POLITICS IN THE USA

http://www.toqonline.com/2010/05/me-and-the-gop/

Me and the GOP

Eric Paulson

Racially aware European Americans generally hold one of three positions regarding partisan politics:

Some see the Republican Party as an implicitly White party that could be accessed and guided toward positions explicitly favoring European Americans. Persons holding this position point to David Duke who ran and won as a Republican in Louisiana, and Derek Black who was recently elected to a party post in Florida.

Others see the Republican Party as hopelessly corrupted by neo-conservatism that toxic mix of globalism and Judeo-Christianity. Any partisan political activity is best directed toward building a third party. They point to the American Third Position, a new party that has enlisted support from several men known for their intelligence and integrity, as a likely vehicle.

Finally, many White advocates believe that at present partisan politics is a waste of limited time and resources. There is not yet the critical mass of support, especially publicly committed support, to make running for office practical. Some who hold this position are so alienated that they refuse to spend even a few minutes biennially to vote for the lesser of evils claiming that not voting is a form of protest.

There is evidence and arguments to support all three of the above positions. To further a discussion on this topic I will recount my recent experiences with the North Dakota Republican Party (GOP).

My first direct contact with the ND Republican Party came in February, 2008. Every four years our state holds party caucuses to select convention delegates pledged to presidential candidates. While I am neither a libertarian nor an enthusiastic supporter of Ron Paul I thought he was the best of a disappointing lot of presidential hopefuls. So I braved below-zero temperatures and icy roads to meet with other Republicans, listen to speeches, and cast a vote for a presidential contender. Rep. Paul did relatively well. He cane in third, and actually won some delegates. Sen. McCain came in fourth in our state caucuses.

To vote in a caucus one needed to supply complete contact information. As a result for the next two years I received a light but steady stream of emails from the state GOP announcing upcoming events and soliciting contributions. Only once did I respond to these missives, that a pithy reply to a particularly muddled editorial in support of neo-conservatism written by the party chairman.

Despite my somewhat frosty feedback to the party in early March I received a notice that my district still had openings for delegates to the state convention. I thought it might be interesting to meet the candidates and see how a political organization operates on the state level. So I applied and was accepted as a delegate.

My agenda for the convention was to speak with the five principle candidates (two for US Senate and three for US House), ascertain their positions on three important issues (immigration, Middle East, and fiscal/monetary policy), and inform them of my own views on these subjects. I managed to speak to four of the five candidates at some length on the above issues.

All the candidates were pleasant, even friendly, but often vague on policy specifics, just what you might expect from politicians looking for delegate votes. If one was seeking a spirited policy discussion he would not get one from these candidates. In fact debate or even discussion of policy issues was a rare occurrence during the convention. One might think that with 1200 political activists in one venue there would be plenty of such conversations. On the other hand if you think back to Poli. Sci. 101 you might remember that American politics is often more about personality than policy and more about image than ideas.

The impressions I did receive on policy positions from the candidates and other delegates were not reassuring. It appeared that at the time (late March 2010) that the GOP was on board with amnesty for illegal aliens. Since then neo-con leaders such as Senators McCain and Graham have found it prudent to put so called comprehensive immigration reform on the back burner. In the future, however, these dogs will not hesitant to betray their European American constituents for political expedience.

Prospects appear even less favorable for a more evenhanded GOP policy towards the Middle East. I found little support for Ron Paul’s less interventionist foreign policy. In fact I heard criticism of the Obama administration for not being sufficiently pro-Israeli (Vice President Biden had recently returned from a rocky road in the Levant). It seemed that the more “Christian” a candidate or delegate was the more likely they were to be a Judeo-Christian Zionist. Honesty, with their talk of a wider war in the Middle East I find these Christian Zionists to be the scariest people on the political spectrum.

As for a sounder fiscal and monetary policy, another issue raised by Rep. Paul during the 2008 campaign, the GOP leadership is quick to give lip service to cutting spending but very hesitant to advocate more fundamental reforms such as regular auditing of the Federal Reserve. I asked Rick Berg, the Republican candidate for our at-large US House seat, specifically about Rep. Paul. I noted the enthusiastic support Dr. Paul has received especially from younger Republicans (Paul had recently won the presidential straw poll at the CPAC conference in Washington). Berg conceded that Ron Paul energizes a core Republican constituency and is an impressive fund raiser, but I could sense the profound reluctance of the GOP establishment candidate to go off script and think outside the box. Whatever his strengthens and weaknesses, and he has both, Rep. Paul is a true maverick. Sen. McCain, the self proclaimed maverick, is more the grumpy opportunist.

During the past year I attended a couple of local Tea Party (TP) events, and I recognized several persons from those events at the convention. I asked them about the Tea Party’s relationship to the GOP. While this is obviously a small sampling it appears the TP is now firmly wedded to the Republican Party. Back in 2009 it seemed possible that the TP would be a radical movement independent of the Republicans, but this has not happened, at least not yet. Although they are having a significant influence on the GOP I predict many Tea Partiers are going to be disappointed with the results of their efforts. It is just too easy for the Republican leadership to give their issues only token support. The elite consensus, supported by both parties, is based on international casino capitalism, big government, and military interventionism all of which preclude serious fiscal and monetary reform. The system will have to go bankrupt before it will change.

So getting back to my original topic: What have I glean from my admittedly brief experience with the GOP? First the Republican organization is permeable, though there are, of course, limits to its inclusion. An activist who chooses the GOP as his medium would need to be politic and use some finesse while still being uncompromising on key issues such as immigration and an America-first foreign policy.

As always the unaffiliated individual is relatively powerless. The best way to get your issues heard is to run your own candidates at conventions and in primaries. This requires one individual to be the point man, a lighting rod. If no individual is available an alternative strategy is to form a group of party activists who would vote as a block at conventions and/or primaries. It would be best to link positions to Republican figures past or present. Such an intra party organization might be called the Buchanan Brigade, Paleo-conservative Caucus, or the Republican Rough Riders.

Up till now I have not mentioned money. It has been pointed out many times that money is the mothers’ milk of politics, the fuel that runs political activism. One needs to open his wallet a bit just to get a seat at the table. That said; remember our cause is starved for funds. I hope no European American would lessen his financial support of an explicitly White organization to support the GOP.

The strategy of infiltrating the Republican Party is not a magic formula for success. As Derek Black is finding out the dominate forces within the party will strongly resist any move toward an explicit White agenda. It will take a stout and sustained effort to have the desired influence on policy. Is the effort worth it? Would resources be better used pursuing another course? The US has had a two-party system almost from the beginning. The last major new party is over 150 years old. These facts show continuity. Yet the parties themselves have changed tremendously over time. One hundred years ago the Democrats’ core constituencies were Southern segregationists and Northern White working men. Many will argue that European Americans will never be able to vote themselves out of the present mess. I agree, but it is difficult to image a realistic scenario for our instauration in which partisan politics does not play at least some role.

Our “movement” is criticized for being long on complains and preaching to the choir, and short on activism. In many regions of this huge country comrades are few and far between. In areas where the Republican Party is the only organization on the right it could be a vehicle for raising issues and networking. This strategy would be a good fit for persons who have excellent interpersonal skills, need to remain within the mainstream, and live in conservative states or districts without other avenues for activism. And remember, this approach does not exclude pursuing other tactics as well.

USA:ASYLUM

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenterse729 Asylum Reform

To qualify as an asylee, a person must meet the following definition from Section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act:

“any person who... is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion....”

The distinction between a refugee and an asylee is that refugees apply for entry to the U.S. from abroad, and asylees are already in the U.S., legally or illegally, when the application is made.

The asylum application backlog was estimated at 324,438 at the end of FY01. 80 percent of the backlog of asylum applications is from just two countries, El Salvador and Guatemala. The top five source countries for applications in the asylum backlog comprise 90 percent of the backlog, as follows.

1. El Salvador	162,000	50%
2. Guatemala	96,000	30%
3. Haiti	17,000	5%
4. Nicaragua	13,000	4%
5. China	4,000	1%

Immigration and Naturalization Service, Asylum Reform: 5 Years Later, Feb. 2000.

“In 1991, the first professional asylum corps was formed as part of a final rule to implement the 1980 Refugee Act. While the final rule created a fair process in which professional asylum officers were trained to elicit refugees’ claims in a non-adversarial setting, the program quickly became subject to abuse. A lack of resources, combined with a lengthy process and easy availability of employment authorization to almost all asylum applicants, made the program vulnerable to fraudulent applications and many genuine refugees’ applications languished in an ever-increasing backlog.”

Although asylum applicants are judged by the same definition as refugees, in practice there are significant differences due to the fact the applicants are already in the United States and have the advantage of access to counsel and the U.S. courts if the INS does not accept their request for asylum status. In practice, a majority of the asylum applications each year are “defensive” applications filed by deportable aliens attempting to use asylum as a means to avoid deportation.

In addition, decisions by U.S. judges have stretched asylum to accommodate new classes of aliens never contemplated by the legislation’s authors. For example, in March 2000, a federal court held that a Filipino “whistleblower” who stayed in the United States illegally qualified for asylum because he could face persecution if returned to his country. Other new asylum claimants are people suffering from spousal abuse and social customs such as genital circumcision, gays and lesbians, and even people who have simply become “too Americanized” to be sent home. In the 106th Congress, a bill was introduced to extend asylum status to victims of human trafficking.

Soaring Numbers

When Congress passed a law in 1980 allowing people to claim political asylum, federal officials predicted the United States would receive a maximum of 5,000 applicants annually. Instead, applications have soared as high as 150,000 a year, with many claims frivolous and fraudulent. Asylum has become a “back door” for circumventing the regular immigration process. Its abuse is unfair to the people trying to immigrate legally to the United States and to those who truly merit asylum.

Asylum is the riskiest of all the benefits given under the immigration laws. We are taking at face value the claims of aliens about whom we know nothing. Because of the nature of asylum claims, the claimant’s true background and history are difficult to verify, and it is nearly impossible to determine whether a claimant is bona fide or is a threat to the well being and safety of our society.

Because all applications for asylum by people currently in the U.S., no matter how frivolous, must be adjudicated, some illegal aliens use asylum claims to avoid deportation. Since there are sometimes too many asylum applicants to detain, they can be released to await a hearing on their claim. Having obtained their freedom, these asylum applicants often fail to show up for their hearings and simply disappear into society.

Asylum Reform

The federal government’s attempts to improve the asylum system are confined mostly to speeding up the rate at which applications are processed. Still, the withholding of work permits from asylum applicants accomplished by the asylum reforms of 1995 has helped to bring the number of applicants down dramatically.

But, as the INS sped up the decision-making process and asylum applications became less viable as a means to buy time, immigration attorneys have tried to widen the definition of asylum to make more and more people eligible. Continued efforts by immigration lawyers have expanded the definition of asylum far beyond its original meaning of individualized persecution by one’s government. Now, aliens are granted asylum simply for showing that their beliefs and practices are not in perfect agreement with those of their society and culture.

We need not just a faster asylum system, but a better one. In order to curb asylum abuse, the following changes must be made.

• Asylum applications should have to be filed within 45 days of entering the United States.
• Asylum applicants without travel documents should be excluded from entering the country.
• Denials of asylum by trained asylum officers should not be appealable, except for review of procedural errors.
• Asylum applicants who arrive at the U.S. via another safe country should not be admitted.
• The claims of applicants from countries that do not practice individual political persecution should be automatically rejected.
• Illegal aliens in the deportation process should not be allowed to file asylum claims.
• Aliens who file frivolous asylum claims should become ineligible for any immigration status.
• “Cultural” asylum and other expanded definitions of asylum must be ended, and the original meaning of asylum restored.

Updated 10/2

ΤΟ ΠΡΑΓΜΑ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΠΟΛΥ ΠΙΟ ΑΠΛΟ: ΟΦΕΙΛΕΙ ΝΑ ΝΟΜΟΘΕΤΗΘΗ  ΠΟΙΕΣ ΧΩΡΕΣ ΚΑΘΕ ΣΤΙΓΜΗ  ΠΛΗΡΟΥΝ ΤΙΣ ΠΡΟΫΠΟΘΕΣΕΙΣ ΑΝΑΣΦΑΛΟΥΣ ΒΙΟΥ, ΟΠΟΤΕ ΤΟ ΑΣΥΛΟΝ ΘΑ ΔΙΔΕΤΑΙ ή ΟΧΙ ΑΥΤΟΜΑΤΩΣ!

Bollyn=ILL-FATED 'ESTONIA' USED FOR WEAPONS TRANSFERS

ILL-FATED ESTONIA FERRY USED FOR WEAPONS TRANSFERS The day after the Baltic ferry Estonia sank on September 28, 1994, Swedish newspapers reported that a "monster wave" was the likely cause of the ferry's sinking. Since then, the official explanations for Europe's worst maritime disaster since World War II have only gotten "curiouser and curiouser."
By Christopher Bollyn The Baltic ferry Estonia, en route from Tallinn to Stockholm with some 1,000 passengers and crew on board, sank on September 28, 1994. Shortly after midnight, two concussions rocked the ship. The ferry quickly listed to starboard and sank into the frigid Baltic Sea in less than 45 minutes under circumstances which can only be described as mysterious. Although more than 500 Swedes were among the 852 reported dead, the Swedish government has blocked every effort to recover the bodies from the wreck. Even an early offer by a Norwegian diving company to retrieve the bodies at cost was rejected. Despite repeated promises from two consecutive Swedish prime ministers that the bodies would be retrieved and the wreck would be salvaged, three months after Estonia sank the Swedish government announced that there would be no recovery operation whatsoever. Instead of retrieving the bodies, the government of Sweden hired a Dutch marine salvage firm, Smit Tak BV, that specializes in neutralizing underwater nuclear waste, spending $350 million in a failed attempt to cover the ship in concrete. The wreck lies in soft mud at a depth of between 60-80 meters. MILITARY SHIPMENTS CONFIRMED Recent revelations in the Swedish mass media that the ferry was being used to smuggle Soviet military technology have confirmed long-held suspicions that the unexplained sinking of Estonia may have been connected to a secret space weapons cargo it was carrying. Immediately before Estonia left Tallinn on its final voyage, Carl Övberg, a survivor and frequent passenger who had arrived at the last minute, reported that the harbor had been sealed off and that a military convoy had escorted two large trucks to the waiting ferry. As soon as the trucks were loaded, the ship's car ramp and bow visor were closed and the delayed ferry sailed for Stockholm. Swedish state television (SVT 1) broadcast an investigative journalism program called Uppdrag Granskning on November 30, 2004, in which the former chief of customs in Stockholm confessed that Estonia had indeed been used to transport Soviet military technology to the West in September 1994. According to former customs chief Lennart Henriksson, on two occasions shortly before Estonia sank, vehicles carrying Soviet military technology had been allowed to enter Sweden without any inspection. "I have been walking around thinking about what happened for ten years," Lennart Henriksson, Stockholm's former customs chief said. "Each time Estonia's name came up I've thought the little I know should be brought into the light of day. I want to clear my conscience." Henriksson had been ordered to allow certain vehicles carrying Soviet military contraband to pass Swedish customs without inspection on September 14 and 20, 1994, but was not working the day Estonia sank because he was on vacation. Henriksson's confession sheds new light on the sinking of Estonia. The ferry was a joint venture between a private Swedish company, Nordström & Thulin, and Estline, a company owned by the Estonian government. Prior to the SVT 1exposé, reports of Soviet military technology being smuggled on the ferry had been dismissed as "conspiracy theories." Henriksson revealed that a secret agreement existed to allow military contraband cargo to enter Sweden without being inspected by customs. This arrangement was between Owe Wictorin, then supreme commander of Sweden's military and Ulf Larsson, then general director of Swedish customs. The arrangement was known at the highest level of the government as well as at the defense department. Normally, Swedish customs searched every vehicle coming from Estonia. That a vehicle was to pass without inspection was something Henriksson had never seen in 38 years of service. When the ferry arrived on Sept. 14, 1994, Henriksson spoke to the driver of the expected vehicle, a Volvo 745 station wagon driven by a Frank Larsson, a false identity. When Henriksson told "Larsson" that customs was carrying out inspections, he "gave me a look, but I said the search would be faked," Henriksson said. "We opened a few boxes and as far as I could see it was military electronics in them." The customs slip showed the car belonging to a non-existent company called Ericsson Access AB, a fictitious subsidiary of AB LM Ericsson Finance. No address was given. Henriksson discovered later that the vehicle was a rental car. There is no evidence that Ericsson was actually involved in the smuggling. Although the Swedish military authorized the smuggling, the final destination of the Soviet technology is not known. A week later, on September 20, 1994, a much larger shipment of contraband technology arrived and was allowed to pass without inspection. This time it was a van and, once again, Henriksson merely glanced into the boxes. "What were you thinking this second time?" reporter Lars Borgnäs asked. "I thought it was a strange procedure," Henriksson said. "But orders are orders and you don't reflect too much on why." (…) DISAPPEARED ESTONIANS The mystery of the sinking of Estonia, however, has affected some more than others. While survivors recovered and the relatives and friends of those lost at sea mourned, a third group was left completely in limbo, where it is to this day. To this third group belong a dozen, or more, Estonian crew members who were originally reported as having been rescued, only to have mysteriously disappeared in the days following the disaster. The disappearance of these 12 Estonia crew members points to a high-level cover-up of an international intrigue. Recent revelations in the Swedish press of "enforced disappearances" of two Egyptian "terror suspects" carried out in Sweden in 2001 may shed light on the fate of missing Estonia survivors. It was recently reported in the Swedish media that a private Gulfstream 5executive jet, registered in the United States, played a role in the "extraordinary rendition" of two Egyptian "terror suspects" from Sweden in 2001. According to Swedish journalist Sven Anér, enforced disappearances from Sweden are nothing new. There is a body of evidence that similar abductions occurred in Sweden in the days following the Estonia ferry disaster. Shortly after Estonia sank, a dozen Estonian crewmembers, all evidently survivors of the catastrophe - disappeared without a trace. Documents indicate that U.S. registered private jets were used in both the 1994 and 2001 disappearance cases. Anér has documents from Sweden's civil aviation administration concerning two specific aircraft suspected of being involved in the abduction of the missing Estonians. Enforced disappearance, according to the Rome Statute of 1998, "means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time." Enforced disappearance, a form of kidnapping, is considered a "crime against humanity," according to the Rome Statute, which Sweden ratified in June 2001. As many as 12 Estonian crew members, which official survivor lists show having survived the sinking, disappeared in what appears to be a government-organized abduction and enforced disappearance. While the original survivor lists contain the names of 146 individuals, the names of a dozen crew members who had been listed as survivors, were deleted without explanation from the lists maintained by the Swedish and Finnish authorities in the days following the disaster. Anér has found 15 different original lists of survivors, all of which include the names of 11 Estonian crew members whose names were later deleted. In order for a name to appear on the list, a survivor was required to give his name, date of birth, status and nationality. There is evidence that some surviving crewmembers were abducted and taken to Stockholm's Arlanda airport whence they were flown out of Sweden on two private aircraft. The abductions removed key witnesses who would have been able to testify about the condition of the ship, the cargo, and the cause of the sinking. Chief among them were one of the ship's captains, Avo Piht, who was on board but not on duty that night, and Chief Engineer Lembit Leiger. It is thought that the others were crewmembers who had shared the same life raft or been rescued with Piht and Leiger in the same helicopter: Y-64.

Sabotage on 'Estonia'?

http://members.tripod.com/~MV_Estonia/article1.html




Sabotage on Estonia?
Video films from the wreck shows strange things. Johan Ridderstolpe has discovered them.
On a video from Estonia in December 1994, a packet that could be a non detonated bomb is shown on the port side of the wreck. The packet is fastened to the hull with a magnetic plate on deck 5 near the bow. Martin Volk, German expert of explosives and Stig Hermansson, Swedish rescue diver with special training on underwater explosives, have both come to the same conclusion.

What's in the packet?

The packet that is 60 centimeters long and 20 centimeters wide have by the Board of Accident Investigation been explained as trash, a plastic cover or a survival packet. Thereafter the director of the Board, Ann-Louise Eksborg said that the packet never was recovered so nobody knows what it was.

An other explanation is that it should be burning electrodes for the divers. It is not possible, Stig Hermansson says after 18 years of experience. The wrapping of the packet is a waxlike paper of the kind that explosives and ammunition is wrapped with. It is held together by tape and in the bottom right corner a detonator is probably seen.
The packet was filmed by a underwater robot, and the robot stops and interests around the packet before investigating the bow area. It would be very strange if the packet was not recovered.
There were water under the cardeck before Estonia listed, water that must have entered the ship from a leek under the waterline. Survivals also witness this. The leek or hole must be on the starboard side near the bow area. A hole can have been done by a similar explosive that somebody fastened under the waterline there. This parts of the hull has never been filmed in spite of the fact that the camera was over this part of the hull. The camera operator has to the German lawyer Henning Witte said that Swedish police forbid the camera to take pictures of some parts of the hull. Witte has for more than a year believed that the ship was sunk by a sabotage.
The Estonian Chairman in the commission, Andi Meister, resigned from his post in June 1996 after accusing the Swedes from censoring and manipulating pictures from the wreck. In his book "Catastrophe of Estonia - never finished logbook" (Estonian edition) he questions the police actions on the diving platform, and states that the crew on the bridge of Estonia never was identified in contradiction to the Estonian claims. The crew could easily been identified when they all ware a uniform.

Police in control of the diving
The day after divers investigate a number of cabins on the 6:th deck. The police are in control, and it can be verified from the band. Meister was right when he accused the Swedes, and the divers had different tasks than they had from the Estonian part of the commission.
The police are looking for suitcases and one is found in the cabin 6230. This suitcase could have belonged to the Estonian citizen Alexander Voronin who survived the accident. The case have a name tag with his name attached. He has stated that he had was in the cabin 6320, but he can have remembered wrongly. A strange coincident is that according to the Purser onboard the cabin 6230 was Avo Piht's, the disappeared Captain. A. Piht was rescued and after the 2/10-94 he disappeared and was explained dead in the accident.

The drawing and the suitcase
A clue for what they searched for is the word drawing that is mentioned by the diver when he investigates the first suitcase they find. The diver was searching for something important and broke doors and moved bodies. It seemed more important to find this something than to investigate the complete hull, that is not yet done. If this was so important to the police that obviously have Estonia as a scene of crime, it could also have been even more interesting for other people to stop something from reaching Stockholm.

Exercise of sabotage
The 2:nd of February 1994 a major RITS -exercise was held after MV Estonia had left Stockholm. The scenario was that a bomb threat should alert the crew and the police force. One bomb to be found and a second bomb to explode in public sleeping quarters at deck 2. A sabotage by exploding bombs was a realistic scenario, and this is not mentioned in the commissions report.

JOHAN RIDDERSTOLPE
Engineer

1999.02.03
In serge of the suitcases
Following a part of the conversation between the diver (D) and the diver supervisor (L). The full out print of the conversation can be read at:
http://members.tripod.com/~MV_Estonia/police.html.

After 20 minutes work the diver enters cabin 6132:
L - a lot of suitcases there, isn't it?
D - A single one - you see my hand (diver show his hand in a mirror)
L - Oh, there is a mirror there yea
D - This cabin...I have to try...exactly now...to check this thoroughly...
L - OK, we check this one very thoroughly because of the...eee...suitcase it could possibly have been occupants
D - OK roger
L - ...Yea John, could you POSSIBLY check the suitcase, it MAY have a name tag on.
D - OK...I...it appear to bee...I would say a female cabin
L - Possibly a female cabin
The diver look around and pick up the suitcase
D - OK, it's open, and...I'm looking for a cargo or something...something which will identify the case with me to this cabin
D - Eee...It concern to me attached that drawing he had
L - (immediately) stand by.......NO.., PLEASE SAY NO! (upset)
D - OK, the case WAS open when I came in and...
L - Yes, the case was open, we saw that
D - And nothing fell out when...
L - OK, we will have a good search in here John, underneath cushions and everything
D - An anorak...not readable...in fact....account...not readable
L - He is going to check the coat if there is a name tag on it (obviously L is telling someone else)
D - I'll see if there is something behind the door that I've missed
L - OK they...they are not really to concerned of the name now, John, just have a good look around to confirm or deny
The diver speak about the panel in the sealing that has fallen down in the companionway , then starting to brake into 6134
L - OK, John, after we have done this one the police don't want us to brake any more doors, we just try them or try corridors.
D - I understand that! (as if he already knew it)
The supervisor is upset when the case was open, or by the fact that the diver was concerned of something. The case doesn't seem to belong to the women that had the cabin. The police is refereed as "they" and some cabins are interesting and others are left without even trying to enter. A bit forward on the tape it is time for a large cabin 6230.
L - Very big cabins this, might take a while searching
L tells the diver what the cabin look like, where the toilet is and everything
D - Enters
Diver look around, find refrigerator, make joke of cold beer if any, look around
D - I'll found an attaché case here
L - Attaché case, any markings on it?
D - Eeee...yes, hold on here, jepp, we got a name....Alexander Vorin
L - Alexander...
D - Alexander Vorin
L - Can you spell it?
D - Victor, Oscar, Romeo, Alfa, November, November
They try to read the name tag several times and come to VORANI
L - OK, I'll just see if that name rings a bell up here...
D - Can I leave...suddenly
L - OK, it's a Russian name, Alexander Voran
D - Voranoly
L - Yes
D - It possibly could belong to the man outside
First the supervisor tells the diver that it can take a while to search the cabin, then the diver leaves the cabin directly after finding the suitcase. The suitcase was the target.

JOHAN RIDDERSTOLPE

'ESTONIA'-Possible reasons to the sinking.

---

Possible reasons to the sinking. Only one alternative to the sinking is examined through the work of the JAIC

JAIC states that the reason of the sinking was water on car deck, but that the water couldn't sink the Estonia unless water entered the ship's accommodation areas. How this was possible is not investigated. The theory that the commission present is so vague, impossible and unbelievable that there are no words for it. No other possible explanation is presented. At least the commission should have excluded some of the most reasonable alternative causes to the disaster, but not even that have been done. The alternatives are presented here.

---

• Collision. Estonia could have been involved in a collision with some floating object, or even with a ship, for example human smugglers or a military vessel, even a submarine. A floating, or half floating object could have hit the fin stabilization system causing a leakage.
• Sabotage. There are a number of theories of why a sabotage could have been the reason to the disaster. It could have been because of a smuggled cargo, it could be because of a fight between the Mafia in Riga and Tallinn, or because of that the shipping company did not pay the Mafia "port fees".
• Mine. Drifting mines are not unknown in the Baltic sea. Some time before the disaster there were reports of a drifting mine a bit more north in the Baltic sea.
• Fatigue. Some underwater part of the hull could have been poorly repaired and has cracked or broke because of fatigue.
• Grounding. Estonia was south of her normal rote. It is quite unlikely, but unknown underwater rocks have been found in a lot of places in the Baltic sea during the years. One shall remember that most of the deep measurings have been done a long time ago.
• Explosion aboard. An explosion aboard could have happened. There are a number of tanks aboard.

None of these alternative causes have been investigated nor excluded by any investigation. The sabotage theory was thrown over board just a couple of days after the disaster, almost before the ship was found and long before the visor was found.

---

There are several indications that some of the alternatives above could be the real reason to the disaster.

• According to witnesses the sound was a blow, explosion or sound that could not have been caused by the waves. The sound was extremely loud.
• The ship was lifted when the sound of the blow came.
• The ship started to move in all directions after the blow. If something hit the fin stabilization system it could have been a normal behavior from the ship.
• There are several reports of a secret and dangerous cargo.

---

Index

'ESTONIA'-Russian ships in the area did not respond to distress calls

Russian ships in the area did not respond to distress calls or go to the place of the disaster

All traffic in the Baltic sea were plotted by radar during the night of the disaster. In spite of that there are some ships that have not been officially in the area. One of the ships, Russian Leonid Bykov, was reported in a strange maneuver outside Jussarö, quite close to the place of the accident. Leonid Bykov did not respond to the distress calls and did not go to the place of the accident.

Date: 29 Sep 1994
From today's Aamulehti, bottom corner of page 13:
On Wednesday night, an hour after "Estonia" had sunk, the coast guards of Jussarö lighthouse noticed a ship sailing off course towards underwater rocks. They tried to alert the crew with searchlights and radio messages in Finnish, Swedish and English. No response. The ship passed the lighthouse, averted the first rocks by sheer luck, then turned sharply to south and safety. After this radio contact was established and the captain of the "Leonid Bykov" explained that the fresh First Officer keeping watch didn't know any English but when radio messages continued had figured out that maybe he needed to wake up the captain (who had made the safety move).
Earlier this month another Russian vessel, "Volgoneft 4" was in a similar situation near Jussarö.

It is clear that it should have been possible for "Leonid Bykov" to come to assistance, while several Finnish cost guard vessels left from Jussarö shortly after the time of the accident.
"Leonid Bykov" is own by Moscow River Shipping, a company that according to "Ricano Plus, Russian Industry Analysis" have had no trading during 1994. The ship is a dry cargo ship of 4540 Dwt that was built during 1991.
The other ship, "Volgoneft 4" has not been found, but there are at least 74 other ships named "Volgoneft" with numbers from nothing to 301. All ships are tankers of approx. 4000 - 5000 Dwt, many are identical. They are own by either Volgotanker River Shipping or the Russian Government. Almost all the Volgoneft tankers are administrated by the "General State Supervisory Department for Communications in the Russian Federation, Ministry of Post and Telecommunications". A smaller number of the Volgoneft tankers are administrated from Panama by the "Ministerio de Hacienda y Tesoro, Dirección General de Marina Mercante, Departamento de Telecomunicacions Marítimas".
It is quite strange that these ships that are built as tankers would be run by Telecommunication Departments. It is also very strange that these ships have been operating in Finnish waters near Jussarö, and that they have been involved in strange maneuvers close to underwater obstacles. It is more likely that "Volgoneft 4" was training maneuvers in narrow waters maybe preparing for an escape with another ship later on.

'ESTONIA'-THE WEATHER

http://members.tripod.com/~MV_Estonia/wether.html


'ESTONIA'-THE WEATHER

The weather situation at the accident site has been exaggerated mainly by the media, but also from rumors among people, believing that "of course, there must have been a storm, the ship sank". We have all heard and read that Estonia sank in stormy weather, and also with wind around 25 m/s. The fact is that the storm came first in the morning the 28:th, and that the center of the storm was more towards the west, at Bogskär. The weather was rough but far from extreme or storm.

Shown in the table below, the wind observations during the night. The wind in the area between Utö and Ristna where Estonia sank, was mean 15 m/s. In the early morning at 05.00 it was mean 18 m/s up to max 29 m/s at Ristna, but at Utö it was still mean 15 m/s.
One shall remember that 15 m/s is rough weather, specially for people not used to the sea. Most passengers aboard this type of ferry are not specially used to rough weather. People in a ferry like this get seasick on open water already with wind around 10 - 15 m/s, and believe there is a storm.

---

Wind observations (from the JAIC final report, table 5.3).

Day/ time	Söder- arm	Svenska Högarna	Bog- skär	Utö	Rus- sarö	Ristna
27/9 1700 hours	SW 09 mean 12 max.	SW 12 mean 14 max	SW 13 mean 14 max	SW 09 mean -	WSW 09 mean -	SW 08 mean 12 max
27/9 2000 hours	SW 11 mean 13 max	SSW 14 mean 16 max	S 14 mean 17 max	SSW 13 mean -	SW 08 mean -	SSW 08 mean 14 max
27/9 2300 hours	S 13 mean 17 max	SW 16 mean 18 max	SW 17 mean 18 max	SW 15 mean -	S 16 mean -	WSW 16 mean 21 max
28/9 0200 hours	SW 14 mean 15 max	W 17 mean 18 max	SW 20 mean 21 max	SW 15 mean -	SW 12 mean -	WSW 15 mean 22 max
28/9 0500 hours	W 20 mean 20 max	WNW 24 mean 24 max	W 19 mean 22 max	WSW 15 mean -	WSW 12 mean -	W 18 mean 29 max
28/9 0800 hours	WNW 17 mean 20 max	WNW 18 mean 25 max	WNW 21 mean 24 max	WNW 13 mean -	WNW 09 mean -	W 17 mean 26 max
28/9 1100 hours	WNW 12 mean 17 max	WNW 14 mean 18 max	- - -	W 15 mean -	WNW 11 mean -	W 12 mean -