PDA

View Full Version : The Jewish conspiracy is more fact than theory.



Bigjon
29th December 2018, 06:44 AM
http://controversyofzion.info/

excerpt from chap 32:

As to the purposes revealed when the revolution struck in 1917, these showed that it was not episodic or spontaneous but the third “eruption” of the organization first revealed through Weishaupt.
The two main features reappeared: the attack on all legitimate government of any kind whatsoever and on religion. Since 1917 the world-revolution has had to cast aside the earlier pretence of being directed only against “kings” or the political power of priests.
One authority of that period knew and stated this. In the tradition of Edmund Burke and John Robison, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton and Disraeli,

Mr. Winston Churchill wrote:
“It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of anti-Christ were designed to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical … From the days of ‘Spartacus' Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany) and Emma Goldman (United States), this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution.

It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others.”

This is the last candid statement (discoverable by me) from a leading public man on this question. After it the ban on public discussion came down and the great silence ensued, which continues to this day.

In 1953 Mr. Churchill refused permission (requisite under English law) for a photostat to be made of this article (Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920), without saying why.

The fact of Jewish leadership was a supremely important piece of knowledge and the later suppression of it, where public debate would have been sanative, produced immense effects in weakening the West. The formulation of any rational State policy becomes impossible when such major elements of knowledge are excluded from public discussion; it is like playing billiards with twisted cues and elliptical balls.

The strength of the conspiracy is shown by its success in this matter (as in the earlier period, of Messrs. Robison, Barruel and Morse) more than by any other thing.
At the time, the facts were available. The British Government's White Paper of 1919 (Russia, No. 1, a Collection of Reports on Bolshevism) quoted the report sent to Mr. Balfour in London in 1918 by the Netherlands Minister at Saint Petersburg, M. Oudendyke: “Bolshevism is organized and worked by Jews, who have no nationality and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.” The United States Ambassador, Mr. David R. Francis, reported similarly: “The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution.” M. Oudendyke's report was deleted from later editions of the British official publication and all such authentic documents of that period are now difficult to obtain.

Fortunately for the student, one witness preserved the official record.
This was Mr. Robert Wilton, correspondent of the London Times, who experienced the Bolshevik revolution. The French edition of his book included the official Bolshevik lists of the membership of the ruling revolutionary bodies (they were omitted from the English edition).

These records show that the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party, which wielded the supreme power, contained 3 Russians (including Lenin) and 9 Jews. The next body in importance, the Central Committee of the Executive Commission (or secret police) comprized 42 Jews and 19 Russians, Letts, Georgians and others. The Council of People's Commissars consisted of 17 Jews and five others. The Moscow Che-ka (secret police) was formed of 23 Jews and 13 others. Among the names of 556 high officials of the Bolshevik state officially published in 1918-1919, were 458 Jews and 108 others. Among the central committees of small, supposedly “Socialist” or other non-Communist parties (during that early period the semblance of “opposition” was permitted, to beguile the masses, accustomed under the Czar to opposition parties) were 55 Jews and 6 others. All the names are given in the original documents reproduced by Mr. Wilton. (In parentheses, the composition of the two short-lived Bolshevik governments outside Russia in 1918-1919, namely those of Hungary and Bavaria, was similar).

Bigjon
29th December 2018, 06:51 AM
Being called an anti-Semite, is the kiss of death for a reputation.

The “interregnum of five months began, during which a Jewish regime was to take over from Kerensky. At this very moment his newspaper lost “confidence” in Mr. Wilton. Why? The explanation emerges. The Official History of The Times says, “It was not happy for Wilton that one of his messages … should spread to Zionist circles, and even into the Foreign Office, the idea that he was an anti-semite.”
“Zionist circles,” the reader will observe; not even “Communist circles”; here the working partnership becomes plain. Why should “Zionists” (who wanted the British government to procure them “a homeland” in Palestine) be affronted because a British correspondent in Moscow reported that a Jewish regime was preparing to take over in Russia? Mr. Wilton was reporting the nature of the coming regime; this was his job. In the opinion of “Zionists,” this was “anti-semitism,” and the mere allegation was enough to destroy “confidence” in him at his head office. How, then, could he have remained “happy” and have retained “confidence.” Obviously, only by misreporting events in Russia. In effect, he was expected not to mention the determining fact of the day's news!

Bigjon
31st December 2018, 11:37 PM
excerpt from chap 33: three great “plans”
1. communism
2. Zionism
3. Dissolution of nations under a League of Nations.
All dictated by the Talmud.

Thus the three great “plans” moved together into the West, and this was the project which was to crown the work of the other two. Its basic principle was the destruction of nation-states and nationhood so that it gave _expression, in modern form, to the ancient conflict between the Old Testament and the New, between the Levitical Law and the Christian message. The Torah-Talmud is the only discoverable, original source of this idea of “destroying nations”; Mr. House thought it almost impossible to trace any “idea” to its fount, but in this case the track can be followed back through the centuries to 500 BC, and it is nowhere obliterated during those twenty-five hundred years. If before that time anybody in the known world had made this “destructive principle” into a code and creed they and it have faded into oblivion. The idea contained in the Torah-Talmud has gone unbroken through all the generations. The New Testament rejects it and speaks of “the deception of nations,” not of their destruction. Revelation foretells a day when this process of deception of nations shall end. Those who seek to interpret prophecy might very well see in The League to Enforce Peace, under its successive aliases, the instrument of this “deception,” doomed at the end to fail.

gap:
King Cyrus had allowed native Judahites, if they wished, to return to Judah after some fifty years; President Wilson was required to transplant Judaized Chazars from Russia to a land left by the original Jews some eighteen centuries before.
Across the Atlantic Dr. Weizmann made ready for the Peace Conference. He was then evidently one of the most powerful men in the world, a potentate (or emissary of potentates) to whom the “premier-dictators” of the West made humble obeisance. At a moment in 1918 when the fate of England was in the balance on the stricken Western Front an audience of the King of England was postponed. Dr. Weizmann complained so imperiously that Mr. Balfour at once restored the appointment; save for the place of meeting, which was Buckingham Palace, Mr. Weizmann seems in fact to have given audience to the monarch. During the Second World War the Soviet dictator Stalin, being urged by the Western leaders to take account of the influence of the Pope, asked brusquely, “How many divisions has the Pope?” Such at least was the anecdote, much retold in clubs and pubs, and to simple folk it seemed to express essential truth in a few words. Dr. Weizmann's case shows how essentially untrue it was. He had not a single soldier, but he and the international he represented were able to obtain capitulations never before won save by conquering armies.

He disdained the capitulants and the scene of his triumphs alike. He wrote to Lady Crewe, “We hate equally anti-semites and philo-semites.” Mr. Balfour, Mr. Lloyd George and the other “friends” were philo-semites of the first degree, in Dr. Weizmann's meaning of the word, and excelled themselves in servience to the man who despised them. As to England itself, Dr. Weizmann two decades later, when he contemplated the wild beasts in the Kruger National Park, soliloquised, “It must be a wonderful thing to be an animal on the South African game reserve; much better than being a Jew in Warsaw or even in London.”

~
Then Dr. Weizmann led a Zionist delegation to the Peace Conference of 1919 where “the new world order” was to be set up. He informed the august Council of Ten that “the Jews had been hit harder by the war than any other group”; the politicians of 1919 made no demur to this insult to their millions of dead.

However, a remonstrant Jew, Mr. Sylvain Levi of France, at the last moment tried to instil prudence in them. He told them:
First, that Palestine was a small, poor land with an existing population of 600,000 Arabs, and that the Jews, having a higher standard of life than the Arabs, would tend to dispossess them; second, that the Jews who would go to Palestine would be mainly Russian Jews, who were of explosive tendencies; third, that the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine would introduce the dangerous principle of Jewish dual loyalties.

These three warnings have been fulfilled to the letter, and were heard with hostility by the Gentile politicians assembled at the Peace Conference of 1919. Mr. Lansing, the American Secretary of State, at once gave M. Lévi his quietus. He asked Dr. Weizmann, “What do you mean by a Jewish national home?” Dr. Weizmann said he meant that, always safeguarding the interests of non-Jews, Palestine would ultimately become “as Jewish as England is English.”

~

Lawrence himself later wrote, “We lived many lives in those whirling campaigns” (in the desert) “never sparing ourselves any good or evil; yet when we achieved and the new world dawned the old men came out again and took from us our victory and remade it in the likeness of the former world they knew … I meant to make a new nation, to restore to the world a lost influence, to give twenty millions of Semites the foundations on which to build an inspired dream-palace of their national thoughts.”
Lawrence, who was broken by this experience, was then among the most famous men in the world. Had he joined the dissimulators hardly any rank or honour would have been refused him. He threw up his rank, and away his decorations, and tried from shame even to lose his identity; he enlisted under an assumed name in the lowest rank of the Royal Air Force, where he was later discovered by an assiduous newspaper man. This last phase of his life, and the motor-bicycle accident which ended it, have a suicidal look (resembling the similar phase and end of Mr. James Forrestal after the Second War) and he must be accounted among the martyrs of this story.

The leading public men were agreed to promote the Zionist adventure through the “international world order” which they were about to found, at any cost in honour and human suffering. In nearly all other questions they differed, so that, the war hardly ended, reputations began bursting like bubbles and friendships cracking like plaster, in Paris. Some breach occurred between President Wilson and his “second personality, independent self” (a similar, mysterious estrangement was to sever President Roosevelt and his other self, Mr. Harry Hopkins, at the end of another war).

Mr. House was at his zenith. Prime ministers, ministers, ambassadors and delegates besieged him at the Hotel Crillon; in a single day he gave forty-nine audiences to such high notables. Once the French Prime Minister, M. Clemenceau, called when Mr. Wilson was with Mr. House; the president was required to withdraw while the two great men privately conferred. Perhaps humiliation at last broke Mr. Woodrow Wilson; he was stricken by mortal illness in Paris (as Mr. Franklin Roosevelt at Yalta, though Mr. Wilson survived rather longer). Apparently the two never saw or communicated with each other again! Mr. House merely recorded, “My separation from Woodrow Wilson was and is to me a tragic mystery, a mystery that now can never be dispelled for its explanation lies buried with him.”

The illusions of power were dissolving. These men were never truly powerful, because they acted as the instruments of others. They already look wraithlike in the annals, and if the squares and boulevards named after them still bear their names, few remember who they were. Mr. Wilson returned to America and soon died. Mr. House before long was lonely and forgotten in the apartment in East 35th Street. Mr. Lloyd George found himself in the political wilderness and was only able to complete the ruin of a once-great Liberal party; within a decade he found himself at the head of four followers. Mr. Balfour, for a few more years, absent-mindedly haunted Saint James's Park.

They were not able to accomplish all that their mentors wished. Shaken by the violence of American objections, Mr. Wilson “absolutely declined to accept the French demand for the creation of an international force that should operate under the executive control of the League.” The American Constitution (the president suddenly recollected) did not permit of any such surrender of sovereignty.

Thus the worst was averted, in that generation. The secret men, who continued to be powerful when these “premier-dictators” and pliable “administrators” were shorn of their semblance of power, had to wait for the Second World War to get their hands on the armies of the nation-states. Then they achieved their “League to enforce peace” almost (but still not quite) in the fullness of despotic power coveted by them. In 1919 they had to content themselves with a modest first experiment: The League Of Nations.

mamboni
31st December 2018, 11:46 PM
Bump
Bump
and Bump:)

Bigjon
2nd January 2019, 02:48 PM
excerpt chap 35:


As masses of Jews were openly opposed to Dr. Weizmann's Zionism, even he could not pretend that he spoke for them. Thus he transferred his canvassing from the antechambers of the Gentiles to the Jews and for eight years sped about the world in search of a solution to this problem, The great mass of emancipated Jews of the West resolutely opposed any project that might turn out to be one for the recreation of “a Jewish nation.”

Then Dr. Weizmann found the riddle's answer. He coined the term “non-Zionist.” The Jews in Britain remained aloof but those in America fell into the trap. “Non-Zionist” seemed to offer the best of both worlds; it would enable them to oppose Zionist nationalism while supporting the Judaist-Mecca idea. In 1928 a group of Jews announced that they represented “the non-Zionists” and would work with Dr. Weizmann for “the upbuilding of Palestine.” On this basis Dr. Weizmann in 1929 set up his “Enlarged Jewish Agency,” thereafter claiming that, by including “non-Zionists,” it fulfilled all provisions of “the Mandate” and that he once more represented “all Jews.” The dilemma from which Dr. Weizmann was rescued is shown by his words: he says he regarded the Zionist situation as “hopeless and helpless unless the non-Zionists came to the rescue,”

The Arabs at once saw that this “enlarged” Jewish agency would be the true government of Palestine and intensified their resistance. The result was that at last a British government felt forced to admit the fiasco and in 1930 the Passfield White Paper undertook to suspend Zionist immigration and to curtail the authority of the Jewish Agency. The “set” policy was “changed”! Dr. Weizmann, his authority reinforced by the recruitment of the “non-Zionists,” struck at once. He gave audience to the British prime minister, then Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, who behaved like a man held up by a gun; he not only revoked the White Paper but humbly asked Dr. Weizmann whom he should appoint as the next High Commissioner in Palestine.

Thus the years that the Zionists have eaten continued. What these politicians feared, none can confidently say; their memoirs are uniformly silent on this central mystery and their capitulations are unique in history. Mr. Macdonald's surrender re-established the principle that “policy” in this matter was “set” and immutable, and during the ensuing twenty years this became the paramount principle of all British and American state policy. The politicians of both countries evidently held Dr. Weizmann to be the emissary of a power which they dared not disobey; their demeanour resembled the African Native's rolling-eyed fear of the witchdoctor.

Mr. Macdonald's submission restored the situation in London to its former shape, but in Palestine the “national home,” an artificial growth forcibly implanted in a hostile soil, continued to wither. In ten years the Jewish population increased by less than a hundred thousand immigrants. In 1927 three thousand more emigrants departed than immigrants came. A small revival followed in 1928, but the average yearly exodus from Palestine, up to 1932, was almost a third of the immigration.

The Zionist adventure was in collapse, as all qualified parties had foretold. Left alone, the Jews of the world clearly would never in any substantial numbers go to Palestine; if events took their natural course the Arab population evidently would increase its preponderance.

Nothing was to take its natural course. At that very moment the mysterious Hitler arose in Germany (and at the same instant Mr. Roosevelt in America) and the Second World War loomed up ahead.

Chapter 36
THE STRANGE ROLE OF THE PRESS

The years which followed, 1933-1939, were those of the brewing of the Second World War. “Prussian militarism,” supposed to have been laid low in 1918, rose up more formidable than ever and the spectacle so absorbed men's minds that they lost interest in the affair in Palestine, which seemed unrelated to the great events in Europe. In fact it was to loom large among those “causes and objects” of the second war which President Wilson had called “obscure” in the first one.

The gap left by the collapse, in 1917, of the legend of “Jewish persecution in Russia” was filled by “the Jewish persecution in Germany” and, just when Zionism was “helpless and hopeless,” the Zionists were able with a new cry to affright the Jews and beleaguer the Western politicians. The consequences showed in the outcome of the ensuing war, when revolutionary-Zionism and revolutionary-Communism proved to be the sole beneficiaries.

~

The trained observers in Berlin were agreed that he (Hitler) would make war if allowed and so advised their governmental or editorial superiors in London. The Chief Correspondent of The Times in Berlin, Mr. Norman Ebbutt (I was the second correspondent) reported early in 1933 that war must be expected in about five years unless it were forethwarted, and this particular report was printed. He, I and many other reporters during the following years grew alarmed and perplexed by the suppression, “burking” and ignoring of despatches, and by the depictment of Hitler, in Parliament and the newspapers, as an inherently good man who would remain peaceable if his just grievances were met (at others' expense).

This period has become known as that of “the policy of appeasement” but encouragement is the truer word, and the policy changed the probability of war into certainty. The strain brought Mr. Ebbutt to physical collapse.

From 1935 on I was Chief Correspondent in Vienna, which was then but another vantage-point for surveying the German scene. From there, late in 1937, I informed The Times that both Hitler and Goering had said that the war would begin “by the autumn of 1939”; I had this information from the Austrian Chancellor. I was in Vienna during Hitler's invasion and then, after brief arrest by Storm Troops on the way out, transferred to Budapest, where I was when the supreme capitulation of Munich followed in September 1938. Realizing then that a faithful reporter could do nothing against “the policy of appeasement,” and that his task was meaningless, I resigned by expostulant letter, and still have the editor's discursive acknowledgement.

~
In the case of “the Jewish persecution” in Germany I found that impartial presentation of the facts gradually gave way to so partisan a depictment that the truth was lost. This transformation was effected in three subtle stages.
First the persecution of “political opponents and Jews” was reported;

then this was imperceptibly amended to “Jews and political opponents”;

and at the end the press in general spoke only of “the persecution of Jews.”

By this means a false image was projected on to the public mind and the plight of the overwhelming majority of the victims, by this fixing of the spotlight on one group, was lost to sight. The result showed in 1945, when, on the one hand, the persecution of Jews was made the subject of a formal indictment at Nuremberg, and on the other hand half of Europe and all the people in it were abandoned to the selfsame persecution, in which the Jews had shared in their small proportion to populations everywhere.

At that period I, typical of Englishmen of my generation, had never thought of Jews as different from myself, nor could I have said what might make a Jew, in his opinion, different from me. If I later became aware of any differentiation, or of the desire of a powerful group to assert one, this was not the result of Hitler's deeds but of the new impediment to impartial reporting which I then began to observe. When the general persecution began I reported it as I saw it. If I learned of a concentration camp containing a thousand captives I reported this; if I learned that the thousand included thirty or fifty Jews I reported that. I saw the first terror, spoke with many of the victims, examined their injuries, and was warned that I incurred Gestapo hostility thereby. The victims were in the great majority, certainly much over ninety percent, Germans, and a few were Jews. This reflected the population-ratio, in Germany and later in the countries overrun by Hitler. But the manner of reporting in the world's press in time blocked-out the great suffering mass, leaving only the case of the Jews.

I illustrate this by episodes and passages from my own experience and reporting. Rabbi Stephen Wise, writing in 1949, gave the following version of events personally reported by me in 1933, and undoubtedly purveyed the same version in the presidential circle of which he was a familiar during those years: “The measures against the Jews continued to outstrip in systematic cruelty and planned destruction the terror against other groups. On January 29, 1933 Hitler was summoned to be chancellor … at once the reign of terror began with beatings and imprisonment of Jews … We planned a protest march in New York on May 10, the day of the ordered burning of Jewish books in Germany … the brunt of the attack was borne by Jews … concentration camps were established and filled with Jews.”
All these statements are false. The measures against the Jews did not outstrip the terror against other groups; the Jews were involved in a much larger number of others. The reign of terror did not begin on January 29, 1933, but in the night of the Reichstag fire, February 27. No “burning of Jewish books” was ordered; I attended and reported that bonfire and have looked up my report published in The Times, to verify my recollection. A mass of “Marxist” books was burned, including the works of many German, English and other non-Jewish writers (my books, had they then been published, would undoubtedly have been among them); the bonfire included some Jewish books. The “brunt” of the terror was not borne by Jews, nor were the concentration camps “filled with Jews.” The number of Jewish victims was in proportion to their ratio of the population.

Nevertheless this false picture, by iteration, came to dominate the public mind during the Second War. At the time of my resignation, which was provoked solely by the “policy of appeasement” and the imminent advent of “the unnecessary war,” this other hindrance to faithful reporting was but a secondary, minor annoyance. Later I discerned that the motive behind it was of major importance in shaping the course and outcome of the Second War.” When I came to study the story of Mr. Robert Wilton I perceived that there was also a strong resemblance between my experience and his. He sought to explain the nature of an event in Russia and thus was inevitably led into “the Jewish question.” Twenty years later I observed that it was in fact impossible to draw public attention to the misreporting of the nature of the persecution of Germany and to explain that the Jews formed only a small fraction of the victims.

Bigjon
2nd January 2019, 07:27 PM
Excerpt ch 37:

Amid jubilant scenes in Washington and Berlin on two successive days (March 4 and 5, 1933) the two twelve-year reigns began which were to end at almost the same instant in 1945. Today an impartial historian could hardly compute which reign produced the greater sum of human suffering. At the start the two men who appeared on the central scene were both hailed as Messiahs. In America a Rabbi Rosenblum described President Roosevelt as “a Godlike messenger, the darling of destiny, the Messiah of America's tomorrow”; there spoke a political flatterer in words intended to “persuade the multitude.” In 1937, in Prague menaced by Hitler, a Jewish acquaintance told me his rabbi was preaching in the synagogue that Hitler was “the Jewish Messiah” (a pious elder who sought to interpret events in terms of Levitical prophecy).

All through these years the masses in both countries (and for that matter in Russia too) had their particular “premier-dictator” depicted to them in such terms, or in those of “Big Brother,” “Papa,” “Uncle,” “Beloved Leader” or the fireside-loving “Friend.” The apparent antagonists, Mr. Roosevelt and Herr Hitler, both in different ways promoted “the destructive principle” in its three recognizable forms: revolutionary-Communism, revolutionary-Zionism and the ensuing “world government to enforce peace.”

Mr. Roosevelt's reign began with a significant deception. He used a wheeled chair but the public masses were never allowed to see him, in flesh or picture, until he had been helped to an upright position. His infirmity was known; nevertheless, some directing intelligence decreed that the false picture of a robust man must to his last day be presented to the multitude

~

Forty years later Dr. Weizmann spoke similarly to Jews in America: “Certain countries can digest a certain number of Jews; once that number has been passed, something drastic must happen; the Jews must go”).
Dr. Weizmann thus soberly presented the valid argument against unrestricted Jewish immigration only because he was speaking chiefly to Jews and was drumming into them the Talmudic argument that Jews cannot be assimilated; this argument is essential to Zionism, but is not inherently true.

~

Between 1881 and 1920 over three million legally-recorded immigrants entered the United States from Russia, most of them Jews. According to the United States Census Bureau the country contained 230,000 Jews in 1877 and about 4,500,000 in 1926.

~

In the light of earlier experience, the identity of the men surrounding President Roosevelt plainly pointed to the policies he would pursue. He made this clearer by widening the circle of his Jewish advisers. In 1933 this had a new significance. In 1913 President Wilson's Jewish advisers were publicly accepted as Americans like any other Americans, and simply of the Jewish faith.

In 1933 the question of their allegiance had been raised by the Zionist adventure in Palestine. In addition, the issues of the world-revolution and of world-government had arisen since 1913, and both of these also threw up the question of American national interest, so that the feelings entertained about them in the president's immediate circle became a matter of first importance.

All this lent a specific significance to the earlier Congressional pronouncement (1924), denying the right of “any foreign group” to “dictate the character of our legislation.” Among the president's “advisers” many were of foreign birth or in effect became “foreign” by their devotion to Zionism or their attitude towards the world-revolution and world-government. In this sense a “foreign group,” embodying the mass-immigration of the preceding hundred years, formed itself around the American president and “steered” the course of events. The twelve years which followed showed that any “advice” acted on by the president must have been to the benefit of the destructive principle in its three interrelated forms: Communism, Zionism, world-government.

Prominent among his advisers (in addition to the three powerful men above named) was the Viennese-born Professor Felix Frankfurter. Mr. House's biographer Mr. Howden, who expresses Mr. House's opinion, thinks he was the most powerful of all: “Professor Frankfurter duplicated with Mr. Roosevelt, more than anyone else … the part played by Mr. House with President Wilson.” The part played by unofficial advisers is always difficult to determine and this opinion may place Professor Frankfurter too high in the hierarchy. However, he was undoubtedly important (he, too, first came into the advisory circle under Mr. Wilson).

~

They include in particular Mr. Alger Hiss, who by trial and conviction was revealed as a Communist agent, though he was a high “adviser” of President Roosevelt, (Mr. Justice Frankfurter voluntarily appeared at the trial to testify to Mr. Hiss's character), and Mr. Dean Acheson, who as American Secretary of State at that time declared he would not “turn his back” on Mr. Hiss, and others. Mr. Hiss played an important part at the Yalta Conference, where the abandonment of half Europe to the revolution was agreed; Mr. Acheson's period of office coincided with the abandonment of China to the revolution.

Apart from this distinct group of young men apparently trained during President Roosevelt's early years in office to take over the State Department, the president was accompanied by a group of Jewish advisers at the highest level. Mr. Henry Morgenthau junior (a leading Zionist, whose “Morgenthau Plan” of 1944 was the original basis for the bisection of Europein 1945) was his Secretary of the Treasury for eleven of the twelve years. Other intimate associates were Senator Herbert Lehman (another leading Zionist who took great part in promoting the “second exodus” from Europe in 1945-1946, which led to the war in Palestine), Judge Samuel Rosenmann (a resident inmate of the White House, who helped write Mr. Roosevelt's speeches), Mr. David Niles (of Russian-born parentage, and for many years “adviser on Jewish affairs” to Mr. Roosevelt and his successor), Mr. Benjamin Cohen (a drafter of the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and another important Zionist), and three Jews from Russia, Messrs. Sidney Hillman, Isador Lubin and Leo Pasvolsky.

These leading names, from the personal entourage of the president, represent only the pinnacle of an edifice that was set around all American political life. This sudden growth of Jewish influence, behind the scenes of power, obviously was not a spontaneous natural phenomenon. The selection was discriminatory; anti-Zionist, anti-revolutionary and anti-world-government Jews were excluded from it. The formation of this “palace guard” was unpopular, but unofficial advisers are difficult to attack on specific grounds and Mr. Roosevelt ignored all protests, and so escorted began his thrice-renewed presidency. Hitler simultaneously appeared as the symbol, at that moment, of the mathematically-recurrent Jewish persecution, and in the calculations of President Roosevelt's advisers took the place occupied by “the Czar” twenty years before in those of Mr. Wilson's.


~ convenient mad man

Mr. Long grew more popular and was elected to the United States Senate where (March 1935) he devoted “a large part” of a speech to “an attack on Mr. Bernard Baruch,” in whom he apparently saw the supreme representative of the “interests” (about the only charge never made against Mr. Long, who had many Jewish associates, was that he was “anti-semitic”). Mr. Long was becoming a force in the land and wrote a book called My First Week in the White House, containing illustrations which showed Mr. Roosevelt, looking much like the Roosevelt of Yalta, listening humbly to the wisdom of a hale and ebullient Huey Long.

He set out to undo Mr. Roosevelt by outdoing him in Mr. Roosevelt's especial skill: lavish spending and lavish promises. He did this in an ingenious way (he was possibly trickier than even Mr. Roosevelt). Mr. Long, with his “Share the Wealth” and “Every Man a King” programme, controlled the political machine in Louisiana. When the Roosevelt money began to flow into the States (for expenditure on all manner of crisis “projects,” and incidentally on votes) Mr. Long calmly diverted it to his own similar ends. He forced through the Louisiana Legislature a law prohibiting local authorities from receiving any Washington money without the consent of a Louisiana State Board. As he controlled this board, he intercepted the cornucopian stream and the money was spent to enhance his, not Mr. Roosevelt's voting strength. He did with public money what Mr. Roosevelt was doing, but for his own political account.

In 1935 Mr. Roosevelt's second election campaign loomed ahead. Suddenly his advisers became aware that Mr. Long was popular far beyond his native Louisiana; he was a national figure. The Democratic National Committee “was astonished when a secret poll revealed that Long on a third-party ticket could poll between three and four million votes and that his Share The Wealth plan had eaten deeply into the Democratic strength in the industrial and farm States” (Mr. John T. Flynn).
Therefore Mr. Long, although he could not have become president at that time, certainly could have prevented Mr. Roosevelt's re-election, and the ruling few suddenly beheld a disturber of their regime. However, as Mr. Flynn says, “Fate had gone Democratic and remained so”; on September 8, 1935 Mr. Long was shot in the Louisiana State Capitol by a young Jew, Dr. Carl Austin Weiss. The motive will never be known because Dr. Weiss, who might have explained it, was shot by Mr. Long's tardy bodyguard.[7] (http://mail.yahoo.com/config/login?/ym/instacompose?throw_the_zoom1111538455421#_ftn7)

The political effect was clear; Mr. Roosevelt's re-election was ensured. The usual suggestion of “a madman” was conveyed to the public mind and various other motives, not entailing insanity, also were suggested. No public investigation was made, as in the cases of other political assassinations of the last hundred years, in respect of which investigation was denied or curtailed. Such investigations as have been made (for instance, in the cases of President Lincoln, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and King Alexander of Yugoslavia) have never supported the theory (always put forward) of the lonely “madman,” but have revealed thorough organization with powerful support. The removal of Mr. Long determined the pattern of events for a decade, so that it was as important in its effects as the murders of more highly-placed men.


~ persecution - the recipe for Jewish success

(In October 1937 he certainly knew that war was coming in the autumn of 1939; at that very moment I had informed The Times from Vienna that Hitler and Goering had said so, and the American president would not have been less accurately informed).

By 1937 the falsification of the news-picture from Germany, which was described in the last chapter, had been going on for four years. I gave several instances, and here adduce another. Rabbi Stephen Wise relates that the American Jewish Congress immediately after Hitler's advent to power started the boycott-Germany movements on the basis of “cable reports” from Germany that “a nationwide pogrom” of Jews was being “planned.”[8] (http://mail.yahoo.com/config/login?/ym/instacompose?throw_the_zoom1111538455421#_ftn8) He then mentions, casually, that the “reported” pogrom “did not come off,” but the boycott did.[9] (http://mail.yahoo.com/config/login?/ym/instacompose?throw_the_zoom1111538455421#_ftn9)

Starting with this imaginary pogrom in Berlin, the propagandist campaign in America formed the basis on which Mr. Roosevelt rested his “quarantine” speech. The Zionists around the president were not truly concerned about the suffering of Jews at all; on the contrary, it was necessary to their politics in America and to the entire undertaking, and they feared its alleviation. In this they continued the policy of the Talmudic revolutionaries in Czarist Russia, who went to the length of assassination to prevent the emancipation of Jews, as has been shown.

~ they(Jews) feared that “the persecution” would collapse

For the Zionists in America the spectral danger of a reconciliation between Hitler and the Jews became most acute in 1938. General Smuts then sent his Defence Minister, Mr. Oswald Pirow, to Germany to ease tension in the Jewish question, if he could. The British prime minister, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, welcomed the attempt; he told Mr. Pirow that the pressure of international Jewry was one of the principal obstacles to an Anglo-German understanding and said he would be helped in resisting this pressure (Leon Pinsker's “irresistible pressure”) if Hitler could be induced to moderate his spleen.

Mr. Pirow then went to Germany. He says that he made a specific proposal, that Hitler responded favourably, and that agreement was in sight.

At that very instant fate again intervened, as in the case of Mr. Huey Long, Count Stolypin, Czar Alexander II and others; whenever a chance of pacification appeared fate intervened. A young Jew shot a German diplomat, Herr von Rath, in Paris. Riots followed in Germany, synagogues were burned, and Mr. Pirow's mission abruptly ended. No investigation into the murder, or any organization that might have been behind it, was held, or if one was begun it never produced any informative result; Rabbi Wise presents the familiar picture (found also in Mr. House's novel) of the “half-crazed youth,” maddened beyond endurance.

Mr. Roosevelt responded immediately: “The news of the past few days from Germany has deeply shocked public opinion in the United States … I myself could scarcely believe that such things could occur in a twentieth century civilization … I asked our Ambassador in Berlin to return at once for report and consultation” .

The words referred to the synagogue-burning. (Mr. Roosevelt did not comment on the murder) and the central sentence is demonstrably untrue, because Mr. Roosevelt, and all his contemporaries, had earlier seen the wanton destruction of religious edifices. True, they had not been synagogues, but Mr. Roosevelt had “seen” the dynamiting of Christian churches and cathedrals in Communized Russia, and on becoming president had rushed to recognize the government that did it.

Bigjon
4th January 2019, 04:35 PM
Excerpts from ch 38:

Dr. Weizmann knew that if a British government could once be brought to support “partition” it would at last be committed to a separate Jewish state.

His Asiatic mastery of the art of negotiation compels admiration. By invoking the Old Testament he firmly nailed down the idea of partition without committing himself to any boundaries. He said that he might be able to make some concession about the actual area to be taken for his Zionists, as Jehovah had not indicated precise frontiers in his revelations to the Levites. This accepted the offer of territory while leaving the entire question of boundaries open so that even “partition,” obviously, was to be no solution. The words with which Dr. Weizmann supported partition are of interest in the light of later events: “The Arabs are afraid that we shall absorb the whole of Palestine.

~

the Second World War reinvolved it in the insoluble problem.
As it approached Dr. Weizmann continued to beleaguer the Western politicians with the argument that “the Jewish National Home would play a very considerable role in that part of the world as the one reliable ally of the democracies.” By this he meant that the Zionist demand for arms for the forcible seizure of Palestine, which was about to be made, would be presented in that way, through the politicians and the press, to the public masses of the West.

~

After the murder of von Rath and the anti-Jewish disorders in Germany he told Mr. Anthony Eden:
“If a government is allowed to destroy a whole community which has committed no crime … it means the beginning of anarchy and the destruction of the basis of civilization.

The powers which stand looking on without taking any measures to prevent the crime will one day be visited by severe punishment.”

Hitler's persecution of men was ignored in these private, fateful, interviews in political antechambers; the plight of one “community” alone was advanced as the argument for war. The Zionists, as events have shown, were intent on destroying “a whole community which had committed no crime” (the Arabs of Palestine, who knew nothing of Hitler) and the arms they demanded were used for that purpose.

Significantly, Dr. Weizmann put his argument in terms of the Christian creed; under that teaching the destruction of a community innocent of crime is itself a crime which will bring “severe punishment.” Under the Levitical Law, however, which Dr. Weizmann invoked as the basis of his demand for Palestine, it is the chief “statute and commandment,” to be rewarded by power and treasure, not punished.

~

Mr. Chamberlain's name is linked with the final, fatal act of encouragement to Hitler: the abandonment and enforced surrender of Czechoslovakia at Munich.

~

Mr. Chamberlain may have calculated that he was compelled to do what he did by the state of British weakness and unpreparedness which his predecessor, Mr. Baldwin, had allowed to come about. I believe he was wrong if he so calculated; even at that late moment firmness would have saved the day, because the German generals were ready to overthrow Hitler; but he may have been honestly convinced that he could not act otherwise. Where he unforgivably erred was in depicting the deed of Munich as something morally right and in bolstering up this contention with allusions to “a small country a long way away with which we have nothing to do,” or similar words.

~
1938, when the word “partition” rang out, was the bloodiest year in Palestine up to that time; 1500 Arabs were killed. The Peel Commission had recommended partition but could not suggest how it might be effected. Yet another body of investigators was sent out, this time in search of a means of bisecting the infant without killing it.

This Woodhead Commission reported in October 1938 that it could not devise a practical plan; in November the von Rath murder and the anti-Jewish disorders which followed it in Germany were used by the Zionists to intensify their incitements against the Arabs in Palestine.

Mr. Chamberlain then did an extraordinary thing, by the standards prevailing. He called a Palestine conference in London at which the Arabs (for the first time since the Peace Conference of 1919) were represented.

From this conference emerged the White Paper of March 1939 in which the British government undertook “the establishment within ten years of an independent Palestine state” and “the termination of the Mandate.”

In this state the native Arabs and immigrant Zionists were to share the government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community were safeguarded. Jewish immigration was to be limited to 75,000 annually for five years and the irrevocable land-purchases were to be restricted.

This plan, if carried out, meant peace in Palestine at last, but no separate Jewish state. At that moment the figure of Mr. Winston Churchill advanced to the forefront of British affairs. He had for ten years been in political eclipse and the future student may be interested to know what contemporaries have already forgotten: that during this period he was a highly unpopular man, not because of any specific acts or quality, but because he was consistently given that “bad press” which is the strongest weapon in the hands of those who control political advancement. This organized hostility was made particularly plain during the abdication crisis of 1937, when his pleas for time received much more bitter attack than they inherently deserved and he was howled down in the House of Commons. His biographers depict him as suffering from depression during these years and thinking himself “finished” politically. His feeling in that respect may be reflected in his published words (privately written) to Mr. Bernard Baruch early in 1939: “War is coming very soon. We will be in it and you will be in it. You will be running the show over there, but I will be on the sidelines over here.”
Very soon after he wrote this Mr. Churchill's political fortunes took a sudden turn for the better and (as in the case of Mr. Lloyd George in 1916) his attitude towards Zionism appears to have had much to do with this, to judge from what has been published. His record in this matter suggests that Mr. Churchill, the product of Blenheim and Brooklyn, is something of “a riddle inside a mystery wrapped in an enigma,” to use the words employed by him about the Communist state in 1939. In 1906, as has been shown, he was among the earliest of the politicians who supported Zionism on the hustings, so that a Zionist speaker said any Jew who voted against him was a traitor. However, in office during the First War he took little part in that affair and Dr. Weizmann only mentions him once at that period, and then not as a “friend.” Then, as Colonial Secretary in 1922, he gave offence to Zion by his White Paper, which Dr. Weizmann calls “a serious whittling down of the Balfour Declaration.” It proposed for Palestine “a Legislative Council with a majority of elected members,” and this would have meant, not only holding those elections which Dr. Weizmann to the end forbade, but allowing the native Arabs of Palestine to govern their own country!
Thus Mr. Churchill's ten years in the political wilderness, 1929-1939, were also ones during which he was in disfavour with the Zionists and Dr. Weizmann's narrative never mentions him until the eve of the Second War, when he is suddenly “discovered” (as the playwrights used to say) in it as a most ardent champion of Zionism. This is the more curious because, as late as October 20, 1938, Mr. Churchill was still talking like the author of the White Paper of 1922: “We should … give to the Arabs a solemn assurance … that the annual quota of Jewish immigration should not exceed a certain figure for a period of at least ten years.” Very soon after that he re-emerges in Dr. Weizmann's account as a man implicitly and privately agreed to support a Zionist immigration of millions.
Quite suddenly Dr. Weizmann says that in 1939 he “met Mr. Winston Churchill” (ignored in his story for seventeen years) “and he told me he would take part in the debate, speaking of course against the Proposed White Paper.” The reader is left to guess why Mr. Churchill should have undertaken “of course” to speak against a document which, in its emphasis on the need to do justice to the Arabs, was in accord with his own White Paper of 1922 and with his speeches for seventeen years after it.

Then, on the day of this debate, Dr. Weizmann was invited to lunch with Mr. Churchill “who read his speech out to us” and asked if Dr. Weizmann had any changes to suggest. The reader will recall that editors of The Times and Manchester Guardian wrote editorial articles about Zionism after consultation with the chieftain of one interested party; now Mr. Churchill approached a debate on a major issue of state policy in the same manner. He was renowned for the quality of his speeches, and became so in America on account of the strange fact (as it was considered there) that he wrote them himself. However, in the circumstances above described by Dr. Weizmann, the point of actual penmanship appears of minor importance.
At that moment Mr. Churchill's “championship” (Dr. Weizmann) was vain; the great debate ended in victory for Mr. Chamberlain and his White Paper by a majority of 268 to 179. It was substantial, but many politicians already smelt the wind and their sail-trimming instinct is reflected in the unusually large number of abstentions: 110. This gave the first warning to Mr. Chamberlain of the method, of dereliction within his own party, by which he was to be overthrown.

The debate showed another interesting thing, namely, that the Opposition party by this time held Zionism to be a supreme tenet of its policy, and, indeed, the ultimate test by which a man could prove whether he was a “Socialist” or not! The rising Socialist party had long forgotten the wrongs of the working man, the plight of the oppressed and the sad lot of “the underdog”; it was caught up in international intrigue and wanted to be on the side of the top-dog.

Thus Mr. Herbert Morrison, a Socialist leader, pointed accusingly at Mr. Malcolm Macdonald (whose department was closely identified with the White Paper) and mourned the heresy of a man who “was once a Socialist.” Socialism, too, by this time meant driving Arabs out of Palestine, and the trade union notables, with their presentation gold watches, did not care how poor or oppressed those distant people were.

The Second War broke out very soon after the issuance of the White Paper and the debate. At once all thought of “establishing an independent Palestine” and “terminating the Mandate” was suspended, for the duration of the war (and at its end a very different picture was to be unveiled). At its start Mr. Roosevelt in America was “publicly and privately committed” to support Zionism (Mr. Harry Hopkins). In England Mr. Chamberlain was an impediment, but he was on his way out. Mr. Churchill was on his way in. The people wanted him, because he was “the man who had been right” about Hitler and the war; they knew nothing of his talks with Dr. Weizmann and the effects these might produce.

Bigjon
4th January 2019, 05:07 PM
Excerpts from ch 39:

For six years the grappling masses surged to and fro over three continents, and at the end those who thought themselves the victors were further from the Holy Grail than at the start; at the victor-politicians' parleys the cock crowed a second time. Three decades earlier President Wilson had striven to cry that “the causes and objects are obscure … the objects of the statesmen on both sides are virtually the same,” and the outcome justified him. The German leaders then had decided to “foment” and Mr. House to “support” the world-revolution; the Zionists kept their headquarters in Berlin as long as they thought that a victorious Germany might set up the “Jewish homeland” in Palestine, and only transferred them when victory was seen to lie with the West.

~

Bigjon
9th January 2019, 04:05 PM
The Second War again bore out the truth of Mr. Wilson's stifled cry. It could not have begun at all without the complicity of the world-revolution in the onslaught of the new “madman in Berlin,” and the peoples then overrun could discern no difference between the Communist and the Nazi oppression.

Then, when the two turned against each other, Mr. Hopkins (in Mr. House's stead) began to “support” the world-revolution again, so that victory could bring no “liberation.” Hitler wanted to re-segregate the Jews; Mr. Brandeis in America similarly, and imperially, decreed that “No Jew must live in Germany.”
Mr. Churchill desired that “three or four million Jews” should be transplanted to Palestine; the Communist state, by profession anti-Zionist, supplied the first contingent of these.

When the smoke of battle cleared only three purposes had been achieved, none of them disclosed at its start:

the world-revolution, with Western arms and support, had advanced to the middle of Europe;
Zionism had been armed to establish itself in Palestine by force;
the “world-government,” obviously the result which these two convergent forces were intended to produce, had been set up anew in embryo form, this time in New York.
The war behind the war was the true one;
it was fought to divert the arms, manpower and treasure of the West to these purposes.

Through the dissolving fog of war the shape of the great “design” first revealed by Weishaupt's paper, and exposed again in the Protocols, showed clear.

~

At that moment arms were more precious than diamonds in England.
The armies rescued from France were without weapons and disorganized;
Mr. Churchill records that the whole island contained barely 500 field guns and 200 tanks of any age or kind; months later he was still urgently appealing to President Roosevelt for 250,000 rifles for “trained and uniformed men” who had none.
In those days I scoured the countryside to obtain, at last, a forty-year old pistol which would fire only single shots.

Mr. Churchill's rousing words about fighting forever on the beaches and in the streets and never giving up did not thrill me, because I knew that, if an invasion once gained foothold, they were empty; men cannot fight tanks with bare hands. The unarmed state of the land was dire.
I should have been bewildered had I known that Mr. Churchill, at such a time, gave his mind so persistently to the arming of Zionists in Palestine.
The danger of invasion was receding when Dr. Weizmann next saw Mr. Churchill, in August 1940

(the fact that the Jews are really running this war and not Hitler is plain to see BJ)

~

For nearly forty years, at that time, Dr. Weizmann had worked “behind the scenes,” deviously and in secret; history shows no comparable case.
At one more behind-the-scenes meeting with President Roosevelt he then imparted Mr. Churchill's message, or rather (according to his own account) a different one: he said Mr. Churchill had assured him that “the end of the war would see a change in the status of the Jewish National Home, and that the White Paper of 1939 would go.”

~

There is some mystery in this reserve of President Roosevelt in the matter of “the Arab problem” which might have had important consequences had he not died, two years later, almost immediately after meeting Ibn Saoud. However, what he cautiously said and privately thought was no longer of vital importance in 1943, because the real decision had been taken.

Behind the scenes, under cover of a war in Europe, arms were on their way to the Zionists, and this secret process was to determine the shape of the future.

From this moment neither the top-line politicians, if they rebelled, nor the hard-pressed responsible officials had the power to prevent Zionism from planting in Palestine a time-bomb which may yet blow up the second half of the 20th Century.

For the time being Dr. Weizmann, in July 1943, returned to London, assured that “pressure” from Washington would be maintained.

Bigjon
9th January 2019, 06:47 PM
Chapter 40
THE INVASION OF AMERICA

While military invasions and counter-invasions multiplied during the six years of the Second War, absorbing all thought and energy of the masses locked in combat, a silent invasion went on which produced more momentous effects than the armed ones. This was the political invasion of the American Republic

~

Historically surveyed, Mr. Roosevelt's achievement may now be seen to have been threefold and in each respect perilous to his country's future: he helped to arm Zionism, he armed the revolution in its Moscow citadel, and he opened the doors of his American citadel to its agents.
He began the process at the start of his presidency by his recognition of the Soviet

~

this one aims to tell the tale of its penetration of the American Republic on its own soil during his long presidency.
Mr. Roosevelt began by breaking down the barriers against uncontrolled immigration which the Congresses immediately before him strove to set up, because they saw in it the danger of the capture of the American administration by “a foreign group.” Under various of his edicts the supervision of immigration was greatly weakened. Immigration officials were forbidden to put questions about Communist associations, and the separate classification of Jewish immigrants was discontinued. This was supported by a continuous press campaign against all demands for enquiry into loyalty or political record as “discrimination against the foreign-born.”

None can say how many people entered the United States during that period. By 1952 Senator Pat McCarran, chairman of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, estimated that, apart from legal immigration, five million aliens had illegally entered the country, including large numbers of “militant Communists, Sicilian bandits and other criminals.” The chief investigating officer of the Immigration Service declined even to estimate the number of illegal entrants but said that at that time (when some measure of control had been re-established) “over half a million a year” were being intercepted and sent back at the Mexican border alone. The Social Security authorities, who supplied the cards necessary to obtain employment, were forbidden to give any information about applicants to the immigration or police authorities.

This mass of immigrants went to swell the size of the “fluctuating vote” on which Mr. Roosevelt's party (still following Mr. House's strategy) concentrated its electoral effort and its cry of “no discrimination.” Under the president's restrictions on loyalty-interrogations the way into the civil service and armed forces was opened to American-born or legally-domiciled alien Communists. The results to which this led were shown in part by the many exposures of the post-war period, the literature of which would fill an encyclopaedia of many volumes. The entire West was also involved (as the Canadian, British and Australian exposures in time showed) and the significant thing is that, with the Canadian exception, no governmental investigation ever led to these partial revelations, which were always the work of persistent private remonstrants; nor was genuine remedial action ever taken, so that the state of affairs brought about during the 1930's and 1940's today continues not much changed, a source of grave weakness to the West in any new war.

~
“B'nai B'rith” put out a shoot.

~
The little offshoot of 1913, the “Anti-Defamation League,” had by 1947 become a secret police of formidable power in America.[11] (http://mail.yahoo.com/config/login?/ym/instacompose?throw_the_zoom1111538455421#_ftn11)

In Doublespeak “anti-defamation” means “defamation” and this body lived by calumny, using such terms as anti-semite, fascist, rabble-rouser, Jew-baiter, Red-baiter, paranoiac, lunatic, madman, reactionary, diehard, bigot and more of the like.
The vocabulary is fixed and may be traced back to the attacks on Barruel, Robison and Morse after the French revolution; the true nature of any writer's or newspaper's allegiance may be detected by keeping count of the number of times these trade-mark words are used.

The achievement of this organization (usually known as the A.D.L.) has been by iteration to make fetishes of them, so that party politicians hasten to deny that they are any of these things.

Under this regime reasoned debate became outlawed; there is something of sorcery in this subjugation of two generations of Western men to the mumbo-jumbo of Asiatic conspirators.
When the A.D.L. was born in 1913 it had merely desk-room in the parent B'nai B'rith office and a tiny budget. In 1933 Mr. Bernard J. Brown wrote, “Through the intervention of the A.D.L. we have succeeded in muzzling the non-Jewish press to the extent that newspapers in America abstain from pointing out that any person unfavourably referred to is a Jew.” In 1948 the Jewish Menorah Journal of New York wrote, “Should but one phrase in a reprinted literary classic reflect unjustly upon Jews, the A.D.L. will promptly belabour the innocent publisher until he bowdlerizes the offending passage. Let one innocent movie-producer incorporate a Jewish prototype, however inoffensive, in his picture and the hue and cry raised by the A.D.L. will make him wish he's never heard of Jews.

But when Jews are subtly propagandized into accepting Communist doctrine … the A.D.L. remains silent. No word, no warning, no hint of caution, much less exposure and condemnation; although there are men high in the councils of the organization who should know by their own experience how the Communists ‘infiltrate.'” (The Menorah Journal spoke for the many Jews who were alarmed because the A.D.L. was attacking anti-Communism as anti-semitism).

These quotations show the growth of the A.D.L.'s power in thirty-five years. It has imposed the law of heresy on the public debate in America. No criticism of Zionism or the world-government plan is allowed to pass without virulent attack; criticism of Communism is only tolerated in the tacit understanding that any war with Communism would lead to the communized world-state; and as to that, “Jerusalem is the capital of the world no less than the capital of Israel” (the Zionist mayor of Jerusalem, 1952).

America has today a few surviving writers who fight on for independent debate and comment. They will discuss any public matter, in the light of traditional American policy and interest, save Zionism, which hardly any of them will touch.

~
The Menorah Journal also drew attention to the falsification of news by Jewish news agencies subsidized by the big organizations. It showed that some minor brawl among juveniles in Manhattan had been depicted in “front-page scare headlines which would have led a stranger to believe that a Czarist pogrom was going on” (by these same means the “Czarist pogroms” earlier, and Rabbi Stephen Wise's “reported pogrom in Berlin” in 1933 reached the world). Out of this particular “scare headline” grew a mass-meeting in Madison Garden, where another politician aspiring to presidential office (a Mr. Wendell Willkie at that moment) declared, “The mounting wave of anti-semitism at home shocks me … etc., etc.”

~
How is the oracle worked? By what means has America (and the entire West) been brought to the state that no public man aspires to office, or editor feels secure at his desk, until he has brought out his prayer-mat and prostrated himself to Zion? How have presidents and prime ministers been led to compete for the approval of this faction like bridesmaids for the bride's bouquet? Why do leading men suffer themselves to be paraded at hundred-dollar-a-plate banquets for Zion, or to be herded on to Zionist platforms to receive “plaques” for services rendered?

The power of money and the prospect of votes have demonstrably been potent lures, but in my judgment by far the strongest weapon is this power to control published information

~
One of the first to be politically destroyed was the head of the Congressional Committee charged to watch over sedition (the Un-American Activities Committee).

The Protocols of 1905 foretold that the nation-states would not be allowed to “contend with sedition” by treating it as crime and this “forecast” also was fulfilled.

Mr. Martin Dies relates that he was required by the secret inquisition to restrict the definition of “subversion” to “fascism,” and to equate “fascism” with “anti-semitism.” “Subversion,”

had these importuners had their way with him, would have been any kind of resistance to “the destructive principle,” not the subverting of the nation-state.

He would not yield, but was driven out of political life by defamation.

The A.D.L. (and the American Jewish Committee) “set out to make the American people aware of anti-semitism.”

It informed Jews that “25 out of every 100 Americans are infected with anti-semitism,” and that another 50 might develop the disease.

~
In fact, only the complete capture of a state, including the power of dismissal, disqualification from employment and arrest can ever fully overcome the resistance of public servants, professionals and experts to something that clearly conflicts with their duty.
The A.D.L., in my judgment, showed that it looked forward to a day when it would overcome this obstacle by an attempt that was made in 1943.

The high directing intelligence behind this body evidently knows that the best moment to attain its aims is in the later stages and aftermath of a great war. At the start the embroiled masses are still intent on the objects professed and after the period of confusion which follows the war they regain some clarity of vision and begin to ask questions about what has been done under cover of the war; if the secret purpose has not then been attained the opportunity has been lost. These secret purposes were advanced between 1916 and 1922 (not between 1914 and 1918) in the First War, and between 1942 and 1948 (not 1939-1945) in the Second War. If a third war were to begin, say, in 1965 and continue until 1970, ostensibly for the purpose of “destroying Communism,” the secret effort to realize the full ambition of Zionism and of the communized world-state would come during the period of greatest confusion, say, from 1968 to 1974.

The bid to capture the civil service in America was made in 1943, the fourth year of the Second War, and was partially exposed (by chance) in 1947, when the fog was clearing. The aim was to interpose between the American people and their public services a secret, defamationist black-list which would prevent men of patriotic duty from entering them, and open them wide to approved agents of the conspiracy. The lists then compiled were at one period being so rapidly extended that they would soon have included every person in the United States whose employment in public office was not desired by the secret arbiters. The defamatory dossiers of the A.D.L. were being incorporated in the official files of the American Civil Service.
This could have provided the basis for secret police action at a later stage (“political opponents” were rounded up on the strength of such lists by Goering's new secret police on the night of the Reichstag fire).
All unknown to the American people, then and now, a coup of the first order was far advanced in preparation.
Mr. Martin Dies once described the A.D.L., which supplied these lists, as “a terrorist organization, using its resources, not to defend the good name of Jews, but to force and compel compliance with the objectives of their organization by terrorist methods; it is a league of defamation.”[14] (http://mail.yahoo.com/config/login?/ym/instacompose?throw_the_zoom1111538455421#_ftn14)

The description was borne out by the disclosures of the Subcommittee to Investigate the Civil Service Commission set up by the Committee on Expenditures of the American House of Representatives, which met on October 3, 6 and 7, 1947 under the chairmanship of Representative Clare E. Hoffman of Michigan.
This investigation also was brought about solely by the efforts of individuals; the whole effort of government was bent on averting it. Some loyal civil servant saw what was secretly being done and informed certain Congressmen that black lists were being inserted in the Civil Service files. Even that might not have led to any action, had not these Congressmen learned that they themselves were among the blacklisted!

Under the restraints bequeathed by the long Roosevelt administration investigation, even then, could only be set in motion on grounds that “funds voted by Congress were being misused” (hence the intervention of the Committee on Expenditures).

About a hundred American Senators and Congressmen then learned that they (and some of their wives) were shown as “Nazis” on cards in the Civil Service files. They succeeded in securing copies of these cards, which bore a note saying that the defamationist information on them was “copied from the subversive files” of a private firm of Zionist lawyers.

These files, the note continued, “were made up in co-operation with the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League; the sources of this information must not be disclosed under any circumstances; however, further information concerning above may be obtained …” (from the Zionist attorneys).

The senior officer of that department of the United States Civil Service Commission which was charged with investigating applicants for employment appeared before the sub-committee on subpoena. As the official directly responsible, he said the files were secret ones, the existence of which had only just become known to him (presumably, when he received the subpoena). The only files theretofore known to him were those normally kept by his department; they recorded persons investigated who for various reasons were to be rejected if they sought employment. He had ascertained that the secret files contained “750,000 cards” and had been prepared in the Commission's New York office (his own headquarters office was in Washington), and that copies of the cards had been sent to and incorporated in the files of every branch office of the Civil Service Commission throughout the United States. He said he had no power to produce the secret files; power to do this lay solely with the three Civil Service Commissioners (the very heads, under the president, of the Civil Service).

These Commissioners (a Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Flemming and Miss Perkins), then subpoenaed, refused to produce the files, stating that the president had forbidden this (the secret files had been introduced under President Roosevelt; this order not to divulge came from President Truman). Thereon Mr. Hoffmann said, “This is the first time I have ever heard the acknowledgement that we have in this country a Gestapo.”

The Commissioners made no protest. Mr. Hoffmann then asked if persons who had no intention even of applying for a Civil Service post were black-listed. The senior Commissioner, Mr. Mitchell, confirmed that this was the case, thus explicitly admitting that the black list was of unlimited range. Mr. Hoffmann said, “Then it has nothing to do with the immediate case of a person applying for a job?,” and Mr. Mitchell agreed. Mr. Hoffmann continued, “You claim the right to list in your files the names of anyone and everyone in this country? Is that not correct?” and the three Commissioners silently assented.

The investigators discovered that in June and July of 1943 alone (that is, in the confusion-period of a great war) 487,033 cards had been added to the secret files, this work having occupied scores of clerks. A Congressman reminded the Commissioners that in the very year (1943) when these secret cards were incorporated the Civil Service Commission had specifically forbidden its investigators even to ask questions about any applicant's Communist associations (the policy generally introduced by President Roosevelt).

The Commissioners showed great anxiety to avoid discussing the part played by the Anti-Defamation League in this affair and repeatedly evaded questions on that point.

The official report, so astonishing by earlier standards, shows that the A.D.L. was in a position secretly to introduce into official records defamatory dossiers, quickly extensible into secret police files covering the entire country. This was recognizably an attempt to gain control of the American Civil Service and to make loyalty, by the earlier standards, a disqualification. As no assurance of remedial action was obtained, the result of this public investigation may be compared with a surgical examination by doctors who, having opened the patient and found a malignant growth near a vital organ, declare that they have order not to remove it and sew up the incision. Thus the unhealthy condition remained.

The uses which could conceivably be made of such secret, nation wide black-lists were illustrated by some strange episodes of 1951 and 1952, when bodies of troops suddenly swooped on small towns in California, New York State and Texas and “occupied” them in the name of “the United Nations” or of “Military Government.” City halls, police headquarters and telephone exchanges were taken over; mayors, officials and private individuals were arrested; bands of the “enemy” (garbed by some costumier in “Fascist” uniforms) were paraded around; trials were held by military courts and concentration camps were set up; proclamations were made threatening “resisters” and “conspirators” with dire penalties, and so on.

~
By the end of the Second War this secret invasion, in all its forms, had impaired the inner structure of the American Republic to such an extent that some change in its outer form, as known to the world for 150 years, was likely during the confusion-period of any third war.

The instinctive struggle of the original population to maintain itself and its traditions against a usurpation, the nature of which it was not allowed to comprehend, was failing. This resistance would gain strength, and mend some of the breaches, as the Second War receded, but grave weaknesses remained which were bound to show themselves under the strain of the new war, with the thought of which the American mass-mind was daily made familiar by the politicians and the controlled press.

From 1943 onward the weakness of the American Republic lay more in its own impaired foundations than in any foreign air forces or fleets.

woodman
9th January 2019, 07:06 PM
Good reading. Lots of history. Not written by the victors for a change.

Bigjon
9th January 2019, 09:47 PM
Chapter 41
THE REVOLUTION “EXTENDS”

The Second World War, much more clearly than the First, followed the course charted by the Protocols of 1905.
The embroiled masses wreaked destruction and vengeance on each other, not for their own salvation, but for the furtherance of a plan of general enslavement under a despotic “world government.”

~

the farewell address of George Washington himself: “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens, the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”
Washington spoke in 1796, when the Reign of Terror had shown the true nature of the revolution in France and when the presence of the conspiracy's agents in America was first realized.

The published records of the Second War show that the conspiracy had obtained power to dictate major acts of American state policy, the course of military operations and the movement of arms, munitions, supplies and treasure. Its conscious agents were numerous and highly-placed.

Among the leading men who supported or submitted to them many may have been unaware of the consequences to which their actions were bound to lead.

This chapter in the republic's story occupied three and a half years, from Pearl Harbour to Yalta.
A significant resemblance occurs between the manner of America's entry into war in 1898 and 1941.

In both cases the provocation necessary to inflame the masses was supplied, and difficult problems of convincing Congress or “public opinion” were thus eluded. In 1898 the Maine was “sunk by a Spanish mine” in Havana harbour, and war followed on the instant; many years later, when the Maine was raised, her plates were found to have been blown out by an inner explosion.

In 1941 the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour “on a day that will live in infamy” enabled President Roosevelt to tell his country that through a completely unexpected attack it was “at war.”

~
The vital facts (that the president knew at the latest eight weeks earlier, from an intercepted Japanese despatch, that “a surprise attack was being planned and that these intercepted messages were withheld from the Pearl Harbour commanders over a long period) were burked throughout. The Secretary of War's diary (with the significant entry above quoted) was not admitted in evidence and Mr. Stimson himself was not called, being in ill health. Control of the press enabled the long proceedings (six months) to be presented to the public in bewildering and confusing form.

However, the three naval commanders chiefly concerned have published their accounts. Rear Admiral Kimmel, Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet at the time, says of another admiral's belief that “President Roosevelt's plans required that no word be sent to alert the fleet in Hawaii,” that “the individuals in high position in Washington who wilfully refrained from alerting our forces at Pearl Harbour should never be excused.

~
The Chief of the American Military Mission in Moscow, Major General John R. Deane, in a book of 1947 described his vain efforts to stem this tide and said this order of President Roosevelt was “the beginning of a policy of appeasement of Russia from which we have never recovered and from which we are still suffering.”

The word “appeasement” was incorrectly used by General Deane, for the policy went far beyond simple “appeasement,” and was obviously aimed at increasing the military and industrial strength of the revolutionary state after the war.

It is explicit in the above passages that Mr. Roosevelt intended to give the revolutionary state greater support than any other ally, free or captive, and implicit that he was resolved to support Poland's aggressor and was indifferent about the “liberation” of other countries overrun. The high causes held out to the Western masses, until they were fully involved in the war, had in fact been abandoned, and the supra-national project of extending the revolution, destroying nation-states and advancing the world-government ambition had been put in their place.

~
Even though Mr. Baruch, with evident accuracy, described himself as the most powerful man in the world in 1917-1918, his power actually to shape the events and map of the world was much less than that of any man who occupied the same place in the Second War, for the obvious reason that “the determination of what anybody could have” now extended to the revolutionary state established as a great military power with obvious and vast territorial aims. Even the War Production Board became of secondary importance when the “Lend-Lease Administration” was set up, and Mr. Harry Hopkins was appointed “Administrator” and also chairman of President Roosevelt's “Soviet Protocol Committee” with power “to determine supply quotas to be dispatched to Russia.” From that moment the fate and future of the West were in the hands of a man known to a wide circle as “Harry the Hop.”

Mr. Hopkins could only have occupied so elevated a place in the Twentieth Century; public opinion, if informed by a free and impartial press, would hardly have suffered him, for he had no qualification to handle great affairs, least of all foreign ones. Even his biographer, though well-disposed to a fellow-inmate of the White House (in which respectable precincts Mr. Hopkins, according to his own diary, once acted as pander to a visiting Communist notable, a Mr. Molotov), wonders how this man, “so obscure in origin and so untrained for great responsibility,” could have become “Special Adviser to the President.”

As to that, today's student cannot discover who “chose” Mr. Hopkins for his role.

~

Mr. Hopkins's secrets, and all this was again “behind closed doors” as far as the embroiled masses were concerned. In vain the Republican leader, Senator Robert E. Taft, protested when he saw what was going on: “How can anyone swallow the idea that Russia is battling for democratic principles … To spread the four freedoms throughout the world we will ship aeroplanes and tanks to Communist Russia. But no country was more responsible for the present war and Germany's aggression.” A violent campaign was immediately begun in the press which continued until Senator Taft's death. Today's map and state of affairs vindicate his warning, and those who today read Mr. Hopkins's fiat, quoted above, may see that the outcome of the war was determined by these secret actions of 1942 and earlier.

Of “aeroplanes and tanks” 15,000 and 7,000, respectively, were donated. A navy of 581 vessels was also given (over many years 127 of these were returned and in 1956 the Soviet offered to pay for 31; the remaining ships, over 300, were declared to have been lost, sunk or declared unseaworthy). A merchant fleet was also presented.

This was only the smaller part of the total transfer of wealth in many forms. The American Government has never published the details of its deliveries. The fact that these are known, and that the greater part of them consisted of supplies obviously designed to strengthen the industrial and war-making capacity of the revolutionary state after the war's end, is due to one of the accidents which assist the historian, although, in the condition of the press today, they never reach the general public mind and therefore produce no remedial result.

In May 1942 a Captain George Racey Jordan reported for duty at the great Newark Airport in New Jersey. He was a First War soldier rejoined and had never forgotten the advice of a sergeant given to him in Texas in 1917: “Keep your eyes and ears open, keep your big mouth shut, and keep a copy of everything.” To the last five words posterity owes the most astonishing book (in my opinion) of the Second World War.

Captain Jordan was instructed to report to “United Nations Depot No. 8,” as he found Newark Airport to be described on his orders. The body known as the “United Nations” was set up three years later, and this was an anticipation, revealing the intention of the men around the president. Captain Jordan, when he reported for duty as Liaison Officer, had no suspicion of the power of the Soviet in America and was soon enlightened in three ways. In May 1942, after an American Airlines passenger aircraft on the apron brushed the engine housing of a Lend-Lease medium bomber waiting to be flown to the Soviet Government, a Soviet officer angrily demanded the banishment of American Airlines from this great American airport. When this was refused the Soviet officer said he would “call Mr. Hopkins,” and in a few days an order from the United States Civil Aeronautic Board banished all American civil airlines from the field.

Captain Jordan then began to keep a very full diary, and by means of it was later able to show (when he and the rest of the world learned about “atomic bombs”) that during 1942 about fifteen million dollars' worth of graphite, aluminium tubes, cadmium metal and thorium (all materials necessary for the creation of an atomic pile) were sent to the Soviet Government from Newark. At this time the “Manhattan Project” (the production of the first atom bomb) was supposed to be of such intense secrecy that its chief, Major General Leslie R. Groves, later testified that his office would have refused, without his personal approval, to supply any document even to President Roosevelt. In 1942, when he made these entries in his diary, Captain Jordan had no idea of the use to which these materials might be put, for he had never heard of the “Manhattan Project” or of “the atom bomb.”

His next experience of the authority wielded by the Soviet officers came when one of them took affront on seeing a red star on an aeroplane belonging to the Texaco Oil Company and threatened to “phone Washington” and have it removed. Captain Jordan had difficulty in explaining that the Texas Oil Company had been using the emblem of its home state (the “Lone Star State”) for many years before the 1917 revolution!

At this time Captain Jordan began to realize that the mass of material that was going to the Communist state was not in the least covered by the terms of the master Lend-Lease agreement (“The Government of the United States will continue to supply the U.S.S.R. with such defence articles, defence services and defence information as the President … shall authorize to be transferred or provided”) but included many things that had nothing to do with “defence” and everything to do with the post-war strengthening of the Soviet. He noted, for instance, the supply of “tractors and farm machinery, aluminium manufacturing plant, railway car shops, steel mill equipment” and the like more. These shipments (which, an enthusiastic interpreter told him, “will help to Fordize our country”) are indicated in the round totals which are the only information on the subject provided by the American Government. President Truman's “Twenty First Report to Congress on Lend-Lease Operations” shows under the head of “Non-munitions” the enormous figures of $1,674,586,000 for agricultural products and $3,040,423,000 for industrial materials and products.

In 1943, when heavy losses to the ocean convoys caused a much greater proportion of Lend-Lease materials to be sent by air, an American air terminus for the movement of these supplies was set up at Great Falls, Montana, and Captain Jordan was transferred there as “Lend-Lease Expediter.” Once more his orders from the United States Army Air Force designated him “United Nations Representative,” though no such body existed, and he found awaiting him a Presidential directive, headed “Movement of Russian Airplanes,” which said that “ … . the modification, equipment and movement of Russian planes have been given first priority, even over planes for U.S. Army Air Forces.” He also had his third experience of Soviet power: the Soviet officer with whom he dealt held that his rank of captain was too low and asked for his promotion to major; when the gold oak leaves duly arrived they were pinned on Major Jordan's shoulders by Colonel Kotikov, an event probably unprecedented in American military history.

Major Jordan then noticed that an extravagant number of black suitcases, roped and sealed, was passing through his “pipeline to Moscow.” His misgivings were by this time heavy and he used a favourable opportunity (and the sole power remaining to him, that of giving or withholding clearance for American-piloted Lend-Lease aircraft on the last stretch to Fairbanks in Alaska) to thrust past armed Soviet secret policemen into an aeroplane and open about eighteen suitcases out of fifty. He made a rough note of the contents of the opened ones.

Among the mass of papers, plans, correspondence and blueprints were two discoveries which, years later, proved to fit neatly into the picture of espionage and conspiracy which was revealed by the various exposures of 1948-1956. One was a bundle of State Department folders, each with a tab. One of these read, “From Hiss,” and another, “From Sayre.” Major Jordan had never heard either name, but they were the names of the chief State Department official later convicted (Alger Hiss) and of another State Department official involved in the same affair. These folders contained copies of secret despatches from American attaches in Moscow, forwarded by diplomatic pouch to Washington, and now returning in duplicate to those from whom they were to be held secret.

The more important discovery was one which affects all men living in the West as much today as if it were now detected. It was a letter addressed to the Soviet Commissar of Foreign Trade, Mikoyan. Major Jordan noted down an excerpt from it: “ … .had a hell of a time getting these away from Groves” (the chief of the atomic-bomb project). The letter was signed “H. H.” Attached to it were a map of the Oak Ridge atomic plant in Tennessee and a carbon copy of a report, rubber-stamped “Harry Hopkins,” containing a number of names so strange to Major Jordan that he also made a note of them, intending to look up their meaning. Among them were “cyclotron,” “proton” and “deuteron,” and phrases like “energy produced by fission” and “walls five feet thick, of lead and water, to control flying neutrons.” Mr. Hopkins, as already shown, was “the inevitable Roosevelt favourite,” “the Special Adviser to the President,” “the second most important man in the United States.”

(For some years after the Second War the public masses in America and England were told by their leaders that their best protection against a new war, and the most effective deterrent to “Soviet aggression,” was Western possession of the atom bomb. On September 23, 1949 the Soviet Union exploded an atom bomb, to the surprise of none who carefully followed affairs. Major Jordan then could contain himself no longer and approached a Senator, who was stirred enough to induce a leading broadcaster, Mr. Fulton Lewis, to make the story known. In that form, and in his later book, it thus became public, and it was the subject of two Congressional hearings, in December 1949 and March 1950. The press unitedly misrepresented the gravamen of the matter and, as in all these cases, no true remedial effect was produced; nothing effective has been done to prevent the recurrence of a similar state of affairs in another war).

In 1944 Major Jordan, more worried than ever, attempted to see the Lend-Lease liaison officer at the State Department but was intercepted by a junior official who told him “Officers who are too officious are likely to find themselves on an island somewhere in the South Seas.” Not long after he was removed from White Falls. His book contains the complete list of Lend-Lease shipments which, as liaison officer, he was able to see and copy. This shows all the chemicals, metals and minerals suitable for use in an atomic pile which were transferred, and some of them may also be suitable for use in the hydrogen bomb; they include beryllium, cadmium, cobalt ore and concentrate (33,600 lbs), cobalt metal and cobalt-bearing scrap (806,941 lbs), uranium metal (2.2 lbs), aluminium tubes (12,766,472 lbs), graphite (7,384,482 lbs), thorium, uranium nitrate, oxide and urano-uranic oxide, aluminium and alloys (366,738,204 lbs), aluminium rods (13,744,709 lbs), aluminium plates (124,052,618 lbs), brass and bronze ingots and bars (76,545,000 lbs), brass or bronze wire (16,139,702 lbs), brass and bronze plates (536,632,390 lbs), insulated copper wire (399,556,720 lbs), and so on.

These lists also include the “purely postwar Russian supplies” (General Groves), such as an oil-refinery plant, forging machinery and parts ($53,856,071), lathes, precision boring-machines, canning machinery, commercial dairy equipment, sawmill machinery, textile machinery, power machines ($60,313,833), foundry equipment, electric station equipment, telephone instruments and equipment ($32,000,000), generators ($222,020,760), motion picture equipment, radio sets and equipment ($52,072,805), 9,594 railway freight cars, 1,168 steam locomotives ($101,075,116), merchant vessels ($123,803,879), motor trucks ($508,367,622), and endlessly on.

Among the major donations obviously intended to strengthen the Soviet Union industrially after the war, Major Jordan's records include one repair plant for precision instruments ($550,000), two factories for food products ($6,924,000), three gas generating units ($21,390,000), one petroleum refinery with machinery and equipment ($29,050,000), 17 stationary steam and three hydro-electric plants ($273,289,000). The Soviet lists reproduced by Major Jordan suggest that a spirit approaching hysteria in giving moved Mr. Hopkins and his associates, for they include items for which no rational explanation can be found, for instance: eyeglasses ($169,806), teeth ($956), 9,126 watches with jewels ($143,922), 6,222 lbs of toilet soap $400 worth of lipsticks, 373 gallons of liquor, $57,444 worth of fishing tackle, $161,046 worth of magic lanterns, $4,352 worth of “fun fair” devices, 13,256 lbs of carbon paper, two “new pianos,” $60,000 worth of musical instruments and (an item which conjures up visions of the “Beloved Leader,” Mr. Roosevelt's and Mr. Churchill's “Uncle Joe”), “one pipe,” valued at ten dollars!

Mr. Hopkins's past as a professional fund-raiser and welfare-worker seems to show in the donation of $88,701,103, over four years, for “relief or charity”; those who have visited Soviet Russia may try to imagine this money being doled out by the Commissars to the poor! This was not the end of cash-giving under “Lend-Lease.” In 1944 Mr. Henry Morgenthau junior, Mr. Roosevelt's Secretary of the Treasury, and his Assistant Secretary, Mr. Harry Dexter White (later shown to have been a Soviet agent) ordered the shipment to the Soviet Government of duplicates of the United States Treasury plates to be used for printing money for the use of the forces occupying Germany after the war. This meant that the money printed by the Soviet Government for the use of its troops was redeemable by the American Government as there was no distinction whatever between the paper printed. By the end of 1946, when public protests caused the American Government to stop paying its own troops with these notes, so that the Soviet Government could make no further use of them, the United States Military Government in Germany found that it had redeemed about $250,000,000 in excess of the total of notes issued by its own Finance Office. (The Soviet Government ignored a request to pay the modest sum of some $18,000 for the plates and materials delivered to it, which had enabled it to draw $250,000,000 straight from the United States Treasury).

Thus for four or five years there was an unlimited transfer of the wherewithal of war, of supplies for post-war industrial use, and of wealth in manifold forms to the revolutionary state, and “re-discussion” of this policy lay under ban at the highest level. Moreover, “preference” and “priority” for this policy, in relation to American needs or those of other allies, was explicitly ordered at that level.

~

Bigjon
9th January 2019, 09:48 PM
Thus the war, which could have been ended (probably in 1944) by the Allied liberation of the countries overrun by Hitler, leaving the Soviet state within the natural Russian boundaries or a little more, and Europe in balance, dragged on through 1944 into 1945; while the German armies in Italy were given respite and the wasteful invasion of Southern France lent no impetus to the main invasion of Normandy.

The shape which the war took in its last ten months then was that dictated by the Soviet Government and superimposed on Western military strategy through its agent in the American Government, the man known as Harry Dexter White. Being dead, he cannot testify, but he is commonly held by the best authorities known to me to have been the author of the plan, for the destruction of Germany and the abandonment of Europe to Soviet “domination,” which is known to posterity as the “Morgenthau plan.”

Under the shadow of this plan (as will be seen) the Western armies gradually broke their way through to the edge of Germany. To the last moment Mr. Churchill who had been defeated by General Marshall in his earlier plea to have the right arm of the Allied armies strike through the Balkans at “the soft underbelly” of the enemy) strove to make good something of what had been lost by a massive, last-minute thrust of the left arm to Berlin and beyond. The story is told both in his and in General Eisenhower's memoirs.

General Eisenhower describes his refusal of Field Marshal Montgomery's proposal, late in 1944, to strike hard with all available forces for Berlin. He considers that the idea was too risky, or reckless; earlier in his book he gently criticizes Montgomery for being too cautious. He continued through the following months with a sprawling general advance which left the Red Armies time to press into Europe, and in March 1945 (when the Yalta Conference was over and the Soviet intention to annex, rather than liberate, Rumania and Poland had already been shown, and President Roosevelt was cabling formal protests to Stalin) General Eisenhower informed the Soviet dictator by direct cable of his plan, marking it “Personal to Marshal Stalin.” Its communication to Stalin before it had even been endorsed by the Allied Chiefs of Staff brought angry protest from Mr. Churchill, who to the last strove to save what could yet be saved from the fiasco which was being prepared by urging that at least Vienna, Prague and Berlin be taken.”

This was all in vain. General Marshall, in Washington, notified London that he fully approved both General Eisenhower's “strategic concept” and his “procedure in communicating with the Russians.” Thereafter the Allied advance in the West was, in fact, arranged to receive Soviet approval, and British counsel was disregarded. General Eisenhower had informed Stalin directly on March 28 that he would stop short of Vienna. On April 14 he informed the Chiefs of Staff that he would stop seventy miles short of Berlin, on the Elbe line, adding “If you agree, I propose to inform Marshal Stalin”; as British objections had already been overridden, the first three words were but a matter of form. There still remained Prague, capital of captive Czechoslovakia. General Eisenhower advised Stalin that he would advance to Prague “if the situation required”; he had substantial forces standing idle on the Czech border. Stalin replied (May 9, 1945) requesting General Eisenhower “to refrain from advancing the Allied forces in Czechoslovakia beyond the … Karlsbad, Pilsen and Budweis line.” General Eisenhower at once ordered his General Patton to halt on that line.

Thus “the hideous bisection” of Europe was brought about; to this description of it Mr. Churchill added the platitudinous comment, “it cannot last.” “General Eisenhower five years later claimed that he alone was responsible for these three fatal decisions: “I must make one thing clear. Your question seems to imply that the decision not to march into Berlin was a political decision. On the contrary, there is only one person in the world responsible for that decision. That was I. There was no one to interfere with it in the slightest way.”

This statement was made in reply to a question at a dinner of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York on March 3, 1949; The questioner said “the general feeling is that if our Army had marched into Berlin and … Prague the picture in the post-war period might have been different … Had our political leaders … refrained from interfering with you in going through your regular military procedure of taking as much as our armies might take … don't you think the postwar picture might have been different?”

General Eisenhower's statement cannot have been true, even if he thought it was. The order to hold back the Allied advance until the Red armies had taken possession of Germany and Central Europe, with its three chief capitals, obviously followed the “policy” which, demonstrably, governed Lend-Lease: that of giving preference to the demands of the Soviet state over all other allies, and even over the needs of America itself. For that matter, General Eisenhower's own naval aide and biographer, Captain Harry C. Butcher, specifically states that when General Eisenhower (against Mr. Churchill's protest) opened direct communication with Moscow about the halting-line for the Allied advance, the question of “boundaries and areas to be occupied had gone beyond the sphere of military headquarters.” General Eisenhower's actions clearly followed a predetermined political plan agreed at the highest level; by the time he became president its consequences were plain to see and he might have felt “haunted” by President Roosevelt's example (as Mr. Roosevelt was always “haunted” by that of President Wilson).

~

This history of the Yalta papers shows that, ten years after the Second World War, power was still in the hands of the essentially “foreign group” which during the war had been able to divert supplies, military operations and State policy to the purpose of “extending” the revolution. They were still able to override the public undertakings of presidents and to frustrate the will of Congress; they still held the reins. This meant that the infestation of the American government and its departments by agents of the revolution, which began with Mr. Roosevelt's first presidency in 1933, had not been remedied in 1955, despite many exposures; and that, as this was the case, American energies in any third war could in the same way be diverted to promote the overriding plan for a communized world-society (Lenin's third stage in the process). Once more the embroiled masses would fight to bring about results, the direct opposites of the causes held out to them at any new “Pearl Harbour.”

This undermining of the West was not confined to the United States; it was general throughout the Western world and this chapter dwells on the American case only because, in the conditions of today, the strength and wealth of America are so great that their use or misuse probably will decide the issue. A similar condition was shown to exist in the country, Britain, from which the great overseas nations originally sprang, and in the two greatest of these, Canada and Australia.

The first exposure came in Canada, immediately after the war's end, and this is the only one of the four Cases in which full governmental investigation and full public disclosure of the results followed; also, it lit the fuse which in time led to all the other exposures, in America, Australia and Britain. A Russian, at the risk of his life, disclosed to the Canadian Government the network of governmental infestation and espionage of which the Soviet Embassy at Ottawa was the centre (despite the leading part taken by Russians in this process of warning Western politicians and the press continued to incite their peoples against “Russians,” not against the revolutionary conspiracy of which Russia was the captive). The full public investigation, which would otherwise be surprising, seems to be accounted for by the fact that the Canadian Prime Minister of that day, Mr. Mackenzie King, although a wily politician, was in all else a simple man, more interested in communing with the spirit world than anything else. When he was convinced by documents of the truth of Igor Gouzenko's statements he saw that they revealed “as serious a situation as ever existed in Canada at any time” and flew at once to inform the American president (Mr. Roosevelt's successor) and the British Prime Minister (then Mr. Clement Attlee) that this situation was shown by them to be “even more serious in the United States and England.”

At that time Mr. Whittaker Chambers's documentary proof that Mr. Alger Hiss was the centre of a Soviet network in the American State Department had been available to, but ignored by, two American presidents for six years, and three years later Mr. Truman was publicly to deride all such stories as “a Red herring.” The exposure of Mr. Hiss and his associates followed in a trial which was entirely the result of efforts by individual patriots (including Mr. Richard Nixon, a later Vice-President) to wring the truth from a reluctant government and to compel exposure. In the sequence to the Hiss affair a mass of disclosures followed, which showed American government departments to have been riddled with Soviet agents at all levels. The literature of this period and subject is now too great even to summarize here, but it is conclusive, and much of it is official, though reluctant.

In England, for six years after the Canadian Prime Minister's warning, nothing was done to remedy a condition revealed by the highest authority. Then in 1951 two Foreign Office officials, one of them a senior and rising young man, and both of them notorious characters who had evidently been protected and advanced in their official careers by some powerful hand, suddenly disappeared. It was known that they had fled to Moscow, fearing exposure on the Hiss model. For four more years British governments (Socialist and Conservative) refused all public investigation or any information beyond the bland statement that “all possible inquiries are being made.” Then in 1955 the British Foreign Office suddenly announced that the two men had been under suspicion of conveying secret information to the Soviet Government from 1949 (they disappeared in 1951). This belated announcement was not spontaneous; it was extorted from the British government only by the fact that one more Russian, Vladimir Petrov of the Soviet Embassy at Canberra, had fled his captivity and had revealed that these two men, Burgess and Maclean, had been recruited as spies for the Soviet during their student days at Cambridge University twenty years earlier (1930-1935; this is the method, of capturing men in their unwary youth, on which the Weishaupt documents and the Protocols alike lay emphasis; the career of Alger Hiss affords an exact parallel in America). Immediately after this tardy Foreign Office admission Burgess and Maclean were proudly paraded before international newspapermen in Moscow as officials of the Soviet Foreign Ministry (and immediately after that the Soviet leaders of the moment, Kruschev and Bulganin, were invited to pay a ceremonial visit to London).

~

Thus the investigations diverted public attention from the truly grave condition which was exposed. This was not the mere theft of documents, but the control of state policy at the highest level which was gained by the infestation of the Western countries. It was this that enabled arms, supplies, wealth, military operations and the conduct of Western politicians at top-level conferences all to be guided into a channel where they would produce the maximum gain, in territory and armed strength, for the revolutionary state.

~

The name of Alger Hiss is the best known in this context, because of his public trial and conviction. The first authority in this question, Mr. Whittaker Chambers, thinks that the man known as “Harry Dexter White,” whom he calls “one of the most influential men on earth,” may have played an even greater part in shaping American State policy in the Soviet interest.

According to the American newspapers, no birth certificate of any man called “Harry Dexter White” exists and none knows who he was! Mr. Henry Morgenthau junior (the only Cabinet officer to continue in office through nearly the entire twelve years of Mr. Roosevelt's presidency), very soon after his appointment introduced “Harry Dexter White” (1934) into the United States Treasury. His rise there (like Mr. Hiss's in the State Department) was of the rapid kind which indicates influential backing. Immediately after Pearl Harbour he was invested with “full responsibility for all matters with which the Treasury Department has to deal having a bearing on foreign relations,” and later was appointed Assistant to the Secretary himself.

During all these years the man whose true identity apparently will never be known was a Soviet agent, and the proof was proffered to but refused by President Roosevelt.

~

Having shaped the beginning, he also shaped the end of the Second War, in the interest of the same party, his masters. He is generally credited with the drafting of the “Morgenthau Plan.” In both cases, therefore, American State policy was fashioned by the United States Treasury, not by the State Department or the War Department, which, under the President, are the departments constitutionally responsible for the conduct of foreign policy in time of war; and at the Treasury, as has been shown, Mr. White was “fully responsible” for all matters bearing on foreign relations.

The general tendency in America since the Second War has been to point to Mr. White as the original author of these fateful actions. This may be token reluctance to point a finger at the responsible Cabinet officer himself, Mr. Henry Morgenthau junior. Mr. Morgenthau originally appointed Mr. White, signed both the draft ultimatum to Japan of November 1941 and the draft plan for dismembering Germany of September 1944, and in both cases President Roosevelt acted on the plan submitted. It is therefore difficult to see how Mr. Morgenthau's and Mr. White's responsibility can be separated, and the most that might be assumed is that the directing brain was the pseudonymous Mr. Harry Dexter White's.

The genesis of the “Morgenthau Plan” for the dismemberment of Germany into petty provinces, the destruction of its industry and flooding of its mines and its reduction to the status of “a goat pasture”

~

In April 1947 (by which time the exposure of Mr. Hiss was drawing near) Mr. White resigned “for reasons of health.” In August of 1948, when the proof of his guilt was conclusive and was about to be made public, he was called before the Un-American Activities Committee of Congress and denied ever having been a member of the conspiracy. He was then privately confronted with some of the most damning evidence (now all on record) and three days later was found dead, receiving Jewish burial. No autopsy report is on record and the circumstances of his death remain as mysterious as his identity.

~

This might appear to record the good ending to a bad story, for at earlier times the discovery and publication of such a state of affairs by a parliamentary authority would have meant, first, impeachment proceedings and the like, and second, remedial action. In fact, as I can testify (for I was in America during many of these years) the remedial effect was very small, if any. The chief reason for this was, that the entire process of investigation and disclosure was accompanied by a most violent press campaign against the investigators and disclosers, not against the culprits and the conspiracy.

~

McCarthyism” (the demand for investigation and remedy) was by endless iteration made to sound to them more repugnant than “sedition.”

Because of this the most significant moment in American history after the Second War was one in 1954, when the Senate censured Senator McCarthy. In 1952, for the first time in twenty years, the candidate nominated by the Republican party, was elected, General Eisenhower. The return to office, after two decades, elated the Republicans and General Eisenhower's victory was very largely due to his undertaking to stamp out the Communist infiltration of government, which had been revealed to have occurred during the long Roosevelt administration and had been inherited by his successor. In 1954 the new President allowed it to be known that he looked with disfavour on Senator McCarthy's “methods” and thus implicitly gave his nod to the censure motion (the American Jewish Committee also imperiously demanded that the Senate approve it), which then carried. Senator McCarthy, like many before him, then began to fade from the political scene and the principle that “investigation” was pernicious was re-established.

~

In the matter of sedition the “premier-dictators” of our time perform a function allotted to them by the Protocols of 1905, that major document of a conspiracy of which such men as Harry Dexter White were demonstrably part. Protocol No. 19 says that when the super-government has been established sedition will be placed in the category of “thieving, murder and every kind of abominable and filthy crime” and adds that “we have done our best to obtain that the nation-states should not arrive at this means of contending with sedition. It was for this reason that through the Press and in speeches and indirectly … we have advertised the martyrdom alleged to have been accepted by sedition-mongers for the idea of the commonweal.”

~

The danger of political control of such a body is obvious, and it was made plain by a majority judgment handed down on April 2, 1956, when the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a Communist under the Pennsylvania State law against sedition. In this judgment the Supreme Court stated the “the field of sedition” was that of Congress alone and that “no room has been left” for State legislation or action against sedition. Forty-two of the forty-eight States at that time had sedition laws and this judgment, if it is not overridden by special act of Congress, will at a blow reduce the obstacles to sedition in America by the separate powers of those forty-two States, leaving, as the sole defence, the national administration, which had been repeatedly shown by the events of the preceding ten years to have been infested with seditionists. This judgment, too, may be compared with the passage previously quoted from the Protocols.

Lastly, the Second War led to the revival of the League of Nations, which had sprung from the “League to Enforce Peace.” This body was obviously never an alliance of nations, but an instrument for the control of nations, to be wielded by whomever gained command of it.

~

Bigjon
9th January 2019, 10:27 PM
Chapter 42
THE TALMUDIC VENGEANCE

Despite the protests of the responsible American Cabinet officers, Messrs. Hull and Stimson, and the professionals in the British Foreign Office, the Second War ended in “a peace of vengeance”; or rather (as vengeance is the denial of, and can never beget peace) in a vengeance which planted the seeds of new war.

~

The trials of “war criminals” formed the peaks of the vengeance and the Everest of them all was reached in the Nuremberg trial of the chief Nazi leaders.
The “wicked man” whom the masses had for six years been incited to destroy was not named in the indictment at all, even in absentia, although his deputy Martin Bormann (whose death was no more or less proven than Hitler's) was included. This significant gap at the end of Hitler's career may be as significant as many earlier gaps in what is generally known about him. In these days, when the infiltration of all parties, classes and governments by the agents of the revolution is a known and proven thing, it is of interest that the mass of literature about him ignores his early associations and the strong evidence of his Communist background. The Viennese police dossier of his early days has apparently disappeared. His later Brown Army commander, Captain Roehm, told a Storm Troop leader (who told me) that when the Bavarian troops drove the Bolshevist Government out of Munich in 1919 the unknown Adolf Hitler was taken prisoner with the bodyguard of the Moscow emissary Levine, and saved his skin by turning informer (this might explain why Roehm, the possessor of incriminating knowledge, was killed by Hitler after he came to power). Hitler's own original proposal for the name of the National Socialist party was “the Social Revolutionary Party”; he described himself as “the executor of Marxism” (not its executioner); and he told Hermann Rauschning that he had built his organization on the model of Communism. I met Hitler once or twice and studied him at close quarters for many years, before and after his rise to power; I believe that no genuinely informative work about him and the part he played has yet appeared.
This period was marked by a series of acts which evidently were deliberately devised to give it a nature of mockery especially humiliating to the Christian West; it was as if captives were made to perform clownish tricks for the amusement of their captors. This was shown at Nuremberg when the Soviet judge was selected to read the part of the judgment which condemned the Germans for taking men and women away from their homes and sending them to distant camps where they worked as slave labour. The British, American and French members of the court listened while Western justice, their inheritance and trust, was mocked. At that time, under the Yalta agreement, Germans, Poles and many more were being taken from their homes and sent to slave-camps; behind the Soviet judge loomed the shadow of the Moscow cellars where men were shot without trial and of the vast Siberian prisonland where, for thirty years then, millions of uncharged and untried human beings wasted in slavery.
So much for the peaks of the vengeance. In the foothills unnumbered smaller deeds were committed which make up the darkest pages in the recent story of the West. It was a reversal to barbarism; where lay the inspiration of it? What directing hand made the Western leaders abet the revolution from the East in a vengeance of the kind practised by savage, primitive tribes? This vengeance was not “the Lord's” in the Christian interpretation. Whose vengeance was it?

~

These things do not happen by accident, and the vengeance on Germany, like the earlier one on Russia, was in this way given the imprint of a Talmudic vengeance (that is, a vengeance on Christendom, the Talmud being the specifically anti-Christian continuation of the pre-Christian Torah). The vengeful writ ran on both sides of the line which by that time was supposed to be an “Iron Curtain” dividing “the free world” from the enslaved Asiatic one; in this matter of vengeance there was no iron curtain. Nuremberg was in the Western zone; Oberammergau in the Soviet one.
By the choice of the Jewish Day of Judgment for the hanging of the Nazi leaders and German commanders the Western leaders gave the conclusion of the Second War this aspect of a vengeance exacted specifically in the name of “the Jews.” The shape which the trial took showed the purpose of the immense propaganda of falsification conducted during the war, which I have earlier described. “Crimes against Jews” were singled out as a separate count, as if Jews were different from other human beings (and when the judgment was delivered a hundred million human beings in Eastern Europe had been handed over to the general persecution of all men, from which Jews in their proportion suffered in Germany). This particular indictment was made “the crux of the case” against the defendants (Captain Liddell Hart's words) and was based on the assertion that “six million Jews” had been killed (as time went by the word “perished” was substituted for “killed”). An impartial court would at the outset have thrown out any suit based on this completely unverifiable assertion: At Nuremberg lawyers, who in a private case would have demanded acquittal on the strength of an unproven statement in respect of a decimal point or digit, used this fantastic figure as the basis of their demand for conviction.
I earlier described, with illustrations from Jewish sources, the process by means of which, over the years, the Jews were “singled out” from the mass of Hitler's victims and their number inflated at will from day to day (Hitler's book-bonfire became “the burning of Jewish books”; his concentration camps where ninety percent of the inmates were Germans became concentration camps for Jews; a wartime report about the killing of” 150,000 White Russians, Ukrainians and Jews at Kieff” was changed to “150,000 Jews”; and so on interminably).
The statement about the “six million Jews,” allowed to pass without question by the men on the bench, was the end-product of this process.

~

In England Whitaker's Almanac, of similar eminence, struggled with the same problem. In its 1949 and 1950 issues it gave the 1939 “estimated” Jewish world population as 16,838,000 and that of 1949 as 11,385,200, a reduction of nearly 5,500,000. However, the figures given for Jewish population in separate countries added up to 13,120,000 (not 11,385,200). Incidentally, Whitaker's in 1950 gave the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. as 5,300,000, against the World Almanac's figure for the same year, of 2,000,000.
Both these publications are of the highest repute for painstaking accuracy and the fault is not theirs; in this one matter alone only Jewish “estimates” are available, and for obvious reasons no dependence can be placed on these. I pointed out the discrepancies in a book of 1951 and observed that Whitaker's in 1952 no longer contained these “estimates of Jewish populations”; apparently it had abandoned the statistical quest as hopeless, and was right to do so. Another encyclopaedia in its 1950 edition also dropped the subject.
Finally, the New York Times, which may be described as the world's leading Jewish newspaper (it is Jewish-owned and New York is today primarily a Jewish city) in 1948 published what claimed to be an authoritative statistical article, computing the Jewish population of the world (three years after the war's end) between 15,700,000 and 18,600,000. If either figure was near truth this meant that the Jewish world-population had remained stationary or increased during the war years.
Newspaper articles are soon forgotten (unless some diligent student preserves them) but the great propagandist fabrications are handed on. Thus the historians, those men of precision in other questions, passed on the legend of “mass-extermination” to posterity. At the war's end Professor Arnold J. Toynbee was producing his monumental Study of History and in its eighth volume (1954) said that “the Nazis … reduced the Jewish population of Continental Europe, west of the Soviet Union, from about 6,5 million to about l,5 million by a process of mass-extermination.” He called this “a bare statistical statement” and then added a footnote showing that it was not a statistical statement: “it is not possible to give exact figures based on accurate statistics and it seemed improbable in 1952 that the necessary information would ever be obtainable.” Professor Toynbee explains that his figure was based on Jewish “calculations, in which there were several possible sources of error.” He concludes that “it might be estimated” that five million Continental Jews had been done to death by the Nazis.
The estimate is historically valueless. The starting-point for consideration of this question is the fact that six million Jews, or anything approaching that number, cannot possibly have been “done to death” or caused to “perish,” for the reasons given at the start of this discussion; the very assertion, made before the Nuremberg court, was an affront to their 825,000 fighting-men, sailors and civilians, killed in all theatres of war, of which only the Western politicians of this century would have been capable.
The number of Jews who were killed or perished will never be known, for the reasons already stated and partly discovered by Professor Toynbee in his footnote to history. The very term “Jew” is indefinable; Jews are often not isolated in statistics; and at no time can the number of living Jews in the world be ascertained with any approach to accuracy. Indeed, any attempt to reach statistical clarity through census or immigration data is attacked as “discrimination” and “anti-semitism.” For instance:
“Immigrants seeking to settle in Australia will from now on not be asked on application forms if they are Jewish, it was made known in Sydney by the executive committee of Australian Jewry, which protested against this practice to the immigration authorities” (the Jewish Times, Johannesburg). In England, “it is impossible, in the absence of official statistics, to do more than make an intelligent guess … the exact number of Jews in Britain remains a mystery” (the Zionist Record, Johannesburg). In America, President Roosevelt was brought under unremitting pressure to abolish the requirement to state “Jewish” on immigration forms, and in 1952 a major campaign was waged by the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee against the McCarran-Walter Act because it sought to restore this requirement. This act was in the event passed over President Truman's veto, but even a rigorous application of the reinstated requirement would not lead to clarification, as applicants, if they wish, may insert “British” or any similar description, instead of “Jewish.”
This state of statistical affairs is now well-nigh universal, so that the whole question is a mystery and has deliberately been made one. None can even guess the number of Jews whose deaths, during the war, were not natural or the result of bombing and the like, but who were done to death by the Nazis. My opinion is that, whatever was the number of Jews in the countries overrun by Hitler, the number of their victims was in roughly that proportion to the total population stricken, Polish, Czech and other. I have found this to be the opinion of all persons known to me who survived the concentration camps and occupations. Having suffered themselves, their feeling for Jewish victims was as strong as for all others, but they could not understand why the one case of the Jews was singled out and the number of Jewish victims monstrously exaggerated.
The reason, hidden from them, became clear with the hangings on the Jewish Day of Judgment, for this symbolic act set the pattern for the entire conduct of the occupation, on both sides of the line, in its early years, and even for the future conduct of Western foreign policy far outside the bounds of Europe. The Talmudic vengeance was the start of a new era in the history of the West, during which all national considerations were to be subordinated to the cause of Jewish nationhood, as represented by the Talmudists from Russia.

~

The Nuremberg trial formed the model for many lesser “war crimes” trials; these have been discussed, from the legal and moral point of view, in the books of Mr. Montgomery Belgion, Mr. F.J.P. Veale and the late Captain Russell Grenfell. A little of the truth about them filtered out in the course of years. In 1949, an American Administration of Justice Review Board, appointed after numerous protests, reported on some of the American military court trials at Dachau, where 297 death sentences had been approved. The report spoke of “mock trials” to which the defendants had been brought hooded, with ropes round their necks, and “tried” before mock-altars with crucifixes and candles; they were subjected to brutal treatment in the effort to extort confessions which then could be produced before the real trial (the prisoners were led to believe that the mock-trial was the genuine one).
The biggest of these trials was the “Malmedy trial” of 1945-1946, at which forty-three prisoners were sentenced to death. This trial related to the killing of American prisoners by SS. troops near Malmedy in 1944, and bitter feeling against any proved guilty was to be expected from American prosecutors. However, the tormentors of these prisoners were not Americans, as those who remember the admirable bearing of American troops in Germany after the First World War might expect. They were Jews from Austria who had entered the United States just before the Second War and, under Mr. Roosevelt's regime, had quickly been taken into the American army and American uniform. A genuine American who was present at these mock-trials (a veteran court reporter) stated that he left the service of the War Crimes Branch in disgust after witnessing the “brutal sadism” practised by one of the inquisitors. Then the chief American prosecutor in this trial, a colonel, admitted to a Senate subcommittee that he had known about the mock-trials; he thought they were proper if the trial court itself was informed of the method used to obtain the defendants' confessions, and said the prisoners should have known that the black-mass trial was a false one because they were not assigned defence counsel.

~

The Western masses knew nothing of these happenings in British-American-occupied Germany at the time, and might not have objected violently if they had known, for at that period they were still under the influence of wartime propaganda, particularly in the matter of the Nazi concentration camps. They seemed to me completely to have forgotten that the concentration camp was originally a Communist idea, copied by Hitler, and that the further the Red armies were allowed into Europe the more certain its perpetuation became. Their feelings were inflamed by the horrifying news-reel pictures, shown to them on a million screens as the Allied armies entered Germany, of piles of emaciated corpses stacked like firewood in these camps.
I was a member of those audiences and heard the comments around me with misgiving. Wartime propaganda is the most insidious poison known to man, and I believe these picture-goers of 1945, deprived of truthful information for years, had lost all ability, perhaps all desire to judge what they saw. I think most of them thought the human remains they saw were those of Jews, for this was the suggestion hammered into their minds by the press day by day. They constantly read of “Nazi gas chambers for Jews … Nazi crematoria for Jews,” and few of them in later years troubled to read the stories of inmates and find out who these victims truly were. One instance: a German woman who spent five years in Ravensbruck camp (Frau Margaret Bubers Newmann) says the first victims were the sick or afflicted, or those incapable of work, and the next ones were “the inferior races,” among whom the Poles were placed first, and the Czechs, Balts, Hungarians and others next.
Thus the piles of dead received as little true compassion as the living who were driven back by the Western Allies into the concentration-camp area, and today it may be only a matter of historical interest, pertaining to such a book as this, to show that the “Nazi” concentration camps, at the time when the Anglo-American armies entered Germany, were predominantly under Communist control, that Jews were among the tormentors, and that anti-Communism was a surer qualification for the death-chamber than anti-Hitlerism!
Ten years ago this statement (which I substantiate below) would have been sunk by mere weight of derision, if it could have been published at all. Today enough has been revealed about the Illuminist Communist method of infiltrating every class, party, church, organization and institution for some people at least to await the proof with open mind; or so I suppose. Lenin's dictum was that all wars must in their course be turned into revolutionary wars, which means that the members of the conspiracy must fight for the success of the revolution, not for their country's victory. The capture of the concentration camps was more helpful to this strategy than anything else could have been, because the camps were full of people who, if they survived, would have fought Communism, as they fought Hitlerism, to the death. The world has never understood this aspect of the resistance to Hitler, because it never understood Hitler himself. Those who have persisted with this book may see the deep significance of his words to Hermann Rauschning: “I got illumination and ideas from the Freemasons that I could never have obtained from other sources” (almost exactly Adam Weishaupt's words) .” . . I have learnt a great deal from Marxism … The whole of National Socialism is based on it.”

~

Truth outs in the strangest ways, though in our age of press-control it does not out very far. In this case the releasing instrument was an elderly Austrian general, Wilhelm Spielfried, who emerged alive from Dachau. He wanted the world to know what had transpired there, and in the confusion attending the breakup of the camp (on the arrival of Western troops) he extracted from the commandant's office a Gestapo card-index recording the people done to death, and the manner, signed by the Gestapo agent responsible in each case. Among these agents were several of “Marshal Tito's” leading collaborators. In time General Spielfried gained publication for this small section of his material; the remainder still awaits a publisher bold enough to print it.

~

Horn
10th January 2019, 06:27 AM
(that is, a vengeance on Christendom, the Talmud being the specifically anti-Christian continuation of the pre-Christian Torah)

The 3D chess/pronged attack strategy circa. Abraham seems fairly effective at turning most places into a CB Eurolandia whence the waves have receded.

monty
10th January 2019, 06:29 AM
You can download a copy of The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed

http://controversyofzion.info/Controversybook/index.htm

Amazon.com has some original copies: https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list...rue&f_new=true (https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0949667277/ref=olp_f_new?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=&f_used=true&f_usedLikeNew=true&f_usedVeryGood=true&f_usedGood=true&f_usedAcceptable=true&f_new=true)

Review posted on Amazon.com
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/S/amazon-avatars-global/default._CR0,0,1024,1024_SX48_.png

izea
(https://www.amazon.com/gp/profile/amzn1.account.AEQDHKNMF5S6CJWAP5OMMOT7F5LQ/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_gw_tr?ie=UTF8)
5.0 out of 5 stars (https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3QUZV80ZB8OFC/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0949667277)detailed info nowhere else to be found (https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3QUZV80ZB8OFC/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0949667277)
October 2013
Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
The author Douglas Reed was a British reporter stationed during WW2 in Vienna, Berlin, Budapest, etc., and traveled world-wide, especially also to the United States. His detailed eye-witness accounts I have never found recorded anywhere else. It is such a wealth of information! In his account he does not judge, but rather reports events as he has witnessed them and also how these events were conveyed to the people through the media. A large part of the book describes the role of Zionist Chaim Weizman -- how he brought Balfour to his side in forcing the establishment of the "promised land"; how he also threatened, harassed, even assassinated British and American politicians into helping the Zionist plan (political assassination justified by Levitical Law from around 600 B.C.); how American presidents were and are being selected by the Zionists since president Wilson rather than elected by voting; etc.

There is even this detail: a Jew by the name of Ben Hecht took the crucifixion of Jesus as the perfect example for how to mobilize the mob and then stated that he would have sent Jesus to Rome into the Lion's arena so that Jesus would have been made into piecemeal and could not have become the savior.

Reed is remarkably silent about Hitler. Only 2 remarks stand out: Reed visited the concentration camps and stated that only 10% of the inmates were Jews, the others mainly opponents of the regime and prisoners of war. At the end of his book he shows how the Jews turn things around to suit themselves (quote): "Hitler's persecution of men, which began as the persecution of political opponents, then became the persecution of political opponents and Jews, then Jews and political opponents and at the end, of Jews."

The very last record in the book concerns Israel's 1956 attack on Nasser's Egypt: the nationally funded radio corporation for Israel "Voice of America" painted at Passover this attack as "Exodus of the Jews" -- the Jews being shown as the victims when in fact they were the aggressors. In the end, Britain was made to take the blame for the attack. For me, the interesting part of this story is: Britain and Ireland are the countries from where the Pharaohs originated (after the fall of Atlantis). Reed does not make this connection though. But I have long held the conviction that Exodus in the Bible was the first Holocaust Hoax of written history - and this story is the proof, because history repeats itself and exhibits a perfect hologram.


17 people found this important

woodman
10th January 2019, 07:14 AM
You can download a copy of The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed

http://controversyofzion.info/Controversybook/index.htm


(https://www.amazon.com/gp/profile/amzn1.account.AEQDHKNMF5S6CJWAP5OMMOT7F5LQ/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_gw_tr?ie=UTF8)



Reed is remarkably silent about Hitler. Only 2 remarks stand out: Reed visited the concentration camps and stated that only 10% of the inmates were Jews, the others mainly opponents of the regime and prisoners of war. At the end of his book he shows how the Jews turn things around to suit themselves (quote): "Hitler's persecution of men, which began as the persecution of political opponents, then became the persecution of political opponents and Jews, then Jews and political opponents and at the end, of Jews."



17 people found this important


Seems like I read in another of his books, he noted in passing, that Hitler was involved in the Kapp Putsch. A nasty bit of business there.

Bigjon
10th January 2019, 07:29 AM
Here is another book by Reed, that sheds some light on the subject.

http://douglasreed.co.uk/prisoner.pdf (http://douglasreed.co.uk/prisoner.pdf)

EXORDIUM

Early in 1940 I sat at a Devonshire window that overlooked the English Channel and wrote a book about a German, Otto Strasser.

I had for many years written against time, so that the waiting presses might have their daily record of violent historic events that consummated themselves around me, and once more I felt in me the familiar urgent need to complete my story (this time a book) before an invasion prevented me (I had finished two others, Insanity Fair in 1938 and Disgrace Abounding in 1939, just ahead of such armed incursions). Thus I scanned sea and sky,between writing lines and chapters, for the oncoming shapes of German ships or aircraft. However, I hoped that Germany would lose and my native island survive the Second War and was immensely curious about the shape which the later future would take in that happy event; chiefly for my own sake, no doubt, for the years after the war, if I survived it, would probably include the second half of my own lifetime. I looked ahead, and wondered whether the Second War would restore peace and equilibrium to the world in the second half-century, or whether the Gadarene process of 1914-39, which in my adult years I had watched and described, would be resumed after it. That, my experience told me, would depend mainly on the treatment of Germany after Germany's military defeat.

With such thoughts in mind I wrote my book about Otto Strasser at a time when few, if any friendly books were being written about a German, Germans or Germany. I believed that the only wise course for the military victors would be to restore Germany to the care of men who had proved themselves to be the unpurchasable and incorruptible enemies of the Revolution of Destruction in either of its guises, National Socialist or Communist.

Otto Strasser was the sole apparent candidate of importance who fulfilled such conditions. He had fought Hitlerism and Communism impartially (he knew them to be the same) in Germany and from exile for ten years, from 1930 to 1940. On that verifiable record he was a man in whom a truly peace-seeking outer world might put confidence. In him, I judged, men of goodwill everywhere might at last find what they so long had sought: a German ally who would recreate, rebuild, restore, pacify; anyway, no other offered with equal claim to a chance of self-justification. Moreover, he had a great following in Germany and had retained this despite difficulties hardly to be imagined, even when they are described, by people far from the central turmoil.

I thought the story of such a man might be of use and showed him as a candidate in the wings, who might well appear centrally on the German stage when events gave the cue. This was logically to be expected, too.

After the First War the victors (at least until Hitler appeared) had upheld their allies, succoured their friends, honoured their bonds, and protected helpless civilian populations thrown on their mercy.

In 1940 a man could still hope that that course of honour and prudence would be followed again, and this time be pursued to the end.

For two years after I wrote that book, until 1942, the shape of the war and of Otto Strasser's political fortunes conformed to that earlier pattern. After many years of perilous adventure he was in an extremity of danger helped to escape his Nazi pursuers and to reach Canada; his very life, probably, was then saved by British and Portuguese help. He was everywhere accorded the respect and sympathy due to his ordeals and to his achievements as the only leading German politician who had long and actively fought Hitler.

High responsibility in Germany clearly beckoned to him, once the fog of war had cleared. Thereafter he would justify himself or fail, on his own merit or demerit and the reaction thereto of the German people.

An abrupt reversal in the behaviour of his hosts towards Otto Strasser came after Hitler and Stalin fell out in 1941; his prospects, and in my opinion the hopes of the entire West, then suddenly darkened. The great picture of the war from that instant began subtly and ominously to change; it was as if a new painter superimposed the evil outlines of Calvary on a canvas of the Resurrection.

Where the scene had been that of the redemption of Europe it was transformed into one of the crucifixion of Europe between two thieves, the fighting-men of the Christian West being cast merely for the part of Roman soldiers. In the sequence things happened such as never stained the story of 'Western civilization' since it began, and in outline they may be recapitulated here because they form that whole, of which Otto Strasser's story is but a part:
Fifteen thousand Polish officers were massacred, but in this case no 'war crime' was adjudged by British and American justice at Nuremberg. Ten thousand Frenchmen were shot with British or American weapons donated to French Communists; only seven years after the war's end was their number even established, and then casually included among the lesser 'news items', and no 'warcrime' was ever seen in this holocaust. A dozen European countries, and then half of Europe, were thrown to Asiatic wolves, and at the end soldiers from remote Mongolian or Tartar lands were halted outside German villages only while they listened to the broadcasts of a harangue recorded in Moscow; in it an alien writer incited them particularly to fall on pregnant women. These things were made possible by the unconditional surrender of money, arms and political support to the Communist rulers by Britain and America. The political leaders there lent themselves to such deeds, as they later affirmed, from fear of losing the war, which they thus could only lose, politically. They submitted equally to the infestation of their own administrations by the agents of the Revolution of Destruction. In the American President's entourage such agents, later exposed, drafted the plans for destroying Europe, and with almost lifeless fingers he signed. Corrupted men appeared even in (and later disappeared from) the British diplomatic service, and in the most secret laboratories of all Western countries other emissaries garnered information to help the future misdeeds of their distant masters. Where Germany and Europe might have been redeemed, a bisected Germany and a chaotic Europe were left.

History never saw such a shambles made of an honourable victory. The pieces were rearranged on the chessboard in the order which had enabled the Second War to begin; the world was left in a state of permanent warfare, the climax of which, a Third War, was made as inevitable as any human event can be. Germany was abandoned to the constant temptation (to which Hitler had betrayed it in 1939) to seek revenge and recover lost ground through the help of its natural foe, barbaric Asia; the Communist Empire was given the means to use German hopes and fears at every stage in its design to destroy all Europe. Equally it became probable that the course of a climactic Third War, if one were professedly begun to amend this situation, would similarly be diverted to further the aims of the Revolution of Destruction.

Until Hitler and Stalin came to blows, and this master-plan for the Second War slipped smoothly into gear, Otto Strasser was on all hands given the status due to him as a distinguished German exile and proven foe of Hitler and Hitlerism. He was by deed and avowal as constant an enemy of Communism. When the Communist Empire, being attacked by Hitler, was elected part of 'the freeworld' by the wartime propagandists of the West, the bait of puppet-employment in Sovietized Europe was dangled before Otto Strasser by an emissary of Moscow. He refused it; thereon his second persecution began, which continues to this day.

It was persecution, this time, by the governments of the West, which connived in it until the end of the war and for more years thereafter than the war lasted! He was in their territory, and they lent their aid as, step by step, from 1942 onwards, his political extermination was attempted. First, he was forbidden to speak publicly, communicate, write or publish, and by such bans, which deprived him of his livelihood, was driven to ever remoter and humbler dwelling places and to that brink of destitution and starvation where a man can only save himself by natural ingenuity.

When the fighting ended, in 1945, these bans were nominally raised, but in their place another, openly unscrupulous one was imposed which has made him, for the last eight years, the Man in the IronMask of mid-century politics. He was in effect forbidden to return to Germany! Hitler first drove him from it and deprived him of its nationality. The Western Governments, acting in concert at

some unacknowledged behest, availed themselves of that useful law of 'the wicked man' to keep his foremost enemy expatriated!

The reason (only admitted many years later) was that in spite of all persecution Otto Strasser's following in Germany, notwithstanding his long absence and the bans, remained large and cohesive; and that someone desired his continued exile. Had he returned to Germany he would have assumed there the political place, whatever it might prove to be, to which his native talents and record entitled him; he would at length have been able to demonstrate his true level, high or low, in his own country. Evidently it was thought, in the curtained quarters whence the enmity to him derived, that his place there would prove to be a very high one, for the natural process was dammed. The American, British, Canadian, French and West German Governments have performed this service, from 1945 to the present day, for those who do not desire his return or the public test of his quality. The might of the effort which has been put forth, through the compliant Western Governments, to keep this solitary man out of his own country is at least proof, convincing enough to surprise even me, of the accuracy of my estimate of his standing in Germany, as I stated it in my book of thirteen years ago.

The campaign against him began on the day, at the turn of the years 1941-42, when he refused the invitation from Moscow to assume the leadership of a 'Free German Movement' under Communist auspices. That fact throws up the obvious question: why do the Western Governments continue to lend themselves to such courses? This question, again, leads into the whole dark complex of events from 1941 to the present day, which also need brief elucidation here for the reader's better understanding of the motives behind the persecution of Otto Strasser: From the moment when the Communist Empire was by Hitler's act, and not by any better impulse of its own, transformed from his ally into his enemy, Moscow pursued one war aim which was from the start crystal clear (in contrast to such rhetorical professions as those of the Atlantic Charter, which were at once belied by private communications behind the political scenes, and by the ultimate deeds in Europe and Palestine). This aim was perceptibly more important to Moscow than the destruction of Hitler or of Hitlerism itself; indeed, the substance of Hitlerism, being identical with that of Communism, was not meant to be destroyed. This, plainly dominant Soviet aim was: to prevent the rise to power after the war, if possible in any country, of patriotic leaders who had gained large national followings through their distinction in the fight against Hitler.

Lenin's dictum that all wars must be turned into civil wars was strictly followed; Moscow always fought the men who might succeed Hitler in Germany, or his Statthalter in the occupied countries, more vindictively than it fought Hitler himself. This was patently the motive for the massacre of the Polish officers, for the betrayal of the Polish Resistance Army at Warsaw, and for the vendettas pursued in all countries against patriotic leaders, such as General Mihailovitch, General de Gaulle, the King of Greece, General Bor, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and all the others. The aim was the obvious and logical one of destroying legitimate claimants to the succession, and of thus leaving in the various countries a chaotic vacuum in which Communism could seize power. The great question, never answered, remains: why did the Governments of London and Washington lend themselves to the promotion of this aim during the war, and after it until the present time?

Otto Strasser was a man of this, to Moscow dangerous type, a proven patriot, a Christian one to boot, a leader with a following, and an undeniable claimant, in the legitimate line, to some eminent responsibility in Germany, once Hitler was gone. His return to Germany would have been a serious setback for Communism. The political leaders of the West prevented it. By that time they were publicly parading in the sackcloth of repentance for their misplaced confidence in 'Uncle Joe', but their deeds, as distinct from their words, showed no genuine reform. Some occult influence continued to mould policy in the West in the shape desired by the tsars of anarchy in Asia, or at least to impede its correction. Long after the fighting in Europe ended the course of events, so

puzzling to the masses, first in China and then in Korea pointed to this. The publicly unknown case of Otto Strasser clearly proved it. His treatment was in the straight, or crooked line of those strange and secret wartime arrangements made at Moscow, Teheran and Yalta, in respect of which the Western leaders concerned, by the nineteen-fifties, were crying, 'We have erred! We have most grievously erred!

'For eleven years now Otto Strasser, a man without a stain on any political records save those kept by the Nazis, the Communists and their heirs, the World-Staters, has been in effect kept captive in Canada. Thus his story today has been transformed into something different from the one which I wrote thirteen years ago, and into something then unimaginable. In the tale of human sorrow which has filled the last decade his personal tribulations are but a grain of sand and I do not tell this altered story chiefly on that account, although it is a cause célèbre in the annals of human injustice.

I tell it because my experience informs me, in 1953 as in 1940 and 1938, that all our tomorrows depend on Germany. Today they depend on the amending, in some form, of the almost incorrigible deed of 1945, in the consequences of which we all might yet be engulfed. If it is to be undone, the undoing will need the help of a man or of men in Germany of the type of Otto Strasser. It cannot be undone with the help of puppet politicians and puppet governments, and even less, unless the central issue be faced, by means of bogus and enforced amalgamations of rump Germany with other remaining European States.

Therefore I think that once more a true record of this man may be useful to a wide range of readers,who will not be allowed to read one unless I write it, and whose own future is involved in the destiny of such as he and of Germany. Apart from all that, it is a most fantastical tale in its own right, even without the moral that I draw from it. We of the twentieth century lead interesting lives, worth any tale-teller's time and pains. Those who follow us might even envy us the excitements and hazards which we have known, for they may be spared the bitter taste of dishonour and betrayal which spoils them for us of today. Otto Strasser's life thus far is exceptional even in this age in its range of adventures and perils survived, in its extremes of perseverance and adversity, in its colours of courage and good humour. It is the story of a German, of Germany, of Europe, and ultimately of the entire West, either on the edge of oblivion or on the threshold of revival; that is to say, it is the story of us all, in the Western world, as we stand at this mid-century.

DOUGLAS REED

Ottawa 1952-53

Jewboo
10th January 2019, 09:15 AM
Otto Strasser was a man ... an undeniable claimant, in the legitimate line, to some eminent responsibility in Germany, once Hitler was gone.



https://racialrealism.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/rohm-greg-otto-strassers1.jpg?w=640

On the centenary of his birth it needs to be noted that the cause of Adolf Hitler is confronted and conflicted not merely by the hostility of all the regular forces of the old order, but also and no less to its detriment by others who constitute one variety or another of an auxiliary enemy within. These comprise, firstly, the Strasserites: persons claiming to be nationalists or even National Socialists, but denigrating Hitler in tune with the champions of the old order, and upholding in his place the Strasser brothers, Otto and Gregor, and Ernst Röhm, whom Hitler had to eliminate from his party because of their treacherous disruption.

Linky (https://racialrealism.wordpress.com/2017/06/27/the-enemy-within/)

:rolleyes:

Bigjon
10th January 2019, 10:19 AM
https://racialrealism.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/rohm-greg-otto-strassers1.jpg?w=640

On the centenary of his birth it needs to be noted that the cause of Adolf Hitler is confronted and conflicted not merely by the hostility of all the regular forces of the old order, but also and no less to its detriment by others who constitute one variety or another of an auxiliary enemy within. These comprise, firstly, the Strasserites: persons claiming to be nationalists or even National Socialists, but denigrating Hitler in tune with the champions of the old order, and upholding in his place the Strasser brothers, Otto and Gregor, and Ernst Röhm, whom Hitler had to eliminate from his party because of their treacherous disruption.

Linky (https://racialrealism.wordpress.com/2017/06/27/the-enemy-within/)

:rolleyes:




understanding of the motives behind the persecution of Otto Strasser:

From the moment when the Communist Empire was by Hitler's act, and not by any better impulse of its own, transformed from his ally into his enemy, Moscow pursued one war aim which was from the start crystal clear (in contrast to such rhetorical professions as those of the Atlantic Charter, which were at once belied by private communications behind the political scenes, and by the ultimate deeds in Europe and Palestine).

This aim was perceptibly more important to Moscow than the destruction of Hitler or of Hitlerism itself; indeed, the substance of Hitlerism, being identical with that of Communism, was not meant to be destroyed. This, plainly dominant Soviet aim was: to prevent the rise to power after the war, if possible in any country, of patriotic leaders who had gained large national followings through their distinction in the fight against Hitler.

Seems like you support communism, book.

Jewboo
10th January 2019, 11:04 AM
Seems like you support communism, book.

Seems like you support strasserism, Bigjon.

:rolleyes:


Strasserism (German (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language): Strasserismus or Straßerismus) is a strand of Nazism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism) that calls for a more radical, mass-action and worker-based form of Nazism—hostile to Jews (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews) not from a racial, ethnic, cultural or religious perspective, but from an anti-capitalist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-capitalism) basis—to achieve a national rebirth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palingenetic_ultranationalism). It derives its name from Gregor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Strasser) and Otto Strasser (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Strasser), the two Nazi brothers initially associated with this position.

Opposed on strategic views to Adolf Hitler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler), Otto Strasser was expelled from the Nazi Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party) in 1930 and went into exile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exile) in Czechoslovakia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakia) while Gregor Strasser was murdered in Germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany) on 30 June 1934 during the Night of the Long Knives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives). Strasserism remains an active position within strands of neo-Nazism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism).

Horn
10th January 2019, 12:05 PM
Unfortunately nobody ever created a name for a governing politic that endorsed Capitalism while newtering Monopoly.

So it was named Hornism.

Bigjon
10th January 2019, 03:21 PM
Seems like you support strasserism, Bigjon.

:rolleyes:



It might be. Somehow I doubt if Strasser would endorse the definition of Strasserism by his mortal enemies.


The father of true 'National Socialism' was T.G. Masaryk, and none other.
In about 1887 he delivered a crushing attack on Marxist Socialism, his main arguments being that it was wrong because it was international and anti-Christian. He inspired, by these arguments, Klovacs, a young Czech labour leader and Socialist member of the Vienna Parliament, who about 1892 seceded with the Czech workers from the Socialist Party in the old Austro-Hungarian Empire because the leadership of that party was 'Jewish, international and German'. In 1897 Klovacs founded the first National Socialist Party in the world. T.G. Masaryk had a few years earlier founded his Realist Party, of which he was the only member in the Vienna Parliament. This united with Klovacs's party and Masaryk became president of this first National Socialist Party until his death, with Edouard Benesh as his second in command.

About 1903 the Sudeten Germans took up Masaryk's idea and founded a second, German National Socialist Party in the Austro-Hungarian Empire under Jungand Knirsch, both members of the Vienna Parliament. In 1907 the Austrians followed suit, with a third, Austrian National Socialist Party. From these Czech, Sudeten German and Austrian models, the Bavarians in their turn took over the idea in 1917, when Harrer and Anton Drexler formed the Bavarian National Socialist Party, the fourth in the line of direct descent.

The guiding principle of all these parties was Masaryk's original one: Christian and national socialism, as opposed to anti Christian and international, or super-national, Marxist socialism.

Hitler, the destroyer of the idea, intercepted the process in 1919 when, at the bidding of Roehm, he attended a meeting of the little Bavarian party, subsequently gaining control of it by purchase. He changed the whole idea and outlook of the party under the influence of Italian Fascism, which had a quite different history and other antecedents, and was inspired by Communism.

Hitler turned the National Socialist movement into 'Hitlerism'; in its original form it was something entirely different. Nor was Hitler, as he claimed in Mein Kampf, the party's 'seventh member'. Apart from the other, earlier parties, the Bavarian one already had several hundred members when this Mephisto was sent to report on it and became the seventh member of its executive committee, in charge of publicity.

Thus national socialism, as Otto Strasser continued in search of it, was quite unlike what Hitler later made of it, but in 1923 Strasser could not foresee that. He later explained what he sought in his book, The Structure of German Socialism, published in 1930. It joins up with original and genuine national, Christian socialism, and was then, and remains today, fully consistent with all his words and deeds; although he has changed the name to Solidarism, he has not sensibly changed the content, which is summarized later in this book. It is a political theory deriving directly from Masaryk's idea, as developed by Strasser's own life and experience.

In 1923 he could not know what this newcomer Hitler would do with national socialism. Nobody knew, for the thing had not been put to the test. Then something happened to make him wonder if he had been right in his distrust of the new man, Hitler, and to awaken in him the hope that the party led by this Hitler might, after all, lead to the Christian, national socialism which he sought.

woodman
10th January 2019, 05:36 PM
From The Controversy of Zion ch 14 p 82:


The core of dogma remained as Ezekiel, Ezra and Nehemiah had shaped and enforced it; but the Talmud, in effect, had taken the place of the Torah, as the Torah earlier had supplanted the “oral traditions.” The heads of the academies of Sura and Pumbedita were called Gaonim and began to exercise autocratic power over the scattered Jews. The shadowy Exilarchs (later Nasim, or princes) were dependent on their approval and the Sanhedrin surrendered its functions to them, or was deprived of these. When doubt arose among Jews, anywhere in the world, about the interpretation or application of the Law in any matter of the day, the question was referred to the Gaonate. The verdicts and judgments returned (in the name of Jehovah) from the distant government were the Gaonic Reponses, or laws enacted from Babylonia, to which Jews everywhere submitted, or incurred danger of excommunication.

In this manner the Talmudic thrall spread round the dispersed Jews, wherever they dwelt, “like a closely woven net … over ordinary days and holidays, over their actions and over their prayers, over their whole lives and every step they took … Nothing in their external lives was any longer allowed to be the sport of arbitrary settlement or of chance.” This is the picture of an absolute despotism, different from other despotisms only in the element of distance between the despots and their subjects. Given a benevolent mission, a community of people so

82

closely controlled might immensely fructify the life of peoples; given a destructive one, their presence among others is like that of a blasting charge in rock, operated by a distant hand on a plunger.

woodman
10th January 2019, 05:39 PM
Same page:

For six hundred years the Talmudic government, at Jamnia, Usha, and Sura, remained in or near to its native, oriental climate, where its nature was comprehended by other peoples; they knew how to cope with and counter the savage tribal creed and, as long as they were not hampered or constrained by foreign powers in their dealings with it, they were always able to find a workaday compromise, which enabled all to live in practical amity side by side.

Then came the event which has produced such violent results in our time: the Talmudic government moved into Christianized Europe and established itself among peoples to whom the nature of its dogma and its methods were strange and even incomprehensible. This led, in the course of many centuries, to the recurrent clash of the alien ambition and creed against native interest, which our century is again experiencing.

The nature of Westerners (more especially in the northern latitudes) is to be candid, to declare purposes, and to use words to express intention, and Christianity developed these native traits. The force which appeared among them was of the opposite character, oriental, infinitely subtle, secretive, conspiratorial, and practised in the use of language to disguise real purposes. Therein lay its greatest strength in the encounter with the West.

Bigjon
10th January 2019, 07:14 PM
Seems like you support strasserism, Bigjon.

:rolleyes:




Otto Strasser's dilemma is clear. In one of his books he called himself a conservative revolutionary, and perhaps that makes clearer what he truly is.
He is in the line of the barons of Runnymede and the American colonists, whose spiritual descendants are in a kind of spiritual exile today, equally in England and in the American Republic. Such men, who fight against tyranny from above whenever and in whatever form it appears, are the true and continuing revolutionaries of all the generations,the revolutionaries of construction.

The 'revolutionaries' of Moscow in 1917 and of Berlin in 1933 are the counter-revolutionaries, the revolutionaries of destruction. This difference of motive, constructive motive and destructive motive, is the difference between Otto Strasser's 'German Socialism', or 'Solidarism', and the bogus socialisms of Moscow, Marx and Hitler. He wanted to preserve Germany; Communism and Hitlerism alike aimed at its destruction (this is plain, in the second case, from Hitler's statements, made in an expansive moment, to Hermann Rauschning, and is implicit in his deeds).

Solidarism stands today as in 1930, as Otto Strasser's programme for the salvation of Germany. Its origins are important to understand. The programmes of Marxist and Fabian Socialism were hatched out in cellars in Moscow, café-tables in Berlin and committee-rooms in Bloomsbury by Eurasian conspirators and Western professors and journalists; they had no roots in the life and needs of peoples; they were governed by the diseased ambition merely to destroy existing things and were the products of sedentary, unfulfilled men with malevolence towards mankind in their hearts and disappointment in their heads.

Otto Strasser's Solidarism is a living thing rooted deep in the history and needs of the Christian West, and then moulded by the hard experience of his life.
The difference between the two is in fact that between death and life.
The goal towards which he looked in drafting his programme was the gradual upraising of the unpropertied masses towards the level of those more fortunate, not the violent depression of those now propertied towards penury; the abolition of 'the proletariat' (which the dictionary describes as'the lowest class of the community') and not its pretended elevation.

His aim was to give that lowest class the status of independence, of co-ownership and of co-responsibility. An aim is one thing; a detailed plan for achieving it is another, and this is what he supplied.

He began his manifesto, which was a public challenge to Hitler, with a brief philosophical study of the roots of his thought. He began by protesting vigorously against 'the idolatry of race'; this was in 1930, when Hitler began his rapid rise to power on the steed of Nordic racial superiority.

Strasser held that 'the family of Europe' was a mixture of four or five races, out of which intermingling, topography, climate and historic events had made the various 'nations', the last of these to take shape being the Germans.

He rightly excluded Russia from this grouping.

In the history of Europe, which he thus pictured as a community of interrelated nations, he perceived a rhythm of epochs recurring about every hundred or hundred and fifty years, from the Reformation of around 1500 to the English Revolution of 1640-59 and the French Revolution of 1789-1799. In each of these revolutions he saw the recurrent conflict between two primitive instincts, those of self-preservation (which he identified with 'Liberalism', or each man for himself) and of the preservation of the species ('Conservatism', or each man for the community).

The pendulum of history, he wrote, swung continuously to and fro between these ideas of self and species. The English Revolution had brought the victory of the conservative idea and the French Revolution that of the liberal idea. The epoch of liberalism, he wrote in 1930, was inevitably approaching its end and bringing with it that of Marxist Socialism, which had borrowed so much from liberalism (for instance, internationalism, class-warfare and materialism) that it was bound to founder with it.

Otto Strasser, in 1930, saw a new epoch of the second idea approaching. Since 1914, he wrote, the pendulum of history had been swinging over towards a new era of conservatism and its associated ideas, true socialism, patriotism and national idealism, and the violent eruption of those ideas in Germany would be the German Revolution. It was for this future that he planned. He identified 'capitalism', as we have known it, with the liberal era; and Socialism, as it has been perverted and practised in our time, with State capitalism. Its governing principle, in either form, was 'the sanctity of property' (whether held privately or by the State) and the condition of its existence was that the masses of the people should have no property. Any system under which the community was divided into exploiters and exploited, and the overwhelming majority of the people denied the right of property, was in its nature immoral.
Thus Otto Strasser, contemplating a 'German Socialism' in a 'Fourth Reich', sought a way that would preclude State-capitalism and unbridled private capitalism alike. The cornerstone of his German socialism was the abolition of 'the right of private property'. This basic tenet appeared to be identical with the primary demand of Marxist Socialism, but was in fact entirely different in the application which he proposed; this was where the historic origins of his Christian national socialism came in.

His solution was derived from the study of German history, the German character and German needs. The basis of his thought was that what was needed was to make more people well-to-do, not fewer people rich.

He desired in fact to give every German 'the right of private property', because he held that this feeling of ownership alone gave the independence of thought, sense of responsibility and creative energy which allow a man to feel himself a man. Thus the means (abolition of the dogma) was to the end of establishing the reality.

He defined his 'German Socialism' in relation to property thus: 'No German shall in future own as private property land and estate, mineral resources, or the means of production; every German shall come to possession of land and estate mineral resources, and the means of production.' He attached cardinal importance to this distinction between 'ownership', a conception without limits, and'possession', which signifies an occupancy subject to limits. 'To own a thing', he wrote, 'means to be able to do anything you like with it; to sell, damage, or destroy it. To possess it means to administer it, to have its use and enjoyment, to hold it in usufruct on behalf of another, namely, the Owner.
The Owner will in future be exclusively the community, the Nation. But the Nation, through its outward form, the State, will not itself operate or manage; it will delegate operation and management to individuals or groups in Erblehen (hereditary fief).'

This was Otto Strasser's solution to the great dilemma, his answer to the age old problem of the propertied and the unpropertied, the insiders and the outsiders. The abolition of the legal conception of 'the sanctity of private property' and the substitution, in things vital for the nation, of this system of the hereditary fief, was the foundation stone of his 'Structure of German Socialism', then, and is that of his 'Solidarism' today. It alone, he said, enabled that marriage of private profit and general welfare which the common weal demanded. The division of all possessions among the community of the nation whether in individual or in collective holding, was necessary to end the evils to which capitalism had led. The system of the hereditary fief, which for centuries was the legal form of the German economic system, alone offered the practical means.

woodman
11th January 2019, 04:18 PM
The copy of the Christian Bible which I have states that “the churches of all denominations receive and accept” the Old Testament “as given by inspiration of God, therefore being for them a Divine rule or guide of faith and practice,” a ruling which comes down from the Council of Trent. A question therefore arises: in what way was the inspiration of the Talmud different from that of the Torah? If it was not different, then why should not the anti-Christian Talmud be added to the Christian Bible?

If that were done the entire work would extend along several shelves of a library, and the New Testament would be a tiny pamphlet, lost among and excommunicated by the Talmudic mass, the teaching of which is thus summarized by the Talmudic scholar Drach:

“The precepts of justice, of equity, of charity towards one's neighbours, are not only not applicable with regard to the Christian, but constitute a crime in anyone who would act differently … The Talmud expressly forbids one to save a

89

non-Jew from death … to restore lost goods, etc., to him, to have pity on him.”

The theological decision about the “equal divine authority” of the Torah seems to have introduced an element of confusion into the Christian lesson from which Christianity itself in the end might not recover.

woodman
14th January 2019, 03:49 AM
Lots of very useful quotes from Reed's work:


In the sixty years which have passed since Chamberlain wrote the process observed by him and Herder has gathered pace and power. The question no longer simply “affects the future of the world”; it is with us every day and we have no present that is not shaped by it; it has already altered the nature of the world and of man's lot in it. “Our governments,” in the half-century that has elapsed, have become such “willing slaves” of the Judaic master-sect that they are in fact the bailiffs or agents of a new, international ruling-class, and not true governors at all.

woodman
14th January 2019, 04:44 AM
More from the book:

When he founded his Illuminati, on May 1, 1776, Weishaupt was dean of the faculty of law at Ingolstadt University (in our day university professors who are secret Communists are often to be found in the faculties of law). He had been brought up by the Jesuits, whom he came to hate, and he borrowed from them, and perverted to the opposite purpose, their secret of organization: the method which (as his associate Mirabeau said) “under one head, made men dispersed over the universe tend towards the same goal.” This idea, of leagueing men together in secret conspiracy and using them to achieve an aim which they do not comprehend, pervades the entire mass of letters and other Illuminist documents seized by the Bavarian Government.

The idea is presented with ardent fondness and the many ways of realizing it

140

are of high ingenuity. The accumulated experience of ages, in conspiracy, must have been drawn on and Mrs. Nesta Webster, in her search for the source of this morbid and perverse doctrine, found herself led back to the start of the Christian era and further. For instance, M. Silvestre de Sacy says that the method used by the Ismailis (a subversive sect within Islam in the 8th Century) was to enlist “partisans in all places and in all classes of society” in the attempt to destroy their professed faith and government; the Ismaili leader, Abdullah ibn Maymun, set out “to unite in the form of a vast secret society with many degrees of initiation freethinkers, who regarded religion only as a curb for the people, and bigots of all sects.” The achievement of Abdulla ibn Maymun, according to another authority, M. Reinhart Dozy, was that “by means such as these the extraordinary result was brought about that a multitude of men of divers beliefs were all working together for an object known only to a few of them.” These quotations exactly describe both the aims, methods and achievement of Adam Weishaupt and of Communism and they could be multiplied by extracts from the literature of the Cabalists, the Gnostics and the Manicheans.


And more:

At the centre of this web sat Weishaupt, and held all threads in his hands. “One must show how easy it would be for one clever head to direct hundreds and thousands of men,” he wrote above the diagram, and below it he added, “I have two immediately below me into whom I breathe my whole spirit, and each of these two has again two others, and so on. In this way I can set a thousand men in motion and on fire in the simplest manner, and in this way one must impart orders and operate on politics.”

End Quote.


I can only imagine how much of a 'high' a power hungry, mad individual, must get from exercising and testing a secret web of power that is described here. To make an edict and see the results miraculously produced must be a stunning thing indeed.

Bigjon
15th February 2019, 08:45 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=364cxeR5EAg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=364cxeR5EAg


TheJohnBirchSociety (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD_PvRz7fvX9WOBL6T4P45Q)




Arthur R. Thompson provides a glimpse into his newest book, "To the Victor Go the Myths & Monuments," which focuses on the history of the first 100 years of war against God and the Constitution, 1776-1876, and its modern impact.

📕 Get Art's book here:https://www.jbs.org/store/shopjbs/boo... (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&v=364cxeR5EAg&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jbs.org%2Fstore%2Fshopjbs%2Fbo oks%2Fto-the-victor-go-the-myths-and-monuments-1783&redir_token=csJm4oDSmhczrq-a_VSY_ygM4H98MTU1MDM3NTU5MUAxNTUwMjg5MTkx)📲

Kindle download:https://amzn.to/2Nj71Ji (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&v=364cxeR5EAg&q=https%3A%2F%2Famzn.to%2F2Nj71Ji&redir_token=csJm4oDSmhczrq-a_VSY_ygM4H98MTU1MDM3NTU5MUAxNTUwMjg5MTkx)

monty
5th June 2019, 04:19 PM
Adam Green, Know More News ~ ADL Exposed in 1950s Book “Controversy of Zion”



http://youtu.be/BGND_IS1ApY

https://youtu.be/BGND_IS1ApY

Bigjon
5th June 2019, 09:33 PM
Adam Green, Know More News ~ ADL Exposed in 1950s Book “Controversy of Zion”



http://youtu.be/BGND_IS1ApY

https://youtu.be/BGND_IS1ApY



I find it curious that some of our local Jew fighters don't want to touch this BOOK.

PatColo
6th June 2019, 01:01 PM
I find it curious that some of our local Jew fighters don't want to touch this BOOK.

Full text at https://archive.org/stream/DouglasReedTheControversyOfZion/Douglas%20Reed%20-%20The%20Controversy%20of%20Zion_djvu.txt

A Summary by Knud Eriksen: https://www.controversyofzion.info/Summary_eng.htm

Horn
10th June 2019, 12:11 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNhF28fzN9I

Bigjon
22nd June 2019, 06:01 AM
In Print: ADOLF HITLER: BOLSHEVIK AND ZIONIST VOLUME I COMMUNISM (https://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2019/03/in-print-adolf-hitler-bolshevik-and.html)




https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yHw2QI9cpgU/XJhRdeuLuZI/AAAAAAAABHQ/M2MGJg_9Fg0OTWF8qidtYiieV1rKBonBgCLcBGAs/s400/Hilter_Vol_I_Cover_Blog.jpg (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1091493561)
Christopher Jon Bjerknes

I have just released a new book which is certain to shake things up. I am interested in doing interviews to discuss this new work Adolf Hitler: Bolshevik and Zionist Volume I Communism (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1091493561):

Volume I of a planned multi-part series compiles mountains of evidence, including scarce sources and new translations, to explain:

Why Hitler hid the fact that he worked for Kurt Eisner's revolutionary government and was an elected liaison and propagandist for the Communist Soldiers' Councils of the Bavarian Soviet Republic.

Why Hitler was a Communist informant, intelligence agent for the Reichswehr and spy.

Why Captain Karl Mayr and General Erich Ludendorff chose Lance Corporal Adolf Hitler to lead an anti-Semitic and anti-Bolshevik National-Socialist party, and how they made him into a "German Joan of Arc", dangerous demagogue and belligerent dictator.

Why Hitler infiltrated the German Workers' Party, changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers' Party and replaced its leader Anton Drexler.

Why Hitler let the British escape at Dunkirk, why he lost the Battle of Britain and why he opposed Operation Sea Lion.

Why Hitler collaborated with the Soviet Union, then attacked it and ensured his own defeat.

Why Hitler, who never declared wars, declared war on America.

Why Hitler wanted Lebensraum in the East as living space for his dead German soldiers.

Why Hitler let Hermann Goering deliberately lose the war he helped Hitler deliberately start.

Why Hitler repeatedly sacrificed his soldiers to the Soviets and provided Stalin with foreknowledge of his plans.

Why Hitler refused to negotiate a peace at war's end and instead issued the Nero Order calling for the suicidal destruction of Germany by Germans.

Find the unexpected answers to these and countless other conundrums in Adolf Hitler: Bolshevik and Zionist.


Posted by Christopher Jon Bjerknes (https://www.blogger.com/profile/10507786914234882495)at 9:58 PM

monty
22nd June 2019, 07:35 AM
Christopher Jon Bjerknes

Christopher Jon Bjerknes (born 1965) is a Jew active in the alternative media (https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Alternative_media), best known for his website blog Jewish Racism. Bjerknes is from Chicago (https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Chicago) in the United States (https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/United_States). He has authored works which have sought to uncover fraud/plagiarism in the science of Albert Einstein (https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein) and the cult created around him. As well as this Bjerknes has authored a work on the Armenian genocide (https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide), arguing that quite a number of the Young Turks (https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Young_Turks) were actually crypto-Jews.


Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist (2002)
The Jewish Genocide of Armenian Christians (http://www.balderexlibris.com/index.php?post/2012/01/29/Bjerknes-Christopher-Jon-The-Jewish-Genocide-Of-Armenian-Christians) (2006)
The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein (http://www.balderexlibris.com/index.php?post/Bjerknes-Christopher-Jon-The-manufacture-and-sale-of-Saint-Einstein) (2006)




https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Jon_Bjerknes

Bigjon
22nd June 2019, 10:29 AM
Christopher Jon Bjerknes



Christopher Jon Bjerknes (born 1965) is a Jew active in the alternative media (https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Alternative_media), best known for his website blog Jewish Racism. Bjerknes is from Chicago (https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Chicago) in the United States (https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/United_States). He has authored works which have sought to uncover fraud/plagiarism in the science of Albert Einstein (https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein) and the cult created around him. As well as this Bjerknes has authored a work on the Armenian genocide (https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide), arguing that quite a number of the Young Turks (https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Young_Turks) were actually crypto-Jews.


Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist (2002)
The Jewish Genocide of Armenian Christians (http://www.balderexlibris.com/index.php?post/2012/01/29/Bjerknes-Christopher-Jon-The-Jewish-Genocide-Of-Armenian-Christians) (2006)
The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein (http://www.balderexlibris.com/index.php?post/Bjerknes-Christopher-Jon-The-manufacture-and-sale-of-Saint-Einstein) (2006)




https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Jon_Bjerknes

He's 1/4 Jewish. His name is Norwegian. I believe he discussed this when he did a number of shows on I am the witness with Daryl Bradford Smith. As I recall he is 3/4 Norwegian.

Remember Bobby Fisher was not too happy about being 1/2 Jewish.

He's an enigma as far as his writing goes as I don't agree with his ideas about correct strategy, but his command of historical facts go. I have not been able to find any faults in them.

Bigjon
21st December 2019, 01:54 PM
From Disgrace Abounding by Douglas Reed
Published in 1939

Pg135

The word 'acquaintances' was carefully chosen. I have never had a Jewish friend. I never shall. I could, if Jews were Jews, subjects of a Jew state, avowedly foreigners in other lands, not professedly Germans, Englishmen, Hungarians, Austrians, Poles.

I have sharpened my wits on the conversation of Jews, I admire their quick-wittedness. If there were a Jewish nation I would make it an ally of England because I believe that, for their own cause, the Jews would fight like lions. I know that many of them fought in the armies of Germany and France and England, I know that each of these Jews wanted his side to win. But I also know that they had less to fear if their side lost, that they prosper in defeat and chaos. I saw this in Germany and Austria and Hungary.

I distrust the fiction that these Jews are Germans or Frenchmen or Englishmen, when I know that they are in all countries closely welded communities working, first and foremost, for the Jewish cause. Walk any Saturday evening along Oxford Street or Regent Street, contemplate those thousands of hatless young men, of carefully dressed and arm-linked young women coming up

from the east to go to the great film theatres round Piccadilly and Marble Arch, to invade the chocolate-sundae corner palaces. Do you believe these are English people? Do they?

Will they help us to re-make England into a sturdy and well-found land of craftsmen and farmers and sailors? Do they not rather stand for cheap and tawdry frocks, and their corollary, sweated labour (if you have the energy, go down into the East End and visit the people who cut and sew those frocks), for gaudy Babylonian film temples, for your blasted Glamour Girls, for trashy imitation jewellery, for spurious marble halls at the sign of the fish-and-chip?

But that is another question. No penny-in-the-slot machine could produce its response more quickly than that question brings the answer from me. I know the answer.

'What have you in your heart for the Jews? Is it pity?'

The answer is: 'What have you in your heart for Gentiles?'

That brings you at a stroke to the root of the matter. Not anti-Semitism was first, but anti-Gentilism. You have heard a lot in recent years about Hitler's Nuremberg anti-Jewish laws, with their ban on intermarriage, which the Germans call race-defilement.

A most intelligent and cultured and open-minded Jew in Budapest said to me, 'After all, the Nuremberg laws are only the translation into German of our own Mosaic laws, with their ban on intermarriage with Gentiles'.

Race-antagonism began, not with the Gentiles, but with the Jews. Their religion is based on it. This racial lunacy which you detest in the Germans has possessed the Jews for thousands of years. When they become powerful, they practise it; as they consolidate their position in one trade after another, in one profession or another, the squeeze-out of Gentiles begins. That was why you found, in Berlin and Vienna and Budapest and Prague and Bucharest, newspapers with hardly a Gentile on the editorial staff, theatres owned and managed by Jews presenting Jewish actors and actresses in Jewish plays praised by the Jewish critics of Jewish newspapers, whole streets with hardly a non-Jewish shop in them, whole branches of retail trade monopolized by Jews.

Jews, if you know them well enough and understand these things enough for them to talk openly with you, will admit this. They cannot deny it.

In the beginning was anti-Gentilism. This, not the perfidy of the Gentiles, prevents the assimilation of the Jews. This prevents them from ever becoming Germans or Poles or Italians. This keeps them welded together as alien communities in foreign lands, communities ultimately hostile to the Gentile.

It is their religion? Good, but it is the reason why they cannot be assimilated.

In the defeated countries the Jews did not use the great power they achieved to promote and accelerate assimilation. They used it to increase the power and wealth of the Jews, and their intensive mutual collaboration, in that era to oust non-Jews from professions, trades and callings, was the outward and visible sign that anti-Gentilism remained within them. The race barriers that had existed against the Jews were broken down, every path was open; but the race-barrier within themselves still existed, and thus you had the misuse of this freedom and those grave signs of its abuse, the exploitation of cheap labour and of young non-Jewish womanhood, which were so repugnant a feature of life in Berlin and Vienna, and still are seen to-day, as I write, in Budapest and Prague.



These are grave things, which need to be understood.

monty
16th May 2020, 06:10 AM
^ . . .

https://i.postimg.cc/c4y9r6Xk/032-CF460-48-DD-45-D7-A7-DD-DF34650-AFD20.jpg

Bigjon
2nd October 2020, 06:49 AM
Stalin Funded Hitler to Create Illuminati DialecticOctober 1, 2020
https://www.henrymakow.com/upload_images/loversh%26s.jpeg(left, Illuminati sweethearts, Hitler and Stalin)

Hitler was a bulwark against Communism? Hardly.
Stalin funded the fledgling Nazi Party, told German Communists to stand down,
supplied Nazi Germany with essential raw materials
and allowed Russia to be "surprised" by Operation Barbarossa.
Like Hitler, Trump is false opposition to
Communism, which already has paralyzed America.




Nazism and Communism were dialectical opposites, constructed in the same Illuminati foundry.


"While seemingly opposed to each other, [Communism and Nazism] represented the same group of billionaire Satanists determined to enslave humanity in a world government. While the evil twins duked it out, millions of patriotic opponents of world government would be killed in a false cause."

Updated from July 5, 2017
By Henry Makow PhD


After Hitler took charge of the fledgling Nazi Party on July 21, 1921, he spent lavishly on propaganda and recruitment.

There was no shortage of funds during this critical stage. The Nazis obviously had wealthy friends. But who were they?

Wall Street and German industry didn't kick in until the late 1920s. The German Army was financing the Nazis but didn't account for the seemingly unlimited money at Hitler's fingertips.

In the book, "A Field of Red: The Communist International and the Coming of World War II" (1981, pp. 245-246) ) the authors, Anthony Cave Brown and Charles MacDonald report that in 1923, Hitler returned from Zurich "with a steamer trunk stuffed with Swiss Francs and American dollars." There were other mysterious sources of funds in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Latvia.

https://www.henrymakow.com/upload_images/kurt.jpeg
(Chancellor for two mos. in 1932-1933, Von Schleicher was Time's "Man of the Year" in 1932)

After World War II, US Army intelligence officers took an affidavit from industrialist Arnold Rechberg who maintained that General Kurt Von Schleicher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Schleicher)told him in 1933 that Stalin had provided Hitler with "substantial funds."

Von Schleicher was head of the Black Reichswehr program. The Black Reichswehr program (https://www.henrymakow.com/001936.html) was dedicated to rebuilding the German army, contrary to the provisions of the Versailles Treaty.

According to Walter Schellenberg, Chief of SS Foreign Intelligence, Von Schleicher also advanced Hitler 42 million Reichsmarks during this formative period on instructions from Stalin! (Memoirs, p.43) (This probably why the Gestapo murdered Von Schleicher and his wife in the 1934 purge.)

Supposedly Stalin hoped Hitler would cause a civil war after which the Communists would take over Germany.

The truth is that Stalin and Hitler were both Illuminati. The Illuminati created Nazism as the dialectical opposite of Communism. In other words, the Illuminati created the "Jewish Marxist" world conspiracy and then created its antithesis, its supposed arch-enemy, the Nazi movement, which was destined to be annihilated.

While seemingly opposed to each other, they represented the same group of billionaire Satanists determined to enslave humanity in a world government. While the evil twins duked it out, millions of patriotic opponents of world government would be killed in a false cause.


NAZI-COMMUNIST COOPERATION


When the USSR signed the Treaty of Rapallo with the Weimar Republic in April 1922, a massive German military build-up in Russia designed to evade the Versailles treaty began. It included training and factories for the production of munitions, poison gas, tanks, and aircraft. In return for Communist cooperation, the Germans provided know-how and investment. Two prizefighters were training in the same gym for a future championship match. Thus the Illuminati economized.

https://www.henrymakow.com/upload_images/antifa-israel.jpeg(The Right-Left Zionist-Commie Cabalist charade)


According to Schellenberg, from 1929 on, Stalin directed the German Communist Party to regard the Social Democrats and not the Nazis as their enemy. There is no question the Communists assisted the Nazis in attaining power. (p.43)

The final example of this secret alliance was the Ribbentrop-Molotov Treaty of 1939 which paved the way for the Nazi invasion of Poland. Stalin ignored irrefutable evidence (https://www.henrymakow.com/was_stalin_complicit_in_hitler.html) of the Nazi plan to attack and provided the Nazis with needed raw materials right up until the eve of the invasion.

Although both Germany and Russia invaded Poland, the Illuminati-controlled West declared war only on Germany!

Why? Because the plan was to embroil Germany in a two-front war with Stalin on the side of the West. The plan was for the dialectical devils to battle it out, and for Germany to be finished off as a nationalistic force. Both Hitler and Bormann were Illuminati agents (https://www.henrymakow.com/hitler_and_bormann_were_traito.html) assigned to lure Germany into a fatal trap.

In 1921, Russia and Germany were presented as two pariah states. The onerous conditions of the Versailles Treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles) were designed to drive Germany into Russia's arms. But, this was only in preparation for Germany's revenge, WWII and the final knock-out blow.


CONCLUSION

We live in a mental and spiritual matrix created by the Illuminati bankers and their traitorous minions. They manipulate world events and our perceptions of them. They fund the historians and own the mass media. Google "Stalin funded Hitler" and you won't find one mention of this.

But occasionally the truth slips through the net, or used to. Today, information seems more tightly controlled than ever. But "A Field of Red" was published 30 years ago when we were still basking in the twilight rays of Christian Civilization.

The take-away is that if we have another world war, it will be planned and orchestrated by the Illuminati who always control both sides.

First Posted March 16, 2012
--
Related- Were the Nazis Created by the Zionists? (https://www.henrymakow.com/2015/09/Hitler-and-Nazism-a-Zionist-Creation.html)
Hitler & Borman were Traitors (https://www.henrymakow.com/2015/09/Hitler-and-Nazism-a-Zionist-Creation.html)
Stalin & Hitler Acted as One (https://www.henrymakow.com/documentary_highlights_nazi_so.html)
Stalin & Hitler Colluded in Operation Barbarossa (https://www.henrymakow.com/was_stalin_complicit_in_hitler.html)
See Comment from Danish Observer - OJ
"Hitler took Offer Ludendorff Refused"

(https://www.henrymakow.com/hitler_took_offer_ludendorff_r.html)

hoarder
2nd October 2020, 07:58 AM
Henry Makow? I think he's muddying the waters with bullshit.

Hardly.
Stalin funded the fledgling Nazi Party, told German Communists to stand down The money was in NYC and he knows it.

Bigjon
18th May 2022, 03:20 PM
https://henrymakow.com/hitler_and_bormann_were_traito.html

Hitler and Bormann Were Traitors - The Smoking GunMay 18, 2022
https://henrymakow.com/upload_images/hit-bor.jpgHitler and Bormann, left.After the war, Gen. Reinhard Gehlen
Chief of the West German Intelligence Agency, (BND), confirmed his wartime suspicions.
Martin

Bormann, the second most powerful man
in Nazi Germany, had been a "Soviet" spy,
with Hitler's complicity.

Hitler was an Illuminati agent mandated to lead Germany into a catastrophic defeat in order to snuff out German nationalism once and for all, and make way for the Rothschild NWO. World War Two was the most egregious hoax in history, followed by COVID.




Editor's Note- Longtime readers are familiar with this information but my traffic indicates that many new people
are opening their minds to the Illuminati (Masonic Jewish) conspiracy.



(Updated from March 16, 2017 and July 14, 2019)
by Henry Makow Ph.D.



In the past, I have presented evidence that Martin Bormann, the man who signed Hitler's pay check, was a Soviet i.e. Illuminati agent (https://www.henrymakow.com/002026.html); but I was not sure if Hitler was also a conscious traitor.
The testimony of General Reinhard Gehlen, Abwehr Intelligence Chief for Russia, indicates that he was.
https://www.henrymakow.com/upload_images/gehlenservice.jpg
In his memoirs, "The Service" (World Pub.1972) Gehlen says that he and Admiral Canaris, head of the Abwehr, suspected there was a traitor in the German Supreme Command.

Both had noticed that the Soviets were receiving "rapid and detailed information .. on top level decision-making."


They both suspected Martin Bormann, the Deputy Fuehrer and Head of the Nazi Party.
"Our suspicions were largely confirmed when, independently of one another, we found out that Bormann and his group were operating an unsupervised radio transmitter network and using it to send coded messages to Moscow.

When OKW monitors reported this, Canaris demanded an investigation; but word came back that Hitler himself had emphatically forbidden any intervention: he had been informed in advance of these Funkspiele, or "fake radio messages," and he had approved them" (p.71).



GEHLEN CONFIRMED BORMANN TRAITOR



Despite the fact that vital information continued to leak, Gehlen and Canaris left it at that. " Neither of us was in any position to denounce the Reichsleiter with any prospect of success."

I[B]n his book "Hitler's Traitor" Louis Kilzer estimated that Bormann (https://www.henrymakow.com/002026.html)was worth fifty divisions to the Soviets.
https://www.henrymakow.com/upload_images/gehlen.jpegAfter the war, Gehlen, who headed the BND (West German Intelligence Agency) was able to confirm Bormann's treason. "During the 1950's, I was passed two separate reports from behind the Iron Curtain to the effect that Bormann had been a Soviet agent...' (p.70)

The fact that Hitler shielded Bormann confirms that he also was an active traitor. Both served the Illuminati (Masonic) bankers, i.e. the Rothschild syndicate, based in London. The Illuminati were also behind Stalin and Communism, not to mention Churchill, and FDR.

By fabricating war, the Illuminati wage war on humanity with the ultimate goal of a veiled world government dictatorship.
Think 9-11, "The Patriot Act," mass surveillance, lockdowns, "vaccines." Behind the veil of fighting "terror," they are constructing a police state. "They" are the central banking cartel, the real Deep State. The target is society as a whole.


HITLER'S DELIBERATE BLUNDERS


In the winter of 1941-42, Gehlen and fellow generals had concluded that the Russian campaign was doomed "not because it could not be militarily or politically won, but because of Hitler's continued interference, that resulted in such elementary blunders that defeat was inevitable." (98)
https://www.henrymakow.com/upload_images/hitler-time_man_of_year_1938-1.jpg(Time Magazine's 'Man of the Year' 1938. The Illuminati created Hitler.)



Despite the fact that Hitler had covered for the traitor Bormann, Gehlen didn't come to the obvious deduction, that Hitler's "elementary blunders" were deliberate.

In his book, Gehlen details some of these blunders.
The General Staff wanted to concentrate resources on capturing Moscow. Hitler insisted on dissipating the effort on three fronts.
The General Staff saw that the Soviets were going to entrap the Sixth Army at Stalingrad, and demanded a strategic withdrawal. Hitler vetoed this and 200,000 of Germany's best troops (and irreplaceable weaponry) were killed and captured.

To replace these losses, the General Staff wanted to recruit millions of willing volunteers from anti-Communist ranks, i.e. Russians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians etc.

"After 20 years of arbitrary injustice and terror, the re-establishment of elementary human rights such as the dignity of man, liberty, justice, and the sanctity of property united every inhabitant of the Soviet empire in a common readiness to support the Germans." (81)


The Wehrmacht began to build a nationalist regime around the charismatic Russian defector, General Vlasov.
Indeed, such an appeal was Stalin's worst nightmare, according to his son, who became a POW.


"The one thing my father dreads is the emergence of a nationalist regime opposed to him. But that is a step you'll never take." Yakov told his Nazi interrogator. "Because we know you have not set out to liberate our country but to conquer it." (80)
https://henrymakow.com/upload_images/kilzer.jpgWrong. If Hitler's aim was to conquer Russia, he would have deceived the locals, and then crushed them later. Hitler's real aim was not to defeat Russia but for Russia to defeat Germany.
Hitler didn't try to deceive the Slavs about his genocidal plans for them, and instead of being welcomed, won their implacable resistance and hate. Stalin knew he could trust Hitler, a fellow Illuminati agent, to take a fall.
Similarly, if Hitler's real aim was to thwart the Jewish bankers, he would have invaded England not Russia.


World War Two was the most egregious hoax in history. A cult of satanic (Sabbatean) Jews and Masons, financed by the Rothschild syndicate, is responsible for destroying more than sixty million lives.


Hitler proved by his actions that he was a traitor. He was installed by the Illuminati to destroy Germany so that it would slip neatly into the NWO.


-----
Related- World Wars are Orchestrated (https://www.henrymakow.com/000936.html)
-----------Hitler & Stalin Colluded on Operation Barbarossa (https://www.henrymakow.com/was_stalin_complicit_in_hitler.html)
------------Stalin Funded Hitler (https://www.henrymakow.com/did_stalin_help_fund_hitler.html)
----------Bormann Ran Hitler for the Illuminati (https://www.savethemales.ca/002026.html?_ga=1.182032167.1239183559.1420930233)
----------Damning Evidence- Martin Bormann was a Rothschild Agent (https://www.henrymakow.com/martin_bormann_was_rothschild.html)
--------- Was Hitler an Illuminati Agent? (https://www.henrymakow.com/001399.html)
---------- 1924 French Police File Card for Adolph Jacob Hitler (https://www.henrymakow.com/post_18.html)
--------- The British Agent at Hitler's Ear (https://www.henrymakow.com/the_british_agent_at_hitlers_e.html)
---------