothschild’s survival was a successful second marriage to his understanding wife, Tess. She admitted in an interview with me that her husband carried too many secrets, and that she was not privy to all of them. (Tess was Rothschild’s assistant at MI5 for five years and would have known some secrets within British Intelligence.) While she would not have been aware of his activity involving the KGB, Tess held similar political views to Rothschild and thus provided stability, comfort and communication over issues about which he was passionate. Rothschild was only troubled in his final years, when the pressures brought on by his decades of covering up the past caught up with him and depressed him.

By comparison, Burgess and Blunt were homosexuals in an era when it was illegal, which brought its own pressures. Both philandered most of their lives and had many relationships. Burgess’s affairs were unstable and transitory, and it is unlikely that either man could have confided anything of their KGB activity with any partner. Instead, they were forced to bottle up tensions.

According to Modin, Maclean’s wife Melinda knew he was a KGB agent (something she has denied), but their marriage was unstable and Maclean was tormented by his bisexuality, especially during times of strain in his double life. Philby only found fulfilment in his fourth marriage to a Russian in Moscow late in life. His brief first

{p. xlii} marriage of convenience was to a communist agent in the 1930s, but for the greater proportion of his spying days in the West it is unlikely that his female partners knew of his true masters.

Postscript: Modin published a book of his own on the Cambridge spies in 1994, first in French, Mes Camarades de Cambridge, and then in English, when its title changed to My Five Cambrtdge Friends. The French edition had Modin playing his game of not divulging the name of The Fifth. But the English edition included some subtle changes which implied Cairncross was number Five. Confused by this, Richard Norton-Taylor of the Guardian newspaper rang Modin in Moscow early in November 1994. He found the Russian angry that the English edition now seemed to be saying Cairncross was the Fifth ManHe categorically stated that he had never said or written this. Daniel Korn, a researcher for the British documentary film company Touch Productions, investigated this contradiction and verified Norton-Taylor’s findings. At least Molin remained consistent in his deception about number Five.


A book on Russian espionage would not be complete without a conundrum. Modin supplied one during our interviews in Moscow in 1993.

‘Just as the Three Musketeers were four,’ he said, ‘so the Cambridge five were six.’

In the tradition of the conundrum, Modin appeared to confuse the issue by also saying:

‘To these five names a sixth was added: John Cairncross.’

However, the Russian would not then admit Cairncross was therefore one of the Ring of Five (which was really a Ring of Six).

Why was he playing this enigmatic game? Why not say yes, the five (six) were Philby, Burgess, Maclean, Blunt, the Fifth Man, and Cairncross?

I could find only one explanation. Cairncross, who was never in the same league as the Ring of Five (six), was added as a red herring to hide the identity of a still living number six.

A key was the use of the word names. Five names could only represent six people, if the names of two of the people were the same. {End of the Prologue}

{p. 54} Espionage, if shared, could cement a relationship. If it wasn’t, the spy’s disintegration could be faster and greater. Keeping his secret life from a perceptive woman led to increased tensions.


While making his assessment, the ever gracious Otto delivered his polished lines of enticement. Philby, Blunt and Burgess had warned him that Rothschild had to be reeled in on the Jewish, anti-Hitler line. Too much clap-trap about the ‘rightness’ of the communist view might cause his eyes to glaze over with uncertainty and boredom. He had heard and comprehended all the theory but was unconvinced. He knew too much about Stalin’s Jewish pogroms in Russia.

Rothschild judged Stalin and Hitler to be about equal in their appalling treatment of Jews. A dictator was a dictator, and a dead, starving or tortured human was the same on either side of the Eastern border. {Stalin was murdered in 1953, over his plans to counter perceived collusion between Russian and American Jews: death-of-stalin.html}

Otto found he had to be more careful in his sales pitch with Rothschild than any other of the key targets that he, his protege Arnold Deutsch, and Philby had been after. Victor would not be seduced like Burgess and Philby by ideology and the panacea of a perfect communist world with a post-Stalinist figure astride East and West. Nor could this target be lured like Blunt by appealing to his artistic vanity and his detestation of the foibles and conservatism of his own, elite class.

Rothschild, like Watson, was influenced into believing that Russia’s laboratories of social and scientific experimentation would lead to a better, albeit Godless world with test-tube man in charge. Otto had been briefed by Blunt and Kapitza that this could be used as a second line of argument. Rothschild, Otto had been informed, was a believer in the certainties of scientific development even if it went down spurious or counterfeit trails.

Young Victor’s chosen line of research was some proof of this. He was investigating how fast sperm swam, and why only one sperm managed to fertilize an egg. ‘It occurred to me,’ he wrote in

{p. 55} Meditations, ‘that light might be shed on this problem by treating an egg in a suspension of sperm as if it were a sphere being bombarded by gas molecules.’

In one sense this may not have been deemed a ‘sexy’ topic, but it was neither spurious nor counterfeit. In the secret laboratories of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, scientists were already scanning Rothschild’s published literature (in Russia this would continue for a quarter of a century) for data that would help in cloning a German super race, or a Soviet superman.

Rothschild’s work would contribute to the build-up of data Hitler’s scientists would use to weed out the non-survivors and the weak in his cock-eyed grand design. It would also assist Stalin’s white-coated brigade in their inhuman experiments with drugs, social behaviour, genetics, and psychiatry.

Otto was well briefed about Victor’s research and even feigned knowledgeable interest in the subject. Rothschild’s smugness about being at the forefront of his field was fortified by flattery. Otto, with his worldliness and articulate elegance, managed conversational insertions about communism providing the best facilities for improving modern man’s lot.

The work Rothschild was doing was germane to a ‘brave new world’, and he knew it, although he was not then aware of the hideous attempted and actual uses to which it would be put.

The main anti-Hitler argument had to be delivered with equal care also, for despite his youthful naivety, the young Victor on some levels was already shrewd and perceptive. For that reason, Blunt had advized that the other key Comintern control, Arnold Deutsch, should not be used first in attracting Victor. Deutsch was a Jew. If he dwelt too much on the persecutions, he might make the target suspicious that his recruitment was too contrived. Philby had convinced the Controls that Rothschild was potentially their most important catch. He had to be wooed with great subtlety and finesse.

Rothschild was well aware of the stark choices emerging because of Hitler’s rise to power. The German ‘Third Reich’ was to last, according to its architect, for a thousand years, which for civilization would mean a barbaric period in history, a darker age than had ever gone before. There was a sense of noblesse oblige in Rothschild’s

{p. 56} response. His privileged, hereditary position would mean he could influence events if he so chose. Tackling Hitler, via communist opposition, seemed the only effective route.

Many British politicians had no stomach for another conflict like the Great War. They had let the military run down to the point that even a middle European power could challenge Britain. Leaders were already talking about appeasement with Hitler, which was tantamount to political capitulation and eventual concessions to German expansionism. This led to a sense of impotence and frustration amongst those who sensed the dangers posed by Hitler.

Rothschild’s status in society and his political leanings meant that he was, in a sense, ‘ripe’ for persuasion to take up a cause against Nazism and fascism. He was an elite rebel with a cause, but in search of a way to exercise it. The Comintern’s secret path was the only one available to him, unless he turned to more active politics, like his friend Churchill. But Rothschild was not about to contemplate that. He preferred, like his powerful antecedents especially his grandfather, Nathaniel Mayer (‘Natty’), the first Lord Rothschild, to keep his politics as private as possible. Like Natty, he would employ his ability to get things done and influence major events from behind the scenes.

Natty was a powerful back-room manipulator of late Victorian politics, who supported Disraeli and intrigued against Gladstone. In addition, the splendour of Tring Park was the setting for negotiations ranging from the extension of Cecil Rhodes’ diamond empire to the reconstruction of London University. Churchill became a regular visitor as Natty supervised the destruction of Liberalism in the hope of strengthening the Conservative Party, which was his most notable political accomplishment.

Aware of all this, Otto first painted a raw picture of the expected mighty battle between fascism and the left. He then dabbed in points about the skirmishes already begun in Austria, which would ring true from what Philby and the Viennese Rothschilds were saying. The Control next added a few big brushstrokes about the might of Germany and the danger this posed to civilization, without mentioning the Soviet Union just yet.

‘Hitler is marking time,’ he told the target, ‘so he can build his military force. Then he will move. Nothing is surer. We have to be ready.’

{p. 57} Otto also worked on demonstrating that only Russia would have the will and might to tackle fascism. He did this by reminding Rothschild that he, Otto, had experienced at first hand the Allied efforts, which included the might of half the world, to crush the fledgling communist revolution in Russia in the early 1920s. The control then spoke of the financial, military and trade deals on-going between Germany and Britain.

This touched a nerve, for young Victor had seen this during his time at the Bank. Making money overrode moral principles in some international dealing and he became more disgusted with this as his political sensitivities became more acute.

Otto obliquely referred to glowing editorials about Hitler in some leading conservative papers, implying that the ruling classes were pandering to the German dictator. That gave Rothschild pause before he agreed dejectedly that he too had sensed this. Even at his mother’s dinner parties there had been ignorant talk about the importance of forging links with Germany and pacifying the strutting demagogue with bribes and concessions.

There were also Hitlerites amongst the City’s merchant-bankers and businessmen. They were combining with right-wing Tories in favour of rapprochement and conciliation with the Nazis, no matter what they did. Otto warned that the far right elements amongst the Tories were gaining the ascendancy within the party. More moderate members such as Winston Churchill were ‘unlikely to gain power’.

Otto suggested that it was conceivable Germany and Britain would combine in an attempt to overthrow the Soviet Union. This struck a further chord with Rothschild. There had been much discussion about it at Cambridge.

Later, Otto switched to the obvious line that Hitler and fascism had to be obliterated. Only a nation the size of the Soviet Union, if it was strong and prepared by Intelligence reports, could do thatAgents in Britain could play their part by climbing into positions of power and decision-making. They could then guard against conspiracies between Britain and Germany, by informing the Soviet Union if there were any. Otto even suggested there could one day be a link between Britain and a strong Soviet Union, especially if the right people were in positions of influence in Whitehall.

Details from Otto were few. The objective had been to arouse Rothschild’s interest in secret work to defeat Hitler and that meant

{p. 58} supporting the Soviet Union. It was an accumulated appeal to his survival instinct as a Jew, his protective urges towards the family, his ego, and his rebellion against the Establishment, which he believed would be overturned and replaced by a better, science-driven society.

Otto made his proposals sound as if the new recruit would be able to take part in history-making events. He could even shape them, as Rothschilds had done for two hundred years.


The Comintern considered the question of Rothschild’s immediate role. A person of his name and stature could hardly slip away like Philby with a false ID and pose as a freelance journalist in fascist-controlled countries. Although the dirty word ‘espionage’ was never used, the next Lord Rothschild was not the type to act as a straight agent. It was ludicrous to suggest he could be used to infiltrate extreme right-wing groups.

Otto suggested, however, that he might consider helping to finance the setting up of a front to assist other operatives in order to create the right credentials for infiltration. Otto explained that it would be useful for those supporting the cause to become members of, for instance, the Anglo-German Fellowship. It attracted the cirdes in which the Prince of Wales, the future King Edward VIII, moved. He, himself, was pro-Hitler {is this why he was forced to abdicate?}, as were several of the upper-class members who filled the Fellowship’s banquets.

Rothschild was inquisitive about who would be asked to penetrate that circle.

‘Guy Burgess is enthusiastic,’ Otto replied. ‘So is Kim.”

It was the first time Rothschild had been given direct evidence that members of his circle had joined the cause. The thought of the quieter, shrewder Kim changing his image was plausible. But Victor scoffed at the idea Burgess could present himself as a fascist.

Otto was adamant. Guy, he claimed, was qualified for the job. All he needed was a preparatory link to neo-fascism. The concept was straightforward. Rothschild was asked to contribute towards funding a newsletter specializing in economics, finance and business with strong links to Germany. Burgess was ignorant of such matters

{p. 59} so a professional journalist sympathizer, German communist Rudolph Katz, was ready to be brought in to do most of the donkey work in London by writing and editing the newsletter. Burgess acted as the titular editor and, under Katz’s direction, researched and wrote some contributing articles.

It would be an entree to the fascist networks linked with the Anglo-German Fellowship. Burgess could roam free in these circles. Again, Otto didn’t have to spell out some of the methods randy, debaudhed Guy would use to extract information and develop contacts. Rothschild’s thoughts changed from bemusement to amusement. Grubby Guy’s frenzied dalliances had their uses, it seemed. He could be discriminating after all.

Rothschild was able to go further and use his family contacts to introduce Burgess to influential members of the Conservative Party. According to Modin, these induded George Ball, an MI5 agent and founder of the Conservative Research Unit – the Party’s information service. (This led to Burgess becoming parliamentary assistant to a young, extreme-right Conservative, Jack Macnamara. He was a homosexual and a member of the Anglo-German Fellowship.)

In further discussions with Otto, Rothschild brought up his own image. How could he be seen financing a right-wing business letter? It wouldn’t be good for the family name, or the Bank. Otto explained that no one would need to know he was behind it. In any case, some of the funds would be provided from elsewhere. Rothschild volunteered that they could always claim his mother Rozsika was financing Burgess’s ventures. Technically this was accurate because she looked after most of Victor’s finances. Burgess was on a retainer from her of £100 a month for advising her on stock investments.

Rothschild warmed to the idea and even volunteered that Burgess and Philby could act as couriers for the family banking operations, if a front was needed. Victor’s family was familiar with private intelligence networks – they had their ‘spies’ at court, in governments, the military and business – people retained to inform the family’s decision-makers of a business deal here, a political intrigue there.

More than a hundred years ago Nathan Mayer Rothsdlild, the founder of the British dynasty, had run a swifter spy service than those of the British or French Government. His agents followed

{p. 60} the armies everywhere and were so efficient that Nathan knew Napoleon had been defeated at Waterloo before either government. The Rothschild network had remained intact since 1815. What’s more, it had already been activated to help Jews in trouble in Germany.

Victor’s cousin James had influenced him into supporting the setting up of Israel in order to give the tens of thousands of dispossessed a ‘home’. James, a Liberal MP, was giving financial backing to creating many Jewish cooperatives in Palestine. However, expansion of the settlements was being held up by a ‘pro-Arab’ lobby in Whitehall. Britain didn’t seem likely to honour the declaration of Foreign Secretary Balfour who in 1917 had promised to recognize Zionism and had called for a Jewish homeland.

At the last of their initial meetings in 1934, Otto and Victor discussed Rothschild’s plans for the future. He didn’t really see himself ever reaching for a position of influence within Government, mainly because he was loving his research and being at Cambridge.

‘I can see myself going on to the age of forty or fifty,’ he told Otto and many contemporaries.

The Control was not happy with this response at first. He suggested it would be most helpful if he could set his mind on a key position now. Otto flattered him by saying he could achieve great things for Britain.

Rothschild wanted to know why it was so important to join Whitehall. The Control gave the stock reply he had been using with some sincerity in discussions with other recruits.

‘War is inevitable,’ he maintained. ‘That is when positioning really counts.’

This gave Rothschild more to consider, but he did not respond. Otto had already concluded that this young man would be the most difficult to direct. Normally this would cause a Control to not proceed with the recruitment. Yet he understood why Philby had been keen to add Rothschild to the network of agents. Apart from his intelligence, he was single-minded, independent, and apparently in awe of no one.

Otto salvaged something by suggesting it would be useful to know of the secret work of scientists at the major institutions, such as Cambridge. The Comintern agent said he was aware that secret research had been going on in the area of ‘gas’ warfare since the First

{p. 61} World War. Knowing how far it had gone would be helpful. Rothschild agreed that he would assist where he could, as he had in gaining information for Kapitza over the last two years.

Otto wrote to Moscow about Rothschild, explaining the unconventional nature of his activation as a functionary, and his usefulness in financially supporting other agents and supplying useful scientific data.

According to several KGB sources, Otto, Deutsch and the Moscow Centre were then ambivalent about ‘fully recruiting’ Rothschild to a point where he would be regarded as more than a subagent, that is, someone on the fringe who could help with finance and information from time to time, or as a supplier of intelligence data to full agents such as Burgess, Blunt and Philby.

They had other misgivings because the target had no obvious ambition to join British Intelligence or the government. They were impressed by his intellect but worried about his wife Barbara not being ‘suitable’ for the cause. There were further concerns about his attitude to Palestine and the campaign to create a Zionist state which confused the Moscow Centre. The Soviet Union had no firm policy on the issue and it was unable to voice an opinion when Otto asked for one to give Rothschild.

{But if Trotsky had been in power, a deal with Rothschild would have been straigtforward; Trotsky used to play chess with Baron Rothschild at a cafe in Switzerland, before the Revolution (Joseph Nedava, Trotsky and the Jews, p. 36): nedava.html}

The Centre also found problematic the fact that Rothschild had independent means. It was harder to manipulate or ‘keep’ agents who were not financially dependent in some way, even if it just meant the odd cash payment for expenses.

Otto sent numerous communications to the Centre about several agents in the last few months of 1934. Despite Moscow’s uncertainty about Rothschild, this period marked the beginning of his secret life. Otto advised him, as he did Burgess, Philby, Maclean and Blunt, to sever all relationships with the far left. Rothschild gave up his links to the Communist Party.

{p. 76} Victor Rothschild, like several Comintern supporters, waited through the early months of 1937, but did not hear from Otto or Deutsch. The death of his uncle Walter meant that the newly-titled 26-year-old had taken his seat in the Lords and was busier than ever. Having been elected to a Fellowship at Trinity in 1935, he was now lecturing in Zoology and advancing his study into sperm movement and fertilization.

In June 1937, Rothschild learnt that Otto had returned to Moscow at Stalin’s orders. The Soviet Dictator had been purging the Comintern in an attempt to eliminate all remnants of Trotskyism. At their last meeting eight months earlier Otto had hinted that he might be in danger. He knew that Stalin’s assassins had been hunting down some of the leading Comintern people in several countries, and he expected trouble.

Blunt, who saw more of Otto and Deutsch, the two key agents in England, and acted as a conduit for any information Rothschild might wish to pass on, thought Otto’s life might be at risk.

The information chilled the other three key British agents then working for Moscow: Philby, Burgess and Donald Maclean, the main Cambridge spy at the Foreign Office. It worried Rothschild too. Although he had less direct contact with the Comintern Controls, he had met Otto and Deutsch on at least six occasions for discussions, and several more times socially. The two Comintern agents had from time to time turned up at private functions involving the five and other British agents.

Rothschild was still on the fringe of Comintern activity, but his sponsorship of the Katz-edited financial magazine had allowed

{p. 77} Burgess to join the Anglo-German Fellowship. Burgess had successfully buried his far-left connections to emerge as a fascist-sympathizer, using his homosexuality to insinuate himself further into important far-right circles.

Rothschild kept in contact with Kapitza in Moscow and wrote reports on scientific developments to accompany data published in obscure journals and papers, largely restricted to the international scientific community. These covered a range of subjects, including biological toxins and nuclear physics, which would eventually lead to research into germ warfare and atomic weaponry. Some of the data he passed on was classified. It was all of enormous help to Russian scientists.

If anything, his prose style was even more deft than the brilliant yet verbose Burgess, and the precise Philby. Furthermore, Rothschild was breaking down far more esoteric information than the others. His reports would often be accompanied by explanatory drawings, which demonstrated his extraordinary capacity for comprehending anything scientific.

Whether it was the very early rudiments of the gas centrifuge method of collecting ‘fissionable’ uranium or the experimentation of scientist Mark Oliphant in ‘Hydrogen power’ at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, Rothschild could twist his mind around the theory and picture it, in much the same way as Einstein visually perceived his theory of relativity.

He built up friendships with the relevant science departments at Cambridge and other strategically-placed agents such as Alister Watson, who met in discussion groups and in relaxation hours to inform each other about developments in their respective specialties. Rothschild would dwell on areas outside his discipline until he could understand the principles well enough to hold his own with the experts.

‘Knowing other [scientific] developments allowed us to crossfertilize,’ he later told his MI5 scientist friend Peter Wright. ‘It stimulated the imagination. For instance, after a discussion with nuclear physicists, who were forever in discourse about bombarding this and that with gas molecules, I applied it to my own work.’

Apart from regular talks with his scientific peers, Rothschild daily had his face buried in papers and journals. He made a point of reading everything. …

{p. 88} … Moscow’s instructions, it was Rothschild who remained the least dictated to of the subagents, those on the fringe willing to help the Soviets as major conflict in Europe loomed.

Even though he was not yet thirty he had a commanding presence. The Soviets did not wish to lose him because of his increasing power and influence. The Centre was well aware of Rothschild’s proximity to Churchill, now jockeying behind the scenes for leadership as they learnt from Rothschild himself. The Soviet Controls decided at first that they would use his close friends to influence him. Blunt in particular could usually persuade him.

Gorsky set about ‘activating’ all his agents. The Nazi-Soviet Pact marked the beginning of the key agents’ and second division of subagents’ attempts to get important jobs, preferably within the Intelligence community. To many, war seemed inevitable but in Britain until it was declared there was a reluctance to put funds into developing Intelligence departments.

A few days after the Pact, the Fuhrer, now free to bully whom he wished, marched on Poland, which the West was ill-prepared to defend.

{p. 89} Moscow wanted spies in all sections of British Intelligence, the Foreign Office, and the military, but they couldn’t make real penetration until Britain declared war on Germany in September 1939. Then both MI5 and MI6 expanded by recruiting the best minds from Oxbridge.

The incestuous network helped themselves. Burgess, at MI6 and still on a retainer from Rothschild, recommended Philby for a job in Section D of MI6Rothschild, who had helped nudge Burgess into his position before the war,had been in turn recommended to MI5 by Burgess, and Guy Liddell, then deputy director of MI5’s B division, who had in turn been introduced by Burgess to the young lord.

However, according to ex-KGB Colonel ‘F’ and Modin, Rothschild was the key to most of the Cambridge ring’s penetration of British Intelligence.

‘He had the contacts,’ Modin noted. ‘He was able to introduce Burgess, Blunt and others to important figures in Intelligence such as Stewart Menzies, Dick White and Robert Vansittart, the Permanent Under-secretary of State in the Foreign Office, who controlled MI6.’

Churchill and Rothschild had long since patched up their minor differences, and the still-frustrated politician had put in a good word for his brilliant young friend after he had submitted a paper on the German banking system to the War Office. The paper showed how, using spies in the international banking system, the Nazis’ plans could be predicted. The science all-rounder left his research at Cambridge for a position in the Commercial Espionage Unit of MI5‘s Section B.

{p. 116} … But despite the slow start, Enrico Fermi made a big leap forward with his 1942 Chicago Experiment. This relied on Peierls’ chain reaction concept but demonstrated that the bomb could be made using plutonium. This was done by building a reactor using natural uranium fuel – that is, 99.3 per cent U-238 and 0.7 per cent U-235 – encased in graphite. During the chain reaction some of the uranium was transformed into plutonium, and it could then be separated chemically and used as bomb fuel.

Peierls, Frisch and Co. were not impressed with this experiment and Rothschild couldn’t rely on information about plutonium – or any other secret work – coming through from them to the Government and M15, as with the famous Memorandum. And since not all scientists were as motivated to stir the Government to action as these two outstanding Jewish physicists, Rothschild instead had to go out and glean facts from his other contacts in England and the US like an assistant researcher in order to comprehend the fundamentals. This meant visiting every defence research establishment and asking questions about all aspects of a project. The problem was, how could he do this and remain above suspicion?


Rothschild found an ingenious legitimate way of learning everything he needed in all areas of secret research involving not only nuclear and biological weapons but also radar. He wrote a memo to Guy Liddell reminding himof the laxity he had found in commercial organizations in his earlier intelligence work. There was now an urgent need to tighten security in all defence and research establishments. Liddell put him in charge of security, giving Rothschild the right to examine any building he wished. It also meant, if he was doing his job properly, that he should understand every development in order to make sure it was secure.

Late in 1942 he visited Birmingham University and examined every aspect of the Peierls/Frisch laboratory. Then he went next door to check on Oliphant who was refining the magnetron, which would turn radar into a war-winning weapon for Britain.

‘It was our one and only meeting,’ Oliphant told me in an interview in January 1994. ‘Rothschild wanted to know everything

{p. 117} about it [the operation of the magnetron]. He went over the whole lab and absorbed information like blotting paper. He wasn’t an expert but he didn’t pretend to know things. He asked a lot of questions, and took notes in a long discussion which ranged across our areas of scientific expertise. Rothschild was cheerful enough in that meeting. He was a very bright individual and I liked him very much.

The MI5 security inspector did more than learn about the secret work. He slipped a three-inch diameter magnetron into his pocket when Oliphant wasn’t looking. That night Rothschild drove to his Cambridge home and copied the design of the device, with its three terminal electrodes, which generated short radio-waves.

Early the next morning Rothschild drove to London, gave the magnetron and drawing with explanatory notes to Blunt at Bentinck Street for passing on to the Russians, who microfilmed everything by the afternoon. They gave it back to Blunt, who returned the device to Rothschild at his MI5 office in St James’s.”

Rothschild wrote a note to Oliphant, attached it to the magnetron, packaged it and sent it back to Birmingham by special messenger. Oliphant was shocked to receive it. The note said:

Perhaps you should tighten up your security. Enjoyed our meeting, Yours etc Rothschild

Oliphant had no reason to suspect Rothschild was doing other than his appointed security job. In fact, the scientist was most grateful, even beholden to him.

‘He could have caused us trouble by reporting our slackness,’ Oliphant commented. ‘But he didn’t. I immediately tightened up our procedures and made sure no equipment was left lying around. Rothschild never commented about us, but in a report he was scathing about security in general.’

Early in 1943, Rothschild visited Professor G. P. Thompson’s laboratory at London’s Imperial College, again for ‘security’ reasons. There he had the plutonium route to the bomb explained to him. Thompson’s team had the right principle for generating plutonium but had failed by using heavy water instead of graphite as a moderator in the reactor.

{p. 118} Rothschild was able to inform Blunt, again with his trademark diagrams of explanation, how it worked and Blunt wasted no time in passing it all on to a Control.

According to former KGB Colonel ‘F’: ‘This was the kind of data our scientists were looking for. It took us some time to develop a nuclear weapon using plutonium, but that initial clue was the start. We admit it [the first Russian bomb, exploded in 1949] was just a copy of the American design, which led to ‘Fat Man’. [The bomb, ‘Fat Man’, exploded on Nagasaki soon after ‘Little Boy’ – fuelled by U-235 – was exploded over Hiroshima on 6 August 1945.] It also educated us in the rudiments of [plutonium] breeder reactors for industry.’

By March 1943, Rothschild had achieved his aim of having a complete overview of the struggle to be first to make a ‘superbomb’. Through his diligence as MI5’s security inspector, he had developed a knowledge of every major scientific development in the Allied war effort. No one in Britain or America, not even Churchill’s scientific adviser Baron Cherwell, knew as much as Rothschild. He made sure Russia’s scientists had the basics of every secret project from biological warfare to radar and the various types of potential nuclear bomb.

[p. 119} In April 1943 German troops uncovered the Katyn Woods site not far from the Soviet city of Smolensk where the KGB had massacred 8,000 Polish officers. Most had been shot in the back of the neck. It was known that these officers had been interned by the Russians in the winter of 1939, after Soviet forces had occupied eastern Poland.

The Nazis made quick propaganda out of the grisly discovery and it caused outrage amongst the exiled Poles, notably General Wladyslaw Sikorski, the premier of the exiled Polish Government and commander-in-chief of all that country’s forces abroad.

The first man to bring him the news was Donald Maclean from the Foreign Office, who was in charge of ‘administrative liaison’ with Allied troops in Britain – at this time mostly Poles and French.

On 15 April Sikorski and Count Racynski, the Polish Ambassador in London, went to see Churchill at 10 Downing Street.

‘Alas’, Churchill told them, ‘the German revelations are probably true. The Bolsheviks can be very cruel.”

KGB agent Maclean had reported to Gorsky that the Poles were suspicious of Stalin, who had similar feelings towards Sikorski. Now he informed his Control that the Poles were going to call for an investigation into the Katyn murders by the International Red Cross. Sikorski did this publicly the day after his meeting with Churchill and against the British Prime Minister’s advice. Moscow was well prepared and it retaliated by breaking off relations with Sikorski’s Government. It called the Poles ‘Fascist Collaborators’ and blamed the massacre on the Germans.

{p. 150} … the Cold War marked the beginning of defections from Russia by those who had experienced a better life in the West. The defectors needed to have something to sell.

This put the Soviet bomb espionage networks in jeopardy. Those Russians abandoning their posts enhanced the concept of ‘the wilderness of mirrors’ in which defectors became wittingly or unwittingly involved in molehunts based on the new data they gave. If a KGB defector suggested there were spies inside Western services nearly everyone became a suspect, because the game was to be undetectable which meant that possible moles ranged from the most to the least obvious.

The first major Russian to leave his post in the West post-war with promises of major secrets was a 25-year-old cipher clerk in the Ottawa Embassy named Igor Gouzenko. In September 1945, he claimed that Moscow had an important spy at the heart of British Intelligence. But Gouzenko couldn’t make up his mind whether he worked for MI5, or Section Five of MI6.

Gouzenko was speaking about a spy who had operated until 1945, which at first could have meant any one of twenty people. Over time it narrowed down to a handful, including Blunt, Roger Hollis (then in charge of monitoring the British Communist Party) Guy Liddell and Rothschild – all at MI5 – and Philby at MI6.

A few weeks later, KGB operative Konstantin Volkov in Istanbul told a British Embassy official that he wanted to defect. His deal was £27,500 and sanctuary in Britain in exchange for data about five British double agents in Intelligence and two in the Foreign Office. The key spy again was initially thought to be in MI6, but over the years Volkov’s claims were reassessed and could have meant a section head of MI5, which then pointed to Hollis once more. But Liddell and Rothschild’s roles could also be interpreted to mean head of section until 1945. (Philby alerted the Centre and Volkov was taken back to Moscow and executed.)

The upshot of such defections and accusations was to make both British Intelligence and the FBI (the CIA was not yet in operation) far more alert to moles inside espionage agencies and spies within vital operations such as the Manhattan Project. The agents and their Controls were suddenly under far more stress than they had ever experienced in wartime as the hunts began.

{p. 151} The end of the war signalled a confirmation of the commitment of the Ring of Five to their espionage work for the Soviet Union. But now a clandestine approach was paramount. They were working for the new enemy of the West. If exposed now as KGB agents, they would be viewed as full-blown traitors.

Rothschild decided to formalize his relationship with his close assistant, Tess. In 1946, he divorced Barbara and married Tess, thus beginning a far more settled and successful private life for the versatile spy. He officially gave up service for MI5 after helping to reorganize its structure. In public, he lifted his profile in keeping with his background by continuing to do research at Cambridge and by taking up directorships, such as with the British airline BOAC. He accepted war honours and awards in Britain and the US, and continued his work in the House of Lords.

In private, unlike others who left the service, he was addicted to the secret world and could not give it up. Because of his independence, position and the reputation he had gained during the war, he was able to keep in touch with the secret services’ most powerful men.

He could afford to dabble when and how he liked. But as always with Rothschild, there were strong motives behind his affiliations. He was closely connected to the Jewish drive for a homeland for the millions of refugees made homeless by the upheaval of the war and used his position in the Lords to make powerful, cogent public statements, which would get wide press attention.

His unseen contacts with Intelligence were useful in helping the Jewish Haganah – the precursor to Mossad – learn what the British

{p. 152} were thinking and doing, for the Foreign Office jealously guarded its influence in the Middle East.

The Arab nations were against any form of a Jewish state in their region. The FO was determined to maintain its standing with the Arabs and it was difficult for Zionists to get support for the radical idea of a new country in the midst of hostile nations.

The political campaign for it had to be subtle, thoughtful and persistent. There was much education to be done in a parliament and political system that had not exactly been feverish in its support of the Jews during the war. There had been some sympathy, especially in the Labour movement, but there had also been ignorance, even hostility before the war amongst Conservative elements, including newspapers, who backed Hitler. Despite the horrors of the death camps there was a deal of work needed to turn the pre-war apathy into post-war support.

As the months of the first post-war year were eaten up with his various public and clandestine activities, everything Rothschild did seemed increasingly to be inspired by the Jewish refugee/homeland problem. It was a continuation of his work in the 1930s, but now with the possibility of a humane solution, he was redoubling his efforts in public and in secret.

Rothschild had cleverly cultivated a ‘neutral’ position concerning the politics of the issue and had friends in the press comment that he was ‘the most pro-Arab Jew in the UK’. He went further in a Lords speech and stated ‘I have never been a supporter of Zionism, or what is called political Zionism; nor have I been connected officially or unofficially with any Zionist organisation.’ But in a debate on ‘The Situation in Palestine’ on 31 July 1946, he came out into the open.

The debate coincided with great unrest in Palestine, a few days after the King David Hotel was blown up by Jewish terrorists members of the notorious Irgun and Stern Gang. British soldiers were killed in the incident.

Rothschild made his speech in response to an official Anglo-American Commission recommendation, which wanted Palestine partitioned into four areas with the right of entry, into a ‘Jewish Province in Palestine, of 100,000 Jews to be selected primarily from Germany, Austria and Italy.’

Rothschild started by again denying that he was a Zionist or connected with its intelligence operations, and then proceeded to

{p. 153} make a near-emotional (for him), but always rational case for Jews being allowed to have their part of the partition.

He pointed out that, in the worldwide tradition of the past few hundred years, pogroms were still going on, the latest as recently as July 1946 in Kielce, Poland. Rothschild reminded their lordships that ‘almost all the young Jews in Palestine had fathers, mothers and relations who were among the six million Jews tortured or gassed to death by Hitler’.

He gave a graphic account of an aunt, ‘whom one loved dearly – she was seventy-five years old and quite blind – [who was] … clubbed to death by the SS on the railway station outside an extermination camp …’

Rothschild then spoke of a Foreign Office-influenced, 1939 British White Paper, which was against a Jewish settlement. It was viewed by many Jews as ‘a betrayal of previous promises’ going back to the Balfour Declaration in November 1917, in which the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs wrote the following reply to Lord Walter Rothschild, Victor’s uncle:

Dear Lord Rothschild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of s~rmpathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which have been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet: ‘His Majesty~s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation. Yours sincerely, Arthur Balfour

Victor invoked Churchill’s reaction to parts of the White Paper: ‘That is a plain breach of a solemn obligation, a breach of faith . . . What will those who have been stirring up the Arab agitators think? Will they not be tempted to say, “They are on the run again. This is another Munich.“‘

{p. 154} Rothschild attacked some Arab nations for their anti-British and pro-Hitler stances and then commented on the Anglo-American recommendation:

‘A prerequisite of this recommendation being implemented was that no further acts of terrorism should take place … that illegal armies in Palestine should all disarm before these displaced people were allowed into Palestine. The Jews, constrained to Palestine, felt, quite wrongly no doubt, that this added condition was directed against them, rather than against the Arabs, who had all the surrounding countries such as TransJordan and Syria, in which to prepare for resistance.’

Rothschild defended the Jewish Army and at the same time showed the English connection to it by noting that many of its members ‘did many acts of valour for England during the war’, and that it was trained ‘by a national hero of ours,’ General Wingate.

Rothschild added an historical perspective: ‘Palestine … is the only country where the Jews, after 2,000 years, have been able to get back to their business of tilling the soil and living on the land …’ Then he invoked some passion by speaking of Gestapo torture, which explained why the Jews had become desperate for a safe refuge from persecution.

He ended his speech with a back-handed compliment: ‘I remember that only a few years ago my grandfather was the first Jew your Lordships allowed to sit in this House, and I therefore felt it my duty to try and explain something of the trials and torments of my co-religionists in Palestine.’

The speech attracted worldwide attention and signalled that Rothschild’s war had not ended. He would put the same fervour into setting up Israel as he did in defeating Hitler. This meant he would court the Americans with whom he had built such superb relations during the war. Money and support would come from the powerful Jewish lobby in the US, but Rothschild had not forgotten his contacts in the Kremlin. If they and the Americans backed a Jewish homeland it would more than cancel out British intransigence.

The KGB were hoping that Rothschild could still help them as they geared up their efforts to steal Western bomb intelligence. He was secretly anti-American when it came to their drive to be the biggest military power and, like Oppenheimer, he was keen to do

{p. 155} what he could to create a ‘balance of terror’, where each of the superpowers had the bomb as a deterrent to each other’s aggression. He also still held a strong ideological belief that Socialism should be the dominant system on earth.

One way the Russians could be sure of his help would be if they acceded to his demands about a Jewish homeland. In 1946, he kept lobbying for more refugees to be released from behind the Iron Curtain, and news kept coming in that more than a trickle of Jews were moving across the borders.

{For more on the Atomic Spies see atomic-spies.html}


In 1946, the heavily guarded Los Alamos compound at a secret spot in the desert of New Mexico became a place of confusion as the Manhattan Project fell into limbo for more than a year as scientists tried but failed to bring it under civilian control. This period hampered the KGB’s access to secrets as scientists came and went, without leadership and direction. The situation was salvaged when the Atomic Energy Act formed the AEC, which resuscitated the Project, followed by the McMahon Act on 1 August, which put civilian control over the military.

These changes didn’t worry the Russians but they were concerned that the new Act would affect all Anglo-American scientific exchanges. Section 10 of the Bill made the distinction between ‘basic scientific data’, which could be shared with other nations, and ‘technical processes’, which could not. Only US citizens could have access to ‘restricted data’ — information concerned with the use of atomic weapons and the production of fissionable material.

This severely cut the amount of data the British Mission at Los Alamos could access and saw a steady drift of scientists, including Fuchs in 1946, back to research, or academia in Britain. Fuchs had emerged over a five-year period as the key atomic scientist spying for the KGB. He had worked overtime at Los Alamos, helping in as many areas apart from his own speciality as time would allow, and his departure was a major blow to the Russians. The KGB would either have to increase its espionage in the US, or find other ways of obtaining data from the new AEC.

Controls had urgent discussions with their top agents in the US

{p. 156} and Britain. In the US, more was required from the agents coded PERSEUS, BULL, SHOT and TIFF, as well as conduits such as Gold, Greenglass and the Rosenbergs. Amongst the now excluded foreigners, only one, Rothschild, had the flexibility and connections to adjust to the new dilemma. He had used the brilliant ploy of making himself security inspector during the war, now he had to find an excuse to visit Washington and the AEC.

This time, through his friendship with the head of the British Mission, physicist James Chadwick, he had himself appointed as a special liaison with American scientists concerning the development of a dubious new atomic weapon based on releasing radioactive material.

An American scientist had thought of using the radioactivity from the cyclotron – the nuclear accelerator for producing a stream of electrically charged atoms or nuclei travelling at a very high speed – in a bomb. This could destroy the human population of a large city.

Some of the British scientists, such as Oliphant, were against it, but US General Leslie R. Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, wanted it to be considered in depth. He ordered Chadwick, Oliphant, Rothschild and others not to say anything in Britain about the possible new bomb in case the discovery became public.

Rothschild was a friend of the Chairman of the AEC, Admiral Lewis Strauss, and made several trips to the US. He combined his liaison work with US scientists, which broadened from the consideration of the hideous new radioactive bomb to fallout in general, with his other roles such as his position on the Anglo-American Commission on Palestine.

Rothschild was given access in his scientific role to major atomic weapons secrets, but he couldn’t stay in Washington to monitor AEC-Manhattan Project progress. He hoped to persuade the Americans to ignore or avoid the McMahon Act and to return to the ‘spirit of cooperation’ engendered between the two nations during the war after the agreements between Churchill and Roosevelt. However, there was a new mood in Washington under President Harry Truman, who was against sharing, not the least because he was suspicious of the new Labour government under Clement Attlee. He was aware of some of the current cabinet members’ efforts to improve relations with the British Communist Party before the

{p. 157} war. Truman’s appointees at places such as the AEC were of a like mind.

Nevertheless, Rothschild lobbied Strauss concerning the proposed shut-off of US atomic secrets under the McMahon Act. On one visit, Strauss arranged a dinner for him with several other senior military and scientific personnel. Rothschild again raised the subject of exchange of atomic secrets. The Americans became ‘edgy’.

Strauss had been quiet on the subject when he suddenly responded in front of the gathering at the end of the dinner:

‘Why should we let you have secret inforrnation when you’ve got Mr John Strachey, a communist, as War Minister?’

Strachey had been a frequent visitor to Bentinck Street during the war and was more than an acquaintance of Burgess and Rothschild.

‘So that’s what’s bothering you,’ a stunned Rothschild eventually replied.

‘Yes, and you can tell the Prime Minister.’

‘I can assure you and everyone else,’ Rothschild said, trying to salvage some ground, ‘that the information I have will not go to him [Strachey].’

The Americans accepted the assurance, but were not impressed. Rothschild informed Attlee, who addressed his cabinet on the matter, warning them off any association with the Communist Party.

By 1947, not even Rothschild was allowed access to AEC data, although the KGB still had an ‘in’ via Donald Maclean, who had been appointed as Secretary to the British Delegation on the Combined Policy Committee. The Committee determined the nuclear policy of the US, Britain and Canada in tandem, but as the McMahon Act had thwarted meaningful cooperation on the important secrets, it was a lame duck.

At this point there was a marked lull in top nuclear intelligence coming through to the Centre. Beria was desperate. It didn’t seem that the Soviets could deliver the much-desired bomb for Stalin. Beria had instructions and letters sent to scientists such as the Dane, Niels Bohr, who had been helpful before, asking for the latest research data. Bohr sent a message back saying that the Americans had denied him access.

Beria gave instructions to London and Washington that more had to be done. With guidance from Rothschild and others Maclean

{p. 158} could gather ‘basic scientific data’ from the AEC, such as the type and amount of raw materials used, the weight of bombs, and patents, which were filed in order to legally protect any device or process developed at Los Alamos.”

Maclean had been issued by the AEC with a ‘permanent pass to the Commissioners’ Headquarters’. He made at least twelve visits, five of them at night according to AEC records, between June 1947 and his departure for an appointment in Cairo a year later.

A later AEC damage assessment found he had access to estimates of uranium ore supply and requirement forecasts for the period 1948-52, although these later turned out to be inaccurate.

Pressure on the KGB increased after America’s successful tests at Bikini Atoll in the Pacific. They revived Russian fears about their own capacities and Beria began to fret that the Soviet Union would never detonate anything like the American productions. However, in 1947 the indefatigable Fuchs, who was at Britain’s atomic research station at Harwell, was able to furnish Beria with refined details of the plutonium route to the bomb, which had first been supplied in principle by Rothschild in 1943.

Fuchs had not originally worked in the plutonium field, but after the explosion of the ‘Fat Man’ bomb over Nagasaki and his transfer from Birmingham to Los Alamos, he garnered – with Oppenheimer’s acquiescence – as much data on the alternative weapon technology as possible. Everyone in the Manhattan Project remembered Fuchs’s extraordinary diligence and selflessness in helping out in areas outside his expertise.

By late 1947, Igor Kurchatov, who directed scientific work on the bomb, was so sure that the Russian scientists finally had the technical skills to build the weapon that he took the nuclear charge of the first proposed Soviet atomic bomb – a nickel-plated plutonium ball about ten centimetres in diameter – to Stalin in his study at the Kremlin.

‘And how do we know that this is plutonium, not a sparkling piece of iron?’ Stalin asked. ‘And why this glitter? Why this window dressing?’

‘The charge has been nickel-plated so that it would be safe to touch,’ Kurchatov replied. ‘Plutonium is very toxic, but nickel-plated it’s safe.’

Stalin handled it. He noticed its heat.

{p. 159} ‘Is it always warm?’ he asked. ‘It always is,’ Kurchatov replied. ‘The continuous nuclear reaction of alpha-disintegration is underway inside. It warms up. But we shall excite a powerful fission reaction in it. This will be an explosion of great power.’ Stalin was not completely convinced but he later authorized the testing of the first bomb. It was to take until September 1949.

{p. 220} … connection had to be secret even to the other members of the ring although in reality the Five and others knew who fellow members were. It developed a brotherhood. Rothschild only took this underground camaraderie seriously when the war began.

Every position he had in wartime whether at Porton Down or within MI5, gave him autonomy. While investigating Nazi commercial espionage, he had his own little team. When Guy Liddell took him on in his counter-espionage section at M15, the over-indulged yet deserving Victor – a favourite of Liddell’s amongst the brilliant young spies he was commanding – was given his own section, the small yet important counter-sabotage unit. There were just six members at the beginning and Rothschild was boss.

Yet he never shirked his responsibility. The boss was first to risk life and limb. As MI5’s security inspector turning up on secret research doorsteps, he worked solo and effectively. With SHAEF on the Allied thrust into the Continent, it was Rothschild who took command of the Ring of Five and even directed the KGB Controls who he had running to Paris to receive espionage data. Rothschild was the dictator of which intelligence should be purloined and from where. The KGB Controls kept their complaints to themselves.

By 1943 Rothschild, the KGB men realized, was indeed a one-off. He, more than any other agent, had the power to collect vital information for the Centre. He and they knew he was in a better position to determine what espionage was useful in the struggle against the Nazis. Yet still he cooperated if what he considered important requests were made.

Not surprisingly, he upset people when he took on the Chairmanship of the Agricultural Research Council in 1948. This was a much bigger, bureaucratic show, where one paid due deference to offficialdom and the pace was slow. He no longer had the pressure and excitement of rushing the Soviets something they should know about a German tank division. There was not even the driving force of a profit motive, which the disdainful young Victor had briefly experienced at N. M. Rothschilds. He had dealt with the slow grind of the civil service and government institutions before, but not from the inside as at the ARC, which he thought was an apt acronym.

Rothschild, as everyone from his wife to his various intelligence networks knew, liked to get things done by the fierce and energetic

{p. 221} application of reason and logic, which he was certain was the solution to all problems. It could apply to defusing a complicated bomb, or understanding the making of a nuclear weapon, or the mechanics of reproduction. He worked best on his own, and found fellow human beings occasionally difficult and often not governed by the laws of physics. They had ideas, admittedly often moribund and unimaginative ones compared to his, but minor intellectual inspirations nevertheless. These people would insist on airing their views or voicing opinions. If they were irrelevant to the way he wanted to go, he would ride roughshod over them. Former employees at ARC recalled that Rothschild was ‘impatient’, ‘insensitive’ and, on occasions, ‘intimidating’.

Some claimed he treated people like fools unless they could prove they were not. When they could not present evidence to the contrary, he would not suffer them. This upset and angered subordinates and colleagues.

‘He would do drastic things without consultation,’ an ARC executive recalled. ‘He could be very persistent in trying to get his own way even against the majority of the Council. The Secretary, Sir William Slater, found him a great trial, interfering in things that were in the realm of management, not policy.’

At heart, Rothschild was more an active governor or manager, not a policy-maker floating above the action and destined to create guidelines and stay aloof.

Whether he appreciated it or not he was trapped in areas that didn’t suit him. He certainly understood that after twenty years his clandestine world, the extent of which only he knew, was still the field that extended his mind and diverse skills more than any other. This was because his espionage work was linked with survival, which had been his motivation during the war and after, when he was helping create and defend Israel. Consciously or unconsciously, Rothschild was dinging to the secret world for succour, and the intermittent sense of achievement, which he craved.


Months after Israel was formed, Rothschild was involved with Chaim Weizmann in setting up a special nuclear physics department

{p. 222} in a scientific institute in Rehovoth. The establishment was named after Weizmann, the nation’s first president and himself a distinguished biochemist.

Its aim even in those heady days of 1948 was to build nuclear weapons for Israel. It became the nation’s best kept secret and the most fervent desire of the new nation’s founders. They never wanted their race to be threatened with another Holocaust. Atomic weapons would be the ultimate deterrent to future Hitlers.

Yet when the idea for an Israeli bomb was first conceived, the Soviet Union was still a year away from its own first trial blast. The Russians were expecting to detonate, literally after seven years hard labour, when it should have taken perhaps a century of normal research. They had thrown enormous resources, thousands of scientists and strong spy networks at the problem. Israel would have to copy that approach from a standing start. It had limited resources and a trickle of Jewish technicians. But it did have espionage networks.

The dream of an Israeli bomb was ambitious indeed, but it spurred Rothschild to keep abreast of all things nuclear so he could pass on data to the Weizmann Institute, which was planning a nuclear reactor at Dimona in the Negev Desert. Under a modified guise of concern about the spread and dangers of nuclear weapons, he was able to keep contact with appropriate scientists around the world. He began this official and legitimate process at the end of the Second World War by becoming an expert on fallout, which allowed him to monitor the Manhattan project. He continued in the 1950s, even on occasions attending informal conferences on controlling nuclear weapons held by leading British atomic scientists, who were beginning to comprehend and assess their creation.

The Dane, Niels Bohrhad stimulated consciences post-war by arguing that nuclear matters belonged to an ‘open world’, with which the Russians – desperate to build a nuclear arsenal – agreed wholeheartedly. He had plenty of support from the scientific community in the US too, but Washington was never going to support ‘the free interchange of ideas’ with those dangerous Russians, even if it had nothing to do with detail about bomb technology.

{But the US Government did make such a committment in the 1946 Baruch Plan: baruch-plan.html}

Bohr’s idea was taken up by mathematician and philosopher, Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein and the British Atomic Scientists

{p. 223} Association, many of whose members Rothschild knew well. They set up their first conference at Pugwash, Nova Scotia, in 1955.

Rothschild assiduously kept contact with the key organizers so that his involvement always seemed natural.

Correspondence with Russell in early 1955 was typical:

Dear Russell, I would like to present the manuscript of your recent broadcast dealing with the Hydrogen Bomb to Trinity. Can you suggest any way in which I might acquire it? Yours Sincerely, Rothschild

The so-called Pugwash Conferences emerged as the scientists’ response to the arms race between the US, USSR, China, Britain and France, and the dangers of fallout.

Scientists from twenty-two nations turned up and problems concerned with peace and the impact of atomic weapons on humankind were discussed. Rothschild later floated ideas about how to harness the nuclear genie for ‘peaceful purposes’ and not war. He urged the idea of breeder reactors for energy, of which he was a long-term supporter. What he avoided mentioning was the ease with which breeder reactors could be adapted to extract weapons-grade nudear fuel.

Everything he learnt ended up at the Weizmann Institute, which was in part his creation. (His secret support of it with information and finance was rewarded publicly in 1962 when he was made an Honorary Fellow of the Institute.)

Rothschild was not a technician like Klaus Fuchs. He could not create the weaponry for Israel. But he could inform its Intelligence leaders (with whom he was very dose as an important, secret member of Mossad) which scientists might be helpful, where the available technology might be and how it might be obtained and funded.

The Israelis sounded out several possibilities. In 1956, Shimon Peres, then director of the Defence Ministry under Moshe Dayan, had many meetings with ministers in Guy Mollet’s French socialist government as they prepared for the Suez Canal operation. The French, British and Israelis planned to wrest back the Canal from President Nasser of Egypt, who had nationalized it.

{p. 224} Peres first gained the trust of the French, then he struck a deal with Defence Minister, Bourges Maunoury. In return for Israel’s help over the Suez Canal, in which it would make the initial attack on Egyptian defences, the French promised to consider supplying nuclear plants at Dimona. Israel carried out its part at Suez, and fortuitously Maunoury replaced Mollet as prime minister. Maunoury and his foreign minister signed a top-secret agreement with Peres and Asher Ben-Natan, a Mossad agent at Israel’s Defence Ministry.

In it, the French promised to supply a powerful 24-megawatt reactor, the technical know-how to run it, and some uranium. The secret deal was only known to about a dozen individuals, induding Rothschild, and with good reason. The fine print of the document allowed for the inclusion of equipment which would permit the Israelis to produce weapons-grade nuclear fuel.

In 1957, French engineers began building the two-storey reactor facility at Dimona on the edge of the Negev Desert, which secretly went down six levels below ground. The subterranean construction would be the place where nuclear weapons would be built. With several Mossad officers in attendance, the engineers also dug an 80-foot deep crater in the sand. In it they buried Machon 2 – a unit which would allow the Israelis to extract weapons grade plutonium, the fuel for the bomb.

{When Mordecai Vanunu revealed Israel’s nuclear weapons, Shimon Peres ordered Mossad to arrest him; he was jailed for 18 years: vanunu.html}


In July 1955, Peter Wright joined MI6 as the agency’s first full-time scientist at a starting salary of £1700. …

{p. 225} By 1955, British Intelligence needed to be dragged into the scientific age as espionage was rapidly moving beyond the straight human skills of thieving, agent-running and watdhing.

Wright was chosen to facilitate the change, cautiously. But he ran into problems of background, attitude, class, style and ignorance. He was a technocrat, the first at MI5, and this generated suspicion. Wright had power over the gadgetry, the new-fangled devices of the Intelligence war. For men who hitherto had considered even the secretary’s typewriter a mystery, there were inherent difficulties in learning the new technology, whidh in the 1950s was as much scorned as feared.

At first, the new man didn’t really seem to have hardened political allegiances, whidh was also a worry for those around him. He knew little about politics and cared less …

{p. 248} … MI5 had limited resources and the gesture seemed generous to Wright.

‘Rothschild was fascinated by my plans for the scientific modernization of MI5,’ Wright recalled, and admitted being particularly garrulous in his company. ‘[He] offered me many suggestions of his own.’

After dinner they talked until late into the night.

‘I soon realized that he possessed an enormous appetite for the gossip and intrigue of the secret world,’ Wright said, ‘ and we were soon swapping stories about some of the more bizarre colleagues he remembered from the war.’

Rothschild was in full charm mode from the beginning with Wright, whose deference to his friendly lordship left him gullible and open to manipulation. Wright came away ‘feeling for the first time that, with his backing, great achievements were possible.’

This demonstrated Rothschild’s pervasive influence from outside British Intelligence, thirteen years after he had officially left MI5. The Intelligence services’ key scientist in the now dominant technowar could only look forward to continuing achievement, developing operations using modern techniques, if Rothschild supported him.

Wright looked up to him, not only socially but professionally and intellectually. He was also in awe of his subtle power and influence:

‘I doubt I have ever met a man who impressed me as much as Victor Rothschild,’ he commented in Spycatcher. ‘He is a brilliant scientist, a Fellow of the Royal Society, with expertise in botany and zoology, and a fascination for the structure of spermazotoa. But he has been much, much more than a scientist. His contacts, in politics, in intelligence, in banking, in the Civil Service, and abroad are legendary. There are few threads in the seamless robe of the British Establishment which have not passed at some time or other through the eye of the Rothschild needle.’

Wright was very proud of the relationship. It showed that he was not neglected by the amorphous establishment after all. On the contrary, one of the greatest amongst its ranks was fulsome in his recognition of the scientist’s skills. He was even patronizing him and willing to become friends.

It gave Wright a certain sense of his own importance and power. He could pick up the phone to the high and the mighty and say

{p. 249} with increasing confidence, ‘Victor … er … Lord Rothschild said I should speak with you.’

Rothschild also showed he was a man of action as well as talk by putting some Shell laboratories at MI5’s disposal, which made everyone happy. The meagre MI5 budget was augmented by Shell’s generosity, and Rothschild was able to keep abreast of everything MI5 was doing.

He went further and began work himself on ‘a variety of technical developments, including a special grease which would protect equipment if it was buried underground for long periods’.

The grease was developed. British Intelligence used it ‘extensively’ as they did other of Rothschild’s inventions. Not only was he aware of and knowledgeable on everything from British Intelligence bugging techniques to surveillance operations, he was creating the technology himself and overseeing many new developments.


Rothschild went further in his lordly patronage of Wright. He had kept abreast of nuclear weapons progress in Britain and was a close friend of Sir William Cook, then the deputy head of the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment (AWRE). He suggested that Wright should approach Cook for resources.

‘His well-timed lobbying made my visit much easier,’ an evergrateful Wright remarked.

Wright told Cook of his approach to counter-espionage, which was to develop technical ways of attacking Soviet spy communications. Communications were the only vulnerable point in an agent’s cover, because he had to send and receive messages to and from his controller.

Wright said in Spycatcher

‘I explained to Cook that Rafter already provided us with the most valuable weapon of all – an entree into Russian radio communications – but that we urgently needed new techniques to attack their physical methods of communications as well, such as secret writing, microdots, and dead letter drops. Progress on these would vastly improve our chances of counter-espionage success.’

{p. 250} Cook responded by providing MI5 with thirty people at AWRE including top scientists, and resources. AWRE paid for everything for two years before the UK Defence Research Policy Committee took over the funding.

This example demonstrates Rothschild’s power to instigate developments which embraced so many people and resources that it hid his action as the trigger of the expanded activity. Yet with his great capacity and passion for absorbing all matters scientific, he kept intellectually on top of all these new activities.

AWRE’s people devised four programmes. The first was a chemical agent which used radioactivity to detect any secret writing. Secondly, AWRE produced a neutron activation process for detecting microdots – photographs which were reduced to microscopic size, making them virtually invisible and easily concealed under stamps, on top of punctuation marks in typed letters, or under the lips of envelopes.

The third programme encompassed a counter to the success of dead letter drops – so called because instead of dangerous face-to-face meetings, an agent could leave espionage material in containers in, for instance, a tree trunk, where it would be picked up later by the receiving spy.

The KGB treated their containers so they could tell if they had been tampered with by MI5. AWRE came up with a special X-ray technique, which allowed MI5 to inspect containers without tampering with them and fogging unexposed film inside.

The fourth programme caused ecstasy among MI5’s buggers. It developed an X-ray method of reading safe combinations from the inside which, according to Wright, ‘gave MI5 potential access to every safe in Britain.’ Thanks to Rothschild the KGB knew of every development and were able to take steps to counter them. Furthermore, they used the technology themselves against Western agents.

MI5 inventions and technical advances went on, while Rothschild kept in contact with the key figures and digested the reports. This, coupled with his close contact with Dick White, other intelligence chiefs, Wright and the heads of the key research facilities in everything from weapons to radar, meant that Rothschild understood better than anyone in MI6 or MI5 every aspect of British Intelligence, from technical developments to their application in the field.

{p. 251} By comparison, Roger Hollis, MI5’s head, had the power of veto on operations but he did not comprehend the detail of the technology or its application. He would have known when, where and why an operation was being run, but would have had little knowledge of how. Hollis’s attention to them would have been at times scant, given his key function as an administrator. Even then, according to most, he was at best a competent paper shuffler.

He was not atypical of the underwhelming civil servants in the British bureaucracy, who had risen to prominence due to diligence rather than talent. His background – Oxford undergraduate, with a serviceable, unspectacular intelligence record – rather than his brilliance had seen him rise with little trace to a top job, which really needed someone as safe but with more intellect and flair. The same limitations applied to Graham Mitchell, Hollis’s deputy, although he was sharper and more cunning than his boss.

Rothschild made a point of keeping strong contacts with them both, so that if he was in the MI5 building, seeing Peter Wright or someone else, it would seem natural. There were many ex-service officers who visited the offices from time to time, but never with the frequency and interest of Rothschild.

His role was unique in the annals of British Intelligence, and he was welcomed as a VlP, a vital friend with the whiff of power, money and influence, always used to the good of the Secret Service.

It was an overwhelming front, used creatively during the war when research facilities opened up to him unquestioningly. After all, he was a peer of the realm, a man of enormous wealth, great intellect and at times an imperious manner which if anything boosted his overall image.

From the doorman to the director, everyone showed the highest respect to the busy lord, who often seemed to be in a rush from a meeting in Whitehall or the Bank, or on his way to Cambridge.

Until 1962, little Rothschild did was questioned. He had information, access and the best understanding of the espionage war of anyone, including Wright. The scientist may have known as much about what was going on in the research laboratories, although even this is doubtful. Rothschild himself was creating and directing some of it at Shell.

Yet Rothschild also knew the information that counted, which Wright would never be privy to. This was the vital data, including

{p. 252} secrets, discussed at the top of the Establishment in clubs and at dinners held by Rothschild and his peers.

This information on the espionage demi-monde would filter down to Wright only if it were necessary. The data in question was not only concerned with this operation against the Russians or that versus the French. It might be about a new appointment, the cutting of a budget, the boosting of another and the power-plays in politics and business, all of which affected the shape and destiny of British Intelligence.

Everything of importance was passed on to Sir Anthony Blunt for consumption inside the Soviet Embassy and the Centre in Moscow. He had not been entirely above suspicion since the Burgess/Maclean defections, but nevertheless he had near-impeccable credentials as the Queen’s art surveyor and expert. What’s more, Her Majesty liked him. He had been a favourite of her father’s and he had done an important service for the Royals during the war.

It all added up to Blunt having an excellent cover. Even though his own direct spying days were over, he was still an important conduit for others and the KGB could rely on him. It meant that the Controls had steady, fast access to the important operational secrets.

Over a period of time, Wright began to notice that every single counter-espionage operation run against the Soviets was failing. He began to wonder why.

{p. 253} In mid-December 1961, a stocky, Ukrainian-born KGB major defected in Finland and set up a chain of events which would eventually lead to exposure of the complete Ring of Five. Anatoli Golitsyn was not running for ideological reasons. He had been caught in a typical Soviet Embassy power struggle between the Ambassador and the KGB Resident. Golitsyn had sided with the Ambassador, who had lost the battle. Golitsyn thought he might be murdered, so he defected with his family and was happily accepted by the CIA.

The KGB major was in such a hurry that he departed empty-handed, with no files or stolen documents. But the determined, tough son of a peasant carried much information in his head. He doled enough out to the CIA to encourage them, particularly Angleton, to persevere with him. The head of counter-intelligence was most interested to hear what he had to say about a Ring of Five spies recruited in Britain in the 1930s. This was the first confirmation from Russia of rumours circulating in the West since the Burgess/ Maclean defections in 1951 that there was a Cambridge Ring of Five Soviet agents.

Golitsyn claimed they were close to each other, close enough to know that each had been recruited by the Comintern as dedicated, secret communist agents. The bonding had made them a formidable combination.

Golitsyn could give no names, except that one of them was codenamed STANLEY and had been connected with recent KGB operations in the Middle EastIt stunned Angleton. Philby was in Beirut at the time working for the Observer.

{p. 254} ‘Jim had been pondering the subject of Philby’s betrayal since 1951,’ former CIA operative ‘I’ claimed. ‘I would say that he had at first rejected the idea and then had gradually, slowly come round to the idea that Kim could have been a traitor. But it was hard [for Angleton], very tough. Not just because he had looked up to him and had been trained by him. Jim was one very proud Chicano. To have been conned like that was not palatable. Now there was a pretty goddamn strong indicator that Philby was a traitor.’

It preyed on Angleton’s mind. He began to wonder about others he had met in London in 1944 and 1945.

‘He had a little list,’ the CIA man recalled. ‘It was the other suspects among the British.’

Was Rothschild on that list?

‘He wouldn’t show the list to anyone. But he was already suspicious of Rothschild. He had first annoyed Jim on his patch. Jim had special connections with Israel and he felt the British [Intelligence] through Rothschild were interfering. He had the same doubts about Philby that he had about Rothschild. They never uttered sentiments [one way or the other] about the communists.’

Angleton also took note of Rothschild’s maverick attitude and subsequent behaviour in dealing with Israel. In the 1940s it ran contrary to British interests. He was serving two masters with a conflict of interest: MI5 and Mossad. If he was capable of serving two, could he secretly serve a third?

‘Jim worried about Israel’s left-wing politics when it was formed. He was concerned that some of the British agents [including Rothschild] had been happy with that. But not Jim. He wanted them to be a wholesome [laughs] anti-communist US satellite. That took a little time [laughs].’

Angleton let British Intelligence know of Golitsyn’s revelations. He encouraged them to investigate further.

‘The Philby and Blunt cases were exhumed,’ Peter Wright recalled, ‘and a reassessment ordered. MI5 and MI6 came quickly to the conclusion on the basis of the new leads that Philby was the Third Man.’

British Intelligence was abuzz with the new data. Meetings were held. Key MI5 people like Dick White were keen to move against Philby immediately. It soon became a matter of not if but when something would be done. But the Intelligence chiefs and their

{p. 255} masters in Whitehall decided as early as February 1962, that Philby would not be charged.

Instead he would be offered immunity in exchange for disclosing all. It was thought that it would be far better to interrogate him in depth to drain from him as much information about the KGB as possible. He would have been the best placed of all foreign spies to explain Soviet operations abroad. According to a former senior MI6 offficer:

‘If he didn t accept that [immunity], the general feeling was that it would be better if he defected, though the former was preferable to the latter. We had kept such situations quiet before. The last thing we wanted was a scandal.’

Former KGB Colonel ‘F’ was in agreement:

‘Philby was a major prize for them [MI6]. We were informed that they wanted very much to question him, but without fuss without trouble.’

Philby and his biographer, Phillip Knightley, considered it more likely that British Intelligence wanted to engineer his defection:

‘My view, and that of my superiors in Moscow,’ the spy told the writer, ‘is that the whole thing was deliberately staged so as to push me into escaping, because the last thing the British government wanted at that time was me in London, a security scandal and a sensational trial.’

Modin agreed with this assessment. ‘They didn’t want him back,’ he told me adamantly. ‘The publicity would have been damaging to MI6. The Government would have been in trouble.’

It was a difficult time. George Blake, another of Modin’s former agents working for MI6, had been arrested and charged under the UK Offficial Secrets Act. Blake confessed, was tried at the Old Bailey and given a forty-two-year jail sentence, the longest term ever imposed under English law. The British Government would have been upset by another public airing of the poor security in British Intelligence, especially as Philby was a far bigger operator, and someone viewed as part of the ruling class. It would have been a severe embarrassment for Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, who seven years earlier had announced that Philby was not the Third Man. He would be made to appear either a liar or unable to control British Intelligence if Philby now confessed.

Early in 1962, there were also calls in Whitehall for an inquiry into

{p. 256} MI5’s failure to detect another spy, John Vassall, at the Admiralty. Fleet Street was making matters worse by catching spymania.

Under instruction from editors, journalists were looking for any new angle on espionage, no matter how thin or hoary the story. They were picking up on rumours and scurrilous tales such as the one about the senior member of the Cabinet who was sharing a girlfriend with a Russian from the Soviet Embassy. In fact, it was later discovered that this triangle involved John Profumo, Secretary of State for War, Christine Keeler and GRU officer Yevgeny Ivanov, whose cover was Soviet Assistant Naval Attache.

It all added up to the KGB having the luxury of time to examine its options and cover the tracks that might lead to the Fourth and Fifth men, should Philby defect. According to several sources in the KGB, MI6 and the CIA, Modin planned and executed the whole operation.

Although Modin admitted a ‘knowledge’ of what was happening, he refused to speak of his involvement. It was ‘a KGB operation matter’ he couldn’t discuss. Yet fellow officers, Colonel ‘D’ and Colonel ‘F’, were less reticent.

‘He lectured about defection [at the Andropov Institute in Moscow in the 1980s],’ Colonel ‘D’ recalled. ‘While he never mentioned his own part [in the Philby affair], he seemed to be an expert. It is unlikely that the Centre would have given that [operation] to anyone else. Modin had been the Control for the Five. They knew and trusted each other.’

In fact, Modin travelled to Beirut in May 1962 to warn Philby via the local Control of the evidence against him and to explain that a decision not to prosecute had been made.

How were the Fourth and Fifth men involved?

‘They were the two left in the ring. He [Modin] couldn’t just leave them without some contingency.’

Colonel ‘F’ suggested that Blunt was again asked if he wished to defect. But the KGB still couldn’t offer him access to the Palais de Versailles.

‘We wanted to know how he felt now,’ he said. ‘It was a decade since he had refused to leave with Burgess and Maclean. But he was sure, still. He would stay in London and face the situation.’

And the Fifth Man?

{p. 257} ‘He was not directly under suspicion. I don’t believe there had been any thought of him defecting.’

But the KGB still had to cover the Fifth Man’s tracks or create an alibi for him, something that would put him above suspicion at a critical time. Modin was in touch with Rothschild and a scheme was hatched.

It was also decided that Rothschild, who had been monitoring the attitude to Philby by talking to Dick White, Hollis and Wright, was to get a message to Philby warning him that British Intelligence were prevaricating over his fate. He should be prepared to face interrogation and make contingency plans for escape. However, Rothschild was to make it clear that Moscow preferred he stay in place for as long as possible. Defection was to be a last resort.


In August 1962, a few months after British Intelligence planned to move against Philby but not put him on trial, Rothschild was in Rehovoth, Israel. He made contact with a fellow Mossad agent, who was despatched to Beirut to contact Philby and brief him on the latest attitude of White and Hollis towards him. They were now planning to interrogate him in Beirut. He would probably be offered immunity in exchange for a full confession.

Rothschild was visiting the Weizmann Institute, to take part in a ceremony at which he was made an Honorary Fellow. He went to a party at Weizmann’s house afterwards and met Flora Solomon, ‘a Russian emigre Zionist’ and former friend of Philby’s, who was an executive at department store group, Marks and Spencer. She had introduced Kim to Aileen and had been a witness at her wedding.

‘She had obviously been in the thick of things in the mid-1930s,’ Wright recalled, ‘part inspiration, part fellow accomplice, and part courier for the fledgling Ring of Five, along with her friends Litzi Philby, and Edith Tudor Hart.’

Now Solomon and Rothschild were claiming that she had come forward to denounce Philby. The reason? Philby’s pieces in the Observer about Israel. She was saying that their anti-Israel slant had ‘angered’ her.

{p. 276} … like an American might take the Fifth Amendment. They said, “Yes thank you very much”, and then proceeded to hide behind the arrangement by confessing absolutely nothing – except that they might have known someone from the Comintern during university days, or that they had once been members of the Party.

‘This way, if the connections ever became public they could say with impunity: “There was never a shred of evidence that I was ever a Soviet agent.”‘

Rothschild appeared to have been in the second group. He was interrogated eleven times.

Commenting much later, he said:

I was questioned very extensively. The authorities, as I call them, said that they wished to talk to me and they talked in quite a friendly way.

I have a feeling that they believed in me. I was quite happy to tell them everything I knew. We had a very long talk. I was quite happy to tell them how well I knew Burgess and Blunt. I have no recollection [of] anyone asking me if I was a Soviet agent and it would have been naive for a professional interrogator to do that. I think they were more interested in who were my friends. I know all sorts of people who were questioned in the same way. I know people of great distinction, greater distinction, who were also questioned. All sorts of people. There really was an investigation. And I don’t object to that. You have to help your country and I think all the people concerned did that.

According to former MI6 agent James Rusbridger, Peter Wright and another MI5 source, Rothschild was fed information in 1962, which ended up ‘in the wrong place’ – namely with the KGB inside the Soviet Embassy in London. This did not prove he had spied, for the data just conceivably could have been stolen from him. Yet it raised suspicions. However, Rothschild still managed to convince people that he and Tess were victims by association. Their friends Guy, Anthony, Kim, Michael, Leo and so on, with whom they dined, drank, studied, lived and worked, had duped them.

So believable was Rothschild that his links with MI5 in 1964 did not diminish. In fact, while Blunt took the brunt of the on-going inquisition, and others were hounded, transferred to unclassified work, even forced into suicide, Rothschild intensified his MI5 connections, as if he were making amends for ill-advised, always innocent past friendships.

{p. 277} The first day Wright took over the interrogation of Blunt from Martin, his tape recorder broke down. He knelt to thread the loose tape spool which had jammed it.

Blunt remarked to Martin: ‘Isn’t it fascinating to watch a technical expert do his stuff?”

Blunt had never met Wright before and was supposed to know nothing about him. The remark told Wright instantly that someone had briefed him about his new inquisitor. According to KGB sources, it would most likely have been the Fifth Man.

‘Who else would it have been?’ Colonel ‘F’ remarked. ‘He was a friend, still in contact, and the Fifth Man was the only one of the ring left unexposed. Logically he would have been concerned to help Blunt.

It added to Wright’s confusion as he began a monthly questioning of Blunt. Each session drifted into drunken reminiscences and the interrogator walked away with nothing, except well-honed disinformation. Blunt was surviving where Philby had feared to tread. He was fortified by the knowledge that he would never be charged and secretly informed by the Fifth Man of every reaction by Wright.

His work at the Courtauld and the Palace continued, allowing him to keep his respected public status, and sustaining his air of superiority.

It added to Wright’s perturbation. Not only were his technical operations against the Russians a failure but he could not elicit the vital information from Blunt that would have directed MI5 to the Fifth Man. Frustration led to anger and a growing desperation to find someone, anyone that would even vaguely fit the profile of the mystery mole within.

Wright’s initial, unauthorized investigations failed to find any

{p. 278} evidence remotely connecting Graham Mitchell, Hollis’s deputy, to the Soviets. Furtive eyes began to turn towards Hollis himself. Meanwhile, spurred on by Philby’s duplicity, the CIA and MI5 turned their attention from deeply burrowed moles to witches.

If they couldn’t find Soviet agents inside British Intelligence, why not look outside? The ensuing witchhunt even pointed to the new socialist prime minister, Harold Wilson.

In the US, Angleton’s disappointment over his former friend Philby’s betrayal had led to a determination to exact revenge. He would help, push, even force British Intelligence into divulging or disgorging other key spies. If Angleton couldn’t have Philby himself he could still thwart and destroy KGB aims, which he saw as the vanguard for attempted Soviet world domination.

Angleton worried about Wilson with his Fabian Society membership, his trade deals with the Soviets and, in the CIA man’s eyes, his strange assortment of Eastern European emigre businessmen friends. These factors added up to the absurd rumour that Wilson might be a Soviet agent.

Angleton and Wright’s continuing rapport was based on an increasingly common goal. When they met on either side of the Atlantic, they fuelled each other’s doubts, fears, paranoias and complexes, which ranged from superiority over their enemies to inferiority about their backgrounds.

The American often asked about Rothschild and Wright obliged by talking about his great companion. Angleton could never be convinced about him. His suspicions grew.

‘He could never get over Victor’s closeness to Philby, Blunt and Burgess,’ Wright told me in a 1988 discussion. ‘I tried to reassure him but the same doubts surfaced. He would tick off a list of links … This included Cambridge, his, shall we say, quiet membership of the Communist Party in the 1930s … he was an Apostle, he had [Soviet] agent friends, and so on.’

Rothschild managed to partly allay those doubts by alleging, for instance, that he supported the Shah in Iran in 1953. Furthermore, his work for Mossad drew him on occasions close to Angleton, who had encouraged close ClA-Mossad links. In fact, at one point in the 1960s, the American was so keen to keep British Intelligence out of his cozy US/lsrael intelligence link that he complained to Wright’s superiors about his closeness to Rothschild.

{p. 279} In 1964, Rothschild told Angleton an Israeli agent had ‘hinted’ that Wilson could be a Russian agent. Wright remembered Rothschild telling him something similar but couldn’t recall if it were in 1964 or later. Rothschild was busy deflecting scrutiny from himself by spreading unfounded innuendo. The fact that Wilson was a Socialist gave the rumour greater credence.

‘Victor didn’t seem to have much time for Wilson,’ a former business colleague recalled. ‘It may have been because Wilson was seen as a “soft” liberal and not a tough enough Socialist. Victor liked his Socialism undiluted. He was interventionist in his mentality and much influenced if not by Marx, then Keynes. He wanted govemments to step in and take charge to stimulate the economy and achieve things. He was an ideas man, who liked to see them come to fruition. It didn’t seem to matter if the state or a corporation was involved.’

A far-fetched conspiracy theory emerged from the Israeli source. Wilson had taken over the Labour Party leadership after the former right-wing leader, Hugh Gaitskell, had been murdered by the KGB. Gaitskell had died from a rare tropical disease – Lupus disseminata erythematosis, or something like it. After discussing it with Rothschild, Wright checked with scientists at Porton Down, who had been working on quick-action biological toxins, which could be used for assassination.

Wright then asked Angleton to comb all Russian medical literature to see if there were any mention of the disease. Angleton sent him a translation of an article in a 1956 Moscow journal: A drughydralazine – had produced Lupus-like effects in rats. Porton Down scientists informed Wright that the Russians could have refined it to a one-shot drug, but it seemed unlikely. The inane conspiracy theory fizzled, but only fired the Angleton/Wright desire to score a victory in the real or imagined intelligence war with the KGB.

So far both men had been outsmarted by their Soviet agent counterparts. …

{p. 284} The report, predictably, was highly critical of British security. It recommended a greater US presence to ensure its secrets were better protected. Hollis was attacked for failing to implerr~ent effective counter-espionage.

It seemed that the CIA was looking at Britain as it did every other country from Iran to Vietnam. In order to create a political climate suitable to US interests, the CIA would bolster its local station, take control of the local secret police, use espionage and other methods to remove hostile politicians, and replace them with puppets. Hollis was so enraged by this American interference that he approved Wright’s own ideas for strengthened MI5 counter-intelligence operations, which partially thwarted the CIA takeover. Wright also placated Angleton by convincing him that when Hollis retired at the end of 1965, he would be replaced by a suitable hawk – Martin Furnival Jones.

Consequently, Wright’s power was elevated. He had a stronger counter-intelligence operation and less opposition to his forceful, obsessive and maverick ways. He decided to investigate Soviet rings at Oxford and in the scientific community, particularly at Cambridge’s Cavendish laboratories. He became interested in Peter Kapitza. As usual, Wright turned to Rothschild for help. He knew Kapitza and it was important for him to cover his links to him.Rothschild organized a dinner party so that Wright could meet Lord Adrian, Cambridge University’s Chancellor and President of the Royal Society.

Wright was overawed. At the party he was able to ‘guide him gently on to the subject of the Russian scientist.”

Adrian recalled Kapitza, for whom he had a high regard, but did not have a clue about espionage. It was not his field. He gave Wright the names of people who had worked with Kapitza.

‘More names for my black books,’ Wright noted wearily in Spycatcher. ‘More names to be checked in the registry. More names to be traced, interviewed, assessed, cleared, and in one or two cases, removed from access [to classified material].’

{p. 285} In reality, no one was removed from any major British project. No spies were caught. Rothschild’s diversion had sent Wright up another score of back alleys leading nowhere, except into the espionage wilderness. The ever grateful Wright was thankful to Rothschild for his introductions to an Establishment figure. He would mark it down as another example of his friend doing the patriotic thing.


Also in 1965, Rothschild was elevated to director of Shell International, and he acted as research coordinator for the Royal Dutch Shell Group. In short, he had taken charge of all Shell research whether it be for the Dutch, which owned 60 per cent of the group, or the British.

It allowed him to roam the world and was convenient as a cover, when he needed it in the Middle East or even China, where his agent-running took on an intensity with the build-up to the Cultural Revolution.

His secret work for Dick White and MI6 included running agents who were monitoring political events and the mood of Chairman Mao and his administration. As the Russians were even more nervous than the British and Americans about China’s intentions concerning military expansion and weapons development, it’s most likely that Rothschild’s assessments of events would have been passed to the Moscow Centre. But Wright linked Rothschild to a bizarre plot that may have been based on some fact. Wright claimed to dose confidants that by the early 1960s the Chinese had frightened the Russians and the Americans with their development of nuclear and biological weapons, which they seemed willing to use. Chairman Mao Zedong had told India’s Nehru in the late 1950s that nuclear war would be no bad thing. Even if half of mankind perished, the other half would survive and imperialism would vanish from the face of the earth.

The KGB knew the extent of Chinese germ warfare research, partly because it had given some of the technology to them. Furthermore, the Chinese had taken over a huge biological weapons

{p. 286} centre at Harbin, Northern Manchuria, which had been run by the Japanese during the Second World War. Japanese doctors and scientists had used POWs as guinea pigs in hideous experiments, which rivalled those in Nazi concentration camps.

Now Chinese scientists had begun experimenting. According to Wright’s wild theory, the Asian and Hong Kong flu viruses in the 1960s were part of that experimentation.

This, the strange story continued, caused alarm in sections of the CIA and KGB. They then combined to run agents in China who encouraged Mao to purge the intellectual class, which would include the key scientists, particularly in the area of biological weaponry. Mao was apparently convinced that he could be murdered by ‘a drop of invisible poison on his skin’.

In fact, the KGB and the CIA did draft in more Chinese experts and built up their Embassies in Beijing. The numbers increased further in 1966 at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution, when Mao unleashed unprecedented terror across China. He stirred the youth of the country into forming Red Guards who were encouraged to root out ‘bourgeois and revisionist tendencies’.

If the KGB did encourage the Cultural Revolution, the plan backfired on them a year later when families of Soviet diplomats and KGB of ficers were manhandled as they tried to escape at Beijing airport. However, during the terror,‘intellectuals’ – which meant anyone qualified and working in a major university – became targets for assassination. About 50,000 of them were killed, including those working in important scientific research and development, such as biological weaponry. Mao boasted about this, comparing himself to previous emperors, who had butchered intellectuals.

But was this part of a combined CIA/KGB project? Such operations are known to have occurred in a very low-key way over the decades. Yet I found no evidence to support Wright’s erratic claims.

However, KGB personnel – including Modin – did have something to celebrate with their CIA counterparts in October 1993. During our Moscow interviews in July and August 1993, Modin told me he was flying to Washington ‘soon’ for a ‘get together’ with CIA agents. I was in correspondence in September with him asking follow-up questions. He replied in one letter from Washington DC. The unusual rendezvous of supposed ‘enemies’ was, according to a CIA source, to celebrate a ‘joint operation’, yet its nature was

{p. 287} not specified. Whether it concerned the prevention of China’s advances in germ warfare is speculation.

Wright did not elaborate on Rothschild’s or Modin’s links to the Cultural Revolution, although both of them were agent-running in China at the time.

The only other thread which could be remotely connected was the expertise that both Rothschild and Wright had in biological and chemical weapons. Rothschild had built up a vast knowledge since the late 1930s, particularly from Porton Down in 1940, where he garnered much for the Russians.

‘The whole area of chemical research was an active field in the 1950s,’ Wright wrote. ‘I was cooperating with MI6 in a joint programme to investigate how far hallucinatory drug lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) could be used in interrogations, and extensive trials took place at Porton. I even volunteered as guinea pig on one occasion. Both MI5 and MI6 also wanted to know a lot more about the advanced poisons then being developed at Porton, though for different reasons. I wanted the antidotes, in case the Russians used a poison on a defector in Britain, while MI6 wanted to use the poisons for operations abroad.’

Wright was at one stage the only British Intelligence operative who had quick access to antidotes for various poisons.

He was at least indirectly involved in plots to assassinate foreign leaders as he pointed out in Spycatcher:

‘[Two MI6 agents] both discussed with me the use of poisons against Nasser, and asked my advice,’ Wright said matter-of-factly. ‘Nerve gas obviously presented the best possibility, since it was easily administered. They told me that the London Station had an agent in Egypt with limited access to one of Nasser’s headquarters. Their plan was to place canisters of nerve gas inside the ventilation system, but I pointed out that this would require large quantities of the gas, and would result in massive loss of life among Nasser’s staff.’

According to Wright, Prime Minister Anthony Eden, who had first called for Nasser’s assassination, later ‘backed away from the operation’.

The remarks, however, demonstrate the mind-set within sections of British Intelligence. Sources close to Wright claim it wasn’t the only time he was involved in plots to kill with such weaponry.

{p. 288} Six months after Philby arrived in Moscow he was well into his debriefing by KGB agents when he received word that a person from the Centre who was important to his career would be coming to the apartment to meet him. Philby thought it might be former KGB Chairman, Alexandr Shelepin (1958-62) and hoped it would not be ‘cold-blooded’ Ivan Serov (Chairman 1954-58), who was hated throughout the KGB. He was nervous with anticipation. …

No car pulled up at the central Moscow apartment. There was a knock at the door. A tall, handsome man of about forty was standing there. Philby’s face dropped. It wasn’t a KGB chief, but nevertheless

{p. 289} an important figure in his professional life as he had been forewarned.

‘I’m Yuri Modin,’ the man said, with a grin. ‘You know me as “Peter”, I think.’ …

Modin continued to give his former star agent assignments, from political pieces for Russian magazines, which the Control enjoyed translating, to reports advising the KGB how it should react to international events. Philby was not impressed, for instance, with the KGB’s reaction to President Kennedy’s assassination. …

Philby found that his advice was being ignored. For instance, he warned the Russians not to get too involved in Africa in the mid-1960s, but they overdid their financial and military aid and it cost them dearly.

{p. 292} While Philby was using Rothschild‘s name to stir up his adversaries, the man himself was causing trouble for Israel’s enemies in the Middle East. Rothschild had long urged Mossad to use as much modern technology as possible in preparation for probable war with its hostile neighbours. He had informed Mossad chiefs of the need for computerized data in intelligence work, even introducing them to contacts in the CIA via Angleton and Helms, who could secretly assist in the electronic upgrade.’

Since the early 1960s, Rothschild had pushed for the use of electronic listening devices (thanks in part to what he had learned from Peter Wright) to replace human agents as guards on Israel’s vulnerable borders. Consequently, Mossad developed the signals

{p. 293} side of its Intelligence operations so that it could intercept enemy communications.

By the mid-1960s, masts, antennae and radar discs began to appear on Mount Hermon above the Golan Heights. They allowed military Intelligence to listen to phone and signals traffic in Damascus, which was only forty-three miles away. The listening system was a replica of the one developed in Britain for use by America’s National Security Agency, the CIA and British Intelligence in their techno-battle and war defence against the Soviet Union.

Israel was using the information captured by its giant border ears to computerize data about every enemy officer in the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia. By 1967, every Israeli field Commander had a dossier on his potential opponents in the field, down to the military qualifications of each opposing platoon and company leader.

On the eve of the Six Day War, Jews worldwide prepared to rally to Israel’s cause. For many who had, in the two decades since the Second World War, settled as refugees in new countries, the horrors of the Holocaust were still stark. They would do everything to avoid a repetition.

Among the deeply concerned was Miriam Rothschild, now sixty and recovering from a major operation. She had to be restrained by her brother from rushing to the airport. Victor had just donated a million pounds to Israel on behalf of the family, but Miriam was not satisfied. However, he managed to make her see she might be a hindrance rather than a help.

Besides, Victor pointed out, a Rothschild would be there. Baron Elie of the French house was flying out in his own private plane. Victor was also confident that Israel would cope. He more than anyone knew the preparation that had gone into the country’s military.

Yet Rothschild still looked on with nervous anticipation and a sense of deja vu on the eve of the Six Day War with the Arabs as Israel’s Signals Corps cracked enemy army codes, intercepted messages and transmitted false ones, in much the same way that British Intelligence did against the Nazis in the Second World War.

Israeli and Egyptian troops massed on either side of the border. Nasser delivered an ultimatum demanding the removal of the UN buffer force in Sinai. The force left. Nasser’s troops occupied the

{p. 294} region of Sharm-el-Sheikh, which threatened to blockade the sea route to the Israeli port of Eilat. The move made war inevitable.

Israel’s Intelligence readiness was now to be tested. The large amount of data gathered indicated how vulnerable and unprepared the Arab armies and airforces were. Once the Egyptians made their anticipated moves in Sinai, the Israeli air force mobilized and carried out pre-emptive air strikes.

The Israelis boldly sent false messages about Egypt’s success in Sinai to Jordan in order to draw that country into the conflict. Later, the Israeli Signals Corps cheekily demonstrated its skills by eavesdropping on a radio conversation between Egypt’s President Nasser and Jordan’s King Hussein.

Israel’s superiority in the techno-war allowed it to win a quick and resounding victory. Their spectacular success caused Jews to hope that the homeland’s troubles might be over, especially as Jerusalem was a united city and a safe border had been established on the River Jordan.

Yet Israel’s Intelligence chiefs were already considering the consequences of humiliating its neighbours. They did not anticipate the response of dejected Palestinians, who had hoped Israel would be defeated and banished from their region and whose guerrilla groups would join forces for a new kind of conflict, which would be harder for Israel’s technology to monitor and control. Instead Mossad chiefs were expecting that regrouped and improved Arab military forces would again try to destroy Israel.

When Rothschild flew to Israel not long after the Six Day War, uppermost in the minds of his friends in the military and Intelligence was an enhancement of the nation’s nuclear weapons programme.

In the decade since the Dimona Plant had been completed, Israel’s leaders had felt some measure of comfort in knowing that they had the technology to develop a nuclear arsenal as an ultimate deterrent to aggression. The Six Day War was an urgent reminder that they still needed access to the nuclear weapons’ raw material: uranium.

Israel had been supplied with uranium partly thanks to the efforts of Zionist Dr Zalman Shapiro, a research chemist who had worked on the Manhattan Project. Shapiro set up an Israeli-financed corporation called Numec, which handled nuclear materials and equipment.

{p. 295} Over the next decade, 206 lb of enriched uranium disappeared from Numec’s Pennsylvania plant and ended up in Israel. The corporation was investigated by US authorities and fined a million dollars, causing it to shut down.

Along with the cutting of this supply, US regulations safeguarding uranium supplies were tightened after the Six Day War. Some in the State Department feared Israel’s aggression and Arab revenge could see an escalation of war to a nuclear conflict in the Middle East.

Now Rothschild’s expertise in both banking and bombs was needed in a more complicated plot to acquire uranium. He was consulted by Intelligence chiefs and became privy to a plan to set up a European operation – codenamed Plombat – involving dummy Israeli companies and shipping, which would eventually see a large amount of uranium being hi-jacked to the Israeli port of Haifa and transported to Dimona.

Scientists at the plant were thus able to prepare a ‘substantial number’ of atomic devices, which were stored in tunnels under the Negev Desert.

According to both CIA and Mossad sources, Rothschild was also useful to the Israelis in ‘mending fences’ with some neighbours in the Middle East after the disruption of the Six Day conflict. For instance, he called on his old friend the Shah of Iran and suggested several ‘crop breeding’ ventures, which had been perfected in Israel and elsewhere. Some were adapted in Iran. By 1968, he had put his money, exceptional know-how, contacts and influence at the disposal of the state he had helped create and protect. …

{p. 298} Blunt and Rothschild tried to deflect guilt from themselves and on to the innocent Watson, but he never confessed to spying.

Wright continued his zealous hounding of suspects, who included Leo Long, John Cairncross and highly-placed civil servant, Dennis Proctor. Often he took them back to meet Blunt in harrowing encounters, at which much alcohol was consumed but no new or surprising secret connections were divulged.

Wright felt he had found his true niche as a-spyhunter. He widened his brief to several scientific and academic institutions. But it seemed, each time the ruthless investigator came close, the pressure on suspects caused tragedy. While he was probing an Oxford University spy ring, Sir Andrew Cohen, a diplomat who had been an Apostle at Cambridge with Rothschild and Blunt, died of a heart attack soon after he learned he was to be questioned. Bernard Floud, a proposed junior minister in Wilson’s cabinet, committed suicide after tough questioning by Wright and before he had to endure another interrogation. A few days later, Phoebe Pool threw herself under a tube train. She had been a courier for Blunt in the 1950s and a colleague of his at the Courtauld Institute.

Wright’s relentless pursuit of those he envied for their privileged education of three decades ago was causing a spiralling despair among the former ideological students from Oxbridge. The fear generated would touch everyone involved for the rest of their lives.

All during this time Blunt anaesthetized himself with alcohol and stood firm. He insisted there had only been a ring of four at Cambridge – himself, Burgess, Maclean and Philby – with secondrank spies, such as Cairncross and Long, existing independently of the central ring members. There was no Fifth Man, Blunt insisted. But the more he protested, the more Wright became suspicious that there had to be a key figure he had missed, someone who could even be right under his nose.

{p. 299} He complained to Rothschild that it could be the only reason that all their investigations led to dead spies or those who were already under suspicion. For once, his genius companion seemed perplexed. Not even he could offer a plausible explanation.


Anatoli Golitsyn, the defector, addressed a conference of counter-intelligence officers from Canada, Britain, the USA, Australia and New Zealand in Melbourne in late 1967, and made a convincing case for there being a lack of understanding of his methodology the way he went about searching for Soviet spies.

He had bounced back and forth across the Atlantic maintaining his marketability with ‘new’ information about Soviet penetration of Western Intelligence. But until that conference, he had slipped in credibility because many of his leads were too general and proved fruitless. MI5’s chief, Martin Furnival Jones, Hollis’s successor, was impressed and offered him the files on all MI5 personnel.

From the spring of 1968 Golitsyn was given £10,000 a month to peruse the files in a safe house near Brighton. The defector concentrated on Venona – the several thousand KGB radio communication messages, which had been partly or completely decoded. Eight codenames had been found.

Two in particular interested him: DAVID and ROSA. The messages decoded indicated that they had worked together, most likely as a married couple. Golitsyn asked for the files of all MI5 officers who had been working for British Intelligence at the time of the Venona traffic. He studied the files and after a week asked Wright to come and see him in Brighton.

Wright arrived at the safe house excited about a break-through. Golitsyn pointed to two files on the desk in the study.

‘I’ve discovered DAVID and ROSA,’ he said excitedly. ‘My methodology has uncovered them.’

Wright glanced at the name on the files. He knew them well. They belonged to Victor and Tess Rothschild.

Wright told him not to be absurd. Rothschild, he informed the Russian, was one of the best friends this Service ever had. Golitsyn, however, was emphatic and Wright asked how he came to such a conclusion.

{p. 300} ‘They are Jewish,’ Golitsyn replied. ‘DAVID and ROSA are Jewish names.’

Golitsyn was guessing wildly and was incorrect. Tess was not Jewish. Nor did she marry Rothschild until 1946. Although they had worked closely during the war, they were not always together. Rothschild often went on assignments alone, such as when he acted as MI5’s security inspector at weapons research facilities. Wright put the accusation down to typical ‘KGB anti-Semitism’, which had been rampant since Stalin’s purge after the ‘Jewish Doctor’s Plot’kaganovich.html.

Golitsyn could not give any further reason for linking David and Rosa with the Rothschilds and Wright dismissed his claim as another attempt to justify his importance and the money he was being paid, which irritated the MI5 man. In the bitter atmosphere of accusation and counter-accusation in the late 1960s, which had been in the main engendered by Wright himself, this appeared to be another hopeful, ill-founded guess.

‘I could not help thinking that if this had been the CIA and I had been Angleton,’ Wright remarked in Spycatcher, ‘Victor and Tess would almost certainly have been listed as spies on Golitsyn’s groundless interpretation.’

Fortunately for Rothschild, his close companion and confidant had been the one informed and there was no further investigation. Golitsyn had earlier informed Wright about a file marked ‘Technics’ in a safe at the Moscow Centre. It was basically a file on all MI5 technical operations against the Russians, which Wright and his team had initiated. This proved to him that a mole had indeed been spying on him and his activities. Wright never discussed with Golitsyn what he had told Rothschild. If he had, the Russian would have realized that his guess had been accurate.

{p. 432} From 1945 to 1963, the Fifth Man became enmeshed in the Cold War spying game on the Soviet side …

After 1963, … Capitalism, for all its miserable faults, had survived, as had Churchill’s ‘best worst’ system, Western-style democracy, which had been scorned by Rothschild. He knew at base it was a charade. From his perspective, the country was really run by the Establishment, of which he was a prominent member.


Pavel Sudoplatov on the Atomic Spies: atomic-spies.html.

Victor Ostrovsky on How Mossad Got America to Bomb Libya & Fight Iraq : ostrovsky.html.

Rothschild might have changed tack since the early 1960s. The Middle East wars of 1967 and 1973 led many Jews to switch from Communism to Zionism.

Perry makes it clear that Rothschild was pro-Communist but not necessarily pro-Soviet Union. That depended on how amenable the USSR was to Jews and Zionism. When the USSR was un-cooperative, Leftists commonly switched over to the New Left (new-left.html), to Marxist Anti-Communism (kostel.html), or even came out as Neo-Cons: cia-infiltrating-left.html.

They were thus switching over to a Trotskyist, a Fabian or a Green position, all of which had much in common.

Many people are wondering whether the West really did win the Cold War, given the political correctness in our universities and public discourse, the Open Borders, the World Court, the Gay Marriage. Instead, the “Convergence” idea – convergence of Capitalism and Communism – seems to be what we’ve got: convergence.html.

The Anglo-American Establishment: quigley.html.


Source: You are at



How public education cripples our kids, and why by John Taylor Gatto

Against School*

John Taylor Gatto**

I taught for thirty years in some of the worst schools in Manhattan, and in some of the best, and during that time I became an expert in boredom. Boredom was everywhere in my world, and if you asked the kids, as I often did, why they felt so bored, they always gave the same answers: They said the work was stupid, that it made no sense, that they already knew it. They said they wanted to be doing something real, not just sitting around. They said teachers didn’t seem to know much about their subjects and clearly weren’t interested in learning more. And the kids were right: their teachers were every bit as bored as they were.

Boredom is the common condition of schoolteachers, and anyone who has spent time in a teachers’ lounge can vouch for the low energy, the whining, the dispirited attitudes, to be found there. When asked why they feel bored, the teachers tend to blame the kids, as you might expect. Who wouldn’t get bored teaching students who are rude and interested only in grades? If even that. Of course, teachers are themselves products of the same twelve-year compulsory school programs that so thoroughly bore their students, and as school personnel they are trapped inside structures even more rigid than those imposed upon the children. Who, then, is to blame?

We all are. My grandfather taught me that. One afternoon when I was seven I complained to him of boredom, and he batted me hard on the head. He told me that I was never to use that term in his presence again, that if I was bored it was my fault and no one else’s. The obligation to amuse and instruct myself was entirely my own, and people who didn’t know that were childish people, to be avoided if possible. Certainly not to be trusted. That episode cured me of boredom forever, and here and there over the years I was able to pass on the lesson to some remarkable student. For the most part, however, I found it futile to challenge the official notion that boredom and childishness were the natural state of affairs in the classroom. Often I had to defy custom, and even bend the law, to help kids break out of this trap.

The empire struck back, of course; childish adults regularly conflate opposition with disloyalty. I once returned from a medical leave to discover that all evidence of my having been granted the leave had been purposely destroyed, that my job had been terminated, and that I no longer possessed even a teaching license. After nine months of tormented effort I was able to retrieve the license when a school secretary testified to witnessing the plot unfold. In the meantime my family suffered more than I care to remember. By the time I finally retired in 1991, I had more than enough reason to think of our schools – with their long-term, cell-block-style, forced confinement of both students and teachers – as virtual factories of childishness. Yet I honestly could not see why they had to be that way. My own experience had revealed to me what many other teachers must learn along the way, too, yet keep to themselves for fear of reprisal: if we wanted to we could easily and inexpensively jettison the old, stupid structures and help kids take an education rather than merely receive a schooling. We could encourage the best qualities of youthfulness – curiosity, adventure, resilience, the capacity for surprising insight – simply by being more flexible about time, texts, and tests, by introducing kids to truly competent adults, and by giving each student what autonomy he or she needs in order to take a risk every now and then.

But we don’t do that. And the more I asked why not, and persisted in thinking about the “problem” of schooling as an engineer might, the more I missed the point: What if there is no “problem” with our schools? What if they are the way they are, so expensively flying in the face of common sense and long experience in how children learn things, not because they are doing something wrong but because they are doing something right? Is it possible that George W. Bush accidentally spoke the truth when he said we would “leave no child behind”? Could it be that our schools are designed to make sure not one of them ever really grows up?


Do we really need school? I don’t mean education, just forced schooling: six classes a day, five days a week, nine months a year, for twelve years. Is this deadly routine really necessary? And if so, for what? Don’t hide behind reading, writing, and arithmetic as a rationale, because 2 million happy homeschoolers have surely put that banal justification to rest. Even if they hadn’t, a considerable number of well-known Americans never went through the twelve-year wringer our kids currently go through, and they turned out all right. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln? Someone taught them, to be sure, but they were not products of a school system, and not one of them was ever “graduated” from a secondary school. Throughout most of American history, kids generally didn’t go to high school, yet the unschooled rose to be admirals, like Farragut; inventors, like Edison; captains of industry, like Carnegie and Rockefeller; writers, like Melville and Twain and Conrad; and even scholars, like Margaret Mead. In fact, until pretty recently people who reached the age of thirteen weren’t looked upon as children at all. Ariel Durant, who co-wrote an enormous, and very good, multivolume history of the world with her husband, Will, was happily married at fifteen, and who could reasonably claim that Ariel Durant was an uneducated person? Unschooled, perhaps, but not uneducated.

We have been taught (that is, schooled) in this country to think of “success” as synonymous with, or at least dependent upon, “schooling,” but historically that isn’t true in either an intellectual or a financial sense. And plenty of people throughout the world today find a way to educate themselves without resorting to a system of compulsory secondary schools that all too often resemble prisons. Why, then, do Americans confuse education with just such a system? What exactly is the purpose of our public schools?

Mass schooling of a compulsory nature really got its teeth into the United States between 1905 and 1915, though it was conceived of much earlier and pushed for throughout most of the nineteenth century. The reason given for this enormous upheaval of family life and cultural traditions was, roughly speaking, threefold:
1) To make good people.
2) To make good citizens.
3) To make each person his or her personal best.

These goals are still trotted out today on a regular basis, and most of us accept them in one form or another as a decent definition of public education’s mission, however short schools actually fall in achieving them. But we are dead wrong. Compounding our error is the fact that the national literature holds numerous and surprisingly consistent statements of compulsory schooling’s true purpose. We have, for example, the great H. L. Mencken, who wrote in The American Mercury for April 1924 that the aim of public education is not

to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence. . . . Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim.. . is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States . . . and that is its aim everywhere else.

Because of Mencken’s reputation as a satirist, we might be tempted to dismiss this passage as a bit of hyperbolic sarcasm. His article, however, goes on to trace the template for our own educational system back to the now vanished, though never to be forgotten, military state of Prussia. And although he was certainly aware of the irony that we had recently been at war with Germany, the heir to Prussian thought and culture, Mencken was being perfectly serious here. Our educational system really is Prussian in origin, and that really is cause for concern.

The odd fact of a Prussian provenance for our schools pops up again and again once you know to look for it. William James alluded to it many times at the turn of the century. Orestes Brownson, the hero of Christopher Lasch’s 1991 book, The True and Only Heaven, was publicly denouncing the Prussianization of American schools back in the 1840s. Horace Mann’s “Seventh Annual Report” to the Massachusetts State Board of Education in 1843 is essentially a paean to the land of Frederick the Great and a call for its schooling to be brought here. That Prussian culture loomed large in America is hardly surprising, given our early association with that utopian state. A Prussian served as Washington’s aide during the Revolutionary War, and so many German- speaking people had settled here by 1795 that Congress considered publishing a German-language edition of the federal laws. But what shocks is that we should so eagerly have adopted one of the very worst aspects of Prussian culture: an educational system deliberately designed to produce mediocre intellects, to hamstring the inner life, to deny students appreciable leadership skills, and to ensure docile and incomplete citizens – all in order to render the populace “manageable.”


It was from James Bryant Conant – president of Harvard for twenty years, WWI poison-gas specialist, WWII executive on the atomic-bomb project, high commissioner of the American zone in Germany after WWII, and truly one of the most influential figures of the twentieth century – that I first got wind of the real purposes of American schooling. Without Conant, we would probably not have the same style and degree of standardized testing that we enjoy today, nor would we be blessed with gargantuan high schools that warehouse 2,000 to 4,000 students at a time, like the famous Columbine High in Littleton, Colorado. Shortly after I retired from teaching I picked up Conant’s 1959 book-length essay, The Child the Parent and the State, and was more than a little intrigued to see him mention in passing that the modern schools we attend were the result of a “revolution” engineered between 1905 and 1930. A revolution? He declines to elaborate, but he does direct the curious and the uninformed to Alexander Inglis’s 1918 book, Principles of Secondary Education, in which “one saw this revolution through the eyes of a revolutionary.”

Inglis, for whom a lecture in education at Harvard is named, makes it perfectly clear that compulsory schooling on this continent was intended to be just what it had been for Prussia in the 1820s: a fifth column into the burgeoning democratic movement that threatened to give the peasants and the proletarians a voice at the bargaining table. Modern, industrialized, compulsory schooling was to make a sort of surgical incision into the prospective unity of these underclasses. Divide children by subject, by age-grading, by constant rankings on tests, and by many other more subtle means, and it was unlikely that the ignorant mass of mankind, separated in childhood, would ever reintegrate into a dangerous whole.

Inglis breaks down the purpose – the actual purpose – of modem schooling into six basic functions, any one of which is enough to curl the hair of those innocent enough to believe the three traditional goals listed earlier:

1) The adjustive or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. This, of course, precludes critical judgment completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting material should be taught, because you can’t test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.

2) The integrating function. This might well be called “the conformity function,” because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.

3) The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student’s proper social role. This is done by logging evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records. As in “your permanent record.” Yes, you do have one.

4) The differentiating function. Once their social role has been “diagnosed,” children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits – and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.

5) The selective function. This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin’s theory of natural selection as applied to what he called “the favored races.” In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit – with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments – clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That’s what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.

6) The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.

That, unfortunately, is the purpose of mandatory public education in this country. And lest you take Inglis for an isolated crank with a rather too cynical take on the educational enterprise, you should know that he was hardly alone in championing these ideas. Conant himself, building on the ideas of Horace Mann and others, campaigned tirelessly for an American school system designed along the same lines. Men like George Peabody, who funded the cause of mandatory schooling throughout the South, surely understood that the Prussian system was useful in creating not only a harmless electorate and a servile labor force but also a virtual herd of mindless consumers. In time a great number of industrial titans came to recognize the enormous profits to be had by cultivating and tending just such a herd via public education, among them Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.


There you have it. Now you know. We don’t need Karl Marx’s conception of a grand warfare between the classes to see that it is in the interest of complex management, economic or political, to dumb people down, to demoralize them, to divide them from one another, and to discard them if they don’t conform. Class may frame the proposition, as when Woodrow Wilson, then president of Princeton University, said the following to the New York City School Teachers Association in 1909: “We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forgo the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.” But the motives behind the disgusting decisions that bring about these ends need not be class-based at all. They can stem purely from fear, or from the by now familiar belief that “efficiency” is the paramount virtue, rather than love, liberty, laughter, or hope. Above all, they can stem from simple greed.

There were vast fortunes to be made, after all, in an economy based on mass production and organized to favor the large corporation rather than the small business or the family farm. But mass production required mass consumption, and at the turn of the twentieth century most Americans considered it both unnatural and unwise to buy things they didn’t actually need. Mandatory schooling was a godsend on that count. School didn’t have to train kids in any direct sense to think they should consume nonstop, because it did something even better: it encouraged them not to think at all. And that left them sitting ducks for another great invention of the modem era – marketing.

Now, you needn’t have studied marketing to know that there are two groups of people who can always be convinced to consume more than they need to: addicts and children. School has done a pretty good job of turning our children into addicts, but it has done a spectacular job of turning our children into children. Again, this is no accident. Theorists from Plato to Rousseau to our own Dr. Inglis knew that if children could be cloistered with other children, stripped of responsibility and independence, encouraged to develop only the trivializing emotions of greed, envy, jealousy, and fear, they would grow older but never truly grow up. In the 1934 edition of his once well-known book Public Education in the United States, Ellwood P. Cubberley detailed and praised the way the strategy of successive school enlargements had extended childhood by two to six years, and forced schooling was at that point still quite new. This same Cubberley – who was dean of Stanford’s School of Education, a textbook editor at Houghton Mifflin, and Conant’s friend and correspondent at Harvard – had written the following in the 1922 edition of his book Public School Administration: “Our schools are . . . factories in which the raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned.. . . And it is the business of the school to build its pupils according to the specifications laid down.”

It’s perfectly obvious from our society today what those specifications were. Maturity has by now been banished from nearly every aspect of our lives. Easy divorce laws have removed the need to work at relationships; easy credit has removed the need for fiscal self-control; easy entertainment has removed the need to learn to entertain oneself; easy answers have removed the need to ask questions. We have become a nation of children, happy to surrender our judgments and our wills to political exhortations and commercial blandishments that would insult actual adults. We buy televisions, and then we buy the things we see on the television. We buy computers, and then we buy the things we see on the computer. We buy $150 sneakers whether we need them or not, and when they fall apart too soon we buy another pair. We drive SUVs and believe the lie that they constitute a kind of life insurance, even when we’re upside-down in them. And, worst of all, we don’t bat an eye when Ari Fleischer tells us to “be careful what you say,” even if we remember having been told somewhere back in school that America is the land of the free. We simply buy that one too. Our schooling, as intended, has seen to it.

Now for the good news. Once you understand the logic behind modern schooling, its tricks and traps are fairly easy to avoid. School trains children to be employees and consumers; teach your own to be leaders and adventurers. School trains children to obey reflexively; teach your own to think critically and independently. Well-schooled kids have a low threshold for boredom; help your own to develop an inner life so that they’ll never be bored. Urge them to take on the serious material, the grown-up material, in history, literature, philosophy, music, art, economics, theology – all the stuff schoolteachers know well enough to avoid. Challenge your kids with plenty of solitude so that they can learn to enjoy their own company, to conduct inner dialogues. Well-schooled people are conditioned to dread being alone, and they seek constant companionship through the TV, the computer, the cell phone, and through shallow friendships quickly acquired and quickly abandoned. Your children should have a more meaningful life, and they can.

First, though, we must wake up to what our schools really are: laboratories of experimentation on young minds, drill centers for the habits and attitudes that corporate society demands. Mandatory education serves children only incidentally; its real purpose is to turn them into servants. Don’t let your own have their childhoods extended, not even for a day. If David Farragut could take command of a captured British warship as a preteen, if Thomas Edison could publish a broadsheet at the age of twelve, if Ben Franklin could apprentice himself to a printer at the same age (then put himself through a course of study that would choke a Yale senior today), there’s no telling what your own kids could do. After a long life, and thirty years in the public school trenches, I’ve concluded that genius is as common as dirt. We suppress our genius only because we haven’t yet figured out how to manage a population of educated men and women. The solution, I think, is simple and glorious. Let them manage themselves.

**  09/2003 Harper’s Magazine.

John Taylor Gatto is a former New York State and New York City Teacher of the Year and the author, most recently, of The Underground History of American Education. He was a participant in the Harper’s Magazine forum “School on a Hill,” which appeared in the September 2001 issue. You can find his web site here.


We should ‘undermine national homogeneity’ says UN migration chief

Broadcast on RTÉ radio, Ireland June 2015, Peter Sutherland chairman of Goldman Sachs International comments on looking at potential figures of 240,000 migrants arriving in Europe each year and whether anyone has worked out what the capacity of Europe is to deal with these numbers of migrants:

“Those figures are laughable in the context of the total European population of 500 million. The figures you are talking about are literally a drop in the ocean. We could easily handle that. Germany could take a lot more and still have a deficiency in terms of its aging population. Today’s population in Germany is over 55% in favour of having more migrants.

Governments have to lead by giving the positive news that migrants are good for a community, economically and every other way rather than constantly expressing them as a burden because they are not really a burden. Within a very short period of time they contribute positively to the community in which they live.

It’s going to take a long time to solve the inherent problems of north Africa and sub-Saharan Africa so we’re going to live with the issue of migration for a very long time.”

In this interview Peter Sutherland seems to be referencing a 2014 study carried out by University College London when he said immigration is positive for the UK. What he completely failed to mention however is that the study found that migrants from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) made a negative contribution to the public purse of £117.9 billion because they consumed more in public expenditure – including NHS costs, welfare hand-outs and education – than they contributed in taxes while only the recent immigration from Europe – driven by the surge in arrivals from eastern European – gave the economy a £4.4 billion boost over the same period.

The same pattern is seen in Denmark: Non-western immigrants cost the danish society 16.6 billion DKK each year, a number which is only rising while Eastern European gives us a net benefit of 3.8 billion DKK in taxes.

And from a UK report in 2009: Compared with the UK average of 22% of the working age population being economically inactive, Somali, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Iranian immigrants are likely to be 81%, 56%, 55% and 48% economically inactive respectively.

Infrowars write-up:

Leon Brittan and the Paedophile Information Exchange


Leon Brittan became Margaret Thatcher’s Home Secretary on 11th June 1983. Not long after starting in the role, he came under pressure to ban an organisation called the Paedophile Information Exchange.


The Paedophile Information Exchange, or PIE, campaigned to have the age of consent reduced to 4 years old, which would have effectively legalised paedophilia. PIE published a contacts page in its newsletter with a PO Box number, so paedophiles across the UK and abroad could forge links and trade tips on how to access children, and how to obtain images of child abuse. This was how organised paedophile networks developed in the UK, and helps to explain how paedophiles ended up infiltrating so many schools, children’s homes, and other institutions. By the early 1980s PIE had over 1000 members, including people in prominent and powerful positions in the British Establishment such as diplomatsMPsaristocratsintelligence agentsteachers, and child protection experts.

There were a number of big news stories in the early 1980s involving child abuse and missing children. One of these was the ‘Brighton Beasts’ case in August 1983; a 6 year old boy was snatched off the street and sexually assaulted by three men. These cases intensified public opinion about paedophiles, and strengthened the case for an outright ban of PIE and similar organisations.

Leon Brittan, however, did not share the public’s urgency to ban PIE. He outlined a ‘three step approach’ to the issue, which consisted of asking chief constables to report to him, asking the Department of Public Prosecutions to ‘consider’ prosecuting PIE members, and asking parents to keep a close eye on their children.

This provoked an angry reaction both from the public and some sections of the press. The mother of the 6 year old boy who was assaulted in Brighton said Brittan’s policy was “weak and worthless“. Charles Oxley, a headmaster who had infiltrated PIE and provided his information to the police, criticised Brittan’s policy as “apathetic”.The Daily Express, in a comment piece on 2nd September 1983, were most damning of all:


The policy of asking the DPP to consider prosecutions seems particularly suspect, since the DPP had already decided not to prosecute PIE member Sir Peter Hayman.

Paedophile diplomat Sir Peter Hayman

Paedophile diplomat Sir Peter Hayman

Paedophile diplomat Sir Peter Hayman

There was even a reported panic among prominent PIE members to cancel their memberships in anticipation of a clampdown. But they needn’t have worried because Mr. Brittan didn’t do anything.

Brittan’s inaction on the issue led a Conservative MP called Geoffrey Dickens to launch a campaign to ban PIE, which attracted huge popular support. Dickens started a petition, and with the help of coverage in the Daily Express and the Daily Mirror, it received over 1 million signatures from members of the British public.

In November 1983, Geoffrey Dickens gave Leon Brittan a ‘massive’ dossier on child abuse, with specific allegations about a link between PIE and Buckingham Palace staff, Foreign Office staff, and the civil service. Brittan did not investigate. It now seems likely that this paedophile ring would have been involved in the child abuse at Elm Guest House, seeing as the visitors to Elm Guest House included senior members of the Royal Household, civil servants, and other prominent Establishment figures. Had Brittan acted on this dossier, a powerful paedophile network could have been smashed, and countless children saved from abuse.

Geoffrey Dickens MP

Geoffrey Dickens MP

In January 1984, Dickens gave Brittan a second dossier alleging child abuse in a children’s home and naming prominent paedophiles including a television executive. In all probability this would have been the BBC, as they allowed Jimmy Savile to get away with abusing children for decades. Again, had Brittan acted on this dossier it would have almost certainly led to Savile and many others, and could have stopped the abuse of hundreds of children. The Home Office now say the dossier is missing, and when Paraic O’Brien recently asked Leon Brittan about it, he said “I do not recollect this and do not have any records that would be of assistance“. How strange that he can’t remember these incredibly important files.

In November 1984 two members of PIE’s executive committee were jailed, for 6 months and 18 months respectively. PIE bowed to public opinion and officially disbanded after the trial, which meant that after stalling for so long, Leon Brittan never had to make a final decision on banning PIE.

It appears that the rights of child abusers were given prominence over the rights of children. I’m sure Mr. Brittan had a reason for his failure to act on child abuse but we may never find out due to his inability to recall events from the 1980s.


Satanic Ritual Abuse – The London Fund

A social conspiracy to pervert the course of justice underlies the refusal to come to terms with ritual abuse.
This is a serious charge. I will illustrate what I mean by reference to the Humberside case, where the police still maintain that they failed to uncover any corroborating evidence. This is curious beccause in the police files there is a document written by the child whom I call Boy 2. That piece of paper was found by the boy’s mother in her son’s bag. She discharged her civic duty by handing it to police.
The evidence came to light because Boy 2 was preparing to run away from home. He had reached a crisis, and he felt that the only way out was to abscond – a tragic solution that is adopted daily by children throughout the nation. Youngsters suddenly disappear without trace, leaving distraught parents to live out their worst fears.
Boy 2, however, was not to be left to his own devices in the wicked metropolis; he had “uncles” to make sure of that. There was a plan; one that, in this particular case, was thwarted just in time, when his mother found his sports bag stuffed with the clothes he was planning to take with him.
Boy 2 even had a “passport” to a new life: it lay crumpled on the top of his clothes. It was the scrap of paper on which he had scrawled the information that was essential to provide him with the food and lodgings he needed in London.
The paper contained the following details: the boy’s age, his name, and the number “444”. That number, we have seen, was his unique identification tag: and it was given to him when he was initiated into a satanic sex ring.
But there was another word on the piece of paper, one that meant nothing to Boy 2’s mother; at the time, when she asked me about it, I knew nothing about the significance of the word either. The word “Scorpio” was scrawled by the number 444. As a result of my enquiries, I was able to establish that Boy 2 had been about to step into a nationwide satanic conspiracy. Boy 2 unwitingly provided us with our first insights into that criminal structure.
This is how the organisation worked.
When the boys earned money from prostitution, part of the proceeds were retained by men who placed the cash in what the boys said was “the London fund”. The boys were assured that they would not go to gaol, if the police started snooping around, for the money they had stashed away would finance their swift departure to London. There – they were told – they would be found work in showbiz.
The truth, I now know, is more sinister.
Boy 2 was hooked into an network of paedophiles who seek boys for prostitution. Sometimes, boys die.
Mark Tildesley, a 7-year-old who was kidnapped from a fairground in Reading, Berkshire, on June 1 1984, was one victim of that conspiracy. That was the year that Christopher Laverack was kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and murdered.
In 1985, Barry Lewis, aged 6, was snatched from his home in South London and murdered. One man was convicted for that killing.
Jason Swift, aged 14, also fell prey to the perverts who stalk our streets. Four men were gaoled for a total of 62 years for his death.
But the list of unsolved child murders is a long one. Operation Orchid is the code name for a major police operation that has its incident room in an East London police station. The detectives led by Chief Superintendent Roger Stoodley are searching for clues to the fate of eight or nine boys who have met their fatal end at the hands of just one paedophile gang.
Operation Orchid received tip-offs that there was a satanic connection to their investigation, but the detectives could find no corroborative evidence. “We progressed as far as we could, but we could not prove it” says Roger Stoodley. “We were busy on other things and it fell by the wayside.”
I suspect that one day police will uncover evidence that will substantiate the claims that satanists are a feature of that paedophile network.
The cult behind the paedophile sex ring is called Scorpio. That name is the common denominator: it is being disclosed by children throughout the country.
The significance of that clue has been overlooked by parents who have been told by their children that they are “scorpios”. In one case, involving two small London children, the mother laughed when her son and daughter both insisted on identifying themselves by that name. She told them they had got their birth signs mixed up, and she informed them that they were born under different signs. She did not know that the two children were struggling to find words to reveal to their mother that they had been initiated into a black magic coven by their father.
That mother carries a heavy feeling of guilt, but she is not to blame. No-one had alerted her to the evil that is preying on children in our society. It as not until she had been placed in contact with other parents whose children had fallen foul of Scorpio that she realised that on the lips of her two children was the clue to a living nightmare.
Unwittingly, that particular mother may possess vital clues to the identities and locations of East London members of Scorpio. Her husband, before being locked up for assaulting her, asked his wife to hide an atlas of Britain and a street map of London. When she examined the maps, she found that they contained marks that identified names and streets which had no significance to the family. Now, she believes that the marks identify members of Scorpio.
The mother fled from London in 1989, after her children had disclosed what had happened to them in public parks in the dead of night. A year later, London detectives tried to track her down, to obtain those maps. She has refused to hand them over. She is reluctant to co-operate with the police because, in the past, every time she sought the help of detectives, she was made to feel guilty for her children’s disclosures.
I find myself in a similar situation, having fallen foul of the legal system. This now inhibits me from disclosing all the facts known to me about the London fund. The police have asked to interview me, but if I were to discuss everything I know, I would be liable to go to gaol.
But I can say that the police are on the right track. Scorpio is a paedophile-based network. A sophisticated organisation exists to handle money that is being gathered from boys around the country and placed in bank accounts. The network can tap those funds to pay for the boys’ upkeep when they are whisked away to London.
I fear that the police will fail to solve all the child murders until they begin to explore the satanic tentacles of the sex rings that are behind the disappearance of boys from their homes.
But it would be wrong if public attention were to be directed exclusively at those children who succeed in boarding trains bound for London’s King’s Cross or Paddington Stations. I would like to pause, for a moment, to emphasise that other children are also being “lost” to us even while they remain with their families. That tragedy is a by-product of the social conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
Extract from Chasing Satan: An investigation into Satanic crimes against children, by Dianne Core, founder of Childwatch

Conviction List: Ritual Child Abuse Cases

 Copyright © 1997. Believe The Children

Please note that this list was compiled and copyrighted by “Believe the Children” in 1997. It has not been updated since then.

Many ritual child abuse cases never are prosecuted due to the disbelief of authorities or the unlikelihood that young, severely traumatized children will be able to withstand cross-examination. A 1993 survey by the American Bar Association’s Center on Children and Family Law determined that 26 percent of prosecutors nationwide have handled cases involving “ritualistic or sexual abuse.” (Ross, 1994). The ritualistic aspects of the crimes often are not presented in court but are clearly indicated in the victims’ accounts.*


West Memphis

Three teenagers were convicted in the cult killings of three 8-year-old boys. Michael Wayne ‘Damien” Echols, 19, and Charles Jason Baldwin, 16, were convicted March 18, 1994, on three counts each of capitol murder. (Chicago Tribune, 1994). A jury recommended the death penalty for Echols and life in prison without pareole for Baldwin. (Sullivan, 1994). A third teenager, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr., 18, was convicted in February 1994, of one count of first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree murder. He is serving a prison sentence of life plus 40 years. (Beifuss, 1994)

Misskelley confessed to his role in the killings, telling police the murders were linked to a cult ritual that included the rape and mutilation of victims. (Chicago Tribune, 1993). West Memphis police detective Bryn Ridge testified that elements in the case pointed to the work of a satanic cult. (Sullivan, 1994).

Steve Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore disappeared while riding their bicycles in May 1993. Their nude bodies were found the next day in a drainage ditch. The boys had been bound, raped and beaten. (Chicago Tribune, 1993). One child had been sexually mutilated. One witness testified that one of the defendants drank the victim’s blood. (Sullivan, 1994).

During the trial prosecutors presented evidence suggesting that Echols was a satanist. Acquaintances said Echols carried a cat’s skull to school, wrote satanic poems, and claimed to worship the devil. (Chicago Tribune, 1993). During his first police interview Echols told Detective Ridge that his favorite author was Anton LaVey, author of The Satanic Bible. (Sullivan, 1994). Mental health records indicate that Echols’ parents expressed concern about his possible involvement in “satanism or devil worship” when he was hospitalized in 1992. Just four months prior to the murders a clinician noted: “Damien explained that he obtains his powers by drinking blood of others.” (Sullivan, 1994).

One item brought to the attention of police was an underground newsletter published by a cousin of Echols’ 16-year-old girlfriend. The 1991 edition of the Secret Order of the Undead or “SOUND” featured a drawing of a winged demon molesting a woman, a list of 13 songs “suitable to accompany any ritualistic murder” and a column instructing children on how to build a homemade land mine. (Perrusquia, 1993).



Alvin and Deborah McCuan, Scott and Brenda Kniffen, and Rodney and Linda Phelps (parents of Deborah McCuan) were indicted in 1982 on charges of sexually molesting children. The alleged victims included their own children, traded between families and used for group sex, as well as children from the Bluebird troop run by Deborah McCuan and the unlicensed day care facility in her home. The McCuans and Kniffens were convicted on all counts in 1983, drawing aggregate prison terms in excess of 1,000 years. The Phelps fled town and disapeared after being charged with 33 counts.

Ritual elements in the case were ignored by authorities at the time. (Newton, 1996).

In August 1996, a judge overturned the child molestation convictions of Alvin and Deborah McCuan and Scott and Brenda Kniffen.** (Northwest Herald, August 14, 1996).

A second intrafamilial child-sex ring was exposed and prosecuted in Bakersfield, with trials continuing into 1985. Five adult defendants were convicted, including: Richard Cox, 47 (14 counts); Ruth Ann Taylor, 31 (14 counts); Anthony Cox, 25 (7 counts); George Cox, 24 (7 counts); and Theresa Cox, 21 (3 counts). Prison terms ranged from 10 to 41 years. (Newton, 1996).

Seven defendants in another Bakersfield child-sex ring were convicted in August 1985, with multiple charges including child molestation and endangerment, assault with a deadly weapon, and production of child pornography. Wayne Forsythe, 28, was convicted on 41 separate counts. Other defendants, each convicted on a minimum of 50 counts, included Forsythe’s wife, Colleen Dill Forsythe, 26; Ricky Pitts, 31, and his wife Marcella Pitts, 29; Wayne Dill, 26 (Colleen Forsythe’s brother); Grace Dill, 50 (mother of Colleen Forsythe and Wayne Dill); and Gina Miller. Cumulative prison sentences in the case came to 2,100 years. (Newton, 1996).

Leroy George Stowe III was convicted on 16 counts of child molestation and sentenced to 30 years in March 1985. Shortly after his conviction, victims in the case expanded their disclosures to include graphic descriptions of satanic ritual abuse and murders, involving nine more defendants.

In January 1987, Gerardo Gonzales (facing 117 charges) pleaded no contest to one count of molesting a 5-year-old girl, and Rev. Willard Lee Thomas (facing 43 charges) pleaded no contest on two counts, including child endangerment and unlawful sexual intercourse with a 17-year-old girl. Both defendants were released from jail on the basis of time served, and charges against the remaining defendants were dismissed as part of their plea bargain.

In February 1987, a California appeals court reversed Leroy Stowe’s conviction on 12 of 16 felony counts, with the grounds cited as a technical insufficiency in the pleadings.** (Newton, 1996).

San Diego County

Robert S. Wilkins, 38, and Lori Elizabeth Bartz, 22, were convicted in July 1987 on 8 counts of sexual abuse involving children from Bartz’s unlicensed day-care center. The original list of charges, dating back to 1984, included 92 counts of sex acts forced upon girls aged 10 to 15. The victims described displays of weapons, threats, and occult rituals in which Bartz pretended to channel the voice of Satan, telling the children “This is the devil; do as I say.” Both defendants received long prison terms. (Newton, 1996).

Santa Rosa

Darryl Ball and Charlotte Thrailkill plea bargained on molestation charges and were sentenced to substantial prison terms. The prosecutor’s opening statement referred to the ritual aspect of the crimes, and child victims described satanic ceremonies which included ritual murders.



Philip and Michael Schmidt pleaded guilty to molesting children attending the day care center operated by their grandmother, Hazel Riggs, who was sentenced on a lesser charge. A Denver Post report on the case included ritual allegations by a child victim.


William L. Acree, former heroin addict and operator of a halfway house for juvenile delinquents, was convicted in February 1983, on two counts of prostituting children and one count of sexually assaulting a child. Acree was sentenced to 90 days in jail, with 5 years suspended on the condition that he undergo psychiatric counseling for at least 4 years.

The victims were male, ages 10 – 17 years old, who displayed satanic tattoos and described themselves as members of Acree’s “coven.” (Newton, 1996).



Kerri Lynn Patavino, 28, a school bus driver, was convicted in August 1996 of statutory rape for seducing a 14-year-old boy who said she engaged him in strange rituals during sex. (Northwest Herald, 1996).

The boy testified that Patavino once cut her arm with a razor blade and forced him to lick her blood. According to police, Patavino sent the boy love letters decorated with occult symbols and signed in her blood. During the trial, Patavino wore a pentagram medallion around her neck. (The News-Times, 1996).

Patavino was sentenced to six years in prison. (Northwest Herald, 1996).


Dade County

Francisco Fuster, 36, was convicted in 1985 on 14 counts of child abuse and sentenced to a minimum of 165 years in prison. Fuster had previously been convicted of lewd and lascivious assault on a 9-year-old girl and had served four years in prison for homicide. More than 50 children accused Fuster and his wife, Iliana, of abuse that included feces-eating, drugging, pornography, animal killings and anal rape with a crucifix. Fuster’s 7-year-old son was treated for gonorrhea of the throat.

Iliana Fuster, a 17-year-old native of Honduras, also claimed to have been battered and sexually abused by Fuster. She confessed to her role in the crimes against the children and testified against her husband. Iliana Fuster received a 10-year sentence. (Hollingsworth, 1986).


James Toward, 58, owner of Glendale Montessori School, pleaded guilty to child sexual abuse charges and received a 15-year sentence. His office manager, Brenda Williams, 30, was convicted in 1989 and sentenced to 6 years in prison.

Children described being threatened with guns and knives, photographed for pornographic purposes, and forced to participate in sadistic rituals. (The Orlando Sentinel, 1989).



Walter P. West, Jr., a former juvenile officer, pleaded guilty on June 20, 1994, to 33 counts of sexual abuse. West was sentenced to 20 years in prison, 20 years probation, and ordered never to be alone with children.

Prosecutors said that West engaged in oral and anal sex with as many as 13 children, fondled them, forced them to engage in sex acts with other children, and filmed the assaults. Most of his victims were pre-adolescent children who had problems at school and with the law. The youngest victim named in the indictment was six years old. (The Atlanta Journal/The Atlanta Constitution, 1994).

According to a case overview prepared by a special education teacher who reported the abuse, some of the children said West forced them to engage in bestiality and exposed them to animal killings. Other adults in the community were implicated but no additional arrests were made. (McCullers, 1994).



Robbie Moore, a self-avowed “warlock,” was convicted on January 30, 1997, of three counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault and one count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse. Moore, 28, of Danville, Illinois, was arrested in June 1996 when several children, some as young as 4 years old, complained of being sexually abused after joining an informal witchcraft club led by Moore and Kimberly Harris. Harris, 26, pleaded guilty in October 1996 to fondling a 13-year-old girl and is serving a 7-year prison term.

Sgt. John Howard, a juvenile officer with the Vermilion County Sheriff’s Department, said that “there appeared to be a connection” between the sexual abuse and what he called “occult activity.” Prosecutors said Moore talked about black magic to both lure and terrorize his victims.

Moore was sentenced to 67 years in prison. (Kelley, 1997 and S.O.A.R., 1997).



Michael Joseph Schildmeyer, 22, was convicted on second-degree sexual abuse of a 4-year-old boy and sentenced to 25 years in prison. The child testified that Schildmeyer abused him at the Sunshine Preschool and Day Care Center operated by Schildmeyer’s wife. The unlicensed center was shut down by the state after children began disclosing ritualistic acts involving stuffed animal decapitations, animal killings, and bondage with ropes and chains. (Hubert, 1989).



Gerald Amirault, 32, was convicted in 1986 of 15 counts of child abuse, including rape and indecent assault, and sentenced to 30 to 40 years in prison. Nine children who attended the Fells Acre Day Care Center testified that Amirault sexually assaulted them in a “magic room” while dressed as a clown. One child testified that small animals were killed. (Ross, 1986).

His mother, Violet Amirault, 62, owner of the school, and her daughter, Cheryl Amirault LeFave, were given 8- to 20-year sentences.

In August 1995, a judge ordered new trials for Violet Amirault and Cheryl Amirault LeFave.** (Rabinowitz, 1995).

On March 24, 1997, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled against granting new trials for Violet Amirault, Gerald Amirault and Cheryl LeFave. The court determined that any flaws at trial were outweighed by the evidence presented by the prosecution. (The Survivor Activist, 1997).


Bernard Baran, Jr., a 19-year-old teacher’s aide at a day care center, was convicted of child molestation in January 1985. He was sentenced to life, with parole possible in 15 years. Children testified that he threatened to kill their parents if they disclosed the abuse. (Newton, 1996).



Allan Barkman, co-owner of Small World Preschool, was convicted in April, 1985, of molesting a 5-year-old boy and sentenced to 50 to 75 years in prison. Children told authorities they were driven to barns where Barkman photographed them and tore off the head of a chicken. Children said Barkman’s wife, who was not charged, dressed up as a witch. (Ross, 1986). Barkman’s conviction was later reversed on appeal.** (Newton, 1996).

Sanilac County

On October 20, 1994, Stephen Rogers, 30, and his live-in girlfriend, Trudy O’Connor, 32, were found guilty of first-degree child abuse of a 9-year-old girl. The girl, Roger’s daughter, was found in a dark walk-in closet by Sanilac County sheriff’s deputies. The child was shackled by her ankle to a urine-soaked bed. Her arms had been tied behind her back with a harness made of socks and safety pins. The only other thing in the closet was a large, frightening Halloween mask, which hung directly over the bed.

Family members said that Rogers and O’Connor believed the child was “possessed.” The girl’s maternal grandmother reported suspected sexual abuse in 1989 and 1990, after the little girl returned from visiting Rogers. A medical examination confirmed scar tissue. Teachers from the girl’s school testified that she appeared malnourished, had bruises, cuts and burns on her body, and often smelled of urine. (Flint Journal, 1994).



James John Rud, a 27-year-old garbage collector with two previous sex abuse convictions, agreed to plead guilty and testify against other defendants accused of abusing children in sex orgies, in exchange for a lighter sentence. Rud gave police a 113-page statement in which he graphically described sadistic assaults on children. (Emmerman, 1984).

Children ranging in age from 2 to 17 years old described being molested by their parents, relatives and family friends during ritualistic orgies. The children talked about playing games with adults that culminated in sexual assaults and said they had been drugged with alcohol and pills. Many referred to being photographed nude and of seeing child pornography in Rud’s trailer. (Crewdson, 1984).

In addition to Rud, 24 adults were charged with molesting 37 children. (Emmerman, 1984). Two defendants were tried and acquitted when one child witness recanted his accusation of abuse. (Chicago Tribune, 1984). The prosecutor dropped the charges against all other defendants to avoid releasing 126 pages of police notes containing allegations that implicated some of the former defendants in ritualistic child murders. (Ogintz, 1984).

In January 1985, Rud was sentenced to 40 years in prison, the maximum sentence allowable by law. (Chicago Tribune, 1985).



Danny Walter Schertz, 48, a self-avowed former satanist, was sentenced to 9 years in prison without parole for selling a 16-year-old girl into prostitution. Schertz pleaded guilty to charges of kidnapping by trickery and transporting a minor across state lines for prosecution.

F.B.I. agent Leonardo Floyd of Columbus, Mississippi, said Schertz controlled the girl with stories of his satanic powers and threats of harm to the girl and her family. Schertz forced the girl to have satanic symbols tattooed onto her leg and buttocks and to have body piercings in her private parts without anesthesia. (Kraft, 1996).


Carson City

Martha Helen Felix and her nephew, Felix “Paco” Ontiveros, were convicted of crimes against children who were placed in their babysitting service. At a preliminary hearing in 1985, children referred to drinking blood, killing animals, and other rituals. Defendants’ photographs of “mummified children” were produced at the hearing. (Ross, 1986).

These convictions were later reversed on appeal.**

New Jersey


Margaret Kelly Michaels, a teacher at the Wee Care Nursery operated by an Episcopal Church was convicted in April 1988 on 115 counts of child sexual abuse and sentenced to 47 years in prison. Nineteen preschool-aged children testified that Michaels sexually abused them and subjected them to rituals involving urine, feces, peanut butter and jelly, bloody tampons and penetration with silverware.

Her conviction was overturned in March 1993 by an appeals court on the grounds that Michaels was denied a fair trial because expert testimony was introduced that should not have been allowed and because child witnesses were allowed to testify via closed-circuit TV.** (Chicago Tribune, 1993).

In December 1994, prosecutors dropped the charges against Michaels in order to spare the children the ordeal of testifying in a second trial. (Chicago Tribune, 1994).

Michaels is suing the prosecutors, seeking $800,000 in attorneys fees. (Chicago Tribune, 1996).

New York

Mount Vernon

Jeannette Martin, 51, was accused of holding children down while they were raped and sodomized at an unlicensed day care center. Martin was convicted on a misdemeanor child endangerment charge in February 1987, and sentenced to one year in jail.

Co-defendant James Watt, 31, was convicted on 11 rape counts, 5 sodomy counts and one count of child endangerment, and sentenced to 55 – 165 years in prison. In January 1992, an appellate court split 3 to 2 in favor of overturning Watts’ conviction on the grounds that the dates of the offenses alleged in the indictment were “too vague.” ** Two dissenting judges voted to uphold the conviction on 6 counts related to a single victim, but were overruled.

Three female victims were diagnosed with sexually transmitted diseases. (New York Times and New York Law Journal).

North Carolina


Robert F. Kelly, Jr., co-owner of the Little Rascals Day Care Center, was convicted in 1992 on 99 of 100 counts of sexually abusing children. Kelly was sentenced to 12 consecutive life terms, one for each child who testified against him. (Chicago Tribune, April 23-24, 1992).

Twelve children testified that Kelly sexually molested them, forced them to have sex with other children while being photographed, and engaged in sexual acts in the presence of children. The children described being forced to eat feces, threatened with snakes, penetrated with toys, sticks and other objects, hung from trees and tied in bags, and being present while infants were killed. (Allegood, 1991-1992).

Kelly’s conviction was overturned on appeal in 1995.** The court ruled that parents’ testimony about children’s behavioral symptoms was outside the boundaries of permissible opinion from lay witnesses and that testimony from a victim’s father, who had previously been retained as Kelly’s defense attorney, should not have been allowed. (Richissin, 1995).

On May 23, 1997, prosecutors dropped all remaining charges against Robert F. Kelly, Jr. and Kathryn Dawn Wilson. Assistant District Attorney Nancy Lamb said the children’s parents were reluctant to put them through the ordeal of another trial. (Thompson, 1997). Kelly is awaiting trial on eight new counts of sexual abuse unrelated to the day care case. The eight new indictments charge Kelly with raping, abusing and taking indecent liberties with a 9-year-old girl during the summer of 1987. Kelly is free on bond while awaiting trial. (News & Observer, 1996).

Kathryn Dawn Wilson, 27, former cook at Little Rascals, was sentenced in 1993 to life in prison after being convicted of one charge of first-degree sex offense and four charges of taking indecent liberties with a minor. Four children testified that Wilson touched their genitals, forced them to participate in sexual acts, and had sex with Kelly in front of children. (Allegood, 1993).

Wilson’s appeal for a new trial was granted because information about an “irrelevant” theft and Wilson’s history of drug abuse was prejudicial and should have been excluded.** (Richissin, 1995).

Kelly’s wife, Elizabeth T. “Betsy” Kelly, 38, pleaded no contest on January 21, 1994, to 30 charges of abusing 16 children. She was sentenced to seven years in prison. (Allegood, 1994).

Willard Scott Privott, 45, a former video store owner, pleaded no contest June 16, 1994, to over 30 charges of sexually abusing children at the Little Rascals Day Care Center. Sixteen children said that Privott sexually fondled them, forced them to commit sexual acts with other children, with him and with day care employees, and photographed and videotaped the assaults. (Quillin, 1994). Some children allege Privott dressed as a pirate and took them on a boat where they said he molested them, and that he killed babies and fed them to sharks in a tank.


Patrick Figuered, a former electronics firm executive, was sentenced to three consecutive life terms in 1992, after being convicted of sexually abusing three children in 1988. The children, who were between the ages of 2 and 5 years old when the abuse occurred, testified that Figured and his girlfriend, Sonja Hill, molested them at the unlicensed child care center Hill’s mother operated from her home.

The children testified that they were drugged and videotaped during sexual assaults, sodomized with a screwdriver, and forced to participate in satanic rituals in which adults wore capes and masks, lit candles, burned Bibles, and forced children to drink urine and blood. (Soloway, 1992).

Sonja Hill pleaded no contest to aiding and abetting the taking of indecent liberties with children and was sentenced in July 1993, to 10 years in prison. (Eisley, 1993).


Ricky Martin Vernon, a former Boy Scout volunteer, pleaded guilty in 1989 to taking indecent liberties with 13 teenaged boys from 1981 – 1988, and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Vernon offered to initiate the boys into “The Order of the Circle.” In order to learn the ways of “The Circle,” they had to participate in religious rituals that included sex acts and a service that mimicked Christian communion. (News & Observer, 1989).



Estella M. Sexton, 47, mother of 12 children, was convicted April 15, 1994, of sexually, physically and psychologically abusing her daughter. The charges relate to abuse that occurred five years ago when the daughter was eight years old. The girl testified that her mother beat her, stripped her and sexually fondled her. An older brother corroborated her story of abuse and described satanic rituals that took place in the home.

Sexton’s older daughter, Estella M. “Pixie” Good, 24, pleaded guilty earlier in 1994 to manslaughter in the death of her baby. She told authorities she smothered the baby after her father complained about the baby’s crying. (Knox, 1994).


Two teenage babysitters at the First Presbyterian Church were convicted of sexually abusing children while the victims’ parents attended church services. Lawrence Rohde, 19, was convicted in 1992 on 7 counts of gross sexual imposition and sentenced to 14 years in prison. (Boyd, 1992). Scott Butner, 17, pleaded guilty to 5 counts of rape and received a 5 to 10-year prison sentence. (Trexler, 1992).

As many as 50 children described being sexually abused and taken from the church to wooded areas where they said they were forced to participate in child pornography, infanticide, and mutilation of corpses. Victims’ parents demanded that charges be filed against adult church members who allegedly were involved, but only Rohde and Butner were indicted. (Hobbs, 1992).



Ed Gallup, Sr., Mary Lou Gallup and their son, Ed “Chip” Gallup, Jr., who together ran three Gallup Christian Day Care Centers, were accused by over a hundred children of sexual molestation and ritual child abuse. Children described animal killings, pornography, and sexual abuse performed by adults wearing robes.

Ed “Chip” Gallup, Jr. was convicted on three charges of child sexual abuse involving two children. Ed Gallup, Sr., a Nazarene minister, was convicted on the testimony of a 5-year-old girl.

In November, 1989, Mary Lou Gallup’s conviction was reversed because of a discovery violation.**

Ed Gallup, Sr. and Ed “Chip” Gallup, Jr. are serving life terms.



Frances Lucindy Ballard, a teacher’s aide at Georgia Hills Early Childhood Center, was convicted in 1987 on one count of aggravated sexual battery and sentenced to five years in prison.

Nineteen children had initially accused her of sexual assault in June 1984, with allegations including satanic rituals, death threats, and animal sacrifice.

In February 1991, Ballard’s conviction was overturned on grounds that one of several videotapes depicting police interviews with children had been taped over, and thus erased, before it could be viewed by the defense. Her other complaints, including allegations that the children had been brainwashed, were described by the court as “meritless.”** (Newton, 1996)



Frances and Daniel Keller, operators of Fran’s Day Care Center, were convicted in 1992 of aggravated sexual assault of a 3-year-old girl. The Kellers were sentenced to 48 years in prison.

Three children made allegations of abuse that included references to being buried alive with animals, painting pictures with bones dipped in blood, being shot and resurrected, digging up a body in a cemetary and nailing it together, having giant germs implanted in their bodies, and making pornographic movies at gunpoint. (Gamino, 1992).

El Paso

Two teachers at the YMCA day-care center were convicted of sexually abusing children in El Paso, Texas. Michelle Noble, 34, was convicted in March 1986 on 18 counts of molestation and sentenced to life plus 311 years in prison. Gayle Stickler Dove, 40, was convicted in October 1986, on 6 counts of child abuse and sentenced to three life terms plus 60 years.

Two boys and five girls described abuse that included sexual assault, child pornography, spankings with a plastic tennis racket, and occult-type ritual activities by adults dressed in robes and monster costumes.

Noble’s conviction was overturned in 1987 when an appeals court decided that allowing children to testify on videotape violated the defendant’s right to confront her accusers.** Several witnesses withdrew from the case, and without their testimony, Noble was acquitted at her second trial in April 1988.

Gayle Dove was granted a new trial in March 1987, after her conviction had been set aside on appeal due to an allegation of jury misconduct.** At her second trial, she was convicted on a single count of aggravated battery and sentenced to 20 years. In 1989, her second conviction was overturned on the grounds that three children should have testified in person, rather than on videotape.** In April 1990, prosecutors declined to try her a third time, citing the reluctance of the victims’ parents to put their children through the ordeal of another trial. (Newton, 1996).



Alan B. Hadfield was convicted on seven counts of “sodomizing and sexually molesting” two of his children (Salt Lake Tribune, 1988) in a case in which as many as 40 adults in the community were implicated as perpetrators of satanic ritual abuse (Salt Lake Tribune, 1987). No other charges were filed.



In 1984 two children, ages 7 and 5, were removed from their home due to allegations that they had been sexually abused by their mother and her boyfriend. The children said they were forced to witness the murder of a 12-year-old girl during a cult ritual. The mutilated body of 12-year-old Jessica Hatch was discovered in a remote area of Hanover County. She had disapeared on February 5, 1984, while walking to her grandmother’s house.

Police found candles and occult paraphernalia, but said the children “would freeze up… we couldn’t tell whether they were telling the truth or fantasizing.” (Ross, 1986). The children were ruled incompetent to testify and the sexual abuse charges were dismissed.

Gary Jay Beattie, 28, a convicted “peeping Tom” and friend of the other two suspects, was arrested for making indecent proposals to a 9-year-old girl and two 13-year-old girls. All three girls knew Jessica Hatch and said that Beattie had also propositioned her. Beattie was acquitted of accosting the 9-year-old, but entered a plea bargain on outstanding sex charges involving the 13-year-old victims. His 5-year prison sentence was suspended.

In 1988 Beattie was arrested again on multiple charges of voyeurism. At his first trial in July 1988, he was sentenced to 60 days and a $500 fine. He received a 3-year prison term in the second trial. A third trial in October 1988 resulted in a mistrial because one of the jurors was related to a police officer who investigated the case. A retrial was held in December 1988, and Beattie was convicted on a misdemeanor charge, with a 12-month jail term suspended.

In September 1991, while still on probation, Beattie was arrested on new voyeurism charges.

No one has ever been charged with murdering Jessica Hatch, but local newspapers referred to Beattie as the “closest thing to a suspect.” County authorities cited a “strong possibility” that Jessica Hatch was killed in a satanic ritual. (Times-Dispatch and News Leader, 1988-1991).


Thurston County

Paul R. Ingram, a sheriff’s deputy, confessed in 1988 to sexually abusing two of his daughters in the context of satanic rituals. Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of third-degree rape and was sentenced to 220 years in prison.

Later, he attempted to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he had been coerced and had confessed while in a “trance-like state” to crimes he never committed. In September 1992, the Washington State Supreme Court rejected Ingram’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. (Wright, 1993).


Five adults were convicted and 11 pleaded no contest in a child sex-ring investigation involving 48 child victims.

Selid Holt, 34, was convicted and sentenced to 14 years in prison; Michael Rose, 26, was convicted on 5 counts of child rape and molestation and sentenced to 23 years; Doris Green, 34, who confessed and then recanted her statement, was convicted at trial and sentenced to 23 years; Randall Reed, 43, pleaded guilty on two counts of child molestation and was sentenced to 80 months; Meredith Town, 37, an ex-convict who pleaded no contest on 62 counts of child rape and 4 counts of indecent liberties, was sentenced to 18 years and 4 months; Cherie Town (Meredith Town’s wife), also pleaded nolo contendere and was sentenced to 10 years; Harold and Idella Everett both pleaded guilty to molesting their own children, with Harold sentenced to 23 years and Idella to 4 1/2 years. (Newton, 1996).

Child victims referred to the offenders as “The Circle” and described being sexually assaulted and “swapped” in orgies that allegedly took place at a Pentecostal Church. (Sunde, 1995).

Despite defendants’ criticism of the investigation, a review by the U.S. Justice Department found no evidence that defendants’ civil rights were violated. (Sex Crimes Digest, 1996).


Prescott, Ontario

Approximately 50 adults were convicted or pleaded guilty in a child sex ring involving over 100 children.

Children described being abused in a basement by adults wearing masks and sheets. They said they were raped, cut with knives, forced to drink blood, and locked in a “dungeon” with a trap door. (Miller, 1995).

A multi-disciplinary team of social workers, prosecutors and police investigating the case took the code name “Project Jericho” to honor Joshua, a baby witnesses say was killed. (Steed, 1994).

Martensville, Saskatchewan

Travis Sterling, 25, was convicted in February, 1994, on eight charges of sexual and physical abuse of children at his parents’ unlicensed day care home. Sterling was sentenced to five years in prison.

Travis Sterling and his parents, Ron and Linda Sterling, were among nine people, including five police officers, arrested on more than 150 child abuse charges. Seven child witnesses testified to abuse that included sexual assault, unlawful confinement and anal intercourse. Weapons, a vibrator and pornographic magazines were found in the Sterling home.

In addition to Travis Sterling, a 22-year-old woman who can not be identified because she was a minor at the time of her offenses, was convicted in 1993 on seven child abuse counts. (Wattie, 1994).



Twenty-five children were removed from an extended family and taken into foster care following disclosures of incest and ritual child abuse. In February, 1989, nine adults were sentenced for up to 10 years in prison after pleading guilty to 53 charges of incest, cruelty and indecent assault. The children described being abused by adults wearing costumes, being forced to eat excrement and drink blood, and witnessing the killing of animals and babies. (Tate, 1991).

The Netherlands


Rene Osterwalder, 38, and his girlfriend, Agostina Schonenberger, 21, were convicted in February 1994 of illegal weapons charges and attempted child abduction. Schonenberger testified that Osterwalder had planned to abduct children, torture them to death in his apartment, and dump their bodies into an aquarium filled with piranhas.

Because the abductions apparently had not been carried out, Osterwalder was sentenced to only 2 years in prison; Schonenberger was sentenced to 6 months. However, they were ordered to serve their sentences in Switzerland, where they face more serious charges of child torture and sexual abuse.

Police found the following evidence in a search of the couple’s residences:

* Six videotapes showing Osterwalder abusing three children ranging in age from 6 months to 12 years old. The children were given electric shocks, held under water and resuscitated, and abused with feces and needles;

* Two tanks of hydrochloric acid in Switzerland and an aquarium with piranhas in Amsterdam. (Osterwalder owned two homes in Amsterdam; one was a former satanic church);

* A fully equipped torture chamber in Switzerland;

* Gynecological equipment, including a culposcope, speculum and extractor;

* Professional video equipment;

* An Uzi rifle with laser visor, hundreds of bullets, two wristweapons and a shooting pen; and

* Luggage with air openings, hand cuffs, and gags.

Osterwalder admitted he was a pedophile but insisted he had no plan to kidnap children. (Jonker, 1993 and Newton, 1996)

New Zealand


Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis, 35, a former day care employee, was convicted June 5, 1993, on 16 counts of sexual abuse relating to seven children. Ellis was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Children who attended Christchurch Civic Creche described bizarre sexual abuse with references to frightening rituals. The children allege they were removed from the day care facility and transported to other locations, including a cemetary and a Masonic lodge, where they were abused by adults dressed in black and white and wearing masks. In addition to their reports of being used for pornographic purposes, the children described being abused within a circle; chanting and participating in mock marriages; being tied up and confined in cages and boxes buried beneath the ground; being penetrated with needles and sticks; witnessing the torture and killing of animals; being drugged; being forced to hurt other children; having blood poured over their heads; and consuming what they believed was human fles

Other Evidence

In addition to convictions other evidence has surfaced verifying the existence of ritual abuse of children. Several case examples are given below:

New Hampshire

On March 1, 1991, FBI agents arrested three men suspected of running a major child pornography ring. The three men charged were Wayne H. Bailey, 56, of Fairhaven, RI, an audio technician for a Providence, RI television station; Brian K. Schultz, 44, a Barrington, NH man who allegedly reproduced child pornography under the name “New England Video Exchange”; and Mark Colen, 44, from Brooklyn, CT, who headed a company that reproduced and distributed alleged pornographic films.

Law enforcement officials said videotapes recovered in searches of the men’s homes and businesses depicted pregnant women being tortured, children being molested by adults, young women engaged in sexual activities with animals, children urinating on each other and ingesting human feces, and various bizarre sex acts with “satanic” overtones. Some of the children were as young as six years old. (Ford, 1991 and Gaines, 1991).

District of Columbia

A police raid of a home and warehouse connected to the commune known as “The Finders” resulted in the seizure of “several bags of evidence reportedly containing photographs, computer records and other documents.” (Cawley, 1987). A customs agent investigating the case noted that the documents “revealed detailed instructions for obtaining children for unspecified purposes.” (Tamarkin, 1994).

The customs agent’s report listed the following evidence:

“One telex specifically ordered the purchase of two children in Hong Kong. Other files referred to The Finders activities and members in foreign countries. And there was a large amount of data collected on various childcare organizations.”

“In one area of the warehouse, according to the investigator’s report, there appeared to be an altar. Jars of urine and feces were located nearby. The search warrants also turned up nude photos of children with their genital areas accented and ‘on display.’ An album cotained a series of photos of adults and children dressed in white sheets and participating in the execution, disembowelment, skinning and dismemberment of goats. One photo showed the testes of a male goat being removed. Another showed a crying child looking at a decapitated goat. In fact, the goat’s head and goat skins were removed by Virginia state police during a search of a farm belonging to The Finders group.” (Tamarkin, 1994).

Despite the urgings of the customs agent and several U.S. Representatives, The Finders case was dropped “like a hot rock.” (Wilkin, 1993).


Authorities are investigating a possible link between Belgium’s child sex and murder scandal and a self-styled Satanic Order of Abrasax. Police seized 500 video cassettes believed to show hard-core child pornography, computer discs, two human skulls and jars of animal blood. (Sunday Express, 1997 and Sunday Times, 1996)


Police in Finland discovered a “massive computer library of child pornography that included pictures of torture, mutilation, and cannibalism.” The owner of the child pornography was not arrested because distributing hard-core child pornography is a minor offense in Finland. (World, 1996.)


Allegood, J. (1991). “Abuse trial opens.” The News & Observer, August 20.

“Child, 5, alleges more abuse at trial.” The News & Observer, August 27.

“Mother says son told her of satanic chants at center.” The News & Observer, Sept. 11.

Allegood, J. (1993). “Jurors convict Rascals cook.” The News & Observer, Jan. 27.

Allegood, J. (1994). “No contest plea in Little Rascals child-sex case.” The News & Observer, January 22.

“Arkansas teen faces death sentence in murder of 3 boys.” Chicago Tribune, March 20, 1994.

Beifuss, J. (1994). “Misskelley guilty in boys’ slayings.” The Commercial Appeal, February 5.

Boyd, B. (1992). “Rohde guilty on 7 counts.” News Journal, March 18.

Cawley, Janet. (1987) “2 cult children show signs of sex abuse,” Chicago Tribune, February 9.

“Child abuser gets 12 life sentences.” (1992). Chicago Tribune, April 24.

“Child Exploitation,” World (USA Today), September 7, 1996, p. 10.

“Child molester gets 40 years in Minnesota case.” (1985), Chicago Tribune, January 19.

Crewdson, J., Emmerman, L. and Ogintz, E. (1984) “Sexual abuse case continues to haunt town in Minnesota.” Chicago Tribune, December 16.

“Dad says girl was chained to restrict her self-abuse.” Flint Journal, March 21, 1994.

“Day-care owner guilty on 99 child abuse counts.” (1992). Chicago Tribune. April 23.

“Discovery of bound girl confirms many suspicions.” Flint Journal, February 19, 1994.

Eisley, M. (1993). “Woman loses gamble in sex abuse plea bargain.” The News & Observer, July 6.

Emmerman, L. (1984). “Charges of child sex-abuse ring rock town.” Chicago Tribune, August 27.

Emmerman, L. (1984). “Witness recants sex-ring story.” Chicago Tribune.

“Fells Acre Day-Care: Amiraults May Return to Prison.” The Survivor Activist (14), Vol. 5, No. 1, Spring, 1997.

Ford, Beverly. (1991). “Parents eye porn-ring link.” The Boston Herald, March 11.

Ford, Beverly. (1991). “Cape parents want porn case reopened.” The Boston Herald, March 18.

“Former Critic Reverses, Says ‘The System Worked,’“ Sex Crimes Digest, 1996.

Gaines, Judith. (1991). “Three Men Charged With Running N.E. Child Pornography Ring.” The Boston Globe, March 2.

Gamino, D. and P. Ward. (1992). “Garden of horror.” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Dec. 20.

Hobbs, M.A. (1992). “Tales of satanism divide Mansfield.” The Plain Dealer, November 29.

Hollingsworth, J. (1986). Unspeakable Acts. Chicago: Congden and Weed.

Hubert, C. (1989). “Day-care abuse stuns Iowa town.” Daily Herald, December 4.

Jonker, F. and Jonker-Bakker, P. (1993). “Actuality in the Netherlands,” European Network for Backlash Research Newsletter Number 2, December.

“Judge orders couple to trial on charges of child abuse.” Flint Journal, 1994.

Kelley, M. “Ritual child-abuse allegations draw attention to Danville case.” The Associated Press, January 27, 1997.

Knox, D. (1994). “Sexton mother guilty of abuse.” Akron Beacon Journal, April 15.

Kraft, B. P.. (1996). “Ex-Satanist to Serve 9 Years on Sex Charges.” Clarion-Ledger.

“Little Rascals case reopened.” (1996). The News & Observer, April 30.

“Man convicted of luring boys to sex rituals.” (1989). The News & Observer, August 27.

McCullers, L.C. (1994). “Case overview.” July 14.

Miller, J. (1995). “Walls came a’ tumbling.” Winnipeg Free Press, April 3.

“Molestation case,” Northwest Herald, August 14, 1996.

“Murder suspect linked to Satanism.” Chicago Tribune, June 6, 1993.

“Murders of 8-year-olds reportedly a cult ritual.” Chicago Tribune, June 8, 1993.

New York Law Journal. (1992). January 16.

New York Times. ( 1985 – 1987).

News Leader, May, 1988 – September 1991.

Newton, M. (1996) Guilty As Charged. Presentation at the International Council on Cultism and Ritual Trauma Conference, April 12-14, Dallas, Texas.

“No contest plea in Little Rascals child-sex case.” (1994). The News & Observer, Jan. 22.

Ogintz, E. (1984). “Dropping of sex cases investigated,” Chicago Tribune, October 17.

“Pair guilty of abuse in chaining girl to bed.” Flint Journal, October 21, 1994.

“Parole denied for Little Rascals co-owner.” (1994). The News & Observer, April 16.

Perrusquia, M. and B. Sullivan. (1993). “Occult publications draw scrutiny in triple slayings.” The Commercial Appeal, September 29.

“Prosecutors sued.” (1996), Chicago Tribune, June 16.

Quillin, M. (1994). “Little Rascals defendant pleads no contest, will go free.” The News & Observer, June 17.

Richissin, Todd. (1995). “Rascals convictions overturned.” The News & Observer, May 3.

Ross, A.S. (1994). “Blame it on the Devil.” Redbook, June, 86-89, 110, 114, 116.

Ross, A.S. (1986). “Sensational cases across the country.” San Francisco Examiner, September 29.

Salt Lake Tribune, January 13, 1988.

Salt Lake Tribune, December 16, 1987.

“Satanic Link Feared in the search for young victims.” Sunday Express, January 12, 1997.

“Satanic Links to Belgian Murder Trail.” Sunday Times, December 29, 1996.

“Sentencing ends child abuse ordeal.” (1994). The Atlanta Journal/The Atlanta Constitution, June 21.

S.O.A.R. Newsletter, Vol. 6, No. 6, May/June, 1997.

Soloway, C. (1992). “Raleigh man sentenced to 3 life terms for abuse.” The News & Observer, October.

“Son comes to parents’ defense in child-sex trial.” (1984), Chicago Tribune.

Steed, J. (1994). Our Little Secret: Comfronting Child Sexual Abuse in Canada. Toronto: Random House.

Sullivan, B. (1994). “Prosecutors seek to link occult in 3 boys’ deaths.” The Commercial Appeal, March 8.

Sullivan, B. (1994). “Witness: Baldwin said he tasted boy’s blood.” The Commercial Appeal, February 5.

Sullivan, B. (1994). “Echols gets death; Baldwin spared.” The Commercial Appeal, March 20.

Tamarkin, Civia (1994). “Investigative Issues in Ritual Abuse Cases, Part II.” Treating Abuse Today, 4(5), 5-9.

Tate, T. (1991). Children for the Devil: Ritual Abuse and Satanic Crime. London: Methuen.

“Teacher’s molestation conviction overturned.” (1993), Chicago Tribune, March 27.

Thompson, E. “Charges dropped in massive sex case.” The Associated Press, May 24, 1997.

Times-Dispatch, May 1988 – September 1991.

Trexler, P. (1992). “Butner pleads guilty.” News Journal, February 21.

“2 teens convicted in slayings of 3 Arkansas boys.” Chicago Tribune, March 19, 1994.

“21 to tell of abuse at school.” (1989). The Orlando Sentinel, April 5.

Wattie, C. (1994). “Child-abuser gets bail in Martensville case.” The Gazette (Montreal), February 10.

“Witch charged with sexually assaulting boy.” The News-Times, August 2, 1996.

“Witch trial.” Northwest Herald, August 22, 1996 and October 13, 1996.

Witkin, Gordon and Peter Cary. (1993). “Through a glass, very darkly.” U.S. News & World Report, December 27.

Wright, L. (1993). “Remembering Satan.” The New Yorker.

* Because ritual abuse allegations often are not disclosed in courtroom proceedings, this list represents only a portion of convictions where ritual child abuse is a factor.

** A conviction is overturned on appeal when the appellate court finds that the defendant was denied a fair trial due to a legal error. Granting an appeal for a new trial does not constitute a ruling that the crime for which the defendant was originally tried could not have been committed.



The Pace of ACE: “The State’s “Child Partnerships,” so Very Kind, Storming The Last Refuge, Sanctity of the Mind.”

“Cutting Through the Matrix” with Alan Watt
(Blurb, i.e. Educational Talk)
The Pace of ACE:
“The State’s “Child Partnerships,” so Very Kind,
Storming The Last Refuge, Sanctity of the Mind.”
© Alan Watt Oct. 14, 2018

*Title & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt – Oct. 14, 2018 (Exempting Music and Literary Quotes)

Topics of show covered in following links:

Getting it right for every child (GIRFEC)

ACE-Aware Scotland

Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs)

Mental health care for children and adolescents worldwide: a review

Mental health checks for pupils: Teachers to assess children as young as four – as Britain appoints world’s first Minister for Suicide Prevention

World War 2 left toxic legacy of ill health and depression

Scottish GPs to begin prescribing rambling and birdwatching

The genocidal Kalergi plan to destroy the indigenous nations and peoples of Europe

by cymrusofren


The hot potato of immigration – a perfectly reasonable debate for citizens of any country to have but one that many from all political persuasions are often unable to have without resorting to hysteria and polarisation.

Natural and sustainable immigration happens organically. Economic immigrants, whether legal or not, can’t be blamed or demonised for looking for a better quality of life. And genuine asylum seekers who escape war zones and civil wars created by any aggressor including western/Nato countries should expect our sympathy and help and be given refuge in the nearest safe country or countries as set out in international law.

But it isn’t that simple. Sadly there are political leaders and planners who seek to create and use mass immigration and the forced movement of people for their own nefarious purposes. Not many people have heard of the The Kalergi Pan European plan for Europe. In the 1920s, Free Mason Count Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi wrote a book titled “Praktischer Idealismus,” (Practical Idealism) which set out his views on how he believed the abolition of the right of self-determination and the elimination of European nations should be accomplished with the formation of an European Union.


After publishing the book, Kalergi received help from Baron Louis de Rothschild who put him in touch with one of his friends, banker Max Warburg. Warburg then supported Kalergi with considerable funds to help form his European movement. The main problem lays with the fact that what Kalergi called for was not only the destruction of European nation states but also the deliberate ethnocide of the indigenous, mostly Caucasian race of the European continent. This he proposed should be done through enforced mass migration to create an undifferentiated homogeneous mass of serfs to be dominated by a wealthy self electing elite.

Kalergi in his own words:

“The (European) man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will disappear owing to the disappearing of space (nations), time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its outward appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals”

This, Kalergi stated,  should be a plan run for and by the racial and spiritual supremacy of ‘blood aristocracy and Jewry’. These are all his crude racialist words, not mine. People should be free to mix and settle with a partner from whatever race or ethnicity they choose. But what Kalergi and the Pan European plan specifically calls out for is the deliberate use of enforced and disproportionate mass immigration, especially from non-European countries, in order to bring in a Pan European single state dictatorship and destroy the indigenous pink/white nationalities, and therefore resistance, of Europe.

Who's supposed to be the monarch again?

Who’s supposed to be the monarch again? Evelyn de Rothschild chats with Prince Charles

In order to get a better picture of where this kind of twisted thinking comes from, those interested might want to look in more detail at Kabbalaism and at Babylonian mystery religion. These occult paganistic, Luciferian, anti Christian doctrines can be seen manifested in the highest degrees of Free Masonry and other secret societies, in the Kabbalah Zohar literature, in the subversive Sabbatean/Frankist movements and in the highly unpleasant supremacist teachings of the Babylonian Talmud bible –  a doctrine that refers to non Talmudists as the sub-human Goyim/Gentiles (cattle) and which is followed and taught within Rabbinical and ultra orthodox Talmudism  and within religious and political Zionism.

Babylonian occultism has also creeped in to most other organised religions at the higher levels including Roman Catholicism,  Islam, Protestant Christianity,  Buddhism, Hinduism and the New Age Movement.  It is also to be found as a guiding principle in the upper echelons of the unelected United Nations.


Alongside globalist corporations and philanthropists, these followers of occult Kabbalaism and extreme Talmudic and Zionist teachings seem to be especially preoccupied with deliberately destroying the indigenous nations and Caucasian race of Europe through mass enforced and unfettered multiculturalism. They also seem preoccupied in destroying the traditional Christian heritage and moral values that have largely helped to build and maintain a flourishing and diverse, culturally rich European civilisation.

The illegal attacks led by a small crazed Anglo-American-Israeli elite seen in recent years on majority Muslim countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya has also conveniently led to the radicalisation of many of the men and women of those countries. A large proportion of whom are now intent on revenge through the bloody destruction of the west by war or invasion. It could be easily surmised that this has played beautifully in to the hands of those European and Zionist elements who themselves want to see Europe destroyed as the Kalergi plan lays out. In other words, the radical Muslims have been played as much as we Europeans have. Divide and conquer, play both sides and all that. Perhaps it would be an idea for all divided enemies to start talking to each other and to look at who all the vested interests pulling all these strings might be and ask why are they doing it?


The majority of the people of Israel and elsewhere who are moderate non Talmudic followers of old testament (Torah) Judaism,  Arab Christians,  Atheists, Agnostics, and moderate Muslims are also as much victims of such dangerous elite supremacist doctrine as we in Europe seem to be. And many if not most orthodox Jews don’t even realise that what they’re following or affiliating themselves with is extreme Talmudic Judaism, with increasing numbers now becoming aware of the extremities of Talmudic teachings.

Zionism is essentially Rothschild Zionism. The Rothschild family is a globalist banking family who have been and are currently in charge of most of the wealth and central banks of the world, and a great deal of its media. They are also bankers to the equally rich and powerful Roman Catholic Church and its Jesuit order in the Vatican – another institution heavily infiltrated by occult Kabbalism and one also very keen on a globalist new world order of one government, one cashless currency and one religion.


The Rothschilds are said to have been funding both sides of wars and other major world events and revolutions since the bloody French revolution, profiting from such events whatever the results.  It was to Lord Rothschild that Arthur James Balfour promised the whole of Palestine in his infamous Balfour declaration letter of November 2nd 1917, not to any nation or peoples.  This deal, it is alleged, was agreed by the British state in return for the Rothschild Zionists managing to bring the Americans in to World War One. The Zionists had to resort to making this desperate deal after Germany, although they were winning the war, offered armistice to Britain in 1916 with no requirement of reparations.

Historians claim that the Zionists involved were very anxious to make sure that there was no such early peace as they were expecting to make far more money from the war and were not yet ready for it to end – an incomprehensible and criminal mindset that led to the further deaths of millions of young men and women from all over Britain, Europe and beyond. This crisis also presented a great opportunity for the Zionist movement to demand Israel as their own after many years of planning on the international stage, especially through the World Zionist Organization formed by Theodor Herzl in 1897.

It is also well documented and highlighted by renowned historians such as Anthony C Sutton and others that it was the internationalist banking fraternity based out of Wall street and the City of London who, directly and indirectly, funded the murderous and genocidal Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917 as well as the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Germany regime in the 1920’s and 1930’s. Together with the first world war, these led to the deaths of hundreds of millions people. The Rothschilds are a key part of this internationalist banking fraternity, its subsidiaries and its corporate affiliates.

It is alleged that The Rothschilds today own at least 80% of modern day Israel – the land that was ‘given’ to them as if by magic. The six sided hexagram star seen on the flag of Israel is not the star of David as we have been led to believe – it  is an occult satanic symbol going back to Babylonian times and adopted by the House of Rothschild in recent centuries.

The rotting corporate owned mainstream media won’t investigate any such claims with an unbiased evidence based approach of course. Slurs of ‘anti Semitism’ are thrown at anyone trying to rationally and fairly criticise and debate issues to do with Zionist/supremacist related extremism. The ‘Friends of Israel’ lobbying groups in Europe and AIPAC and the Anti Defamation League in the USA and elsewhere are well versed in conducting trial by media witch hunts against anyone not reading from the script, shutting down free speech and essential public scrutiny and attempting to emotionally blackmail everyone in the process. Which is why most people have stopped listening to the mainstream media and its increasingly desperate attempts at criminal mass propaganda, deflection, spin and lies.

And as suggested by some modern genetic research and officially stated by the Israeli government (reported here in the Times Of Israel), a great deal of modern Israelis or those today calling themselves Jews aren’t even Semitic anyhow. Many are believed to be of Khazarian Turkic ancestry who converted from paganism to Talmudic Judaism in and around the 8th or ninth century AD, and mostly self identify as Ashkenazi Jews – Yiddish or English often being their chosen language rather than Hebrew. Not that it should particularly matter. But this is one example of how trigger words and terms are misused and manipulated by the mainstream media in order to push their own agenda and narrative, and at the same time shut down any criticism and healthy open debate.


It’s also very important to note that the cabal working behind the internationalist bankers have been at it for a very long time indeed. Numerous historians and writers state that this evil conspiracy goes back to the dawn of mankind. In his excellent book ‘Pawns in the Game‘, author William Carr describes how a small group of  ‘false priests and money lenders’ have been at it since before Biblical times trying to create a new world order and to gain full control over its inhabitants. He describes them interchangeably as Illuminati, Pharisees and of the Synagogue of Satan. Carr adds that blaming the Jewish and/or Semitic people as a whole is of little use as the small group of extremist false priests he mentions cared little for any one nation, people or race and, contrarily, “intended to use the hate engendered amongst the Jewish people as the result of persecution, to serve their vile purposes, and further their secret totalitarian ambitions.” – something World Zionist Organisation figurehead Theodor Herzl also propogated in his extremist ramblings in the 19th century and which others continue to do in the same vein in the present time.

Not to say that there aren’t a number of people who identify as Jewish involved in this vile conspiracy – of course there are. But what we are dealing with is a minority of fanatical extremist elites that, based on their supremacist and occult beliefs, can simply be described as bad, dangerous and even satanic regardless of where they may or not be from. What unites all of them is that, at their highest levels, they are following occult Kabbalistic luciferian doctrine. In other words, this is a good old fashioned battle between good and evil.

And, as mentioned, what this affiliated globalist cabal ultimately seek is a one world state and full globalist control, with one government, one currency, one army and one world religion, and with a luciferian god masquerading as the true God.

Going back to the subject at hand, this mass enforced immigration plan is incitement to genocide as defined by the United Nations even though the UN themselves as well as the EU have been proponents of exactly this kind of mass movement of people in to Europe under the ominous title of ‘Replacement Migration’. Such an idea goes against all notions of equality and the celebration of diversity. Such a plan is a deliberate attack on the very notion of diversity – a “Mein Kampf” in reverse. Ethnocidal based European unification and the union of other Orwellian world regions would likely be the first steps in creating an eventual world government, potentially under the UN or a similar unelected global body.


But surely Kalergi was just a lone racist quack with twisted genocidal fantasies? It appears not. Another reason why this is a serious concern stems from the fact that every year, in his honour, the European Union bestows the Coudenove-Kalergi prize to “Europeans who have excelled in promoting European integration.” This is done officially under the name of The Charlemagne Prize. Recent winners of the award have been such moral luminaries as Angela Merkel, Herman Van Rompuy, Tony Blair and Henry Kissinger.

The Charlemagne Prize 2015 being awarded to President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz

The Charlemagne Prize 2015 being awarded to President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz

It might be an idea for our rarely heard of MEP’s to start asking EU Parliament supporters of the Charlemagne Prize why it is that they give such a prestigious prize every year in honour of such a racist supremacist genocidal maniac as Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi.

This is probably an unknown aspect of the history of the European Union to many. But there can be little doubt that this man, Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, is seen as the spiritual founder of the European Union and that he is still being celebrated and revered today by the leadership of the European Union.


Whether Kalergi’s vision is being followed word for word or not perhaps is not the main issue. Mass and disproportionate movement of people in to Europe is happening whether we believe it or not. And most are economic migrants not refugees. Once those genuinely fleeing wars arrive at the nearest safe country and are given sanctuary as they should, they can claim refugee status. This is why aid from Britain and Europe is much better spent on helping those in need in these safe haven countries nearest to conflict zones such as Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. But if those claiming to be refugees then insist on moving on to other countries that they have their eye on then they become self chosen economic migrants.


It’s reported that more than a million recorded people reached Europe through irregular means in 2015 alone. According to Frans Timmerman, Vice-President of the European Commission, it’s estimated that around 60% of those coming in to Europe from the Middle East and Africa are economic migrants using asylum-seeker status as a cover. Even this 60% figure seems to be a conservative estimate from looking at other various reports.

It’s long puzzled many how so many poverty stricken refugees escaping from war-torn countries can afford to pay the 10,000 or so Euros needed to cross the Mediterranean into Europe. Austrian intelligence officials have revealed that US government agencies are paying for the transport of a great deal of these migrants in to Europe. On August 5th, 2015 Austrian magazine Infodirekt reported:

“It has come to our knowledge that US organisations are paying for the boats taking thousands of refugees to Europe. US organisations have created a co-financing scheme which provides for a considerable portion of the transportation costs. Not every refugee from North Africa has 11,000 Euro cash. Nobody is asking, where is the money coming from?”

French government officials and Turkish authorities are also reported to have beencaught red handed selling life boats and equipment to refugees in Turkey. Billionaire George Soros, alleged funder of numerous revolutionary ‘springs’ and movements including the divisive race baiters Black Lives Matter in the USA, who also has a global network of non-governmental organisation (NGO) fronts operating under his Open Society Foundations, recently insisted that the European Union should spend a further 10 billion Euros to facilitate the movement of more than a million mainly ‘Muslim refugees’ into Europe every year from now on.


Brussels seems to be complying with the instructions of this self-appointed global Tsar. Soros is also alleged to be a front man for the Rothschilds. According to renowned Irish journalist Gearóid Ó Colmáin, the company that would mostly benefit from this increased EU spending is Equistone Partners Europe, an affiliate of the Rothschild-owned Barclays Bank.

Reports also allege that Soros and his cohorts’ geopolitical meddling have helped to create the sudden mass movements of people in general, allowing for the resulting integration of ISIS/ISIL members in to the mass of economic migrants and asylum seekers arriving in Europe. The end outcome being the potential chaos and clash of civilisations and religions that we have already seen glimpses of.

It’s a claim substantiated by numerous other sources reporting that thousands of covert trained fighters have been successfully smuggled in to Europe posing as migrants – the full amount being impossible to determine at this stage.

Former EU Commission President Herman Van Rompuy

Former EU Commission President Herman Van Rompuy

None of this should really be that much of a surprise considering that it’s by now being widely reported that it was the USA, Israel and their allies who created Al-Qaeda in the first place.  And it shouldn’t either be much of a surprise because, as mentioned, ‘Replacement Migration’ to deliberately bring in at least 56 million people from mostly Africa to Europe by 2050 is a very real and genocidal policy that has already been planned by both the UN and EU since at least the year 2000 – a policy carried out under the auspices of various inter connected globalist agencies and plans such as the International Organisation for MigrationGlobal Migration GroupThe Africa-EU PartnershipWorld Bank and the cult of international sustainable development also known as Agenda 21/2030 Agenda.

UN Special Representative Peter Sutherland explains the criminal UN plan for Europe

UN Special Representative Peter Sutherland explains the criminal UN plan for Europe

And, as mentioned, the mainstream media who can only shout ‘conspiracy theorist’ at those who present documented evidence on such matters have become defunct bodies that the majority of people don’t listen to or trust anymore. It is a conspiracy though, that much is true. A horrific conspiracy against all of humanity, civilisation and all monotheistic religions. Our politicians and public figures have a moral duty to expose all of these issues and the EU deceit for what it is. In this they have failed us.


Immigration occurs in to all countries and every country on earth has an indisputable right to control immigration numbers in to their countries based on their own capabilities and needs. This is common sense. This debate really should be about numbers, not race, ethnicity or nationality. But immigration only works if the immigration numbers are sustainable, occur organically and are in keeping with the needs and capabilities of the host nation. That and ensuring that there is enough time and resources for new citizens to assimilate and become productive members of their new societies. That is when true multiculturalism can work.

When the numbers are disproportionate, unnaturally forced or out of control, there will inevitably be tensions and effects on jobs and wages, on public services and on society at large. Nobody wins. Racial incitement to hatred and extremism from across the whole political spectrum should be tackled whenever it occurs. But the racism of those political leaders that deliberately inflict disproportionate mass migration on any country without the agreement of that country and its people should be tackled equally.


Former president of the European Parliament Martin Schulz

As importantly, all matters to do with diversity in the form of race, culture, religion and nationality should be discussed, debated and understood rather than brushed under the carpet and treated as if they don’t exist.

But in Britain, Europe and the west generally, extreme politically correct indoctrination by the media and the education system has been so effective that many people self identifying as progressive liberals refuse to recognise the issues that mass unfettered and open border immigration can cause to any country if not tackled with a rational and balanced approach.

ClMKcVfWYAAnUgr.jpg large

Freedom of thought and freedom of speech are also under threat from general bigotry, especially liberal bigotry. And it seems that it’s only the western, traditionally Christian European countries that have no right whatsoever to speak out or to control immigration numbers in to and within their borders. And any in Europe that do raise rational objections are demonised and hounded down as racists, bigots and parochial isolationists. It is sadly largely true that ‘anti racist’ has started to become code for ‘anti white’ in Europe, in north America and elsewhere as well. The narrative being pushed is that it is only these mostly white European countries that can be racist, no one else. They have no right to a voice. They have to be silenced and demonised at any opportunity for speaking out against their own potential destruction.

The weapons of so called ‘white guilt’, ‘white privilege’ and ‘spoilt capitalist westerner’ tags have been selected from the divide and rule globalist tool box and are being used to silence any rational concerns that are expressed from within these European nations – the vast majority of which have no issues with sustainable immigration numbers and are welcoming, respectful and tolerant towards all races, religions, nationalities and ethnicities.


As previously alluded to, the narrative created and pushed in the mainstream media obsesses on, forces and fetishises the whole issue to be about race and skin colour, polarising and framing all arguments based on this predisposition.

And the snobbery, contempt, and derisiveness shown by the liberal elite towards British and European citizens of all races and creed who have a rational and legitimate concern about unlimited immigration, also shows how disconnected the political system is from the public and Realpolitik in general. The inverted racism and polarised views of this liberal  elite are perfectly demonstrated by the fact that they seem to believe that it’s only the pink/white citizens of Britain and Europe who have concerns about unlimited immigration in to their countries.


And there is another deeply flawed double standard in the argument for enforced unlimited immigration and multiculturalism. A great deal of the world’s non-European populations are mono cultural/mono racial. Why aren’t self proclaimed progressives insisting that these countries should be forced to accept open door immigration, to become more multicultural and more ethnically diverse? Why aren’t they demanding that China, Japan, Israel, Saudi Arabia and African countries become unquestioning multi cultural and multi racial societies? Why is it that, at the present time, it’s only the indigenous European nations that should unequivocally accept enforced unlimited immigration and multiculturalism?

Many will protest to rightly defend Tibet and Palestine from displacement and colonisation because the liberal progressive media has told them that this is acceptable to do. But the same people won’t defend the same rights held by European nations. Here the inconsistency and hypocrisy of enforced immigration and multiculturalism is exposed.

But it’s exactly this kind of flawed logic that the western so called liberal progressive elite seem to revel in – the promotion of sovereignty in the west as being an inherently racist concept. This is nonsense. Racism is defined as persecution or demeaning of other races based on the idea of racial superiority. The obvious irony is that deliberate unfettered and enforced immigration in to any country in order to colonise, destabilise and destroy it is one of the most extreme racist doctrines that can be carried out and, as mentioned, is recognised as genocide by the UN.

The cruel trick played on the well meaning dupes in the west who support unlimited mass migration and open borders, is that they themselves are the unwitting victims of the worst kind of horrible and vexatious racist doctrine against them. In a glorious mess of ignorance and zombie like virtue signalling they will even gladly assist and protest on behalf of those elements that want to see them destroyed. That is how effective the cognitive dissonance and propaganda has become and it’s one example of how ultra progressiveness has become ultra regressive.

The immigration debate has been thoroughly polarised by the decaying faux liberal progressive mainstream media. The choice we’re told is to either be on the left and for unbridled open door immigration, or on the right and an ‘anti migrant’, xenophobic, white privileged swivel eyed isolationist supremacist evil patriarchal racist. The mainstream media is no friend of rational unpolarised  debate dealing with facts, logic, reason and truth.


But if the left / right terminology has to be used for the sake of explaining then so be it. To paraphrase a commentator on the Craig Murray blog; whilst economic issues have definitely lurched sharply rightwards in recent years,  social issues have moved sharply to the left. This is why there has been such an increase in identity politics – political correctness, third wave feminism etc, to the exclusion of what might be termed ‘old left’ concerns. And whilst these politically correct issues, also often referred to as cultural Marxism/critical theory, become ever more ubiquitous, issues of rising inequalities, globalisation and neo liberal economic thinking have been largely ignored.

And in this polarised supercharged politically correct climate, a person has to be either for open door immigration or totally anti any immigration whatsoever. There is no room for any middle ground based on rational controlled immigration according to skill, need and capacity – i.e a normal way for countries to operate. Those expressing these rational views are shouted down by those brainwashed and lost to politically correct and identity politics indoctrination.


Children are also being indoctrinated to become unthinking dutiful EU and global citizens parroting the same well oiled clichés under the globalist deception of sustainable development as seen and heard in the recent EU debate. They almost might as well be taught to chant “Tyranny is peace, patriotism is slavery” and be done with it.

The indoctrination of political correctness has been so pervasive that it has brainwashed many into dismissing their own countries as parochial annoyances that should be destroyed in favour of a globalist borderless new world order of regions – a horrible hybrid of Orwellianism and a Brave New World.

But how can an indoctrinated global citizen or ‘internationalist’ truly love the world and all its diversity of people if he or she can’t even acknowledge or respect the right of their own country to exist? It tends to be true that it’s people who have love or respect for their own country that are the people who make the best global citizens in its truest sense. Because these individuals can understand and respect true diversity, and know that the differences and idiosyncrasies of the differing nations on earth should be celebrated not treated with scorn and dismissal in favour of enforced globalist uniformity.

As German philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder – an inspiration to the renowned Austrian and honory Welshman writer Leoplold Kohr of ‘small is beautiful’ fame, wrote:

“The deluged heart of the idle cosmopolite is a hut for no-one.”

But perhaps this is the really important crux of the matter: Sovereignty. Sovereignty, accountability and democracy. Speaking as a Welsh Briton who believes in the fundamental right of countries to be fully fledged sovereign states in the world, it should be obvious by now that the failed EU project is about eroding and destroying the sovereignty of nations rather than protecting them.

Cardiff's distinguished Civic Centre

Cardiff’s (Capital of Wales) distinguished Civic Centre

I’m proud of my country of Wales. I’m proud to be from a spirited country that isn’t afraid to fight for its right to exist in a world of diverse, beautifully different nations on earth.

My patriotism is not based on hate of any other country or people, narrow mindedness or isolationism. It’s based on love of my own country and on the rational concept of the fundamental right of nations to sovereignty on planet earth – a thought crime for the current self appointed liberal elite.

Those that genuinely love Europe and cherish its remarkable cultural richness and diversity know that those are the very qualities that the elites of the crumbling EU superstate want to weaken and eventually destroy if they get their way. And mass unfettered migration is only one way that they will attempt to do it. The people of Europe are realising that they have been cheated by the elites of their countries and have to start holding them to account and shining a light on all their lies.

(This is a shortened and adapted version of a previous article titled ‘Vote no to EU enslavement’: )


Count Richard Nicolaus Coudenhove Kalergi – Practical Idealism, (Praktischer Idealismus)

New March 2017 – Download pdf file
Complete English translation of the entire book Practical Idealism
Website note: We have had no time to check this translation

The Racist and Supremacist Roots
of the
Ideology behind the European Union 

Short link to this article

NEW! Video by Matthew North uploaded September 2017

Set in Limited State by YouTube Censors ADL

Download here (right click and choose save as, or save target as):

The Kalergi Plan – Full Documentary Creation Of The EU International Communism

YouTube URL

Matthew North’s YouTube Channel

(Original page continued)

Numbers in square brackets: [12] refer to pages in the original book / the downloadable pdf-document. A few headings which are not part of the original text have been inserted by me. Comments in square brackets are also mine. I have tried to follow the original – somewhat archaic, and in some places a bit hard to read – German text as closely as possible. I also invite others to translate the text into other languages and send me their translated text for publication on my website. Europeans have a right to this information.

Images captions and inserted textboxes are not part of the original document

English translation of selections of Practical Idealism (Praktischer Idealismus)

Coudenhove Kalergi was not Jewish himself. On his fathers side he was of mixed European descent (Flemish. Chech Hungarian Greek) with lots of nobility.

His mother was a Japanese from an aristocratic family.

He married the 13 year older Jewess Ida Roland[born Ida Klausner] a popular actress with whom he has two sons. Ida Roland died in 1951. In 1952 he married Alexandra Gräfin von Tiele, born Bally. In 1969 he married the Austrian Jewess Melanie Benatzky Hoffmann.

Richard Coudenhove Kalergi
Richard Nicolaus
Coudenhove Kalergi
Count R. N. Courdenhove-Kalergi is seen by many as the father of the modern European Union. It was him who suggested Beethovens hymn as the EU’s national anthem, and was very active in connection with the design of the EU logo which contains 12 stars which symbolize the 12 tribes of Israel. The logo was finalized by the Jew Paul M.G. Lévi2)

Otto von Habsburg was Coudenhove-Kalergi’s successor as president of the Pan European Union. He is a honorary professor of the University of Jerusalem, and recipient of the ‘International Humanitarian Award’, of the ‘Anti Defamation-League‘ (ADL) of the Jewish B’nai B’rith Masonery Lodge.

Coudenhove-Kalergi’s father was a close friend of Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism

Praktischer Idealismus

Forbidden in Germany

Hidden by the European Movement

This book has probably not been printed in many copies, since it is very hard to get hold of a printed copy today.
In Germany the book is practically censored, even though it is not on the official list of books censored by the German government, it is not possible to buy it in any bookstores in Germany, neither new nor used.

When the publishing company ‘Independent News’ [Unabhängige Nachrichten] around 1990 published a summary of the book and contemplated printing it in it’s entirety, the government initiated a police search of the premises, and the only copy of Praktischer Idealismus was confiscated.

The book is also not mentioned on the official Internet pages of the Pan European Movement, which is understandable because its content is directly in opposition to the movement’s official program. The question is how this discrepancy originated: Was the Pan European Movement hijacked? Or was Praktischer Idealismus only meant for the few in the inner circles, and all the talk of Christian values, democracy etc. only empty rhetoric? Translated from Danish Wikipedia article

By Count Richard N. Coudenhove Kalergi – published in Vienna 1925.

Europeans to become negroid mongrels

The man of the future will be a mongrel. Today’s races and classes will disappear owing to the disappearing of space, time, and prejudice.

The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its outward appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals. [22]

Christianity, ethically prepared by the Jewish Essays (John), spiritually prepared by the Jewish Alexandrians (Philo), was regenerated Jewry. Insofar as Europe is Christian, it is in a spiritual sense Jewish, insofar as Europe is moral, it is Jewish.

Almost all of European ethics are rooted in Jewry. All protagonists for a religious or non religious Christian morality, from Augustine to Rousseau, Kant and Tolstoy, were Jews of choice [Wahljuden] in a spiritual sense. Nietzsche is the only non Jew, the only European heathen moralist.

In the East the Chinese people are the ethical par excellence [..] – in the West it is the Jews.

God was the head of state of the ancient Jews, their moral laws civil law, sin was crime.

Through the ages Jewry has remained faithful to the theocratic idea of the identification of politics and ethics: Christianity and Socialism are both attempts to create an earthly paradise. [lit.: a State of God]

Two thousand years ago, the ancient Christians – not the Pharisees and Sadducees – were the revivers of the Mosaic tradition; today it is neither the Zionists nor the Christians, but the Jewish leaders of Socialism: because they wish, with the most exalted unselfishness, to erase the original sin of capitalism, to free the people from injustice, violence and subservience and to change the redeemed world into an earthly paradise. [27]

From Moses to Weininger ethics have been the main problem for Jewish philosophy.

In this ethical basic attitude to the world lies one origin of the exceptional greatness of the Jewish people – at the same time also the danger that Jews who have forgotten their belief in the ethics sink to become cynical egoists: while people with another mentality – even after losing their ethical attitude – still retain some amount of chivalrous values and prejudices (man of honor, gentleman, cavalier etc.), which protects them from the fall into the abyss of values.

What mainly separates the Jews from the average city dwellers is the fact that they are inbred people.

Strength of character paired with sharpness of the mind predestinates the Jews in their most excellent specimen to become the leaders of urbane humanity, from the false to the genuine spiritual aristocrats to the protagonists of capitalism as well as of the revolution. [28]

Now we stand at the threshold of the third epoch of the new times: Socialism.

Also socialism is supported by the urban class of industrial workers, led by the aristocracy of revolutionary writers.

The influence of the aristocracy by blood, the influence of the aristocracy of the mind is growing.

This development, and with it the chaos of modern politics will only then find its end, when a spiritual aristocracy seizes the means of power of society: [gun] powder, gold, ink, and use them for the blessing of the general public. [32]

Communist dictatorship: Important step on the way

Russian Bolshevism constitutes a decisive step towards this purpose where a small group of communist spiritual aristocrats govern the country and consciously break with the plutocratic [plutocratic = rule or power through wealth] democratism which nowadays controls the rest of the world.

The fight between Capitalism and Communism over the inheritance of the beseeched blood aristocracy is a fratricidal war of the victorious brain aristocracy, a fight between individualistic and socialist, egoist and altruist, heathen and Christian spirit.

Race of nobility

Genrikh Yagoda

Lazar Kaganovich

Bela Kun
Leon Trozki
Leon Trotzki

Emma Goldman

Theodor Hertzl
Race of nobility – Anno 2007

Michel Friedman

Alan Yentob – BBC

Lord Hollick – ITV
Arne Notkin - Denmarks State Radio
Arne Notkin – DR

Leonid Nevzlin


Simon Wiesenthal

Boris Beresovski

Mihail Khodorkovsky

Marcus Wolf STASI
Führers of Humanity – Anno 2007

Alan Dershowitz

David Horowitz

Richard Perle

Paul Wolfowitz

Paul Spiegel

Yitzhak Ginsburgh

Ariel Sharon

Abe Foxman

The general staff of both parties is recruited from Europe’s spiritual leader race[Führerrasse] the Jews.

Capitalism and Communism are both rational, both mechanical, both abstract, both urbane. The military nobility has definitively outplayed its role. The effect of the spirit, the power of the spirit, the belief in the spirit, the hope for the spirit is growing: and with it a new aristocracy. [33]

[44] In order to ascend, to advance objectives are needed, to reach objectives people are needed who define objectives, leading on to objectives: aristocracy.

The aristocrat as a leader is a political concept, the aristocrat as example is an aesthetic ideal.

The highest challenge demands that aristocracy coincide with nobility, leader with example: that leadership falls to perfect people.

European quantity people and Jewish quality people

From the European quantity-people, who only belief in numbers, the mass, two quality races rise up: blood aristocracy and Jewry.

Separate from each other both of them stick to their belief in their higher mission, of their better blood, in the different ranks of the people.

In both of these heterogenic merited races lies the core of the European nobility of the future: in the feudal blood aristocracy, as far as it did not let itself be corrupted by the farm, in the Jewish spiritual aristocracy as far as it did not let itself be corrupted by money [capitalism].

As guarantee for a better future a small rest of the morally high standing rustic[country-style] aristocracy and a small battle group of revolutionary intelligentsia remains.

Here the conformity between Lenin, the man from the lower country aristocracy, and Trotsky, the Jewish literate grows into a symbol: here the contrasts in character and spirit, from squire and literate, from country dwellers and the urbane, heathen and Christian people join into a creative synthesis of revolutionary aristocracy.

One step foreword in the spiritual sense would suffice to place the best elements of blood nobility, who in the country have protected their physical and moral health from the depraving influence of the farm scent, at the service of the new liberation of the people.

For they are pre destined to this positioning by their traditional courage, their anti-bourgeois and anti-capitalist mentality, their responsibility, their contempt for material advantages, their stoic training of the will, their integrity, their idealism. [45]


The main representatives of the corrupt as well as the upright brain aristocracy: of capitalism, journalism and the literate are Jews.

The superiority of their spirit predestines them to become a main factor of the future nobility.

One look at the history of the Jewish people explains its lead in the struggle over the governance of humanity. For two thousand years Jewry was a religious community, made up of ethical and religious predisposed individuals from all nations of the classical cultural area, with a national Hebrew centre in Palestine..

Already at that time the common connecting and primary was not the nation, but the religion. In the course of the first millennium of our calendar proselytes from all peoples entered this denomination [religious sect] not least the king, nobility and the people of the Mongolian Khasars, the masters of southern Russia.

Only from then on the Jewish religious community joined itself in an artificial nation and closed itself off from all remaining peoples.

Through unspeakable persecutions throughout a millennium Christian Europe tries to exterminate the Jewish people.

The result was, that all Jews, who were of weak-willed, opportunistic or skeptical let themselves be baptized, in order to escape the torment of endless persecution.

On the other hand all Jews who were not skilled, clever and creative enough to survive this struggle for their existence under these many times harder conditions of life succumbed.

Thus in the end from all these persecutions arose a small community, shaped by a heroically endured martyrdom for the idea and cleansed of all weak-willed elements and poverty of mind.

Instead of destroying Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process.

No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe.

A new Noble Race by the Grace of the Spirit

Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility through spiritual grace.

This happened at the moment when Europe’s feudal aristocracy became dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish emancipation.

The first typical representative of this becoming future nobility was the noble-Jew[Edeljude] LaSalle who combines to a high degree physical beauty with nobility of mind and sharpness of the spirit: Aristocrat in the highest and truest sense of the word, he was a born leader and signpost of his time.

The Jewish heroes and martyrs of the Eastern and Middle European Revolution are in no way inferior to the non Jewish heroes of the World War in courage, perseverance and idealism – while they surpass the latter many times in spirit. [50]

With these two attempts to redemption of a spiritual-moral origin, Jewry has bestowed a greater gift on to the disinherited masses of Europe than any other people.

How modern Jewry also surpasses all other peoples in percentage of important men: scarcely one century after its liberation this small people stands with Einstein at the frontrunner of modern science; with Mahler as the frontrunner of modern music, with Bergson as a frontrunner of modern philosophy, with Trotsky as the frontrunner of modern politics. [51]

Hateful jealous Europeans…

The prominent position held by Jewry these days is owed to its spiritual supremacy which enables it to win the spiritual battle over enormous superior numbers of favored, hateful, jealous rivals.

Modern anti-Semitism is one of the many reactionary phenomenons of the mediocre against the supreme; it is a new form of ostracism applied against a whole people. [ostracize = exclude]

Inferior majorities, high quality minorities

As a people Jewry experiences the eternal struggle of quantity against quality, inferior groups against high quality individuals, inferior majorities against superior minorities.

The main roots of anti-Semitism are limitedness and envy: limitedness in the religious or the scientific; envy in the spiritual or financial realm.

Because they sprung from an international religious community and not from a local race, the Jews are the people with the most mixed blood; because they have closed themselves off against the other peoples for a millennium, they are also the most inbred.

Germany Must Perish – The Kaufman Plan

A plan similar to Kaufman’s was issued during the war years by a prominent American anthropologist. In an article headlined “Breed War Strain Out of Germans” in the New York daily newspaper P.M., January 4, 1943, Ernest Hooton laid out an “outbreeding” plan that would “destroy German nationalism and aggressive ideology while retaining and perpetuating desirable German biological and sociological capacities.” (See also: Benjamin Colby, ‘Twas a Famous Victory, 1974, p. 131.)

The Harvard University professor’s proposal called for genetically transforming the German nation by encouraging mating of German women with non-German men, who would be brought into the country in large numbers, and of German men, forcibly held outside of Germany, with non-German women.

Ten to twelve million German men would be assigned to forced labor under Allied supervision in countries outside of Germany to rebuild their economies. “The objects of this measure,” wrote Dr. Hooton, “include reduction of the birthrate of ‘pure’ Germans, neutralization of German aggressiveness by outbreeding and denationalization of indoctrinated individuals.”

This plan, Hooton estimated, would require at least 20 years to be implemented. “During this period,” he went on, “encourage also the immigration and settlement in the German states of non-German nationals, especially males.” More: Germany Must Perish

Download Germany must Perish and The Morgenthau Plan (in German – pdf)

Not only tomorrow’s revolutionary spiritual aristocracy – also today’s plutocratic black marketeer-Kakistocracy [Kakistocracy = government by the worst] is mainly recruited from Jews: and thus sharpens the agitatory weapons of anti-Semitism.

Thousands of years of slavery have bereft the Jews, with rare exceptions, of the gestures of the member of the master race [Herrenmenschen].

Perpetual repression inhibits the development of the personality: and thereby takes away one of the main elements of the esthetic ideals of nobility.

A large part of Jewry suffers physically as well as psychologically from this deficiency; this shortcoming is one of the main reasons that the European instinct refuses to accept Jewry as a race of nobility.

The resentment with which the suppression has burdened Jewry, gives it much vital tension, but bereaves it of much noble harmony.

Excessive inbreeding, in connection with the ghetto past was the cause of many traits of physical and psychological decadence.

What the head of the Jews won, their bodies often lost; what their brains won their nervous systems lost.

Thus Jewry suffers from a hypertrophy1) of the brain which is in opposition to the demands of nobility and the harmonic development of the personality.

The physical and nervous weakness of many spiritually excellent Jews shows a lack of physical courage (often in connection with the highest form op moral courage) and insecurity in performance, qualities which today seem incompatible with the chivalrous ideal of aristocratic people. [53]

Noble Master Race damaged by Slave People

So much has the spiritual Master Race of the Jews suffered under the traits of the slave people that have impressed him in his historical development: still today many leading Jewish personalities carry the posture and gestures of the un-free repressed person.

In their gestures descended aristocrats are often nobler than excellent Jews. These shortcomings of Jewry, originated because of the development, will again vanish because of development.

The adaptation to country style [Rustikalisierung] (a main objective of Zionism), together with sporty upbringing, will free Jewry of the ghetto rest it still carries within itself.

That this is possible is proved by the development of American Jewry. The actual freedom and power that Jewry has attained will gradually make the consciousness of those, the consciousness gradually following the posture and gestures of the free, powerful people.

Not only Jewry will move in the direction of the Western aristocratic ideals – also the Western aristocratic ideal will experience a transformation which will meet Jewry half way.

In a more peaceful future Europe the aristocracy will strip off its warlike character and exchange it with a spiritual – priestly ditto.

A pacified and socialized Occident will no longer need masters and rulers, – only leaders, educator, examples. [54]

Europe has been conquered religiously by Jews, – military by the Germanics: In Asia the religions of India and Arabia were victorious, while their supreme political power is Japan.

The German version of the excerpts on this page – Auszüge aus Praktischer Idealismus

Download the whole book in German: Praktischer Idealismus (pdf) [Please notify me if link is dead]


1) Hypertrophy is the increase of the size of an organ or in a select area of the tissue

2) Quote from Die Welt August 26 1998, P. 12. ‘Die Zwölfzahl der Sterne ist ein Hinweis auf die zwölf Stammen Israels und somit auf das auserwählte Volk Gottes.’ [‘The number twelve of the stars is a reference to the twelve tribes of Israel and thereby to God’s chosen people.’]

Paul Warburg
Paul Warburg
Bernard Baruch
Bernard Baruch

The family of (Samuel Moses) Del Branco in 1559 moved from Italy to Germany taking the name Warburg. In 1798, the family founded the bank of M. M. Warburg & Co. Paul Warburg was a German immigrant arriving in America together with his brother Felix. Both brothers, who were Illuminati and also member of B’nai B’rith, became partners of the banking house Kuhn, Loeb & Co.

The well-known freemason James Paul Warburg said before the US Senate on 17 February 1950: “We shall have World Government, whether we like it or not. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”

Paul Warburg was married to Nina Loeb, daughter of the banker Salomon Loeb. Kuhn, Loeb & Co., of the most influential finance company in the United States in the early 1900s. Paul’s brother Felix Warburg was married to Frieda Schiff, whose father was the notorious Jacob Schiff. Schiff, a leading Zionist, was the principal owner of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. He had helped finance Lev Trotsky when the bolsheviks seized power. Prior to that, he had helped Alexander Kerensky (Aron Kiirbis) to power. Jacob Schiff had further ordered Lenin to execute the tsar family, as demonstrated by the telegram he
sent to Lenin.

Coudenhove-Kalergi in his autobiography:

“At the beginning of 1924, we received a call from Baron Louis de Rothschild; one of his friends, Max Warburg from Hamburg, had read my book and wanted to get to know us.

To my great surprise, Warburg spontaneously offered us 60,000 gold marks, to tide the movement over for its first three years ….

Max Warburg, who was one of the most distinguished and wisest men that I have ever come into contact with, had a principle of financing these movements.

He remained sincerely interested in Pan-Europe for his entire life.

Max Warburg arranged his 1925 trip to the United States to introduce me to Paul Warburg and financier Bernard Baruch.

Finance theorist Ludwig von Mises (supported by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation) also participated in Coudenhove-Kalergi’s Pan-European Movement.

Later von Mises disciples Arthur Burns and Milton Friedman spread von Mises ideas through a network of secret ‘conservative’ think tanks, led by the Mont Pelerin Society(More here)




 Practical Idealism – Coudenhove Kalergi English Translation complete book (download pdf)

 April 18 2008 – European Union honors racist philosopher Coudenhove-Kalergi, architect of the EU dictatorship

Walter Lippmann, Friedrich von Hayek, Otto von Habsburg, Coudenhover-Kalergi, Hjalmar Schacht, Rothschild, Ludwig Von Mises, Arthur Burns, Milton Friedman, Mont Pelerin Society, Murray Rothbard. Detailed backgroundThe Synarchy – A ‘Judeo-Christian’ Theocracy – Front for the International Jewish Banking Cartel 30 november 2013 – November 12, 2012 – The award of the Coudenhove-Kalergi Prize to EU President Van Rompuy

 Wiki-Company – Masonic Politicians

 Freemasons, Jabulon, Königlicher Bogen vom Unsinn 6 januar 2012 – Graf Richard Nikolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi

 R.N. Coudenhove-Kalergi Wikipedia Deutsch

 Gerd Honsik – Rassismus legal? – Halt dem Kalergiplan

 Verschwörungen – Richard Nikolaus Graf von Coudenhove-Kalergi – Official Danish holocaust researcher refutes claim of 6 million Jews killed during The Holocaust – Articles about Holocaust, Zionism, Judaism, Jewish Censorship, Israel Lobby, persecution, Revisionism, Holocaust denial – Articles about Eurabia, Euromediterranean, Barcelona Declaration, Unlimited Immigration to Europe. English Deutsch Dansk   

Til Forsiden
%d bloggers like this: