Lessons from the Holocaust about Forced Organ Donation

Firstly, for those who believe that the CCP and the 610 Office are pretty nice folks who would never resort to forced organ donations from prisoners of conscience and oppressed ethnic minorities, here is a short (16 minute) video which summarises the published evidence. (There was also a two-page spread starting at page 32 in the Mail on Sunday for March the First 2020, quite independent of Chris Chapell and his sources. This seems to have been widely ignored, but no-one has credibly refuted it.)

During the video, Mr Chapell claims that not even the NAZIs resorted to organ-harvesting during the holocaust. Of course this is largely true*, but only because, prior to the conception and development of immuno-suppressant drugs in the sixties, human body organs did not have a significant market value in the forties. In fact, everything about holocaust victims (those who died in actual concentration camps) that had a commercial value, was exploited. I have an American friend whose landlord proudly boasted that she had a tablelamp with a shade made from human skin, which her GI husband had brought back from Dachau. (There are times when I need reminding which side the US Army was on.) Body fat was famously turned into soap, gold teeth were extracted, live victims were experimented on, especially during the execution of commercial contracts which the SS had with Bayer -a firm that is still very much in business- and even human hair was taken and sold. (Recently, three tons of hair from Uyghur prisoners was found and confiscated at a US port. Each person contributes a few ounces of hair, so three tons equals an awful lot of prisoners and this was only one shipment.)

But above all, the Holocaust was designed and organised to maximise the harvest of the victims' possessions, property, money and investments. The whole point of fairly-publicly loading each batch of victims onto trains and transporting them across Europe, was to give the Jews and other victim populations the idea that they had all better keep their most precious possessions hidden in their luggage or about their persons and not bury them in the woods where they might never be found if the lawful owner died. Those suspected of having substantial investments were given special attention aimed at making them pay these investments over as a ransom for their own lives and those of their loved ones. In some cases, just enough cases, such people were actually allowed to cross into Switzerland. But many more were simply tricked and bullied out of their investments on their way to the death camps. Once there, their heads were shaved and they were made to leave their luggage in piles and undress before they were gassed. (Traces of cyanide gas would have made it more difficult to search the clothes for hidden jewels, gold coins or share certificates.) Even spectacles and shoes were collected, though many of these items remained in the camps at liberation. Above all, the NAZIs prized the assets which victims already had in banks and safety-deposit vaults outside the Reich. Especially those in Switzerland. Taking control of those assets, by blackmail or torture of the password-holders, saved the guilty men the trouble of moving the assets to where they hoped to flee when the NAZI state collapsed, which the smart NAZIs always knew it would. The Holocaust was intended to and to some extent succeeded in completely liquidating the commercial value of the Jews being exterminated. THAT is the lesson we must learn, if we are to both understand and deal with what is happening in Communist China in the present day.

When I decided to deal with the issue of organ harvesting (amongst others) in my novel "The Lord of Billionaires' Row", I decided to do it logically and not emotionally, because the sort of mind we are dealing with here does not really experience emotions at all. Not only are the victims totally exploited for everything they have got as well as everything that they are, but before they are even taken into custody they are selected as worth exploiting. The victims all follow some kind of spiritual practice: in this case either Falun Gong or Christianity, but elsewhere in the book it is made clear that ALL of China's Muslim minorities are also targets, not just Uyghurs. This is simply because spiritual practice and some kind of moral code means that the unwilling donor is unlikely to have been a drug user or sexually promiscuous, so they will be much less likely to carry HIV or other deadly viruses. The majority of victims in my novel are portrayed as Falun Gong practitioners and indeed the video, above, suggests that Asian people wanting to buy black market human organs from the CCP tend to regard Falun Gong practitioners as particularly healthy and the source of the very best-quality organs. This belief may indeed be the primary reason why Falun Gong is persecuted in China!

Apart from being fit and healthy, the harvesting victims in my novel are selected because they are prosperous: either very prosperous or moderately prosperous; they are all believed to have something worth stealing. My anti-hero, Mr Ren, is surprised when a 610 Office supervisor accuses him of having assets worth two hundred million US dollars. Firstly, he's always been satisfied to be on an upward trend and has never totted up the sum total of his wealth, and secondly, doing so in US dollars strikes him as unpatriotic. But, given the imperatives of the totalitarian forces condemning him to death, the fact that Mr Ren has substantial assets that are already outside Chinese jurisdiction makes him a much more attractive victim than those whose wealth is all locally-held.

This is not me exercising an author's imagination so much as logic, based on my having read a great deal of material about the Holocaust over more than forty years. This isn't just the way it happens in my book: it is the way it happens.

The video above merely aspires to present evidence that forced-organ harvesting is happening in Communist China, partly for the benefit of wealthy recipients from outside China. (Uyghur donors are attractive to those from the Middle East who require organs that have been nurtured on a halal diet. Trying to force Uyghurs to eat pork, as the CCP routinely does, helpfully identifies those who will not break halal rules to save their lives. (It's an irrational requirement: nothing stolen is halal.))

But an understanding that every victim who has assets will have been stripped of them before their body organs are harvested, and any assets so confiscated that are already overseas or in an attractive currency will tend to end up in the personal portfolios of the officials organising the harvesting, is key to gathering evidence that will bring to justice those responsible for what is, for all practical purposes, another Holocaust.

*Selected body organs were harvested by SS doctors from Holocaust victims who had been carefully exposed to experimental medicines, poisons or general industrial chemicals, on behalf of Bayer. So that they could see how much good/damage the chemical did.

Book Review of Ask No Questions by Claire Allan

 

This is an excellent journalistic thriller, set in Derry with enough local colour to assure any middle-class liberal readers that they are not in Islington any more.

Ask No Questions really is a novel about assumptions, both those of the leading characters and those of the gentle reader. Although many of the characters either know or suspect that there has been a frame-up and a cover-up, most of them have wasted a quarter century of their lives on one wrong assumption or another about just what that was. The police and the law are mostly in the background of the story, but their wrong assumption, as is sometimes the case in real life, is that somebody who is less capable of dealing with everyday life than the average man, is somehow going to be more capable of murder.

Murder is a talent which most of us lack, and in times of war the majority of conscript soldiers cannot bring themselves to actually aim to kill unless they are in immediate personal danger themselves; many of them cannot do it even then. This is why murder as a talent is sought after by organised crime, terrorist gangs and paramilitaries the world over. Even when the victim is a little girl, the search for a murderer needs to be a search for the rare talent which allows someone to kill another human being, not for the disability which sets a person apart, but which generally mitigates any harm they might do.

There is a cover-up as well as a murder and in this story the motive of the person who is instrumental to that cover-up is so surprising and unsettling that the reader probably won’t guess what it is until the very end. Murders can happen with very little motive, or at least the motive is often meaningful only to the murderer, but cover-ups always need a motive and that can be more shocking than the crime being concealed.

 

Ask No Questions by Claire Allan is published by Avon Books UK on the 21^st of January 2021.

Text of letter to a member of (UK) Parliament about honesty and excess deaths due to lockdown

Dear Mr ******.

I must say at the outset, that I believe that the balance of risks are in favour of the lockdown announced by the Prime Minister. That is, if we don't do it, 85,000 dead from Covid-19 is probably a realistic outcome.

However, the question is not as open and shut as it is presented as, and I am troubled by this.

Non-covid excess deaths during lockdown and over the summer seem to have been something like 20,000+ and whilst this is less than 85,000+, it certainly isn't a negligible figure, and were the same factors to be at work over the dark days of winter the non-covid excess deaths might be higher still. And yet, it's hard to know what the true figure is for people who have died BECAUSE of the last lockdown and its aftermath, and if relevant data is being published, it certainly isn't being publicised very hard. Because the Prime Minister is so focused on making people accept the inevitable, the closest he's come to an admission that lockdowns kill people is to say that he regrets the anguish that will be caused. I would trust him more if he were honest enough to admit that the government is effectively killing some people to ensure that a larger number survive, because that is the calculation being made.

I think this crisis could have the effect of making the Conservative Party unelectable because of decisions and outcomes that none of the other parties could have done differently. There is no party in the world that hates the Conservatives more than the SNP does: they have done essentially the same things as the Conservatives throughout. But presentation is all, and at the moment the inevitable is being successfully presented as either a choice willingly made, or a random act by a Prime Minister in chaos. And, yes, Sir Keir Starmer is the person successfully presenting both of those two mutually-exclusive points of view. This is what Tony Blair would look like if his duplicity was somewhat less transparent.

However, the Prime Minister still exhibits a flaw that has been evident to me throughout his political career, and it is that any argument, objection or even objective fact that he hadn't considered or which doesn't help his case is "piffle" and it is swept aside with an impatient sweep of the hand and an off-the-cuff remark which not infrequently betrays a total unwillingness to grasp the point being made. Such as his assertion that there was no need to protect ancient woodlands because there was no such thing as ancient woodlands because there were no trees in England older than, I think his figure was 160 years. This was so wrong as to be demented, yet he never actually acknowledged this. I could go on, for hours, because this isn't something he does every now and then, but really quite frequently.

So while what he is asking of Parliament is probably the right thing, no course of action which condemns thousands to die can possibly be completely right and, therefore, none of his critics and opponents are completely wrong. If this side of the scales cannot even be acknowledged, then the obvious ill effects of lockdown will be compounded by even worse political divisions than we already see.

As for the mechanism by which lockdown kills people, I would suggest that as soon as lockdown is declared, people with pains in the chest or increasingly obvious symptoms of their diabetes being out of control, stop even trying to obtain medical help -and this continues even after lockdown has been lifted and will continue until the government and its scientific advisors issue a positive message that the health service is willing and able to offer treatment and that it is safe to accept this. Another mechanism is at work with suicides, and there have been hints but no explicit admission, that suicides account for a very significant part of the non-covid excess deaths. No-one in their right mind wants to be held in a mental health unit when the virus breaks lose there, and there is nothing like a daily dose of bad news and discouragement from "SAGE" via the BBC to crush whatever hopes a potential suicide is clinging to. I don't think that any member of SAGE has ever considered how their regular woeful pronouncements might sound to someone who's already struggling with life. They show no sign of grasping the psychological impact of what they say whatsoever. If the PM cannot sack anyone from SAGE, could he at least appoint a few senior mental health professionals to balance the buggers?

Meanwhile, there has been no admission by our government, the WHO or most other national governments around the world outside Scandinavia, that nutritional deficiencies (of vitamins or other trace elements whose blood levels are easily measured) play any role in how a patient copes with a major challenge to the system, be it Covid-19, 'flu, bacterial chest infections or a car-crash. And yet, you don't need to be a top scientific expert to realise that any person with a nutritional deficiency will cope less well with a wide range of challenges to their health. It is a matter of record that about 60% of the UK population are deficient in vitamin D (and zinc) during the winter. If there was no pandemic on, I'd probably have no difficulty making my case that we ought to do something about this! But since there is a pandemic on, filters are in place against any sort of "fake science" "conspiracy theories" and, it seems, long-established and widely accepted scientific facts, such as a majority of people outside the tropics being vitamin-D deficient whenever their hemisphere is in winter. This is an annual reality. If something were done about it, not only might the death-toll from Covid-19 be reduced, the death rate from all manner of other infections and even injuries might be reduced as well, long after Covid-19 becomes a distant memory.

In the last two or three hundred years, most of the advances in human health have actually been advances in hygiene and nutrition, not medicine as such. The pandemic does not stop this being true, nor will it cease to be true in the foreseeable future.