RSS Feed
February 3rd, 2016 
Awake Goy “(We are fighting) to defeat the most dangerous conspiracy ever plotted against the liberty of nations, carefully, skillfully, insidiously, clandestinely planned in every detail with ruthless, cynical determination.”
– British Prime Minister Lloyd George: speaking about Germany during World War I
If you go up to anyone on the street and ask the question, “Who was the most evil man that ever lived?” the vast majority will undoubtedly say one name: HITLER. No one person throughout the entirety of history has been more demonized and vilified than Adolf Hitler, and no entity more so than the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSGWP or NSDAP in German); aka. “The NAZIS”. To this day, to call someone a “Nazi” is to liken them to an ultra-racist, aggressively oppressive, freedom-hating, genocidal maniac. But the question is, how much of our perception around Hitler and the “Nazis” is rooted in actual fact and how much of it is rooted in propaganda? Also, what was their actual motivation for doing what they actually did?
To get a clear picture of what brought Hitler and the NSDAP to power, we need to have a firm rooting in historical context. To many, the rise of Hitler has been seen as a phenomenon that cannot be explained outside of some form of “mass hypnosis” (yes, that exact term has been used). This is more cartoonish, magical thinking. When we objectively look at history with a solid understanding of basic human psychology, things make a lot more sense. Sadly, even many with “spiritual sight” get sucked into the emotional propaganda around this subject. So let’s look at why decent German people would have popularly elected a “madman”. In order to do that, we need to look at the history surrounding Germany and Europe before, during and after World War I.
For Germany, this really begins with the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. After thwarting Napoleon III’s (nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte) advances, Prussia and a confederation of smaller German states unify under Kaiser Wilhelm I and Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck. With the defeat of France, this newly unified Germany was now the economic powerhouse of Europe with one of the most powerful professional armies in the world. The Prussians were renowned for their military prowess, and in fact, their model for training their soldiers was used to model the American education system. Imperial Germany also began to acquire a small number of colonies to extract resources. This created a bit of uneasiness and contempt in the seat of global economic power that resided within the British Empire at the time.
The British Empire and more importantly the corporate and financial interests that controlled it through the City of London (a sovereign state within a state like the Vatican or D.C. except instead of churches or statehouses it’s banks) had a near-complete monopoly of economic power and control of resources at this point in history- something that continues to this day. In a recent article for the London Guardian, journalist George Monbiot describes how the City of London Corporation
has exploited this remarkable position to establish itself as a kind of offshore state, a secrecy jurisdiction which controls the network of tax havens housed in the UK’s crown dependencies and overseas territories. This autonomous state within our borders is in a position to launder the ill-gotten cash of oligarchs, kleptocrats, gangsters and drug barons… It deprives the United Kingdom and other nations of their rightful tax receipts.
Monbiot goes on to say that the sovereign, unaccountable City of London Corporation
has also made the effective regulation of global finance almost impossible… the absence of proper regulation in London allowed American banks to evade the rules set by their own government. AIG’s wild trading might have taken place in the US, but the unit responsible was regulated in the City. Lehman Brothers couldn’t get legal approval for its off-balance sheet transactions in Wall Street, so it used a London law firm instead.
This economic empire operated in the same manner a century and a half ago. This empire wished to maintain this power, and did not like the competition that arose out of middle Europe. Throughout the latter part of the nineteenth century, it was the slight-of-hand “diplomacy” of British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli during the Congress of Berlin after the Russo-Turkish War, that created seeds of contentment and mistrust among Germany and her allies in continental Europe; specifically Czarist Russia- Great Britain’s other economic competitor. This fostered the environment that would isolate the economic competition and lead to World War I; this strategy was a tried and true tactic of the British Empire- the strategy of divide and conquer. Disraeli was Britain’s first Jewish-born Prime Minister, “who was always true to his race and proud of his origin.”
It was Disraeli who once stated, “The Lord deals with the nations as the nations deal with the Jews.”
It was also during this time that the Communist movement of Europe began to gather real momentum. Founded by Jewish-German philosopher, Karl Marx, Communism called for a “dictatorship of the proletariat” (the working class) and an overthrow of the “bourgeois” (the moneyed industrialist class). Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” outlines the road to a “utopian society” in three phases. The first phase is a revolution that overthrows the oppressive bourgeois, setting up a dictatorship dedicated to “the common good” (as opposed to rights of the individual).
This begins the second phase where once the dictatorship is established; the government takes centralized control of all aspects of society- property, transportation, education, industrial production, agriculture, regional planning, communications, and labor. Simultaneously, a Central Bank (i.e. the Federal Reserve) is established which proceeds to lay a heavy progressive income tax on the population.
This then takes us to phase three, where in theory, the centralization of power will create a society where the dictatorship of a few select is eventually no longer required. The dictatorship will then be relinquished in favor of a popular democracy of sorts, where ALL the proletariat (men and women) has a say in the workings of government and society. I say “in theory” for phase three because that last phase has NEVER happened in ANY Communist government in history.
The rise of the Communist movement would bring mainland Europe to the brink of chaos, with continued rioting and repeated assassination attempts on European leaders. Communists attempted to assassinate German leader Kaiser Wilhelm I twice in less than a month’s time! There was a concerted movement here to bring down the old monarchies and nobilities of Europe (interestingly, this never really caught on in Great Britain, although there was definitely abuse of the “proletariat” happening there as well).
After the death of Kaiser Wilhelm I, his 29-year-old son, Wilhelm II took the throne. The younger Wilhelm was a bit more pragmatic towards the communist movement and did not want to “crush the Reds” like his father did. He believed that if Germany became more “democratic” it would pacify them. This would prove to be a false assumption. Wilhelm II also turns his back on then-ally Russia in an attempt to get better relations with Great Britain, as his grandmother was on the throne there anyhow. Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck had crafted this alliance with Czarist Russia, but the young Kaiser severed this by refusing to re-sign the Reinsurance Treaty and dismissed Bismarck shortly thereafter. However, by that time the monarchy in Britain had become more of a “face” of power. The real power lied in the financial interests that were at that time largely represented by the Rothschild family of international financiers.
To quote Lawrence Joffe in his “Complete Illustrated History of the Jewish People”:
In the 19th century the Rothschild name exemplified wealth and success, and so it remains today. Their story is only one chapter in the story of Jewish financial prowess.
The Rothschilds “arguably founded the first transnational corporation” (Joffe) with banking branches in Frankfurt, Vienna, London, Naples and Paris. Again, according to Joffe’s “History of the Jewish People”, in the U.K., Nathan Mayer Rothschild:
founded the brokering house N.M. Rothschild. The Rothschild family was soon handling most English financial dealings with the Continent. Nathan’s branch funded the British war effort against Napoleon… Between 1818 and 1835 Nathan Mayer issued 26 British and foreign government loans. In 1824 he floated the Alliance Assurance Company and the following year he helped the Bank of England avoid a liquidity crisis.
Usury is the lending of money at and exorbitant rate of interest. It needs to be understood that this is what international financiers like the Rothschilds did then, and this is what international financial institutions continue to do now. If there was one good thing the Catholic Church ever did it was the outlawing of usury, but by this time the Church did not wield that kind of political power. Through usury, the financial institution gets the one taking the loan locked into debt they cannot pay back due to ridiculously compounding interest. This causes the lender to assert the right to take property, resources, etc. as modes of payment. This is how international finance capital works.
Joffe also states that Rothschild was
famously discreet, and used similarly cautious agents to courier funds… Above all he understood the value of accurate and speedy information. His private intelligence service learned the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo a day before the British Government.
However, what is not stated in this book about the intelligence surrounding the Battle of Waterloo was that Rothschild used this information to start a rumor in the financial circles that Britain had lost that battle, causing investors to panic and sell off stocks, which Rothschild interests bought for pennies on the dollar. An interesting modern-day correlation is the recent revelation that NSA Data had been used by select corporations to get an edge on market competitors – the more things change…
After the passing of N.M. Rothschild, his eldest son Lionel succeeded him as head of the London branch that was based within the City of London. Under Lionel the bank financed the British government’s purchase of the Suez Canal in 1875 as well as Cecil Rhode’s colonial exploits into Africa. Lionel’s son, Alfred de Rothschild, became a director of the Bank of England in 1869, a post he held for 20 years. Alfred was one of representatives of the British Government at the 1892 International Monetary Conference in Brussels. According to Lord Chancellor Greg Hallett, Lionel also had an alleged affair with and sired several children to Queen Victoria of England.
The Rothschild Dynasty was the latest and greatest of the elite Jewish banking oligarchs that made inroads into British aristocratic society by acquiring their properties and titles, and thus mixing themselves with the aristocracy, and by the nature of the British representative system, they came closer and closer to the government. This was enabled after Oliver Cromwell and Charles I readmitted Jews into England in the mid-1600s as they had been expelled back in 1290 by Edward I for practicing usury. The Rothschilds followed the example of Jewish banking oligarchs like Sampson Gideon, and used this favorable climate to seize the reigns of the British military and naval machine in order to seize control of riches and resources across the globe. It was British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli; Rothschild “front man”, and the man who bestowed upon Queen Victoria the title of “Empress of India” who stated:
The British and French branches of the Rothschild bank also financed and became the largest shareholders of the DeBeers diamond mines in South Africa in 1905. An interesting saga came out of this at the end of the World War I when Jewish-German diamond magnate Ernest Oppenheimer took advantage of German investor panic at the end of the war and was able to seize the German diamond assets that had initially broken the monopoly the British had on diamonds. Oppenheimer would go on to head up DeBeers and be knighted in England.
In 1904, the Entente Cordiale was signed between Britain and France. This series of agreements put an end to centuries-old conflict between the two nations, along with the Triple Entente between Britain, France, and ally-of-convenience Russia, effectively isolated Germany and her ally, Austria-Hungary. Former German Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck saw the storm coming and on his deathbed in 1897 stated that “One day, the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans.”
Due to border rearrangement spearheaded by British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli at the Congress of Berlin, many ethnic Serbs found themselves under the rule of Austria-Hungary, who were ethnically and culturally very different from the Slavic Serbs. This caused a culture clash that spearheaded with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary by a group of Serbian Nationalists. Kaiser Wilhelm II attempted to convince Austria-Hungary to engage in talks with Serbia, but it was of little avail, as Austria-Hungary soon declared war on Serbia anyhow.
This started a chain reaction, bringing ethnically Slavic Russia in the war to defend its ally Serbia, which brought Germany into the war to defend Austria-Hungary, which brought France and the UK into the war on the side of Russia, which brings Russia’s rival the Ottoman Turks in on the side of Austria-Hungary and Germany. This began a bloody conflict, which brought death and destruction on a scale that had never been seen before. I’m not going to get into a blow-by-blow analysis on the various battles and tactical maneuvers of this war. What I am focusing on here is Germany’s role and how this was portrayed to the rest of the world.
In the press, Germans were demonized and dehumanized, often portrayed as barbaric monsters that raped women, cut off the hands of children, and impaling babies on bayonets and nailing them to doors. Other stories included that of German soldiers using the bodies of their own fallen soldiers to manufacture soap. This particular narrative would be recycled and repackaged for the Second World War as one of the more fantastical elements of the Holocaust story.
Images and stories depicting the supposed atrocities of German soldiers circulated around Britain and France, but lacked any sort of evidence to back up these allegations. Officially sanctioned by the British establishment, the publication of the infamous Report of the Committee on Alleged German Outrages, better known as “The Bryce Report”, was translated into 30 different languages in 1915, and although nearly every story produced within was eventually discredited, the damage had already been done as these false atrocity stories to rile up British and French youths to go to war with the evil “Hun”.
Despite the “Special Relationship” with Britain that was being promoted by the political establishment in the United States at the turn of the 20th century, the American public typically saw themselves as separate and removed from Great Britain and her affairs. In fact, the voices of impartiality during the war tended to come from American journalists. Roger Lewis of the Associated Press wrote:
To let the truth be known, we unanimously declare the stories of German cruelties, from what we have been able to observe, were untrue. After having been with the German army for two weeks, and having accompanied the troops for over one hundred miles, we are not able to report one single case of undeserved punishment or measure of retribution.
Irwin Cobb of the Saturday Evening Post also correlated the apparent falsification of German Barbarity:
We found numerous rumours after investigation to be without foundation. German soldiers paid everywhere for what they bought, and respected private property and civil rights. We found Belgian women and children after the battle of Buissière to feel absolutely safe. A citizen was shot in Merbes-le-Chateau, but nobody could prove his innocence.
John T. McCutcheon of the Chicago Tribune confirmed:
Refugees, who told about cruelties and brutalities, could bring absolutely no proof. The discipline of the German soldiers is excellent; no drunkenness. The Burgomaster of Sorle-sur-Sambre voluntarily disclaimed all rumours of cruelties in that district. For the truth of the above we pledge our word of honor as journalists.
However, this voice of reason out of the American press would eventually turn into hysterical war drums. On May 7th, 1915, the British luxury liner, the RMS Lusitania, left New York for Britain with 1959 passengers and, unbeknownst to the passengers, some 600 tons of explosives, 6 million rounds of ammunition, and 1,200 cases of shrapnel shells. The German Embassy however, was aware of this and attempted to warn those planning to travel aboard of the danger they would be in, by attempting to place ads in major U.S. newspapers, but were in most cases, denied. The ship set sail and was deliberately maneuvered into dangerous waters by Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill, who then relieved the ship’s military escort. It was at that point German U-Boats fired upon and sank the liner, killing nearly 1200 passengers aboard, including 128 Americans. However, America was a different nation then, and it would take a bit more than a ship sunk in a war zone to get a nation “wary of foreign entanglements” to jump into what was still seen as “Europe’s war”.
By the end of 1916, the German–led Central Powers had the decisive advantage. France had suffered terrible casualties, the British forces were neutralized by a German U-Boat blockade, and Russia was becoming embroiled in what would become an incredibly bloody civil war. No German lands were occupied whatsoever. It was at that point, the Kaiser made a peace offering on behalf of the Central Powers with no strings attached. However, the British Empire and those who were in control of it had another trick up their sleeve.
The Balfour Declaration was a letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur J. Balfour to Baron Walter Rothschild, banker, politician, and leader of the British Jewish community. The letter essentially sealed the deal in which the British government agreed to create a Jewish homeland in British-occupied Palestine in return for Rothschild utilizing his connections to mobilize the power and influence of Jewish community in the United States with the goal of getting the U.S. to enter the war on the side of Britain and her allies.
British Prime Minister David Lloyd George later stated to the Palestine Royal Commission in 1937:
In this critical situation it was believed that Jewish sympathy or the reverse would make a substantial difference one way or the other to the Allied cause. In particular Jewish sympathy would confirm the support of American Jewry, and would make it more difficult for Germany to reduce her military commitments and improve her economic position on the eastern front… The Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to giving facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause. They kept their word.
It was at this point the propaganda machine was turned on full force towards the American public. Jewish-American-owned media outlets like Reuters and the New York Times resurrected the Lusitania and hyped the supposed Zimmerman Note; which was an allegedly intercepted telegraph from Germany to Mexico asking for alliance if the U.S. entered the war; as an intention of Germany to war with the United States. The manufactured horror stories of German barbarism were mass-marketed for American consumption by the “father of propaganda” Edward Bernays, nephew of the famed Jewish-Swiss psychoanalyst, Sigmund Freud.
Two of American President Woodrow Wilson’s closest advisors, Felix Frankfurter and Louis Brandeis were avid “Zionists” and influential in convincing the President to act in favor of Britain and the Allies. In April of 1917, Wilson convinced Congress to issue a declaration of war, and two months later, he instituted a very unpopular military draft, attempting to rally young men to the cause of “freedom” by using Bernays’ slogan: “Making the world safe for democracy.”
In 1918, after a successful spring offensive, labor strikes organized by trade unions within Germany halted the supply of much-needed munitions to the front. This event would come to be known as “The Stab-in-the-Back”, by Adolf Hitler, a veteran of the war. By this time, much of Organized Labor within Europe had been permeated by Marxist ideology of the “liberation of the proletariat” as well as the Labor Zionism of Jewish-French-German philosopher Moses Hess. The organizers of these strikes were young Jewish “revolutionaries” who saw what was going on in Russia and sought to use this as an opportunity to create a “worker’s paradise” in Germany. It has been extensively documented and proudly admitted that Jews were well represented in every revolutionary organization at the time and continue to be so today.
By 1918, Russia had fallen completely to the Bolshevik Revolution organized by Russian Vladmir Lenin (whose grandfather was Jewish) and Jewish-Russians Leib Bronstein, aka. Leon Trotsky and Julius Cedarbaum, aka. Julius Martov. Funded out of London and Germany by the Rothschild and Warburg banking conglomerates in partnership with the Jewish-American Schiff banking family out of Wall Street. This revolution completely destabilized Russia (a wary ally of and historical adversary to the British Empire), resulted in the brutal murders of Czar Nicholas II and his wife and children, and culminated in what was known as the “Red Terror”- a period marked by mass arrests in the middle of the night, executions, and brutally bizarre methods of torture. These atrocities were carried out by the Jewish-Russian-run “Cheka”, i.e., secret police and resulted in the murder of as many as 100,000 Russians. When U.S. Ambassador to Russia, David Francis, visited in January 1918, he noted:
The above statement illustrates what was one of the primary concerns/fears and motivating factors of Adolf Hitler in his dealings with Germany (and later Europe) and its Jews. This idea of the danger presented by the “International Jew” was also shared, oddly enough, by a man who would become one of Hitler’s primary nemesis- future British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. In his February 1920 article for the London Sunday Herald entitled “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People”, Churchill spoke highly of Zionism and what he referred to as “National Jews”, who would say, “I am an Englishman practising the Jewish faith.”
He saw the “National Jew” being contrasted by what he and many others referred to as “International Jews”:
The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt (founder of the nihilistic Bavarian Illuminati) to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing… It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.
Unfortunately, the subversive activities of these “International Jews” became so intensified in Germany and throughout Europe just prior to and during the Second World War that Hitler and the NSDAP (Nazis) saw no other choice then to lock up Jews who had remained in Europe into prison labor camps, regardless of whether or not they were practicing subversive tactics or not. The prison labor camps and the whole “Holocaust” narrative is of course, a deep topic in and of itself, and something deserving of an entire article devoted specifically to it. Again, the point here is to really flesh out some understanding as to why Hitler and the NSDAP espoused to the philosophy adhered to and enacted the policies they did, beyond the simplistic “scapegoat” and “world-domination” memes we are given in most high school and even college-level history books.
By the fall of 1918, the war had essentially reached a stalemate, with neither Germany nor the Allies being able to achieve a decisive victory. However, the internal social and political establishment of Germany began to crumble. Jewish-German Communists Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht founded the “Spartacus League“, which later became the Communist Party of Germany. Aided by Jewish-Hungarian Bela Kun, the group attempted to take advantage of post-war chaos and stage a coup in Berlin. Fearing the same fate as the Czar, Kaiser Wilhelm fled to Holland. While a group of veterans known as the Freikorps reclaim control, the Communists continually attempt to seize power.
The Allied powers took advantage of the internal destabilization that was taking place in Germany and did not invite Germany to take part in the Paris Peace Conference, where a series of treaties were devised to reorganize Europe and establish the world governing body known as the League of Nations – the precursor to the United Nations – which had been a primary goal of the war from the outset (although it soon dissolved due to nations like the U.S. refusing to ratify the treaty). It was out of this that the Treaty of Versailles was established which included the following provisions:
1. Germany accepts 100% responsibility for the war
2. German armed forces restricted to 100,000 men
3. The industrial German Rhineland will be occupied by French troops for the next 15 years.
4. Kaiser Wilhelm should be tried for “offenses against international morality”
5. The German region of West Prussia is carved out and given to the new nation of Poland. (Millions of West Prussians are forcefully expelled from their homes, and East Prussia is left isolated from the rest of Germany)
6. The German Sudetenland region is put under the rule of the new nation of Czechoslovakia.
7. The new state of Austria is forbidden from uniting with their Germanic brothers in Germany.
8. Germany is stripped of her African colonies. Britain, France, & Belgium take them over.
9. The coal-rich Saar region of Germany is placed under League of Nations control for 15 years. During this time, its coal is to be shipped to France.
10. The Baltic Sea port city of Danzig is separated from Germany and declared a “free city.”
11. Germany is forced to pay massive war reparations in the form of money and natural resources. The crushing debt payments, equal to 1 Trillion dollars in modern currency, will devastate the German economy and soon cause a hyperinflationary monetary collapse.
There can be no mistaking that the objective here was to demoralize and cripple Germany so that it could not pose a threat to the hegemony of the Anglo-Zionist Financial and Corporate Empire. This war was not about “spreading democracy”, it was economic power and control. After the war was over, President Woodrow Wilson confirmed this point:
Is there any man or woman let me say, is there any child who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry? …This was an industrial and commercial war.
In part two, I will get into the rise of Hitler and the NSDAP, as well as the narrative that surrounds this period of history that shaped the world as we know it today.
Source Article from http://renegadetribune.com/origins-world-war-ii-german-question-part-1/
Posted in 
Tags: 
