All posts by Algora Blog

Exodus Redux: Jewish Identity and the Shaping of History

August 9, 2018 Algora Blog Leave a comment

“Under the pretext of recording fables and current reports about the Jews, he [Manetho] took the liberty of introducing some incredible tales, wishing to represent us as…condemned to banishment from Egypt.”
Flavius Josephus, Against Apion

I’ve been intrigued by the story of the Israelite Exodus from Egypt for more than a decade. More than any of its close rivals, including the tale of Haman in the Book of Esther, the Exodus looms large as an early and extremely influential psychological landmark in the lachrymose and highly dubious pseudo-history of the Jewish people. Most obviously, the putative liberation from Egypt is commemorated by Judaism every year, in the form of the Pesach, or Passover festival. Indeed, this festival is one of the most important features of the Jewish religious calendar. Historian Paul Johnson remarks that Exodus “became an overwhelming memory” and “gradually replaced the creation itself as the central, determining event in Jewish history.”[1]

Exodus has a power that exists independently from the trappings of religious myth, acting through the centuries as a defining narrative of victimhood, group vindication, and self-validation. Jews living under the Tsar produced endless Yiddish plays and satires containing barely concealed allusions to the Tsar as the latest incarnation of Pharaoh.[2] Exodus is a foundation upon which Jewish identity, as well as Jewish religiosity, is built, and for this reason it has greatly preoccupied even the most atheistic of Jews, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud among them. Moses, as a subconscious archetype, squats in the shadows of the Jewish psyche.

The early reception of Exodus by non-Jews also plays an important role in the Jewish worldview, in the sense that the “virus” of “anti-Semitism” is said to have originated in response to it. In this regard, there is an almost universal consensus among Jewish intellectuals that the earliest origins of “anti-Semitism” can be traced to the writings of an Egyptian priest allegedly offended by the account of the Israelite escape from Pharaoh. The theory relates specifically to a history of Egypt, the Aegyptiaca, written by an Egyptian priest named Manetho around the third century BC. Although the Aegyptiaca is lost to us, we are able to piece together much of its contents based on subsequent rebuttals by later Jewish writers such as Flavius Josephus, and also references to the text by several Greek and Greek-Egyptian intellectuals.

In summary, Manetho reported that centuries earlier a foreign population had entered Egypt’s eastern border via “infiltration of the Delta.” This foreign population subsequently rose in power within Egypt, becoming a burden and a pestilence to the natives. At some point, the foreign population developed a serious disease of the skin, and the Egyptians were finally motivated to expel the invaders, who later relocated to Jerusalem.

Manetho’s narrative certainly provoked some of the earliest examples of Jewish apologia. His account filtered through the ages and was taken up by the Hellenized Egyptian Apion the Alexandrian (30–20 BC – c. AD 45–48), in turn provoking a polemical text by Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (AD 37 – c. AD 100) titled simply Against Apion. In this text, Josephus remarked dismissively that “Under the pretext of recording fables and current reports about the Jews, he [Manetho] took the liberty of introducing some incredible tales, wishing to represent us as…condemned to banishment from Egypt.” It is interesting that Josephus was most concerned with rejecting the accusation that the Jews had a skin affliction, and was quite prepared to accept that Egyptian hostility was based on “the original grievance of the domination of our [Jewish] ancestors over their country.”

Today, historians are almost unanimous that Manetho was a malicious originator of anti-Jewish libels. Paul Johnson’s philo-Semitic A History of the Jews is a good example in this respect, though his treatment of ancient Jewish history is full of contradictions. For example, Johnson acknowledges that proto-Jewish populations were highly problematic for Egyptian authorities. Referencing the Amarna letters (dated to 1389–1358 BC), Johnson concedes that ancient Egyptian accounts referred to a Hebrew called Labaya or Lion Man who “caused great difficulties for the Egyptian authorities and their allies…[H]e was hard to control, a nuisance. He eventually met a violent death in the reign of Pharaoh Akhenaten.”[3]

Johnson further adds that only part of the Hebrew nation ever lived in Egypt, “a fifth column within the land” that played a crucial part in the broader geo-political strategies of the group.[4] Even setting aside the supernatural elements inherent in the Exodus tale, Johnson also appears to concede the unlikelihood of a Jewish-instigated departure since it would represent “a successful revolt and escape of a slave-people, the only one recorded in antiquity.”[5] Despite these acknowledgements, Johnson describes Manetho’s account of the expulsion of proto-Jewish infiltrators out of Egypt and into Jerusalem as a “fundamental matrix of anti-Semitism, the Ur-libel.”[6]

Jewish academic activist Robert Wistrich, now deceased, described Manetho as “malevolent” and “one of the first anti-Semitic polemicists of Antiquity.”[7] Kenneth Roseman argues that Manetho “disseminated virulently anti-Semitic propaganda.”[8] Ernest Abel called the Egyptian priest “the father of anti-Semitic literature.”[9] A special 1985 edition of Jewish Social Studies labelled Manetho “the first literary exponent of the anti-Jewish trend in Graeco-Roman Egypt and as the man who was instrumental in creating, or at least in popularizing, some of the oft-recurring anti-Semitic motifs.”[10]

In order to explain why Manetho may have constructed his “Ur-libel,’ Wistrich referred to a wider atmosphere in Alexandria in which Jews were in “socio-political competition with the Hellenized Egyptians.”[11] In the midst of this competition, Jews had come to be seen as exclusivist, unpatriotic, possessing dual loyalties, and possessing a “position of privilege, wealth, and power.”[12]

These accusations were given their most enduring articulation by leading intellectuals of the day, including Apion, Lysimachus, and Chaeroman, who acted as one of Nero’s instructors.[13] Antipathy towards Jews was so rife that even after the conquest of Judea, both Titus and Vespasian would refuse to adopt the honorary title “Judaicus.”

Manetho was thus, by modern academic consensus, merely the first to register the first grumblings of a jealous, intolerant non-Jewish civilization.

While non-Jewish grievances during this period are viewed by academic gatekeepers with great scepticism and alarm, Jewish self-aggrandizement from the same era is accepted without contest. Just as Manetho is said to have borrowed from Exodus for his Aegyptiaca, so every Hellenistic writer was alleged to have merely grafted ideas from an intellectually superior Judaism. On the contrary, in my own summation, Jews didn’t interact with Greek culture in Alexandria in any manner other than the co-option of its achievements.

This is of course the timeless phenomenon of Jewish cultural chauvinism, built on the re-writing of history. Academic activist Simon Schama writes that, in Alexandria, many Jewish writers and philosophers argued that Judaism “was the ancient root and Hellenism the young tree. Zeus was just a paganized version of the Almighty YHWH, and Moses was the ultimate moral legislator from whom all ethical law-giving had originally sprung. The Jewish Aristobulus of Paneas, writing in the mid-second century BC, wanted his readers to believe that Plato had painstakingly studied the Torah and that Pythagoras owed his theorem to ancient Jewish learning.”[14] This is the ancient root of the familiar drive to perpetuate the idea of “Jewish genius,” a theme now well-documented here at TOO (e.g., my “Pariah to Messiah: The Engineered Apotheosis of Baruch Spinoza” for a discussion of how Jewish intellectuals have rewritten the history of the Enlightenment to be the result of Jewish influence).

Although the narratives coterminous with the Exodus fable remain bloated and inert within the academic corpus, I wish to draw the attention of readers to a quite remarkable book published in 2006. Largely ignored by the gatekeepers of academia, Russell Gmirkin’s Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch represents nothing less than a multi-front assault on both the Jewish interpretation of Manetho and the account of Exodus itself. Gmirkin’s study offers compelling evidence that Manetho did not react to Exodus, but rather that Exodus was written by Jewish intellectuals in Alexandria in reaction to Manetho, whose account was both older and more accurate. Or, as the author puts it, rather than Manetho attacking the Jews, “the borrowing and polemics took place in the opposite direction; the Penateuch polemicized against the Egyptian expulsion stories in Manetho.”[15] The implication of Gmirkin’s thesis is that, by writing Exodus, a text given later cultural protection and greater credence and authority by the spread of Christianity, Jews essentially captured history, re-writing it in a manner that salved Jewish pride.

Although what we understand as the Jewish group evolutionary strategy, and the cultural codes underpinning it, was certainly extant prior to the third century BC, Gmirkin argues that the “Hebrew Pentateuch was composed in its entirety about 273 BC by 72 Jewish scholars at Alexandria.”[16]Combining archaeological discoveries with meticulous textual analysis, Gmirkin demonstrates a heavy literary dependence of Genesis on Berossus’s Babyloniaca (278 BC) and Exodus on Manetho’s Aegyptiaca (ca. 285–280 BC), as well as a general reliance of Exodus on literary sources available at Alexandria’s Great Library. Contrary to allegations that Manetho engaged in polemics against the Jews as a response to Exodus, Gmirkin points out that his narrative does not mention the Jews by name, referring instead to a tribe of mixed ethnic origin known as the Hyksos (Egyptian for ‘rulers of foreign countries’). Furthermore, Manetho’s account “displays no awareness of the biblical account,” and “can be demonstrated to have drawn exclusively on native Egyptian sources.”[17]

Substantial elements of Exodus appear to have been plagiarized or corrupted from the Aegyptiaca. Gmirkin writes that:

The Exodus story, meanwhile, shows considerable knowledge of Manetho’s accounts regarding Hyksos and expelled Egyptians, showing systematic agreement with Manetho in all details favorable or neutral to the Jews but containing polemics against precisely those points in Manetho that reflected unfavorably on the Jews.[18]

Gmirkin highlights crucial facts which bring one to wonder just how the “Manetho as anti-Semite” myth came to dominate for so long, even taking into consideration that the march of Christianity protected Exodus from criticism for centuries. Most striking is the fact that “Manetho predated the Septuagint, the first Greek translation of Jewish writings. This chronological consideration alone excludes possible influence of the Jewish Exodus story on Manetho’s account of the Hyksos.”[19] Explicit knowledge of Jews in Manetho is “really quite limited.”[20] The real linkage between the Jews of Alexandria and Manetho’s account appears to have been a number of now obscure “Jewish traditions equating the Hyksos with the Jews.”[21]

Expressed more simply, Jews were offended indirectly by Manetho because he presented a negative portrayal of the Hyksos, whom Jews had, by the third century BC, come to regard in some respects as quasi-ancestral.

While Manetho’s account “had nothing to do with the Jews and was not dependent on the Pentateuchal tradition,” it did indeed advance a negative account of the Hyksos in Egypt.[22] Utilizing ancient king lists, the life of the last Pharaoh Nectanebo II and the older Aegyptiaca of Hecataeus of Abdera, Manetho described the Hyksos as “invaders of obscure race” who had brought misfortune and plagues in their wake following their infiltration of the Delta. [23] Modern archaeology has been able to determine that the Hyksos were a hybrid people combining West Semitic (Canaanite), Indo-Aryan, and West Asiatic lineages. Regardless of whether the Jews of Alexandria had significant genetic links to the Hyksos, we do know that the latter were expelled from Egypt twice and later settled “in Jerusalem and geographical Judea.”[24] Perhaps even more important is the fact that for over two thousand years Jews have taken Manetho’s account to be a direct insult, evidence, if nothing else, of their own belief in some form of connection to the Hyksos.

In relation to Manetho, the composers of Exodus employed “a systematic, consistent, predictable pattern in the points of similarity and violent contradiction.”[25] Both accounts feature Jews/Hyksos as foreigners in Egypt who are in some fashion compelled to leave by authorities or circumstances. Both accounts locate the action at the eastern border of Egypt. Both reference the demographic growth and swelling influence of foreigners in Egypt, as well as the contemporaneous presence of plagues. Gmirkin explains these similarities by pointing out that “the authors of the Jewish Exodus story chose their battles carefully, accepting the basic framework of Manetho’s account, accepting whatever details were deemed harmless, but rising to the defense of the Jews on every point of honor.”[26] Generally speaking, “the Pentateuch accepted as much of Manetho’s account as possible, due to the authority and reputation of Manetho.”[27] Where the Jewish writers of the biblical account needed to flesh out their version with references to Egyptian history, they appear to have repeated errors already present in Manetho, specifically in relation to the latter’s misreading of sections of the ancient king lists and chronicles.[28]

Although successive generations of Jewish intellectuals have taken issue with “anti-Semitic” ancient Egyptian claims that the foreigners suffered some form of skin affliction, and were in part exiled because of it, Exodus and other books in the Pentateuch display obvious attempts to parry such inferences. In Exodus (4:6–7) Moses is able to turn his hand leprous and heal it at will as a magical sign to Pharaoh. In Numbers (12:10) there is the strange story of Miriam’s brief leprosy, imposed by the Hebrew god as a punishment for rebellion. Both Leviticus and Numbers contain many prominent laws dealing with leprosy. Most damning of all is perhaps Deuteronomy (28:60), in which the Hebrew god warns the Jews that if they ever apostatized he would “bring on them again the diseases of Egypt.” There is thus clear evidence that the composers of Exodus and the Pentateuch adopted or at least acknowledged earlier accounts of the Hyksos in Egypt in which that foreign tribe had suffered some form of skin affliction or disease during the sojourn.

One might ask what relevance such ancient history has to the present. By way of answer I refer to the remarks made at the outset of this essay. Exodus remains a pivotal text in the Jewish mental landscape, shaping ideas about identity, victimhood, and validation. Its early reception has also come to represent, in the Jewish mind, the origins of “anti-Semitism” and the plagiarism of a putative Jewish genius. Because of the influence of Christianity in retaining and reinforcing the Pentateuch, and even extending it somewhat into the Western psyche, the story of the Exodus has been undeservedly preserved under a kind of cultural permafrost. We have for the most part lost touch with the fact that it was at one point in time merely one tribal repudiation of an overwhelming consensus. Historian Gohei Hata has argued that by the time of Josephus at least seven major Greek or Greek-Egyptian writers and intellectuals had published accounts asserting that Jews had some distant connection to Egypt, that they had been banished, that they had suffered from an affliction of the skin, and that Moses himself was an unstable Egyptian apostate.[29]

While our people may recall none of these chroniclers, they are extremely familiar with the tales of oppressed Jews fed to them by their churches, and by a Hollywood that continues to produce both adult and children’s movies concerning a “heroic” Moses stripped of the murderous, psychopathic qualities that drench the pages of the Pentateuch. Imagine if they were instead confronted with the fact that the tale of Moses familiar to them is even more distant to reality than they could imagine, concealing a much more sinister history in Egypt, and revealing instead the psychotic and fevered imaginings of a cabal of Alexandrian rabbis.

Even if Moses never existed other than as a kind of Golem squatting in the psychological recesses of the intellectuals who conceived him, he still retains a kind of “reality.” And in this regard we might consider the comments of Christian Bale, the Welsh actor chosen to play Moses in the 2014 film Exodus: Gods and Kings. Asked about the character he had been asked to play, and his own research into the figure, Bale replied that Moses “was ‘likely schizophrenic’ and was one of the most ‘barbaric’ individuals he’d ever read about in his life.” He cited biblical passages that were not included as events in the film: The chapter in Numbers where Moses orders the slaughter of all Midianite prisoners of war, save the virgin girls; and the section of Exodus in which Moses punishes the Israelites for worshiping the golden calf by forcing them to drink a scalding liquid made of the ground-up idol before ordering the slaughter of 3,000 Hebrews for the transgression. Bale closed his remarks by adding that “if Moses were alive today, he would likely be tried for war crimes.”

Asked to choose between Exodus and Manetho we might cast our minds back over the more than two millennia of history since both entered the Western canon. Has the exodus or the expulsion featured more prominently in the history of the Jews? Historiography has not been kind to the Egyptian priest, but history finds him vindicated.

Cultural/Ideological Divide

Why the Killing of Martin Luther King

August 9, 2018 Algora Blog Leave a comment

Authored by Kevin Barrett via Unz.com,

(Excerpt)

[. . .] The “Long, Hot Summer” of 1967 featured 159 race riots in dozens of US urban centers, and elements of the National Security State were drawing up contingency plans for a race based civil war.

William Pepper – the King family’s attorney who proved in a court of law that the CIA, FBI, and US army killed Dr. King with the help of their organized crime assets – once spoke with a US Army Colonel who admitted to helping plan the assassination. The Colonel said that the military had done extensive focus group style interviews with participants in the 1967 race riots and determined that Dr. King’s charisma was the biggest factor driving the riots. Counterintuitively, the apostle of nonviolence was inspiring the psychological liberation of black people in such a way that a certain percentage felt empowered to act out their repressed anger. So when King determined to bring half a million followers to Washington, DC and stay there until the feds pulled out of Vietnam and declared a real war on poverty, the Colonel and his friends immediately envisioned the nation’s capital erupting into mass violence that could spread nationwide on a scale many orders of magnitude beyond what had happened during 1967’s Long Hot Summer, perhaps precipitating a real civil war culminating in the revolutionary overthrow of the American State. This, the Colonel explained to Pepper, was the primary reason King had to be terminated…with extreme prejudice.

Predictably, the Deep State’s murder of Dr. King did not solve the racial violence problem. The assassination itself set off a wave of new riots in cities including Chicago, Baltimore, and – sorry, Colonel – Washington, DC.

Cold War

There Will Be No American-Russian Alliance Against China

August 5, 2018 Algora Blog Leave a comment

Authored by James George Jatras via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Since 1991 and the formal end of the first Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, the world has experienced an American “unipolar moment” as the bipartisan US policy establishment sought to consolidate and perpetuate its hegemonic control over the entire plant. Doomed to fail even before it received its fullest articulation in 1996 by neoconservative ideologists William Kristol and Robert Kagan (misleadingly billed as “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy”), that misbegotten moment thankfully is coming to an end.

The main question today is whether the grinding to a halt of a quest so foolish and destructive can peacefully devolve into a tripolar entente among the US, Russia, and China – or whether the entrenched Washington establishment will, Sampson-like, crash everything down in a desperate but futile attempt to hang on to its power and privileges. We appear to be approaching the cusp at which that question will be resolved one way or the other. What the Trump Administration does next with respect to Iran will be a key, perhaps decisive, indicator.

However, of late there has emerged an alternative concept that may be seen as a middle way between America’s stubbornly hanging onto our diminishing hegemony versus working out a new Concert of Powers with the two countries the Trump Administration has dubbed rivals in a new “great power competition.” This concept suggests that the United States should play odd-man-out, teaming up with one of the other two powers against the third. Such a triangulation conceivably could perpetuate and enhance America’s global dominance (it is assumed the other nation would be the junior partner) while limiting the influence of the designated adversary.

Strangely, given the unhinged levels of Russia-hatred that define the American political class, no one seems to have proposed trying to flip Beijing away from its quasi-alliance with Moscow in a repeat of President Nixon’s “playing the China card” against the USSR in the early 1970s. Rather, the hot talk is all the other way ‘round, that the US should woo Russia as an ally against China. As presented by Harry J. Kazianis of the Center for the National Interest (“The Coming American-Russian Alliance Against China”):

‘[T]here is a very real possibility that Washington and Moscow will collude for a very big reason—and soon.

‘Both nations have a reason to fear a coming change in the international order that will impact them both. And as history shows us time and again, a rising power that seeks to overturn the international system can make the most dedicated enemies join forces—and fast.

‘I can only be talking about one thing: a growing and more powerful China. [ … ]

‘While it might not happen right away, and an armed clash over, say, Ukraine or Syria could delay or even destroy any chance of a geopolitical realignment, there is the very real possibility that the stars could align for Russia and America to take on China in the future. Stranger parings have occurred in the past. While we might rightly see Moscow as a rogue nation today, tomorrow it could be a partner in containing a common foe. History and circumstance still stand for no one.’

Playing the Russia card against China is even presented by former Indian diplomat M. K. Bhadrakumar as part of a long term strategy (“Trump Has a Grand Strategy, He Wants to Do a ‘Reverse Nixon’ — Partner Russia for an Alliance vs China”) foreseen by the architect of Nixon’s long-ago outreach to communist China, Henry Kissinger (who reportedly is advising Trump to this end):

‘As far back as 1972 in a discussion with Richard Nixon on his upcoming trip to China, signifying the historic opening to Beijing, Kissinger could visualize such a rebalancing becoming necessary in future. He expressed the view that compared with the Soviets (Russians), the Chinese were “just as dangerous. In fact, they’re more dangerous over a historical period.” Kissinger added, “in 20 years your (Nixon’s) successor, if he’s as wise as you, will wind up leaning towards the Russians against the Chinese.”

‘Kissinger argued that the United States, which sought to profit from the enmity between Moscow and Beijing in the Cold War era, would therefore need “to play this balance-of-power game totally unemotionally. Right now, we need the Chinese to correct the Russians and to discipline the Russians.” But in the future, it would be the other way around.’

The possibility that Trump or some people in his Administration may be seriously considering the idea can’t be dismissed. It should be noted that among the few sane voices about Russia in US public life, such as Fox News’ , it is axiomatic that “China is the real threat, not Russia.”

However, whether or not the US is open to teaming up with Russia against China doesn’t address the question of whether such a ploy would be objectively viable. There are three strong reasons to suppose it wouldn’t be:

US hostility toward Russia is unalterable for the foreseeable future. In a rational policymaking context, it should be obvious that there is no inherent reason for US-Russia animosity. The basic interests of the two states do not conflict and there is much, other than China, that should be a basis for cooperation, such as the common threat of Islamic terrorism (as opposed to the decades-long US penchant of employing jihadists against Russia and other countries, like Serbia, Libya, and Syria).

Unfortunately, there is little rationality about Russia in Washington. Diehard, uncompromising detestation of Russia, which decent people are not suppose to see as anything but an enemy, is inseparable from the transatlantic conspiracy to eject Trump from office. Indeed, Trump’s pledge to improve relations with Moscow is among the top reasons Trump is being targeted for removal.

Hostility to Russia (and to any Trumpian hopes of détente) unites virtually all the Democrats, almost all prominent Republicans, the entire legacy media (of course), almost every prestigious think tank, and seemingly every high-level official on Trump’s own team. In the wake of his Helsinki summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump’s innocuous skepticism on supposed election “meddling,” the hysteria of this phalanx of hate has reached new heights of derangement. Senators promise a new “sanctions bill from hell” even as Trump insists existing sanctions are here to stay, presumably forever. The new Senate measure even includes a preposterous requirement that the Secretary of State “submit a determination of whether the Russian Federation meets the criteria for designation as a state sponsor of terrorism” – evidently ignoring the fact that for over seven years the US has armed and funded bona fide al-Qaeda-linked terrorists in Syria while Russia has been killing them.

Trump’s own top officials openly press him not only on bogus 2016 meddling but already accusing Moscow of interfering in advance in the 2018 Congressional vote with the intent, without any sense of irony, to “undermine our democracy.” Social media like Facebook are on a search-and-destroy mission against anything even suspected of being “Russian-linked,” whatever that means. A young Russian student advocating gun rights and networking in Washington is treated as a conflation of Anna Chapman and Natasha Fatale while being smeared and slut-shamed across the major media(and her lawyer is threatened with a gag order). Stepped-up military aid is being provided to Kiev. The NATO Pac-Man is set to gobble up next (the Former Yugoslav Republic of) Macedonia, while in the process alienating Russia from longtime Orthodox Christian friend Greece.

No wonder Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov can only look on with sardonic laughter.

In short, anything and everything Russian is toxic and becoming more so. Even if Trump really wanted to change this state of affairs – sure proof the evil Russians must “have something on him,” according to former CIA Director Leon Panetta – he couldn’t do it. Not only his opposition but his own team will see to that. US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley says Russia “is never going to be our friend.” The Russians have every reason to take her at her word.

This makes any notion of enlisting Russia as an ally against China impractical, to say the least. To even contemplate it the US would have to be able to extend some sort of olive branch to Russia, but that can’t happen anytime soon, if ever. You can’t build a partnership on the basis of unremitting antagonism.

Russia is once burned, twice shy. Even in the event, currently inconceivable, that the US did offer to bury the hatchet with Russia, the Russians would have to be fools to accept.

They are not fools.

Apart from the most minimal, easily verified circumstances, why would anyone in Moscow believe any assurance from anyone in Washington? Did the US honor our commitment to Boris Yeltsin not to move NATO “one inch” further east following Germany reunification? Did the US respect the United Nations Charter, the Helsinki Final Act, and UN Security Council Resolution 1244 during the Bill Clinton Administration’s 1999 military aggression against Serbia over Kosovo or the George W. Bush Administration’s spearheading of Kosovo’s purported secession in 2008? Does the US show good faith in baseless accusations of Russian guilt in false flag chemical attacks in Syria and the United Kingdom?

While Russian officials by nature remain open to “businesslike” and professional discussion with those they still insist on referring to as “partners,” they also know blind ideological and zoological hatred when they see it.

Even if tomorrow the US would offer the Russians the sun, the moon, and the stars in exchange for cooperation against China, they wouldn’t bite. Nor should they.

Russia has more objective incentives to get along with China than with the US. The main thing Russia needs from the US is basically – well, nothing. That is to say, there is very little of a practical, especially economic, nature Russia needs in a positive sense from the US, and vice versa. What Russia mainly wants from the US is negative: to stop regarding Russia as an enemy and get out of Moscow’s face in regions vitally important to Russia but of little or no value to the US.

Without taking the analogy to George Orwell’s 1984 too far (with America as the primary component of Oceania, Russia of Eurasia, and China of Eastasia), geographically America and Russia not only have no reason for conflict, they have little natural need for interdependence. Russia is the closest approximation of the “Heartland” of Halford Mackinder’s “World Island. The United States is the principal in Mackinder’s “Outlying Islands” (Western Hemisphere and Australia) and “Offshore Islands” (British Isles and the Pacific “First Island Chain”). But, contra the fantasies of some half-baked graduates of an elementary geopolitical “Mackindergarten,” this configuration need not give rise to a predetermined and inevitable conflict but points as easily to the self-sufficiency of each dominant power within its own exclusive sphere.

With a common boarder of over 2,500 miles, Russia and China are locked into a relationship by the simple fact of geography in a way neither is with the United States, which inherently is in the most secure position of the three. The Russo-Chinese relationship can be hostile (as it notably was in the late 1960s, when the two then-communist giants fought a short border war that threatened to escalate into a nuclear conflict and set the stage for Nixon’s China initiative) or it can be cooperative. Fueled in part by an entrenched American animus against Russia and a growing one towards China, Moscow and Beijing have chosen full-spectrum partnership via the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), the New (formerly BRICS) Development Bank (NDB), and other initiatives. Finally, Russia and China are working in concert to de-dollarize their financial systems in favor of local currency and of gold, which both countries have been buying in massive amounts.

Such ties between Russia and China are as natural, complimentary, and obvious as are America’s with Canada and Mexico. It’s hard to picture Moscow (or Beijing) abandoning them because someone in Washington flashes a come-hither look.

* * *

If Trump survives the efforts to remove him (either politically or physically) – a tall order, given the forces arrayed against him – and doesn’t plunge the US and the Middle East into an Iran misadventure that would destroy his presidency, it is still an open question whether he can deliver on an America First policy. Along with getting control of our borders and restoring America’s industrial base eroded by bad trade policies, that must mean completing his demolition of the failed neoliberal order of which the US has been the guarantor and enforcer.

In its place the only stable and mutually advantageous arrangement for America is a Big Three accord with both Russia and China. The notion of turning one against the other should be dismissed as the distraction it is.

Anglozionism

Pawns In The Game by William Guy Carr – part 10

August 2, 2018 Algora Blog Leave a comment

By
Ian Greenhalgh

CHAPTER NINE
Political Intrigue — 1914 – 1919

The way international intrigue was used to depose the Right Honourable H.H. Asquith when he was Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1916 was explained to me by a man who was extremely well informed. I met him while serving as King’s Messenger in 1917. We were in my room, in a hotel when, during the course of conversation, I mentioned that I strongly suspected that a comparatively small group of extremely wealthy men used the power their wealth could buy to influence national and international affairs, to further their own secret plans and ambitions.

My companion replied : “If you talk about such things it is unlikely that you will live long enough to realize how right you are.” He then told me how Mr. Asquith had been deposed in December 1916, and Mr. David Lloyd George, Winston Churchill, and The Rt. Hon. Arthur James Balfour were placed in power in England.

The story he told me had a remarkable similarity to the plot used by the Secret Powers who directed the campaign of L’Infamie immediately prior to the outbreak of the French revolution in 1789. It will be recalled a letter was used to lure Cardinal Prince de Rohan to the Palais Royal where he was involved with a prostitute disguised as Marie Antoinette. The alleged modern method is as follows :

Shortly after the outbreak of the war in August 1914 a small group of wealthy men authorized an agent to turn an old, but very spacious mansion, into a fabulous private club. Those who made it possible to finance such a costly undertaking insisted that their identity remain secret. They explained that they simply wished to show their deep appreciation to officers in the Armed Forces who were risking their lives for King and Country.

The club provided every kind of luxury, entertainment, and facilities for pleasure. The use of the club was usually restricted to commissioned officers on leave in London from active service. A new member had to be introduced by a brother officer. My companion referred to it as the “Glass Club”.[1]

Upon arrival, officer guests were interviewed by an official. If he was satisfied with their credentials they were told how the club functioned. The officer applying for admission was asked to give his word of honour that he would not mention the names of any persons he met during his stay at the club, or reveal their identity after he left the club. Having given this solemn promise, it was explained to the guest that he would meet a number of women well known in the best of London’s society. They all wore masks. The officer was asked not to try to identify any of the ladies. He was sworn to keep their secret should he happen to identify any of them accidentally.

With the preliminaries over, the officer was shown to his private room. It was furnished in a most luxuriant manner. The furnishings included a huge double bed, dressing table, wardrobe, cabinet with wines and liqueurs, a smoking humidor, and private toilet and bath. The new guest was invited to make himself at home. He was informed that he would receive a lady visitor. She would wear a brooch of costume jewelry with the number of his room. If, after getting acquainted, he wished to take her down to dinner that was his privilege.

The reception room, where guests and their hostesses mingled over cocktails before dinner, was like that of a King’s palace. The dining room was large enough to accommodate fifty couples. The ballroom was such that many people dream about but few seldom see. Costly decorations were set off by luxurious drapes, subdued lighting, beautiful women gorgeously dressed, soft dreamy music, the smell of rare perfumes, made the place an Arab’s dream of heaven. The whole atmosphere of the club was such that the officers home on leave relaxed at first and then set out to have a real Roman Holiday. There was nothing gross or vulgar about the “Glass Club”. Everything about the place was beautiful, delicate, soft, and pliant … the exact opposite of the horrors, the violence, the brutality, of a modern war. Between dance numbers entertainers gave performances which brought out the feelings of joy, fun and laughter. As the evening progressed, a long buffet was literally loaded with luscious dishes of fish and game. A bar provided every kind of drink from champagne to straight whisky. Between midnight and one a.m. five beautiful girls performed the Dance of the Seven Veils. The dance depicted a scene in a Sultan’s Harem. The girls started the dance fully clothed, (even to the veil they wore to conceal the facial features) but, when the dance ended the girls were entirely naked. They danced the final act in their lithe-nakedness, waving the flimsy veil around and about them in a manner which extenuated, rather than concealed, their physical charms. Couples, when tired of entertainment, dancing, and other people’s company, retired to their private rooms.

Next day they could enjoy indoor swimming, tennis, badminton, billiards, or, there was the card room which was a miniature Monte Carlo. About November 1916 a very high personage was lured into visiting the Club when he received a note saying that he would obtain information of the greatest importance to the British Government. He drove to the Club in his private car. He instructed his chauffeur to wait for him. After being admitted, he was taken to one of the luxuriously furnished bed-sitting rooms. A lady joined him. When she saw him she nearly fainted. It was his own wife. She was much younger than her husband. She had been acting as hostess to lonely officers on leave for a considerable time. It was a most embarrassing situation.

The wife knew nothing of the plot. She had no secret information to give. She was convinced that both she and her husband were philandering. She thought it was only this unfortunate chance meeting which had brought them face to face. There was a scene. The husband was informed regarding the part hostesses played at the Club. But his lips were sealed as if in death. He was a member of the Government. He couldn’t afford to figure in a scandal.

Every employee in the club, both male and female, was a spy. They reported everything that happened at the club to their masters. The identity of those involved became known. The information thus obtained was printed for the record in what became known as “The Black Book”. “The Black Book” recorded their sins of omission and commission, their peculiar vices, their special weaknesses, their financial status, the condition of their domestic relations, and the degree of affection they had for relatives and friends. Their connection with, and their influence over, influential men in politics, industry, and religion was carefully noted.

In November 1916, a member of Parliament tried to expose the real character of the “Glass Club”. Three army officers, who had patronized the club, became suspicious that it was a vast espionage system, after an attempt had been made to blackmail them into giving information that would have been valuable to the enemy. Their adventure involved an Australian lady, her chauffeur, and the wives, and daughters of several highly placed government officials.[2]

The effort to make known the true facts was suppressed, but mention of “The Black Book” was made in Parliament, and in the public press. The government’s policy was said to be based on the contention that a scandal of such magnitude could prove a national calamity at a time when the armed forces at sea, on land, and in the air, were meeting severe reverses.

The Liberal press began to attack the Prime Minister. He was accused of harbouring men within his government who were unfit to hold office. He was accused of having had extensive dealings with German industrialists and financiers prior to the war. He was accused of being friendly towards the Kaiser. He was accused of being unable to make prompt and firm decisions. He was ridiculed as “Wait-and-see-Asquith”. My companion told me that evidence against high officials involved in the “Glass Club” scandal caused the Government to resign. Thus, according to my companion, the British Empire was forced to change political Horses in the middle of a World War. When Mr. Asquith did resign in December 1916 he was superseded by a coalition government headed by David Lloyd George. Winston Churchill and Mr. Balfour were two of the more prominent members.

Shortly after hearing the above story, I was struck by the fact that the three army officers mentioned were reported in the official lists as “Killed in action”. In war-time such a thing is quite possible. Next came a brief notice that the Australian lady, and her chauffeur, had been imprisoned under the Defence of the Realm Act. Then came an announcement that the member of parliament involved in the case had retired from public life. A few weeks later I was taken off duty as King’s Messenger and appointed as Navigating Officer of British Submarines. We did lose 33 per cent of our officers and men but I was one of those to survive.

It was not until long after the war, when I was studying modern history and comparative religions, that I began to realize the vast importance of political Zionism to those who planned to obtain undisputed control of the world’s economy. The following historical events speak for themselves.

When war broke out in 1914 the Rt. Hon. H.H. Asquith was Prime Minister. He was an Anti-Zionist. The International Bankers decided that Asquith’s Government had to go and be replaced by a coalition government in which David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill would wield great influence. Lloyd George had for years been Solicitor for the Zionist movement as planned and financed by the Rothschilds. Winston Churchill had been a supporter of political Zionism from the time he first entered politics.

In 1917 the International Bankers were supporting both the Bolshevik and Zionist movements. It would seem incredible that the British Cabinet didn’t know what was going on, particularly when the British Government had had to intervene to get Trotsky and his revolutionary leaders released after they had been detained in Halifax while on their way from New York to Russia.

The overthrow of the Russian Empire was bound to cause the withdrawal of the mighty Russian Armies from the war on the side of the Allied Powers. The German Armies, which had been engaged on the Eastern Front, would be free to re-inforce the Armies fighting against the allied forces on the Western Front.

Despite this knowledge, nothing was done to prevent the plans of the International Financiers reaching maturity.

The British Government was aware of the serious conditions brewing in regard to Russia. This is proved by the fact that the matter was discussed by the cabinet and a decision was reached to send Lord Kitchener to Russia for the purpose of re-organizing the Russian military forces. Lord Kitchener sailed from Scapa Flow aboard the H.M.S. Hampshire. She was mysteriously sunk during the night of June 5th, 1916. Lord Kitchener was lost with all but a dozen of the crew. The survivors drifted ashore on a life-raft. The British Government announced H.M.S. Hampshire was sunk by a German U-boat or a German mine. This has been proved to be a lie.

I investigated this incident very thoroughly. In a previous book Hell’s Angels of the Deep published in 1932, I PROVED H.M.S. Hampshire had not been sunk by an enemy torpedo or mine. H.M.S. Hampshire was sunk by either sabotage or due to an error of judgment on the part of her navigating officer. Judging all evidence available, I was convinced that H.M.S. Hampshire sank after striking the submerged North Shoals Rocks. It is hard to believe that a skilled and experienced naval navigator committed such an error of judgment. I still believe that a saboteur probably tampered with the magnets in the steering compass. Gyro compasses were not then standard equipment and even ships that had them found the Sperry models very unreliable as I know from personal experience.

General Erich Von Ludendorf (who was Chief of Staff and shared with General Hindenburg the leadership of Germany’s military might), also studied the circumstances surrounding the loss of H.M.S. Hampshire and Lord Kitchener’s death. He states positively “Action by German naval units, either U-boats or mine-layers, had nothing to do with the sinking of the ship.” He said he had arrived at the conclusion that the death of Lord Kitchener was An act of God, because had he lived he would undoubtedly have re-organized the Russian Armies and trained them into the most formidable fighting force. The General then remarked “Had he done this the Bolsheviks would have come into possession of one of the most formidable fighting machines the world has ever known. Such a force would have enabled Communism to sweep over the whole world.”

I maintain that the International Bankers could not afford to have the Russian Armies re-organized until AFTER the Menshevik uprising, and after Kerensky’s provisional government had been overthrown in 1917. It is very doubtful if Lenin and Trotsky could have accomplished what they did if Lord Kitchener had been able to re-organize, discipline, and train, the Russian armed forces in 1916. History also records that Winston Churchill and Lord Kitchener had quarrelled seriously over military policy during 1914–1916. Lord Kitchener had bitterly opposed Churchill’s idea of sending the Naval Division to Antwerp in 1914. He had also opposed Churchill’s plan to capture the Dardanelles. Both ventures proved to be costly mistakes. The Dardanelles venture could have succeeded, and would probably have ended the war in 1916, if Churchill had waited until both army and naval forces were ready to co-operate jointly.

When Churchill insisted that the naval forces attack the Dardanelles alone he notified the enemy of intended strategy. After Churchill had committed the initial blunder the army was ordered to participate. Lord Kitchener’s objections were overruled. His advice was ignored. The allied military forces committed to the assault on the Dardanelles were insufficient in numbers, improperly trained, poorly equipped for such a task, and badly supported both in regard to provisions, medical aid, and reinforcements. They were forced to attack first class troops whose leaders had been alerted to their danger. The allied military and naval forces were required to overcome military and naval obstacles that had not been in existence when Churchill ordered the first naval assault. The Dardanelles campaign was doomed to failure from the start.

The more we study the methods employed by the Secret Powers behind international affairs, the more obvious it is to see that they make private assassinations look like accidents or suicides; sabotage look like carelessness, errors of judgment, and unintentional blunders committed due to excusable circumstances.

The only possible consideration that could justify the policy of the coalition government in 1916, in regard to Russia, was the fact that the government knew they could not obtain financial backing, or military aid from America until AFTER the Russian government had been overthrown. Such a statement seems preposterous, but it is supported by the following facts :

The Mensheviks started the Russian Revolution February 1917.

The Tzar abdicated March 15th, 1917.

Jacob H. Schiff, senior partner of Kuhn-Loeb & Co. of New York, immediately removed the restrictions he had imposed extending financial aid to the Allies. Mortimer Schiff was then ordered by his father Jacob to cable Sir Ernest Cassels — “Because of recent action in Germany and developments in Russia we shall no longer abstain from Allied government financing.”

On April 5th the British government announced that it was sending Rt. Hon. Arthur James Balfour, the Foreign Secretary, to the United States, to notify the American bankers that the British government was prepared to officially endorse their plans for political Zionism provided they would bring America into the war on the side of the Allies. America came into the war. On June 7th, 1917, the first American troops landed in France.

On July 18th, 1917 Lord Rothschild wrote Mr. Balfour as follows :

“Dear Mr. Balfour :

At last I am able to send you the formula you asked for. If His Majesty’s government will send me a message in line with this formula, and they and you approve it, I will hand it to the Zionist Federation at a meeting to be called for that purpose.”

The draft declaration was as follows :

(1) “His Majesty’s government accepts the principle that PALESTINE should be reconstituted as a national home for the Jewish people.[3]

His Majesty’s government will use its best endeavours to secure the achievement of this object, and will discuss the necessary methods and means with the Zionist organization.”[4]

Mr. Balfour, and the British government, agreed to the terms dictated by Lord Rothschild and his Zionist confreres. This is proved by the fact that on August 28th. Sir Herbert Samuel, (he was subsequently made a Viscount), Sir Alfred Mond, (he was subsequently made a Lord), and Lord Rothschild persuaded the British cabinet to send Lord Reading to the U.S.A. as head of the Economic Mission. Lord Reading, when Sir Rufus Isaacs, had been mixed up in the Marconi scandal.

The details of the deal he negotiated with the U.S.A. government in September 1917 have never been made known. It is known, however, that the deal had to do with the Bank of England because it was completely re-organized, under American supervision, and physically rebuilt after 1919.[5]

In September, Jacob Schiff of Kuhn-Loeb & Co. wrote a long letter dealing with the Zionist question to a Mr. Friedman. In it the following passages occur : “I do believe that it might be feasible to secure the good-will of America, Great Britain and France,[6] in any event, towards the promotion of a large influx, and settlement of our people in Palestine … further it might be possible to obtain from the Powers the formal assurance to our people that they shall obtain autonomy in Palestine as soon as their numbers become large enough to justify this.”

September 26th, 1917 — Louis Marshall, legal representative of Kuhn-Loeb & Co. wrote his friend Max Senior, another leading Zionist, as follows : “Major Lionel de Rothschild, of the League for British Jews, informs me that his organization is in agreement with the American Jewish Committee … The Balfour Declaration, with its acceptance by the Powers, is an act of the highest diplomacy. Zionism is but an incident of a far-reaching plan : It is merely a convenient peg on which to hang a powerful weapon. All protests they (the opponents) may make would be futile. It would subject them individually to hateful and concrete examples of a most impressive nature. I would shrink from the possibilities which might result.”

Here we have a blunt admission from Louis Marshall, that “Zionism is but an incident of a far reaching plan … it is merely a convenient peg on which to hang a powerful weapon.” The far reaching plan referred to cannot be anything else than the Long Range Plan to which continual reference has already been made. It is a plan by which the International Financiers intend to win ultimate undisputed control of the wealth, natural resources, and man-power of the entire world.

A few of the more important historical events which bear out the above statement are as follows :

On January 28th, 1915, Mr. Asquith, Prime Minister of England wrote in his diary : “I just received from Herbert Samuel a memorandum headed The Future of Palestine … He thinks we might plant in this territory about three or four million European Jews. It read almost like a new edition of Tancred brought up to date. I confess I am not attracted by this proposed addition to our responsibilities”, etc. Thus Asquith proved himself Anti-Zionist.

Prominent Zionists owned most, if not all, of Britain’s major war industries. For no good reason, in 1915-1916, Britain suddenly found herself short of chemicals needed in the manufacturing of explosives. Guns and munitions which had been promised our Russian allies failed to materialize. Shells for our guns were so scarce they had to be rationed. The Asquith government was accused of bungling the war effort. But let us examine the facts.

Sir Frederick Nathan was in charge of chemical production. Messrs. Brunner & Mond were credited with doing all they could to correct the critical situation which had arisen. Using GOVERNMENT FUNDS they constructed a large chemical factory at Silveltown. Sir Alfred Mond was appointed His Majesty’s Commissioner of Works. He afterwards became head of the Jewish agency in Palestine.

Work on the factory was rushed ahead. The factory was brought into production in record time. Bouquets were passed around and honours bestowed upon the wealthy Zionist financiers who were supposedly doing so much for the British war effort. BUT AS SOON AS THE SILVERTOWN FACTORY CAME INTO PRODUCTION IT BLEW UP WITH THE LOSS OF FORTY LIVES. Over eight hundred buildings and homes were demolished.[7]

Because of the failure of Britain to deliver arms and munitions to Russia as promised, severe military reverses were experienced on the Eastern Front. Newspapers reported Russian troops were fighting with sticks and bare fists until slaughtered by well-armed German troops. A letter written by Professor Bernard Pares, (Professor Pares was knighted afterwards) to Lloyd George would indicate that the guns and munitions promised the Imperial Russian government were deliberately withheld to create conditions favourable for the revolution then being planned in Geneva and New York by the international bankers. Professor Pares’ letter, written in 1915, reads in part :

“I have to submit my strong opinion that the unfortunate failure of Messrs. Vickers-Maxim & Co. to supply Russia with munitions which were to have reached the country five months ago, is gravely jeopardizing the relations of the two countries, and in particular their co-operation in the work of the present war … I AM DEFINITELY TOLD THAT SO FAR NO SUPPLIES WHATEVER HAVE REACHED RUSSIA FROM ENGLAND.” David Lloyd George, at the time the letter was written was chancellor of the Exchequer and responsible for financing the war. Messrs. Vickers-Maxim & Co. were controlled by Sir Ernest Cassels business associate of Kuhn-Loeb & Co. of New York, who in turn, were affiliated with the Rothschilds, and the international bankers of England, France, Germany, etc.

When Professor Pare’s letter was discussed by the cabinet, Lloyd George is alleged to have defended the government’s policy by saying “Charity should start at home. Our British soldiers fighting in France have only got four machine-guns to a battalion. They should be better armed before we export arms to Russia.”

Lord Kitchener is reported to have replied. “I consider more than four machine-guns per battalion a luxury when our failure to deliver the arms we promised to Russia has resulted in the Russians having only ONE rifle available for every six men.”

The agents of the international conspirators were ordered to smear Lord Kitchener and they circulated the story all over the world that Lord Kitchener had stated he considered more than four machine-guns to a battalion of British soldiers, fighting in France, a luxury. This smear and untruth has continued to this very day. It appeared in the biography of David Lloyd George recently published. It appeared in a review of the biography which appeared recently in the Toronto Star Weekly. I sent the editor of the Star Weekly the truth regarding this important historical event. He replied it was too much dynamite for him to handle. He informed me he had handed my correspondence to the Daily Star. Needless to say the TRUTH was never published.

This is a typical illustration of how the international conspirators smear the reputations of honest men, even dead men, in order to cover up their own wrong-doing. It illustrates perfectly how their agents use the press of the world to mis-inform the public so they will blame innocent men, and even their own governments, for the harm done as the result of their machinations.

To prove that Vickers-Maxim & Co. were under the influence of Kuhn-Loeb & Co. at this time, Boris Brazel [Brasol] says : “On February 4th, 1916 the Russian Revolutionary Party of America held a meeting in New York which was attended by 62 delegates … It was revealed that secret reports had just reached the Party from Russia designating the moment as favourable … the assembly was assured that ample funds would be furnished by persons in sympathy with the liberating of the people of Russia. In this connection the name of Jacob Schiff was repeatedly mentioned.”[8]

Jacob Schiff was at that time senior member of Kuhn-Loeb & Co. of New York. Approximately 50 of the 62 people attending the meeting on Feb. 4th, 1916 were men who had taken an active part in the Russian Revolution in 1905. Once again they were to be used to foment revolutionary action, but Jacob Schiff had planned that the fruits of victory were to be usurped by Lenin, in the interests of the international bankers.

The Encyclopedia of Jewish Knowledge says of Zionism : “The World War forced the abandonment of Berlin as the centre of the organization and all authority was transferred to the Provisional Zionist Emergency Committee established in New York under the leadership of Justice L.D. Brandeis.”

Jacob de Haas writing in his book “Louis Dembitz Brandeis” says : “The (Zionist) Transfer Department … its ramifications extended through all the war-zones occupied by the Allies, and throughout Turkey, Syria, Palestine, to Trans-Jordan and Bagdad; practically not a cent of the millions handled was lost … Starting by using the good offices of the U.S.A. Dept. of State (Foreign Office) as a means of communication and deposit, it became so successful, and so reliable, it was employed by the Treasury of the U.S.A. to deliver moneys, and messages, which the government could not handle successfully … Embassies in European capitals advanced cash on the requisition of the (Zionist) Executive Secretary in New York.”

L. Fry has this to say in “Waters Flowing Eastward”, p. 51 : “From then on their influence was felt more and more in POLITICAL circles in Europe and America. In particular, the Zionist Transfer Department as it was called, was in a position to transmit funds, and informtion, to subversive elements in enemy countries.”

Next we find the Grand Orient Lodges back into the Picture of the W.R.M. again. M. Erzberger says on pp. 145-146 of “My Experience in the World War”: “On March 16th, 1916, the Alliance Israelite paid the Grand Orient of Paris the sum of 700,000 francs, and in the archives of the Grand Orient of Rome it can be proved that on March 18, 1916 the transfer of one million lire to the Grand Orient of Rome took place. I am not so naive as to imagine that the ‘Alliance Israelite’ makes use of two Grand Orients solely for the purpose of sending one million lire to Italian Jews.”

Telling of events AFTER Asquith had been deposed in 1916 — A.N. Field says in “All These Things”, p. 104 : “Jewish influence in British Politics became pronounced after the rise of Mr. Lloyd George”. L. Fry on page 55 of “Water Flowing Eastward” says : “The first official London meeting of … the Political Committee took place on Feb. 7th, 1917, in a house of Dr. Moses Gaster. There were present Lord Rothschild, James de Rothschild, (son of Edmund de Rothschild of Paris, former owner of the Rothschild colonies in Palestine) Sir Mark Sykes; – (whose house in Buckingham Gates was fully equipped as headquarters for the Zionist Cause with telegraphic apparatus, etc.), Sir Herbert Samuel, Herbert Bentwich, (later Attorney-General for Palestine) Harry Sacher, Joseph Cowen, Chaim Weizmann, and Nahum Sokolov.[9] The Zionist programme to serve as a basis for official negotiations covering the future mandates of Palestine, Armenia, Mesopotamia, and the kingdom of the Hedjaz, was discussed in detail.”

J.M.N. Jeffries op. cit. p. 139 contributes this further information “The minutes of this meeting were communicated forthwith in cipher to the Zionist organization of the United States … From now on the political Zionist organization in the United States began to take a hand in the shaping of British policy, and the ordering of British affairs.”

To illustrate the power the international bankers exercise over the British government’s affairs Samuel Landman is quoted.[10] He says “After an agreement had been arrived at between Sir Mark Sykes, Weizmann, and Sokolov, it was resolved to send a secret message to Justice Brandeis that the British cabinet would help the Jews to gain Palestine in return for active Jewish sympathy, and for support in the U.S.A. for the Allied Cause so as to bring about a radical Pro-ally tendency in the United States. This message was sent in cipher through the British Foreign Office. Secret messages were also sent to the Zionist leaders in Russia through General MacDonogh … Dr. Weizmann (one of the founders of political Zionism) was able to secure from the government the service of half a dozen younger Zionists for active work on behalf of Zionism. At that time conscription was in force, and only those engaged in work of national importance could be released from active service at the front. I remember Dr. Weizmann writing a letter to General MacDonogh (director of Military Operations) and invoking his assistance in obtaining the exemption from active service of Leon Simon, Harry Sacher, Simon Marks, Hyamson, Tolkowsky and myself. At Dr. Weizmann’s request I was transferred from the War Office (M.I.9) … to the Ministry of Propaganda … and later to the Zionist office … about December 1916. From that time onwards, for several years, Zionism was considered an ally of the British government … Passport and travel difficulties did not exist when a man was recommended by our office. For instance, a certificate signed by me was accepted by the Home Office that an Ottoman Jew was to be treated as a friendly alien and not as an enemy, which was the case of Turkish subjects.”

Study of the life of Disraeli reveals that he spent many Sunday evenings with the Rothschilds of London. It is revealed that while Kuhn-Loeb & Co. of New York were financing the Jewish revolutionaries in Russia, the London Rothschilds were the managers of the Tzarist administration in London. We also learn that the London Rothschilds were Liberals and that from 1840 to 1917 the Liberal Press controlled by the Rothschilds was consistently Anti-Russian. Disraeli informs us that in Germany the head men in politics and finance, were considered reactionaries because they didn’t allow the international bankers to do exactly as they wanted to do. Baron von Bleichroeder of Berlin and the Warburgs of Hamburg were the Rothschild representatives in Germany. In Russia the Weinsteins of Odessa assisted the Ginzbergs in St. Petersburg to look after the Rothschild interests.

Another man who was very active on the part of the international bankers was Otto Kahn. He cleverly hid his true colours, as a world revolutionary, behind the national flags of the several countries in which he lived and pretended to be a Patriotic citizen. Mr. Otto Kahn was born in Germany. He migrated to the United States the same as Paul Warburg did. Like Warburg he also became a partner in Kuhn-Loeb & Co. Kahn, upon arriving in America, obtained employment as a clerk with Speyer & Co. so as not to make matters too obvious. He later on married the grand-daughter of Mr. Wolf, one of the founders of Kuhn-Loeb & Co. When Mrs. Kahn visited Moscow in 1931 she was officially received by the Soviet government which gave a grand dinner and several brilliant receptions in her honour. The Red armies of Stalin lined the roads as she passed along, and the soldiers presented arms as she passed by.[11]

On April 2nd, 1934 an article appeared in the Daily Herald in which Mr. Hannen Swaffer wrote : “I knew Otto Kahn, the multimillionaire, for many years. I knew him when he was a patriotic German. I knew him when he was a patriotic American. Naturally when he wanted to enter the (British) House of Commons, he joined the Patriotic Party.” Mr. Otto Kahn would have become President of the English-speaking Union if his revolutionary activities had not been accidentally exposed when it was proved that his house was the meeting place for Soviet agents such as Nina Smorodin, Claire Sheridan, Louise Bryant, and Margaret Harrison.

In the summer of 1917 the problem of who was to finance Lenin and Trotsky during their joint revolutionary effort in Russia had to be solved. The international bankers decided that their representatives would meet in Stockholm, Sweden, because that country was neutral, and comparatively free from international spies. Among those attending the meeting were men representing the banking interests in Britain, Germany, France, Russia, and the United States of America. Mr. Protopopoff, the Russian Minister of the interior was there, and so was Mr. Warburg of Hamburg. He was the brother of Paul Warburg who was a partner in the Kuhn-Loeb & Company of New York, who had drafted the legislation for the Federal Reserve System in 1910. It will be seen that in order to decide how finances should be arranged for Lenin and Trotsky to overthrow the Russian government, delegates attended from ALL warring nations. It was finally decided that Kuhn-Loeb of New York should place $50,000,000 to the credit of Lenin and Trotsky in the bank of Sweden.

Both British and American Intelligence officers reported these facts to their respective governments in 1917. Commander E.N. Cromie died fighting off a revolutionary mob which attacked the British Consulate in St. Petersburg. He held them off in order to give his confreres time to burn documents relating to this and other matters.[12]

The American government forwarded to the British government reports they had received from their intelligence officers. Mr. Oudendyke, the Netherlands Minister in Petrograd (who looked after the British interests in Russia after Commander Cromie was murdered also warned the British government. His warning was published in April 1919 as part of a White Paper on the Bolshevik Revolution published by the King’s Printer.

The plans Jacob Schiff had made to allow Trotsky, and his band of revolutionary leaders, to return to St. Petersburg from New York went away when Trotsky was detained by Canadian government officials in Halifax, Nova Scotia, while en route. The power the international bankers exercise over constitutional governments is fully illustrated by the fact that immediately they protested to the governments concerned, Trotsky and his whole gang of revolutionary gangsters, were released and given safe conduct through the British Blockade Zone.

Further proof of the British politicians’ complicity in the Russian Revolution of 1917 was obtained by D. Petrovsky who explains the part played by Sir G. Buchanan, the Ambassador.[13] Petrovsky proves that, although fully informed of all that was going on behind the scenes, Lloyd George’s government aided the international bankers to put Trotsky and his revolutionary leaders into Russia while at the same time the German High Command aided the international bankers to get Lenin and his gang of revolutionary leaders from Switzerland to Petrograd. Lenin and his followers were provided with a private railway coach for their journey across Germany.

Mr. Petrovsky reveals that Milioukoff, who had been appointed Minister for Foreign Affairs by the Russian Republican government in the Spring of 1917, was the man who negotiated this intrigue which involved both warring nations. It is also recorded that in appreciation for the cooperation given by the German General Staff the government of Great Britain agreed to Milioukoff’s request that M.M. Litvinov be released. He had been arrested by British Intelligence officers as a spy for Germany. The identification of M.M. Litvinov proves of great interest. He was born to parents whose name was Finklestein. When he joined the World Revolutionary Movement he changed his name to Meyer Wallach. When he was closely associated with Lenin and his Bolshevik Party he changed his name once again to Maxim Litvinov. He is the same man referred to as Litvinov the German Spy and he is the same man who had been arrested while trying to cash the five hundred ruble notes Stalin had obtained when he bombed, and robbed, the Tifilis bank.

Following his release by the British authorities Litvinov returned to Russia. He aided Lenin to overthrow the Kerensky Provisional Government, and the Menshevik Soviet established in St. Petersburg prior to October 1917. Litvinov was Stalin’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs from 1930 to 1939. He was appointed a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party in 1935. His ability as an assassin; receiver of stolen money, spy, international gangster, and leader of revolutionary efforts in several countries was acclaimed by the nations of the world when he was appointed President of the Council of the United Nations. Only an international group, such as the international bankers, could have saved this man’s life, and assured him his liberty when he was carrying out the criminal aspects of international intrigue. Only the power and influence of the international bankers could have caused him to be elected president of the United Nations Council. This illustrates the fact that the Illuminati control those who control the United Nations.

Other evidence is available to prove that the international bankers of the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany and Russia worked together even after Germany and Britain were at war. It is contained in a pamphlet entitled Trostky (Defender Publishers, Wichita, Kansas) which quotes a letter written by J.M. Dell to Lloyd George, personally. But why go on. It would take volumes to quote all the evidence to prove that the international bankers organized, financed, and directed the Russian Revolution in order to obtain control of a vast territory so that the Illuminati could try out their ideas for totalitarianism. Only by experimenting in an area as vast as the so-called U.S.S.Rs could they find out mistakes and weaknesses by the process of trial and error. Until they had performed this experiment, which cost millions and millions of human lives, it would have been gross stupidity on their part to try to rule the whole world. Theirs has been a Long Range Plan. It started 3,000 years ago. It was revised at the meeting in Bauer’s Goldsmith Shop in Frankfort in 1773. Unless united action is taken, it is likely to end when they take over economical and political control after World War Three.

It will thus be seen that the Coalition Government which took over the prosecution of the war from Prime Minister Asquith, in December 1916, made no effort to stop the international bankers from proceeding with their plans for the Russian Revolution, even when they knew its success would cause the Russian armies to be withdrawn from the war. Proof that the Zionists in both Britain and the U.S.A. agreed that the Russian Imperial government should be overthrown, is to be found in the fact that immediately Lenin announced he had established his dictatorship in November 1917, Lloyd George also announced that the policy of the British government would be to back the Rothschild plan for the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. This proves Lloyd George held no resentment towards the international bankers for taking Russia out of the war as an ally of Britain.

The Jewish-dominated Menshevik revolutionaries in Russia had fought the abortive revolution in 1905. They also started the revolution in February 1917. Once again they met with great success during the first stages of the revolutionary effort. They actually established a Soviet in Petrograd. The international bankers didn’t mind who carried the ball until it was near the goal, but as soon as the ball carrier got into position to score they stepped in and took over the play. Their goal was to bring about a totalitarian Dictatorship operated on the JOINT STOCK COMPANY PRINCIPLE : Lenin was made Dictator. They remained behind the scene. The Communist “Mob” was blamed for their crimes against humanity.

On July 17, 1917 the Bolsheviks under Lenin started an anti-government agitation in Russia. This resulted in an uprising by thousands of the city’s inflamed worker-soldier population. This abortive revolt is known as “The July Days”. Kerensky dealt with the situation firmly. The mobs were fired upon, several hundred people were killed, but order was restored. The Bolshevik leaders fled. Some were arrested. Lenin and Zinoviev hid in Sestroretsk. Trotsky, Kamenev, and Lunarcharsky were amongst those arrested. Stalin, who was at that time editor of Pravda, was not molested. After the revolt Prince Lvov resigned and Kerensky the Jewish Napoleon became Prime Minister. Kerensky was a great orator. He tried to whip up enthusiasm for the war effort amongst the soldiers and workers. All Kerensky’s oral efforts failed.

Kerensky’s influence began to decline steadily. Lenin was busy. He called for the Sixth Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party to be held August 8th to 16th. He came out of it leader of the unified revolutionary groups. Within a year the united revolutionary party called itself THE COMMUNIST PARTY. At the congress a secret committee was formed called the October Central Committee. It consisted of 26 members who were to plan the October Revolution and then direct the revolutionary effort in all its various phases. Stalin made the grade at last. He was elected to the presidium of the Sixth Party Congress. The majority of students believe Stalin wouldn’t even have been given notice if many of the other experienced revolutionary leaders hadn’t been in jail, but the truth is, Lenin was acting as Chief Agent for the “Secret Powers”. They had plans to use Stalin to supersede others.

The idea of the Central Committee to organize the October Revolution was to anticipate the Provisional Government’s intention to call a general election in which the secret ballot would be used to elect a representative constitutional government to rule the Russian Empire. Lenin felt that if his bid for power was to succeed he had to make it before the Constitutional Assembly met in January to arrange the nation-wide election. If this election was ever held the people would have their own representatives in the government. He felt it would be harder to get the support necessary to overthrow a peoples’ government than it would to overthrow the Provisional Government. In this he proved right.

Strange as it may seem, in the light of future events, Kamenev was released from prison August 17th, and Trotsky exactly a month later. By September 24th, Trotsky was elected president of the Petersburg Soviet in place of Cheidze. On September 26th the Petersburg Soviet voted to transfer all military power to a Military Revolutionary Committee under the leadership of Trotsky. The real Lenin revolution was by now only a few days away. Lenin was proving what proper planning and time-table precision, backed by unlimited financial aid, could accomplish. He knew how to use the element of surprise advantageously. He rapidly convinced many leaders of other revolutionary groups that he was the man to direct the revolutionary war. He soon had everyone under discipline. The leaders were required to obey orders efficiently, and without question — or else.

The revolutionary leaders circulated an order that the second AllRussian Congress of the Soviets would meet November 7th. This was a “red” herring, drawn across the trail to make the general public believe that no revolutionary action was pending in the immediate future. On November 4th, however, the Military Revolutionary Committee arranged huge mass meetings preparatory for the actual revolt. The next day, November 5th, the garrison of Peter and Paul declared itself in alliance with the Bolsheviks. On November 6th Kerensky made a desperate effort to forestall the revolution by ordering the arrest of the Military Revolutionary Committee. He banned all Bolshevik publications. He ordered fresh troops to replace the garrison of Peter and Paul. But Lenin had organized his Fifth Column too well, Kerensky’s orders were never carried out. Officials he trusted let him down.

Lenin sneaked out of hiding. He joined the Military Revolutionary Committee in Smolny Institute as soon as he knew Kerensky’s counterrevolutionary measures had failed. The Institute served as the revolutionary headquarters. At 2.00 A.M.November 7th, the order to begin the organized revolutionary effort was given. By noon, St. Petersburg was largely in Lenin’s hands. At 3.00 P.M. he delivered a fiery speech to the Petersburg Soviet. By 9.00 P.M. Bolshevik troops were besieging the Winter Palace headquarters of the Provisional Government. At 11.00 P.M. the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets met and the Bolsheviks had a clear majority. The Congress thus became the official government of Russia. Kamenev was elected the first president. Lenin became Premier. Trotsky became Commissar of Foreign Affairs. On November 21st a Jew by the name of Sverdlov succeeded Kamenev. He had been in the Bolshevik Party only six months and was considered a very minor figure but, after being elected president, he quickly assumed absolute control of the Russian economy. He was a specially trained financial expert and agent of the Bankers.

Many things happen in revolutionary circles which never come to light. Sverdlov died, a very young man, only two years after he reorganized the Russian internal economy. He had served his purpose. He knew too much, so he died. Thus history repeats itself.

Bloody battles, which might better be described as wholesale massacres, and the ruthlessly conducted “Reign of Terror” proved the theory that utter ruthlessness and organized terror, in which physical sufferings are combined with mental anguish, and moral degradation, have definite economic value, because the Bolsheviks obtained undisputed control of Petersburg within a few days. Lenin didn’t allow success to go to his head. The Russian Empire was large. He craftily allowed the elections, for which the Provisional Government had set up the machinery, to be held on November 25th.

The Provisional Government had planned that the convocation of the Assembly of freely elected representatives should be organized by a special commission. Lenin let everything go according to schedule and then he arrested the members of this special commission. He substituted for it a “Commissary for the Constitutional Assembly”. The only difference between the one and the other was that Bolsheviks headed by Uritzky dominated the one Lenin had formed. By this move the Bolsheviks were in a position to exert authority over the newly elected Assembly as soon as it convened. When the Assembly did finally convene Sverdlov took charge of the proceedings ALTHOUGH HE WAS NOT A DELEGATE. The Bolsheviks present resorted to tactics which kept the delegates in a constant uproar. They created utter confusion. After ten hours the Bolsheviks all walked out suddenly. Bolshevik troops walked in. They ejected the remaining delegates and locked the doors of the building. This was the end of Constitutional rule in Russia.

In March, 1918, the Bolsheviks, who called themselves “The Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party” moved to Moscow and changed their name to the Communist Party. The second All-Russian Congress of Soviets now became the official governing body.

The Jewish-led Social Revolutionary Party did not want Lenin as Number One man in Russia. On August 30th, 1918 two Jewish members of this group tried to assassinate him. Lenin was wounded and Uritzky, whom Lenin had appointed head of his Cheka organization, was killed.

This incident gave Lenin the excuse for pulling out all stops. He turned on terrorism at full blast. Night raids became regular occurrences. No person knew, when he went to bed, if he would be alive in the morning. David Shub in his Pro-Marxist book “Lenin” says : “Little time was wasted sifting evidence, or classifying people rounded up, in these night raids … The prisoners were generally hustled to the old police station, near the Winter Palace and shot.” Murder, torture, mutilation, rape, burning; these and all other outrages against human sentiment and decency, were the impregnable rocks upon which the so-called Soviet Socialist Republic was founded. Millions of Russian citizens died. It is estimated that more than 12,000,000 others were condemned to serve the State at Forced Labour until they were released by death.

And while the allies were half-heartedly fighting Bolshevism on four fronts, Lenin re-organized the W.R.M. In March, 1919, he convened the Third International. He presided. Zinoviev was elected president. The purpose of the meeting was to consolidate the revolutionary parties in every country in the world, and to arrange to provide the leaders with advice, financial aid, and any other assistance considered necessary to the success of Popular World Revolution.[14]

Cultural/Ideological Divide

What If Everything We’ve Been Told About Recent History Is a Lie?

August 1, 2018 Algora Blog Leave a comment

“Behind the War on Terror is a strategic plan crafted decades in advance to redraw the map of the Middle East. 9/11 was a false-flag operation blamed on Muslims …”

By Chuck Baldwin

It is totally amazing to me that the same people who say they don’t believe the mainstream media (MSM) and government (Deep State) versions of current events—which is why they voted for and love Donald Trump—have absolutely no reservations about accepting the official story that the 9/11 attacks were the work of jihadist Muslims and that America’s “War on Terror” is completely legitimate.

These “always Trumpers” are dead set in their minds that America is at war with Islam; that Trump’s bombings of Syria were because President Assad is an evil, maniacal monster who gassed his own people; and that Trump’s expansion of the war in Afghanistan is totally in the interests of America’s national security.

BUT WHAT IF ALL OF IT IS A BIG, FAT LIE?

What if the Muslims had NOTHING to do with 9/11?

What if Bashar al-Assad did NOT gas his own people?

What if America’s “War on Terror” is a completely false, manufactured, made-up deception?

What if America’s military forces are mostly fighting for foreign agendas and NOT for America’s national security or even our national interests?

What if America’s war in Afghanistan is a fraud?

What if the entire “War on Terror” is a fraud?

The Trump robots have bought into America’s “War on Terror” as much as Obama’s robots and Bush’s robots did. Bush was elected twice, largely on the basis of America’s “War on Terror.” Obama campaigned against the “War on Terror” and then expanded it during his two terms in office. Trump campaigned against the “War on Terror” and then immediately expanded it beyond what Obama had done. In fact, Trump is on a pace to expand the “War on Terror” beyond the combined military aggressions of both Bush and Obama.

But who cares? Who even notices?

America is engaged in a global “War on Terror.” Just ask G.W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News, The Washington Post, the New York Times and the vast majority of America’s pastors and preachers. They all tell us the same thing seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. Liberals scream against Trump, and conservatives scream against Maxine Waters; but both sides come together to support America’s never-ending “War on Terror.”

But what if it’s ALL a lie? What if Obama and Trump, the right and the left, the MSM and the conservative media are all reading from the same script? What if they are all (wittingly or unwittingly) in cahoots in perpetuating the biggest scam in world history? And why is almost everyone afraid to even broach the question?

Left or right, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, secular or Christian, no one dares to question the official story about the 9/11 attacks or the “War on Terror.”

And those who do question it are themselves attacked unmercifully by the right and the left, conservatives and liberals, Christians and secularists, Sean Hannity and Chris Matthews. Why is that? Why is it that FOX News and CNN, Donald Trump and Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer and Ted Cruz equally promote the same cockamamie story about 9/11 and the “War on Terror?”

Why? Why? Why?

Tell me again how Donald Trump is so different from Barack Obama. Tell me again how Ted Cruz is so different from Chuck Schumer. They all continue to perpetuate the lies about 9/11. They all continue to escalate America’s never-ending “War on Terror.” They are all puppets of a global conspiracy to advance the agenda of war profiteers and nation builders.

The left-right, conservative-liberal, Trump-Obama paradigm is one big giant SCAM. At the end of the day, the “War on Terror” goes on, bombs keep falling on people in the Middle East who had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11 and the money keeps flowing into the coffers of the international bankers and war merchants.

All of the above is why I am enthusiastically promoting Christopher Bollyn’s new blockbuster book The War on Terror.

Of course, Bollyn is one of the world’s foremost researchers and investigators into the attacks on 9/11. He has written extensively on the subject. But unlike most other 9/11 investigators, Bollyn continued to trace the tracks of the attacks on 9/11. And those tracks led him to discover that the 9/11 attacks were NOT “the event” but that they were merely the trigger for “the event.” “What was the event?” you ask. America’s perpetual “War on Terror.”

As a result, Mr. Bollyn published his findings that the attacks on 9/11 were NOT perpetrated by Muslim extremists but by a very elaborate and well financed international conspiracy that had been in the planning for several decades. Bollyn’s research names names, places and dates and exposes the truth behind not just 9/11 (many have done that) but behind America’s “War on Terror” that resulted from the attacks on 9/11.

IT’S TIME FOR THE TRUTH TO COME OUT!

And Christopher Bollyn’s investigative research brings out the truth like nothing I’ve read to date. His research connects the dots and destroys the myths.

Mr. Bollyn’s research is published in a book entitled (full title): The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East. I mean it when I say that if enough people read this book, it could change the course of history and save our republic.

[…]
Folks, 9/11 was a deception. The “War on Terror” is a deception. The phony left-right paradigm is a deception. FOX News is as much a deception as CNN. The “always Trump” group is as much a deception as the “never Trump” group. America has been in the throes of a great deception since September 11, 2001. And this deception is being perpetrated by Republicans and Democrats and conservatives and liberals alike.

It's All About Jews

“They” – Who?

August 1, 2018 Algora Blog 1 Comment

I am always confused when I hear US this and US that … US wants this and Europe wants that. Really who is US? who are these people beyond the words US? the people of the US? certainly not … the neocons? pls. then who?

Don’t tell me it is Joe Sixpack. certainly does not seem to be el Presidente … he is just talking about Nuking poor Mehico …

So, back to the question WHO is it really. In real life that you and me can understand (we are two people and keep arguing against each other about who was first in line), how could this huge administration, media come up with a line that few people know what really is and we do not know WHAT they even want…

So, for us humble people please define first the WHO then it would be easier to understand what “they” want. Then we have to look in the past … what they have done to be expelled and get that reputation all over the world, and we could easy predict what “they” want …. in the words of George Carlin more for themselves and less for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oBo8CJxatQ

Here is Woodrow Wilson talking about WHAT this is … he was an outsider, but being president was able to observe

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” The New Freedom (1913), Page 5, Section I: “The Old Order Changeth”, by Dr. Thomas Woodrow Wilson the 28th President of the United States.

Don’t worry people, we have been here before … no worries, we will make it to the other side.

Cultural/Ideological Divide

2016 Election, Again

July 31, 2018 Algora Blog Leave a comment

Revolts and revolutions usually happen when the screws of oppression get loosened a little and when things are improving – that’s when people get confident enough to fight back.

At the moment the screws are getting tightened and things in general are getting worse. That produces demoralisation and apathy rather than revolt.

White people and social conservatives are much much more passive and demoralised now than at any time in history. The chances of a fight-back have never been smaller. If a fight-back was going to happen it would have happened in the 90s, when political correctness might still possibly have been resisted. But it wasn’t resisted. There was no fight-back.

Sorry Boomer, but the “silent majority” no longer exists. It isn’t the 1980s anymore. Trump lost the popular vote.

Did he? If so, did it matter?

Trump won 30 out of 50 states and almost 90% of counties (2700 Trump, 400 Hillary). If not for a few big cities, where Democrats have done their best to oppress minorities and make them dependent on government, Trump would have openly won the popular vote by a landslide.US counties, 2016 election.

And BTW, there’s a good reason why the leftists wanted a recount in only three states, and they still crapped out on those. The tip of a very big iceberg:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/25/john-fund-and-hans-von-spakovsky-why-trumps-probe-voter-fraud-is-long-overdue.html

Michigan Recount Exposes Clinton Electoral Fraud: Half of Detroit Votes Show Signs of Tampering
Votes in Hillary-heavy Detroit may have been counted up to 6 times

https://www.lewrockwell.com/20…

and:
Voter integrity groups True the Vote and Vote Fraud.org who both ran voter rolls against results and both came to the conclusion that at least 3 million illegals voted in THIS election.

Moreover, Pew Research (hardly a conservative outfit) and Old Dominion U have had studies since 2012 that show the percentage of illegals that vote is over 22%. CONSERVATIVE studies from numerous groups incuding Harvard claim there are at least 10 million to 15 million illegal immigrants reside in the US. ODU has consistently found 80% go to the DEM ticket meaning that conservatively, 1.8 million voted for Hillary. If you take TTV and VForg numbers – that means 2.4 million voted for Hillary – more than her winning margin.

This doesn’t even account for the other 1.8 million of dead people who are on the voter rolls or – as we saw in the Jill Stein recount – over 35% of the precincts in Detroit showed enormous vote fraud. In Las Vegas in one county 9200 REGISTERED VOTERS had mail returned for lack of correct address – yet 92% voted in the election.

http://www.newsmaxtv.vegas/huuuge-nevada-voter-fraud-uncovered-worse-than-acorn/

Western Hegemony's Collapse

China Yesterday and Today

July 25, 2018 Algora Blog Leave a comment

The main thrust of the conquest of the Americas was by Spain and what transpired was the mass mining and export of gold and silver (at horrific cost to the gunless natives both in illness and being systematically worked to death). This gold and silver was not simply to fill up Spanish coffers. No, it was to be able to open up trade routes with the Chinese Empire and diaspora, the Big Dog in the known world. Early mariners arriving in Indian ports – and later Indonesian and later Chinese – described ports larger than any in Europe, indeed large ports like Mumbai were described as containing more ships than all the ships in Europe. Mind-blowing. But Europe had no goods to offer in trade given that Asian crafts, spices, workmanship was many generations ahead of our own. We had no silks, no food, no other textiles. Portuguese and Dutch used gold and silver to buy spices, silks and furniture from the Chinese to take back to Europe in trade. Probably some Spanish did too (don’t recall those details), but for sure once they found silver and gold in the Americas, that’s what it was used for by the Spanish: trade with China.

Then what happened? The gold and silver ran out, sometime in the early 1700′s (I think). So now this is where it gets interesting. Sometime in the mid 1700′s, an Englishman commissioned an engineer to design and make a special machine (Spinning Jenny) which could make cloth faster and cheaper than by human labor. Why? So that his ships (many of which built in India because they made better ships back then) could undercut Indian cotton manufacturers (mainly housewives) and thus he would have something to trade in Asia given there was no more gold and silver to be had by plundering Spanish ships returning from the Americas. So he would sell the cotton to the Indians – which were a densely populated, sophisticated and rich multi-national continent – in exchange for gold or silver, the main currency of the Chinese-based Empire, and then continue on through Asia buying spices and so forth with that earned currency. That is what the Spinning Jenny was made for: to raise funds with which to buy Chinese product lines.

And THAT was a major catalyst for the industrial revolution and the rest, as they say, is history.

But now Eurasia is coming back, though. It’s a funny thing: if America First polity actually developed, it would allow Eurasia to develop peacefully and in so doing dismantle all its foreign bases, let banking system hegemony go and so on.

The Chinese Mandarin system is merit-based. The competition to get into lower level schools is ferocious and the main reason so many come to western schools. They can’t get into the best ones in China where they have 100 applicants for each place. Then their one-party system means that internal competition to rise through the ranks there is intense and by the time someone gets to the top levels they are extremely experienced, well known (warts and all) and ready for the next level. We have nothing like that except our entrenched Deep State operatives who operate in the shadows much more than they do. This system is rarely analyzed but it is managing about 1.5 billion people going through rapid, massive change and doing so rather well. No other civilization right now has their experience in managing such large undertakings which is why they just got a contract to build an entire city in the Middle East a few months ago. Not Russia, not the US, nobody could have put forward a plan backed with demonstrated experience.

But again: this really isn’t about either Russia or China alone. This is a Great Game play. And unless the ‘Anglo-Zionists’ spoil the fun by dropping nukes here and there, they have already won simple because of geography and shared vision. It must be very exciting to live in central Eurasia right now.

Cultural/Ideological Divide

Preface to Gottfried Feder’s Manifesto

July 24, 2018 Algora Blog Leave a comment

by Alexander Jacob

Gottfried Feder was born in 1883 in Wurzburg and studied engineering at the Technical Universities in Munich, Berlin and Zurich. After the completion of his studies he set up a construction company of his own in 1908 under the aegis of Ackermann and Co. and undertook several projects in Bulgaria. From 1917 onwards he taught himself financial politics and economics and, in late 1918, not long after the proclamation of the Weimar Republic by Philipp Scheidemann in November of that year, Feder wrote a manifesto on usury[1] and sent it to the Kurt Eisner government, though he obtained no response. The Treaty of Versailles signed in June 1919 which determined Germany as solely responsible for the war and liable to reparations caused Feder to fear that Germany was now firmly in the hands of the international financiers. In September of that year, Feder established a militant league (Kampfbund) for the breaking of interest slavery and the nationalisation of the state bank. His anti-capitalism was bound also to racialism insofar as the international financiers were considered to be mostly Jews.

Feder’s nationalist efforts drew him into a close alliance with the anti-Communist activist Anton Drexler (1884-1942) and Dietrich Eckart (1868-1923), the editor of the anti-Semitic journal Auf gut deutsch and later, of the National Socialist organ, Volkischer Beobachter. The three together formed, in January 1919, the Deutsche ArbeiterPartei(DAP)[2]. AdolfHitlerjoinedtheDAP in late September 1919 and soon emerged as the leader of the party, which he renamed the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP). Hitler too was influenced by the doctrines of the Thule society. had, even before his joining the party, attended Feder’s lectures on economic subjects and wrote later in his Mein Kampf (1925/6) of this occasion:

For the first time in my life I heard a discussion which dealt with the principles of stock-exchange capital and capital which was used for loan activities …The absolute separation of stock-exchange capital from the economic life of the nation would make it possible to oppose the process of internationalization in German business without at the same time attacking capital as such, for to do this would jeopardize the foundations of our national independence. I clearly saw what was developing in Germany and I realized then that the stiffest fight we would have to wage would not be against the enemy nations but against international capital.[3]

In the Foreword to the original 1923 edition of the current work, Der deutsche Staat, Hitler wrote that in this work the National Socialist movement had indeed acquired its “catechism”[4].

In 1920, Hitler, along with Feder and Drexler, composed the ‘25 point Programme’ of the NSDAP. This programme rejected the Treaty of Versailles and called for a reunification of German peoples along with an exclusion of aliens, especially Jews, from national life. In February 1920, Hitler held a rally in which he presented the programme to the German people. Later, in 1927, Feder published a comprehensive version of the programme entitled Das Programm der NSDAP and seine weltcmsckaulichen Grundlagen. In 1923, Feder offered a further elaboration of his national economic views in the present work, Der deutsche Staat aufnationaler undsozialer Grundlage[5], which was re- issued in 1932 in the “Nationalsozialistisdic Bibliothek” series[6].

Feder took part in Hitler’s failed Beer Hall Putsch against the Bavarian government in 1923 but was only fined 50 marks for unlawful assumption of authority since he had acted, for a day, as the new “finance minister”. In 1924, he was elected a representative to the parliament. In parliament, he demanded the confiscation of Jewish property and the freezing of interest-rates, which were key elements of the anti-capitalist programme of the party. In 1926 Hitler entrusted Feder with the editorial direction of a series of books on National Socialist ideology under the title “Nationalsozialistische Bibliothek” (National Socialist Library). In 1931, Feder was appointed chairman of the economic council of the NSDAP. But gradually, under pressure from big industrialists like Gustav Krupp, Fritz Thyssen and Emil Kirdorf, Hitler decided to distance himself from Feder’s socialist ideas.[7] With Hitler’s strategic alliance with big industrialists and capital, even foreign capital, for his intended war on Bolshevism, Feder lost most of his influence on the party since foreign banks especially would not have supported Feder’s plans for a nationalised interest-free banking system. The loss of interest in Feder’s economic policies among the party members is evidenced in Hans Reupke’s book Der Nationals ozialismus und die Wirtschaft (1931), where the author stated that it was no longer necessary to deal with the “breaking of interest slavery” in “the extreme form in which it first emerged”[8].

Thus, when Hitler assumed power in 1933, Feder was not named Economics Minister but rather only State Secretary in the Economics Ministry. However, Feder published in 1933 a collection of his essays entitled Kampf gegen die Hochfinanz as well as a book on the Jews called Die Juden. In 1934, the influential banker Hjalmar Schact was made Economics Minister since his contacts with the big industrialists made him more useful to Hitler in his rearmament aims than Feder with his stark anti-capitalist doctrines. Feder’s subordination to Hjalmar Schacht was indeed a concrete sign of his fall from grace. After the Knight of the Long Knives in 1934, when left-wing nationalists like Gregor Strasser were assassinated, Feder withdrew from the government. In 1936, he was given a new job as professor at the Technical University in Berlin which he maintained until his death in 1941.

Feder’s Deutsche Staat is indeed one of the most important treatises on National Socialist economics.[9] However, it has a precedent in the Austro-Hungarian Bohemian German, Rudolf Jung’s work, Der Nationale Sozialismus (1919). Rudolf Jung (1882-1945) was a civil engineer from Jihlava (in the current Czech Republic and former Austro-Hungarian Empire) who joined the Bohemian Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (DAP) in 1909. The DAP was founded in 1903 in Aussig (now Usti nad Labem in the Czech Republic) by Germans threatened by the increasing Jewish and Czech influence in the empire. It was renamed Deutsche Nationalsozialistische Arbeiter Partei (DNSAP) in 1918. Jung‘s work Der Nationale Sozialismus: seine Grundlagen, sein Werdegang und seine Ziele (1919) was intended as a German nationalist answer to Marx‘s Das Kapital.[10] The work is divided into two parts, the first dealing with ‘The Foundations of National Socialism’ and the second with ‘The Development and Goals of National Socialism’. Jung’s nationalism focusses on social and economic questions and, exactly like Feder, Jung stresses the difference between income derived from real work and that arising from interest.”[11] His strong socialist and anti-Jewish viewpoint is evident throughout this work:

All non-socialist parties are based in the main on “individualism”, i.e. the demand for the greatest possible freedom and lack of constraint of the individual. Economically it is expressed in Manchester liberalism and, further, in Mammonism. The ruthless ruler who is tormented by no pang of conscience is the goal, the weaker man falls thereby under the wheels. Now, since the Jew is the most ruthless, he can fare best thereby. Thus all non-socialist anti-Jewish orientations unwillingly support the rise of Jewry to world-rulership.[12]

Further, democracy itself is the vehicle of Jewish international capitalism: If we were to sum up, we might say that the entire international democracy whose alleged ideals the major press and parties represent and on whose flag they swear, is nothing but the political crystallisation of the Jewish spirit and, in the final analysis, serves no other goal but the establishment of the world-rule of Jewry.[13]

Another writer who contributed to the exact identification of the Jewish constitution of international high finance was Heinrich Pudor (1865-1943), who also wrote under the pseudonym Heinrich Scham (the German translation of the Latin “pudor”). Pudor was a vegetarian and naturist who, from 1912, published several anti-Semitic pamphlets and books including an extensive series on the international connections between the various Jewish high financiers. [14] Feder refers sympathetically to Pudor in the present work. However, Pudor’s magazine Swastika[15] was banned in 1933 by the National Socialists for its criticisms of the National Socialist leadership and the regime’s surprising toleration of Jews. Further, five issues of the series on Jewish high finance were banned including no. 13, Neues iiber Br. Roosevelt und seine jiidischen und Kommunistischen Verbindungen, and no.49, Judendammerung. “Juden unerwiinscht”. Keine jiidischen Rechtsanwdlte mehr. Ende der Judenfinanz in Deutschland, on account of what a state official, Raymund Schmidt, described as Pudor’s “no longer opportune polemical methods which were indeed exploited by the English recently for the purpose of counter-propaganda.[16]

Feder’s treatise on national economy, like Rudolf Jung’s, is remarkable for its strong moral foundation and its formulation of National Socialism as a movement for social justice as well as for national regeneration. Unlike capitalism with its “soul-destroying materialistic spirit of egoism and avarice with all its concomitant corrupting manifestations in all fields of our public, economic and cultural life” (p.47)[17] and unlike Marxism, which insists that everything should belong to the One, which might be either the State or Mammon controlling it, National Socialism wishes to revert to the mediaeval and Prussian dictum of “suum cuique”, ‘to each his own’, whereby each person will earn as much as he deserves according to his performance of work, with the fullest possible responsibility, as a duty. Economically, this moral doctrine is translated into the doctrine of serving “the public interest” before self-interest. Not profitability but fulfilment of demand is the National Socialistic basis of the economy.

Unlike Marxism, National Socialism will not prohibit private property but respect it as the privilege of the creative and productive Aryan man. On the other hand, the mobile Jewish mind has no deep connection with the land but rather exploits the productions and property of the natives financially through all sorts of legal claims, bonds and mortgages, whereby “property” is turned into a profitable “possession” (p. 18). In order to counter these avaricious strategies of the Jews, the National Socialist state will enforce limitations on the right to property, personal or commercial, so that in all cases the welfare of the whole, the nation, rather than of individuals will be first served. In Feder’s discussion of the party’s programme in Part II, we note that, since the social policy is “the welfare of the whole”, the financial policy of the National Socialist state is accordingly directed against those financial powers who tend to develop “a state within the state” (p.44). As he puts it:

In the last and deepest analysis, it is a matter of the battle of two world-views that are expressed through two fundamentally different intellectual structures – the productive and creative spirit and the mobile avaricious spirit. The creative spirit rooted in the soil and yet again overcoming the world in metaphysical experience finds its principal representatives in Aryan man — the avaricious, rootless commercial and materialistic spirit directed purely to the this-worldly finds its principal representative in the Jew (p.47).

The strength of Germany before the war was due to its unity under Bismarck and its efficient industrial sector. This advantage was undermined by the dependence of the economy on the credit system of the banks and “the inventors and bearers of the modern credit system” are the Jews (p. 54). The mediaeval system of credit was based on the belief (“credo”) of the creditor that his money could be used to greater economic advantage by the debtor whereby the debtor, if successful in his enterprise, may return a share of his profits in gratitude to the creditor. Standardised interest, on the other hand, was forbidden by the Church as usury (p.71). Feder advocates a return to the conception of money as a token of “performed work” or of a product so that money cannot, independently of any work, be hoarded for the purpose of being lent out later at interest.

Feder further points out that it is the stock-market that lies at the basis of the alienation of capital from work:

Anonymisation – the depersonalisation of our economy through the stock-marketable form of the public limited company – has to a certain degree separated capital from work, the share-holder knows in the rarest instances something of his factory, he has only the one-sided interest in the profitability of his money when he has invested it in the form of shares (p.55)

Apart from the indifference of the shareholder to the quality of the goods produced by the company in which he invests, the market in general has diverted production from its legitimate task of fulfilling real needs to that of stirring up – through the Jewish market-crier’s technique of advertising – artificial needs among the public that will bring in greater profits. This fundamental transformation of national economics has been supported in academic circles by Jewish scholars who restrict their economic analyses to descriptions of the current economic system rather than investigating its social and political legitimacy. This sort of intellectual subversion is further continued by the Jewish intelligentsia in the fields of art, entertainment and the press.

The major source of the current distress of Germany is indeed the interest owed to large loan capital. The burden of interest has indebted entire nations to international high finance and forced them to become interest-collectors for the latter which they do by taxing the working people ever harder. Feder rightly calls this false economic process an “international fraud” (p. 86). The power of international finance has however grown so great that it was able to encircle Germany as soon as it perceived that its currency was rising in strength and independence. Once they succeeded in militarily defeating Germany, the international financial powers then enforced further enormous debt burdens on it through the Treaty of Versailles. Feder therefore proposes the cancellation of the payment of the interest on these debts to the Allies (p.97). Indeed, the remedy to the interest burdens of all nations to international finance is the legal abolition of interest (p. 94). And this is simultaneously the solution to the Jewish question itself: The solution of the interest problem is the solution of the Jewish question.

The solution of the interest problem in the sense of our explanations is the breaking of the Jewish world-rule, because it smashes the power of world Jewry – its financial power.

The fullest representation of the socio-economic interests of a nation should be the state, and its industries should be models of efficiency and commercial success. One example of such an industry in Germany is indeed the transport industry and especially the German railways. Unlike Bolshevism, which seeks to control all production, the National Socialist state will, through the establishment of storage and distribution cooperatives under state supervision (p. 17), remove only the avaricious interference of private commerce between production and consumption. As the means of exchange necessary for the exchange of goods, money will be under the control of the state through a nationalised state bank.

Instead of borrowing money from private banks, the state should, in the case of all large public works projects, finance the latter though the issuance of interest-free notes of its own. The Reichsbank’s sovereignty of issuing notes must be regained through nationalisation (p. 72). Freed of interest-burdens to banks, the state will ultimately be able to operate in a mostly tax-free manner (Ch.22, ‘The state without taxes’). Taxes will be restricted to the coverage of non-productive tasks such as the administration of justice, the police system, medical and educational systems, if the commercial enterprises of the state such as the railways post and telegraph, mining and forestry do not present surpluses wherewith to pay for these tasks (p.92). International transactions should be conducted through a clearing system rather like that of the international postal union “without the international finance benefiting two or three times in all these simple mercantile operations and becoming big and fat at the cost of the productive nations” (p. 77).

But the state must be powerful if it is to effect any reforms. Unfortunately, the Weimar Republic has abjectly accepted the monstrous burden of guilt after the war with the result that “the members of the Chosen People can, on these reparations, forever lead a glamorous work-free life in all the countries of the world at the cost of German work.” (p. 19). The crisis faced by Germany after the war was facilitated by parliamentarianism and Mammonism. The “great democratic lie of the capacity of the people for self-government” is to be combated along with the real capitalistic rulers of democracies. Marxism likewise is a sham socialist system that employs the dissatisfaction of those exploited by Mammonism for the benefit of the “handlers for international capital” in order to “divert from themselves the hatred of the exploited” (p. 25).

The majority of the principal Marxists as well as Mammonists are Jews, and so “The Jewish question is becoming a world-question on whose solution the welfare and woe of the nations will be dependent” (p. 26). The solution of this question cannot be through violence since “indeed one cannot kill the plague bacillus individually, one can only eradicate it by cutting off its life necessities from it” (p.26). A suggestion of what might be done to reduce their ill-earned gains is contained in point 1 7 of the party’s programme which envisages creation of legal possibilities of confiscating if necessary land that was acquired in an illegal way or not administered according to the viewpoint of the welfare of the people. This is directed thus mainly against the Jewish land speculation companies (p.47)

Further, a removal of Jews from all public positions will cause no difficulty to the nation since “the real vitally important productive activity in industry and agriculture, in the professions and administration, is almost entirely free of Jews” (p. 38). Concomitant with the removal of Jews from the “national body” is the enforcement of new citizenship laws whereby the citizenship rights will be “acquired” by the citizens and not merely granted to them. Thus only those who pledge themselves to the German community and culture and do not continue an adherence to another nation can obtain these rights (p.39).

The National Socialist state will be a strong state that includes all the German tribes and its power will be concentrated in a strong leader, or autocrat, who embodies “the highest responsibility” (p.22)[18] since the German people have traditionally wanted a strong leader, and monarchs are not always to be relied upon. The leader of the National Socialist state, on the other hand, is not envisaged as a permanent ruler but one chosen only for the re-establishment of order and prosperity of a debilitated nation. After he has accomplished his goals he may step aside to let other rulers take his place under the constitution. Indeed, the National Socialist state may be characterised as a constitutional autocracy (p.31). The constitutional aspect of the state will be used especially to ensure an effective labour law and social insurance (p.23). Obviously, in a German national state, no members of foreign races can assume the leadership of state affairs (p.22).

Feder is aware of the adverse reaction of the international financiers to such autarkic measures but he believes that a transformation of interest-bearing bonds into interest-free bank assets or postal cheque accounts (p. 96) wherewith foreign creditors can be paid will avert the wrath of the latter. He also suggests that boycotts can be overcome through transactions with neutral countries. As for military action, he believes that it is not likely to be pursued by the foreign creditor nations since if the German people saw the French or Jewish tax collector sitting in every tax- and pension office, and if the best cows were taken from the stalls of the farmers by these foreign oppressors – then the anger and indignation would perhaps become soon so strong that one night would sweep the foreign spectre away with a bloody broom and free Germany, (p.97)

We see that, in spite of the lucidity of his economic doctrines, Feder rather underestimated the unforgiving nature of the Mammon that he was striving against. In keeping with Feder’s doctrines, the Nationalist Socialist state officially cancelled the war debt to the Allied nations and sought, from 1933 on, to combat the cumulative deflation by the creation of money and work.[19] Work was created by increasing public works activity, such as notably the building of super-highways, and other construction and agricultural projects. These projects were financed, as Feder had recommended, by the issuance of government bills. The production of armaments especially was spurred by the use of the so-called ‘Mefo’ bills[20] – named after Schacht’s Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschaft (Mefo), which served as a government holding company.[21] These bills were used by government contractors for payment of their needs and were valid as a form of currency. As a result of these economic strategies, as Overy notes, “the banks increasingly became mere intermediaries, holding government stock and helping in the job of keeping bills circulating in the way that the government wanted.”[22] Tax levels were simultaneously reduced for farmers, small businesses and heavy industry through the “remission of taxes already paid”.[23] However, Hitler was also dependent in his ambitious rearmament plans on foreign finance, which certainly would not have accepted Feder’s insistence on an abolition of interest.[24] The National Socialist economy was an increasingly state-controlled one that sought to avoid inflation by controlling prices and wages and foreign trade. Autarkic restrictions on imports were offset by bilateral barter agreements. Whether the war that began two years after the 1937 edition of Feder’s work was, as Feder’s view of the role of international finance in the first World War would suggest, another effort to punish Germany’s financial independence under National Socialism or whether it was indeed secretly willed by the international financiers for their own geopolitical ends, the increasing losses suffered by Germany in the course of it certainly provoked Hitler into attempting to “sweep the foreign spectre away with a bloody broom”, as Feder had predicted.

But neither Feder nor Hitler may have foreseen the severity of the revenge – more cruel since more lasting than that after the first World War – that the international Jewish interests would take on Germany after its defeat in 1945. While Feder hoped that other nations of the world will also eventually follow the German example and “mankind, freed of the Jewish oppression, will experience an age of unprecedented prosperity – and, above all, Germany – the heart of the world”, the opposite of that indeed has occurred, since most of Europe has been turned into “a slave, fellaheen, bondman and servant of the all-Jewish world-power” (p. 35). And the heart of Germany itself, drained by a tyrannical psychological control of its population, has virtually stopped beating.

Notes

^[1] Manifest zur Brechung des Zinsknechtschaft des Geldes, Diessen vor Munchen: Joseph C. Huber, 1919; cf. The Manifesto for the Breaking of the Financial Slavery to Interest, tr. Alexander Jacob, Carshalton, Surrey :Historical Review Press, 2012.

^[2] Another major early member was Karl Harrer (1 890-1926), who joined the party in March of 1919. Harrer, like Drexler, was a member of the occultist Thule society in Munich, which was an off-shoot of the Germanen Order founded in 1912 by Theodor Fritsch. Eckart

^[3] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, tr. James Murphy, London: Hunt and Blacketl 1939, pp 168,171.

^[4] See below p. 1 .

^[5] This work was translated by E.T.S. Dugdale as The Programme of The NSDAP The National Socialist German Workers’ Party and its General Conceptions, Munich, 1932.

^[6] For my translation I have used the 1932 edition, vol.35 of the “NationallOzialistische Bibliothek” series.

^[7] For the part played by big industries in Hitler’s rise to power see G. Hallgarten, “Adolf Hitler and German heavy industry 1931-1933”, Journal of Economic History, 12 (1952).

^[8] H. Reupke, Der Nationalsozialismus und die Wirtschaft, Berlin, 1931, pp.29ff.

^[9] The closest to National Socialist economics is the Social Credit movement founded in Britain by C.H. Douglas (1879-1952), whose work Economic Democracy was published in 1920 (see F. Hutchison and B. Burkitt, The Political Economy of Social Credit and Guild Socialism, London: Routledge, 1997). Douglas influenced Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists in the thirties (see Kerry Bolton, “Breaking the bondage of interest, part 2”, Counter-Currents, August 11, 201 1, http://www.counter-currents.com/201 1/08/breaking-the-bonilagc-of-interesta-right-answer-to-usury-part-2/

^[10] It was on his suggestion that Hitler changed the name of the German branch of the DAP in 1920 to Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP).

^[11] Feder’s manifesto on interest-slavery was interestingly published in the same year as Jung”s work on National Socialism.

^[12] Rudolf Jung, Der Nationale Sozialismus, Munich, 1922, p. 1 87f.

^[13] J6W.,53f.

^[14] The pamphlets that he self-published (in Leipzig) in this series, “Die internationalen verwandtschaftlichen Beziehungen der jiidischen Hochfinanz’” (The international kindred relationships of Jewish high finance’), between 1933 and 1940 present short historical accounts of the different branches of Jewry in various countries of Europe as well as in America. For instance, the first pamphlet is on Das Haus Rothschild, numbers two to four on Ginsberg und Giinsbeig und Asher Ginzberg, five to eight on Jakob Schiff und die Warburgs und das New Yorker Bankhaus Kuhn, Loeb & Co., nine to ten on Amsterdamer und Oppenheimer Juden, eleven on Franzosische Finanzjuden, twelve on Tschechoslowakische Finanzjuden, fourteen on Rumdnische Finanzjuden, fifteen on Lessing und Moses Mendelssohn und das Bankhaus Mendelssohn & Co. , seventeen on Polnische Finanzjuden, eighteen on Schwedische Finanzjuden, nineteen on Hollandische und belgische Finanzjuden, twenty on Frankfurter Finanzjuden und die I.G. Farben, twenty-one to twenty-three on Englische Finanzjuden, thirty-four to thirty-eight and forty-three to forty -four on Tshechische Finanzjuden and thirty-nine to forty-two on Ungarische Finanzjuden. In addition, he published, in Halle, a similar work on Amerikanische Finanzjuden (1936).

^[15] Seebelowp. 118

^[16] „nicht mehr zeitgemaBen Kampfmethoden, die sogar von den Englandern in jiingster Zeit zum Zwecke der Gegenpropaganda ausgeschlachtet wurden“ (see Gerd Simon. „Chronologie, Pudor, Heinrich“, http://homepages.uni-tuebingen.de/gerd.simon/ChrPudor.pdf. p.l9f.)

^[17] AI1 page-references are to the present edition.

^[18] The “Führer principle” was championed also by Rudolf Jung in his Nationale Sozialismus, p.l77f.

^[19] See G. Senft, „Anti-Kapitalismus von Rechts? – Eine Abrechnung mit Gottfried Feders ‘Brechung der Zinsknechtschaft‘“, Zeitschrift fur Sozialokonomie, 106 (1995), pp. 18-32.

^[20] According to Henry Liu: “through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies it could exploit, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began” (Henry C.K. Liu, “Nazism and the German economic miracle,” Asia Times Online, 24 May 2005, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GE24Dj01.htm

^[21] Hitler’s eagerness to rearm Germany is not surprising in the light of the eastern expansionist and anti-Bolshevist foreign political aims outlined by him already in Mein Kampf, Vol. II, Ch.14.

^[22] R.J. Overy, The Nazi Economic Recovery 1932-1938, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p.43.

^[23] Ibid, p.3

^[24] See the web-log by „Scanners“, „Gottfried Feder und das zinslose Geld“, http://www.utopia. de/blog/umweltpolitik/gottfried-feder-und-das-zinslose. The western financial powers may have partly supported Hitler’s effort to check the westward spread of Bolshevism. For American involvement in National Socialist finance, for example, see Anthony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the rise of Hitler, Sudbury: Bloomfield Books, 1976.

It's All About Jews

Gottfried Feder

July 23, 2018 Algora Blog Leave a comment

by Mike Strobach of the National Conscience

Born in Würzburg in 1883, Gottfried Feder was a leading German provider of ideas, “the refractive Interest Enslavement” by the world finance capital. Feder was known far beyond the borders of Germany and his ideas and work continues today. As an engineer and economist Feder was first among economic policymakers in the DAP (precursor of the nsDAP) and was a short time later commissioned by Adolf Hitler to design the nsDAP party program (the 25 points of National Socialism)

In the nsDAP party program, Feder’s ideas from his “manifest refraction of interest servitude of money,” were reflected. This “program” is from 1919 (the year of the Versailles diktat and the adoption of the Weimar Constitution) at the focal point of contemporary history. Feder’s approach against the existing financial system and interest arose in its first edition in response to the runaway national debt and the resulting inflation in defeated Germany after the First World War.

With the end of the war in 1918, the Reichsmark had already officially lost more than half of its purchasing power in internal and external relations, which was much higher on the black market inflation index. The end of 1923 then broke the entire German economy and combined with the Weimar Hyperinflation produced by the victors and henchman: Hunger, poverty and a crying misery were the consequences. The Germans were akin to a “dying” people.

To enforce its policy objectives Feder founded in 1919 one of the many battle confederations, this time the (German League of Struggle for the breaking of interest servitude). However contents of his claims were not, as is often assumed, a complete ban on interest, but numerous changes in government economic and financial policy. A major criticism of Feder was the inclusion of high-yield loans by the state while simultaneously dispensing with the state sovereignty of the money making and money distribution.

In another pamphlet Feder in 1919 saw the way the bankruptcy was almost upon Germany. Only ten years after Feder’s first publication of his manifest refraction ideology, in 1929, it came to the complete breakdown of international exchanges. Suddenly the collapse of all currencies of stability and value worldwide occurred. In Germany they gave out in the early 1920s, emergency money. In wake of the global economic crisis, entire industries were transferred into foreign hands. So, for example, the German Opel plants fell to American hands, to name just one example.

In 1923 Feder took part in the Hitler Putsch (March on the Feldherrenhalle in Munich). Nevertheless, he remained a leading figure not only in the nsDAP, but also in the thinking financial circles in Germany. In 1924 he was elected to the National Socialist Freedom Party in the Reichstag; he remained a member until 1936. From 1933 Feder is engaged in freezing the interest rates (in fact it was the abolition of the compounding system). His concept of “the breaking of interest servitude” came under Adolf Hitler as Chancellor to develop, Germany awoke to new life and flourished again.

When Adolf Hitler was appointed on 30 January 1933 by President Paul von Hindenburg with the task of leading the nsDAP government and sworn in as Chancellor, the new Chancellor was clear that the powerful militarily enemies waiting around an encircled Germany for an opportunity with a new war to crush any attempt at liberation of the German people. This has been reflected by the fact that just a day after the Democratic confirmation of Adolf Hitler in the Reichstag, world jewry on March 24, 1933 declared war on Germany. [1]

The winner required by the tribute of Versailles and the privatization of the Reichsbank (paraphrased “independent”) with your(world jews yes you) man in Germany for this project was the Masonic Hjalmar Schacht, the remaining gold reserves of the Reichsbank, were removed “to be stored” by the private jewish Federal Reserve of the USA (FED).

In 1953 Hjalmar Schacht admitted in his autobiography, that he visited the FED in 1927 to inspect the German gold, he casually describes as follows: “A different experience resulted from the fact that the Reichsbank maintained a not inconsiderable gold deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York. Strong was very proud to show us the safes in the deep basement of the building, and mentioned here: ‘Dr. Schacht, now you will also see where the gold of the Reichsbank is preserved ‘. We walked through the vaults, while the officers searched the storage space of the Reichsbank gold. We waited many minutes until finally came the information: ‘Mr. Strong, we can not find the gold from the Reichsbank ‘. Strong was very upset, but I comforted him: ‘Let’s be good, I believe you, that the gold is there. Even if it should not be there, you are good to me for the replacement. ‘”[2]

It is hardly surprising that it was completely indifferent to Schacht, whether the German gold was gone, as Benjamin Strong, former president of the Private jewish Federal Reserve, was his personal friend and lodge brother. And the gold, of course never, appeared. Just as today, when the FRG-Gold has also disappeared at the Fed in New York.

It was the same Horace Greeley Hjalmar Schacht, who, in 1914 in the Journal of the lodge “To friendship of the Grand Lodge of Prussia” in the first week of the war published an essay in which he emphasized that “the German Freemasonry have never given room to exaggerated nationalist sentiments”.

Schacht, who contributed significantly to the Reichsbank Act (RBG) in 1924, making sure the so-called Reichsbank Autonomy Law was further replaced on 26 May 1922 in the direction of Rothschild control. The creation of a “by the imperial government independent Reichsbank” was guaranteed by Paragraph 1 of the new RBG. Under the Reichsbank Law Germany had already dictated the Dawes Plan as a contract item. The Reparations Commission decided on 30 November 1923 namely the convening of an expert committee under the chairmanship of financial experts appointed by the FED Charles Gates Dawes, who should decide how one could demand from Germany reparations forever. The Reichsbank was now driven by a 14-member General Council (seven of them foreigners) under the leadership of the United States. The gold standard was monitored by a foreign Commissioner and was in accordance with paragraph 28 of the RBG 40 percent, which is why the German gold had to be deposited “as security” at the FED.

The German henchmen for the financial world, who had to lead the privatization of the German Reichsbank, was, as already mentioned, Hjalmar Schacht, the personal friend of Lord Montague Norman. Lord Norman was the governor of the then Bank of England, who received his instructions directly from the House of Rothschild. “The activities of the British oligarchy were whipped by a cabal of central bankers, led by Lord Montague Norman together with Benjamin Strong [3] of the New York Fed and Hjalmar Schacht of the German Reichsbank.” [4]

Schacht belonged to the then world-elite of the global financial crime. “Benjamin Strong, the first president of the FED, Hjalmar Schacht, President of the Reichsbank, Montague Norman, Governor of the Bank of England and Émile Moreau, governor of the Bank of France, were the most powerful and influential bankers of their time.” [5]

When Hjalmar Schacht was officially designated as one of the four most powerful central bankers of the world, although he represented the “national” bank of a totally robbed, bankrupt, occupied and completely defenseless state, then one can conclude only that the ascribed power within the jewish lodges was exercised against Germany.

The defeated Germany was bled by the Rothschilds winner policy after 1918, in the truest sense of the word. 45 percent of the reparations had in kind (industrial goods, goods, etc.) are provided, 55 percent in foreign currencies, including also – had to be exchanged property. The German people had thus no productive support for an acceptable livelihood anymore. Just for interest and principal, the German Reich had to raise 16 billion gold marks, with which the industry was burdened and overwhelmed. To secure these tribute payments, Reichsbank and German Reichsbahn were transformed into joint stock companies (privatization), and were under the control of FED and City… New York

As at the end of the 1920s, the National Socialist Freedom Movement becoming stronger and a shift of power towards Adolf Hitler was likely to occur, suddenly Free Mason and friend of the exploiters, Hjalmar Schacht, begins to flirt with the Nationalists. “When he shows up with his wife Louise at a dinner party in 1930, she is wearing, studded with rubies and diamonds, on a chain, a Hakenkreuz. ‘Why not give the Nationalists a chance? You seem pretty sharp to me, ‘ said Schacht to a stunned reporter “. [6] In October 1931 Schacht was making a sensational speech at the meeting of the nsDAP, The DNVP and the Stahlhelm in Bad Harzburg before the “Harzburg Front” In which he launched a polemical attack of his own, and enforced on behalf of Benjamin Strong and Sir Montague Norman privatization of the Reichsbank. In 1932 Schacht began to support the nsDAP openly.

It is not as though Adolf Hitler would not have seen through the game. He knew that Schacht on behalf of the jewish world finance would seek to ensure in a new Germany the continuation of politics by private banks. Hitler knew also that he in a state of total helplessness, should he become Chancellor (Germany had as it were no more armed forces, only a barely armed 100-thousand-man army) he would have to hold out against the Reich’s enemies. So Hitler played the game and made Schacht on March 17, 1933 re-elected president of the Reichsbank.

Of course, the House of Rothschild members appointed by the General Council of the Reichsbank were ousted immediately. The Reichsbank had to realize that “the breaking of interest servitude of money” would commence immediately after Hitler’s appointment as chancellor. Schacht remained nothing more than watching idly the liberation of Germany. Germany’s enemies, however, believed to be able to compel Hitler with sanctions to restore the old Monetary Exploitation order again. Schacht should then be active again as before.

But Adolf Hitler ended the destructive influence of the monetary system of the FED and City of New York to Germany by a new barter agreement. The raw material imports in exchange trading increased between 1933 and 1937 of 1.4 billion marks to two billion Reichsmarks, while the finished goods imports by 500 million Reichsmark fell to just under 400 million marks. Trade in Scandinavia, South East Europe and Latin America had intensified and cash settled through clearing and exchange of commodities, which threatened the financial existence of the international power of the New York and London money-lenders.

In this time of military reluctance of the West, who still sat on the return of Hjalmar Schacht to the levers of financial power in the new Germany, Germany was at least as far as upgrading, that would have been a war against Germany involves risks. Under this shield of brilliant foreign policy of Adolf Hitler still in 1933 the dying German people flourished to life. The words of former British Prime Minister Lloyd George on his return from a trip to Germany before the waiting journalists in London in September 1936 will remain forever in your memory. After his daughter exclaimed in the mics, “Heil Hitler”, Lloyd George added as confident: “Yes, certainly, Heil Hitler I say this because he is truly a great man..” [7]

Hitler humbled the hate of the world finance by having Hjalmar Schacht, lead the negotiations for the emigration of the Jews in London in December 1938 in said “inter alia” what became known as the pit-Rublee plan, a contract resulted.

On January 19, 1939, Schacht was officially stripped of his mission that he should exercise for FED and City of New York in secret. He was dismissed as Reichsbank president. Six months later, on June 15, 1939, the Reichstag voted on the new Reichsbank law. In Reich Law Gazette 1939 I, p 1015, 1030 was now stipulated that the Reichsbank was to “ensure the utilization of the available funds of the German economy in nonprofit and economically expedient manner.” “In the form of profitless”, ie without interest.

This policy began in 1933 for the benefit of the German people, now enshrined in law, the final decision of the jewish world finance had fallen in London and New York, to launch a new world war for the destruction of Germany. The rest was from then on only provocation, encirclement, lies and violence, until the official British and French declaration of war on 3 September 1939 against Germany.

End of 1932 saw the German price-adjusted gross domestic product a negative growth of 7.5 percent. Adolf Hitler was born on 30 January 1933 to power and in February 1933 he designed the monetary policy of the Reichsbank, ousted the foreign members of the General Council. This meant that before the end of 1933 the real gross national product (GNP) grew by 6 percent increase.

As early as 1937 Hitler had economic and monetary policy ensure that, despite the imposed sanctions against the Reich, a growth of over 10 percent was achieved. But more importantly, at a 10 percent economic growth rate increase under Hitler’s monetary policy, inflation was at zero percent, and there were no unemployed. Even in wartime, there were no price increases, no budget deficit, but there was growth. [8] Adolf Hitler had therefore left his destroyed people with no debt after the end of the “World War staged by the Democrats”, which was even admitted by BRD Finance Minister Schäuble. Wolfgang Schäuble literally: “For the last time the country was debt free in 1948, after war and dictatorship.” [9] And he is not even ashamed at these words.

Thus could the German people only afford Adolf Hitler, because he made Germany sovereign, because the sovereignty over the labor power and the money was in the hands of the working people and was not subjected to the dictatorship of Wall Street Speculators.

And now we have even worse conditions than in the dark period of the Weimar Republic under the Murder of Versailles. The pain we will feel soon. The chief editor of the Economic week, Stefan Baron, already warned 22 years ago prior to this case: “The Treaty of Maastricht threatened that Germany impose heavier loads than those in the Treaty of Versailles prescribed after the First World War reparations Only. Versailles was a dictation, Maastricht, the government [Kohl] concluded voluntarily. “[10]

Today, when the ECB is run by former Goldman Sachs director Mario Draghi, who provides for the production and use of the Euro-currency, all the conditions are created for the Germans, having to suffer a collapse like 1923 and 1929 again.

The FRG does not have to determine their own destiny, has no say in monetary policy. And that is also celebrated enthusiastically by the henchmen of the international monetary system, forward Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU Minister of Finance).

Today, ECB chief Draghi calls on behalf of Goldman Sachs high inflation in Germany to lift the zero-growth in the euro zone to 1 percent growth. Draghi’s slogan: “Inflation must be found – at any cost only inflation means growth.”. [11] Under Hitler it was 10 per cent growth at 0 percent inflation. Does it not sound like newly launched Versailles-mockery, as the FRG Minister of Finance on 5 September 2012 at the ZDF Heute-Journal said unabashedly: “But I’m quite sure, the Governing Council is aware, the ECB’s mandate is focused on the priority of price stability”.

We know that the world finance has always pocketed most of the money for wars and inflation, so this extermination of monetary policy of the lobby with its instrument ECB is only logical. In this sense, promised BRD Finance, Rothschild’s rolling debt generator, on the edge of monetary conference in 2013 in Washington, wanting to run the command for permanent debt increase without objection in the future. Schäuble was asked the question, when then will Germany have repaid this debt. Subsequently Schäuble: “Hopefully never!” [12]

The formula for prosperity would be so easy for politicians and statesmen, if you only served the people and not the international bankers. The robbery of the people by the world finance using their deadly monetary and financial system must be stopped. The States must be sovereign over the production of their own money. Gottfried Feder explained this published in his “manifest refraction of interest servitude” so wonderful. “Every capital is accumulated labor, Big capital is unproductive in itself, precisely because money itself is a quite barren matter. Of spirit, work and existing or already developed raw materials or natural resources are created values, goods produced by labor and only by labor. ”

This principle for the flourishing of human existence was followed under Adolf Hitler, and so he could make from a wreck of world finance a people who again could be “a happy nation.”

Take the example of the House of Rothschild, which still had no money in 1800, but exceeded in the shortest possible time without productive, value-generating activities that a minimum living industry capital several times. These again Gottfried Feder declared to us in his book: “The fortune of the house of Rothschild, the oldest international plutocracy, is now [1919] estimated at about 40 billion. It is known that the old Amschel Mayer Rothschild in Frankfurt layed the basis for the tremendous wealth of his house around the year 1800 by re-awarding the millions which had been transferred to him from Landgrave William of Hesse for storage, without any of his own appreciable fortune.”

What we are witnessing today, the plundering of the people by the ECB, is just the continuation of what had begun more than 300 years ago in England. After Cromwell had again brought the jews, 400 years after their expulsion back to England, a new era of the monetary system began to be laid. ”

In the chapter on the owner of the shares of the Bank of England (1694-1797) in his book on the history of the Bank, Sir John Clapham, noted the high proportion of Spanish and Portuguese names of sephardic jews which appeared on the list of shareholders in the early years of the English central bank. He noted that these names from 1701 actually constituted 90 percent of the 107 founding members of the Bank of England. Among them were two da Costa, a Fonseca, a Henriquez, a Mendes, a Nuñes, one Rodrigues, a Salvador, a Teixeira de Mattos, a Solomon de Medina. Clapham pointed to a parallel with the Bank of Amsterdam, on incorporation were 25 jews among the owners. M. Hyamson writes in his book, The Sephardim of England, that a certain Jacob Henriquez immediately after the coronation of King George III, in the context of a petition referred to the merits of his father in founding the Bank of England.

With the creation of a private institution as a central bank of the British Empire the money conspirators stood in the truest sense of the word, open to all possibilities. All they had to do in order to deliver half of the globe as tribute was to provide a ridiculous sum to deposit as initial capital of the Bank of England. Only a few years after the founding of the private British central bank, paper money was introduced. The owners of the Federal Reserve could print on paper and lend it to the government, the institutions and the private sector at interest (tribute). Therefore, the taxes increased dramatically in all areas, for from henceforth all had indeed been delivered to any amount of printed paper rate tribute/debt. No one questioned why the state does not even print the paper and therefore spare the people the monstrous tribute load.

To summarize: With the sovereignty over their own money producing Hitler created prosperity and growth, without price increase and without inflation. Today, the world finance manages, with the sovereignty over our money, poverty and inflation but does not want us to see that we must unfortunately soon feel it.

And so the terrible world finance system, the Fed remains intact, we are held, with the help of the biggest lies in human history preventing us from studying Adolf Hitler’s economic policies. Professor Michael Hudson, who teaches at the Faculty of Economics of the University of Missouri-Kansas City, explained in no uncertain terms that Wall Street was responsible for the imposition of German historical lies. Hudson: “You can not in Germany teach history as it was, without being fired. … The whole theory of debt policy was then developed by Wall Street. Suddenly you gave the Germans a false story. Consider the German school books, and the propaganda of the banks, month after month, year after year. “[13]

And the highly respected Russian historian and former Soviet Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany, Valentin Falin, replied on 16 September 2014 in a panel discussion on Russian state television, on the question of whether he with the official history that is taught in schools and universities in Russia was dissatisfied, he replied as follows: “I am not satisfied in principal with the official version of history, both the 20th and 19th century. … The historian can only successfully tackle their task when they are concentrating on facts, only facts and all of the facts. So we must consider events as a whole, we must look closely when the second world war really began and weather it was a continuation of the first world war in reality.”

by Mike Strobach the National Conscience

By the way, from 30.1% in 1932, the unemployment rate in Germany went to 2.1% in 1938: 0% interest loans were given for residential housing; not only that, the principal debt was forgiven 25% per child born, so after 4 children born the entire loan was cancelled and no more payments were made. There was never a financial crisis in Germany in the 30s. In order to stimulate the economy, it was necessary to have the nerve to invest money that the government did not really have, rather than wait with folded arms and an empty head for the economy to revive by itself.

Before the end of 1933 even, Germany had succeeded in building 202,119 housing units. In 4 years the German people was provided with 1,458,128 new dwellings. All of this was made available by issuing loans to private sector housing at 0% interest. In 1933 alone 17,611 new farm houses were constructed each surrounded by a parcel of land 1,000 meters square. In 3 years, 91,000 such farm house were built as part of elevating and reinvigorating the working farming class. Again, all of this would be provided as part of 0% interest loans as an effective means of rebuilding the economy and providing jobs at the same time.

How Hitler launched a social revolution – Leon Degrelle

Footnotes

1)	judea Declares War on Germany (Daily Express, London, 24. März 1933, S. 1)
2)	“76 Jahre meines Lebens”, Kindler + Schiermeyer, 3. Aufl. 1953, S. 331
3)	Benjamin Strong war maßgeblich an der Gründung der FED beteiligt. Er war Präsident von Banker’s Trust und wurde 1914 zum ersten Präsidenten der Federal Reserve Bank of New York (damals die FED) bestellt. Strong war getrieben von dem Verlangen, die Verbündeten der USA im Krieg gegen das Deutsche Reich zu unterstützen. Strongs Anliegen war es, die USA zur dominierenden Finanzmacht in der Welt zu machen, indem er mit der FED in die internationale Politik eingriff.
4)	BRITISH FINANCIAL WARFARE: 1929; 1931- 33, HOW THE CITY OF LONDON CREATED THE GREAT DEPRESSION, von Webster G. Tarpley, December, 1996 (questionable zionist if you ask me)
5)	James Turk, GoldMoney, sott.net, 30.06.2012
6)	Spiegel.de, 10.11.2006
7)	A.N. Wilson, HITLER, 2012. “A short biography”.
8)	“Das Defizit im Staatshaushalt war minimal und lag selbst 1938 in der Zeit massiver Kriegsvorbereitungen, gemessen am Sozialprodukt, niedriger als heute. Zur Zeit der Kriegswirtschaft … lag die Produktion 1944 trotz Bombenkrieg und Rohstoffmangel höher als 1939. Diese Zahlen, die im Rest der Welt keine Entsprechung hatten, sind so aufregend, dass ihre Gründe aufgedeckt werden sollten … Können wir auf Erfolgsrezepte nur deshalb verzichten, weil Adolf Hitler sie angewandt hat?” (WirtschaftsWoche, Nr. 29/1991, S.110) Quellen für die Zahlen bezüglich Wachstum und Preisstabilität unter Hitler: WiSta 3/2009.
9)	Süddeutsche Zeitung, 14.10.2013, S. 4
10)	Wirtschafts Woche 42/9.10.1992, S. 3
11)	sueddeutsche.de, 05.06.2014
12)	Süddeutsche Zeitung, 14.10.2013, S. 4
13)	RT (boom and bust), January 16, 2014

https://nationalconscience.wordpress.com/deutsch-wirtschaftswunder/

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Notes

Share this:

Share this:

Nonfiction for the Nonplussed