On the funding of Hitler and the NSDAP by international bankers

Posted by R-news on Wednesday, 11 July 2012 23:10.

ZionCrimeFactory, one of the people behind the prothink network I recently promoted, has taken issue with the claim that international bankers funded Hitler and the NSDAP into power. He said:

As far as Hitler being funded by Jews is concerned, this is not the case. Anthony Sutton’s allegations rests in part on a fraudulent book called Hitler’s Secret Bankers by the mysterious entity calling itself Sidney Warburg. Michael Collins Piper mentions this fraud in his commentary on these false theories concerning the funding of Hitler. http://zioncrimefactory.com/2012/04/17/michael-collins-piper-demolishes-kosher-anti-hitler-myths/

Anthony Sutton was a Jewish agent who, in his other book about Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, denied that Jews and Jewish bankers were behind Bolshevism and the communist seizure of power in Russia, calling it a “conspiracy theory.” http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/04/anthony-suttons-defence-of-judeo.html

You write: “In contrast, zioncrimefactory cited Niall Ferguson against the contention that Jewish bankers funded the NSDAP in spite of acknowledging that Ferguson was commissioned by the Rothschilds to lie about their history.”

No I cited a portion of text from Niall Ferguson’s Rothschild book to demonstrate the absurdity of the claim that Hitler was an agent of the Rothschild family by showing how Hitler seized the palaces and assets of three branches of the House of Rothschild in Germany, France and Austria, and sent members of this family into exile before and during WW2. This fact is corroborated by other sources as well and is not disputed, other than by ignoramuses on the internet who dismiss anything that doesn’t fit with the nonsense theory that Hitler was a Rothschild descendant or Rothschild agent, a theory that originated with anti-Nazi propagandists in the Jew-run OSS.

A lot of these myths about the founding and funding of the NSDAP are laid to rest in this article by Veronica Clark: http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2011/volume_3/number_3/demystification_of_the_birth_of_the_nsdap.php

Let’s look at the matter.

Prelim

The prothink group, particularly Delaney, is aware that most of the big names in the 9/11 truth movement are working for the Jewish international network. I hope these folks don’t think that the picture is somehow different in revisionist circles.

In the 9/11 truth movement, they’re busy deflecting blame -- Bush, Cheney, NWO... and when it’s Jews, they do damage control by trying to focus on relatively inconsequential factors such as Silverstein not wanting to pay for removing asbestos from the buildings, deciding to collect billions in insurance instead. I don’t have to tell the prothink folks what the big plans behind 9/11 were.

So what are agents of Jews doing in the revisionist movement? At the minimum trying to deflect attention from the real causes of WWII and the events/plans of which it was part.

Veronica Clark

The article by Veronica Clark is an argumentum verbosium, with a bunch of details thrown in to give an impression of scholarship. She tries to tie the rise of national socialist Germany to race, specifically Nordicism: “the basic, simplified premise of which was that all Germanic peoples were united by their Nordic racial component, and because they were united by this common “race soul” or blood component.” A quick look at Hitler and most of the NSDAP leadership should disabuse anyone of the notion that they were of the Nordic race. Most Germans weren’t racially Nordic. Tying the rise of the NSDAP to Nordicism is Jewish propaganda----Jews tie this to the Master Race [actually an ideal, not an existent race], which they tie to Hitler wanting to eliminate racial inferiors, which he supposedly attempted in the Holocaust [hoax; I don’t have to tell ZionCrimeFactory]. I hope ZionCrimeFactory sees that Clark is subtly throwing in Jewish propaganda under the cover of revisionism.

Clark says that “The I. G. Farben conglomerate and high finance never factored into the Hitler-NSDAP equation before 1933.” Sutton showed this is demonstrably false [Contrast Clark’s arrogant arguments from authority, second hand sources with Sutton’s conclusions from meticulously documented data].

Sidney Warburg

According to Veronica Clark, “The Sidney Warburg story is pure fabrication.” This is her analysis and conclusion. According to Michael Collins Piper,

Many of those who worship at the altar of this nonsense cite a flagrantly-fraudulent document of shadowy origins entitled Hitler’s Secret Bankers, ostensibly written by one “Sidney Warburg,” one of those “Jewish bankers.” But this document, as we’ve said, is a fraud.

The late Dr. Anthony Sutton’s Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler has promoted this theory, based in part on the Warburg travesty and has given further institutionalization to this mythology–truth be damned.

But Sutton approached the Sidney Warburg book as a forgery, and provided a very nuanced analysis of the myth of Sidney Warburg.

Sutton pointed out that many of the then-little-known facts recorded in the forged book are curate. The forgery was thus sophisticated and required inside knowledge. Who forged it? Why would James P. Warburg claim as a forgery a book he hadn’t read, why would he avoid the key question [who could have forged it and why?] and divert discussion away from “Sidney Warburg” to an anti-Jewish book Sonderegger published in 1947, and why would he publish his affidavit in the Memoirs of Franz von Papen? Sutton explored these and other issues at length and came to the conclusion that the forgery was most probably by someone with inside knowledge of a war in preparation, and this person hoped for a public reaction against the Wall Street fanatics and their industrialist friends in Germany—before it was too late.

Sutton didn’t need a forged book to make his case; he analyzed it because its contents and the circumstances surrounding it prevent anyone from dismissing Sutton’s argument using a guilt-by-association argument.

Michael Collins Piper

Contrast the linked arguments of Sutton, along with the rest of Sutton’s book, with Piper’s excerpt cited by ZionCrimeFactory, especially how Piper portrays Sutton’s argument. Piper resorts to strawman characterization, misrepresentation, derision. Isn’t it obvious what Piper’s trying to do?

Karl Radl of Semitic Controversies

ZionCrimeFactory linked to an article by Radl titled Anthony Sutton’s Defence of Judeo-Bolshevism: A Rebuttal (Part I).

The misleading title gives away the game Radl is playing. Sutton abhorred Bolshevism enough to write a well-researched book on it. So why describe his work as a “defense”? Radl hopes that people are dissuaded from reading the book. Notice Radl doesn’t link to the book to allow people to judge for themselves; the book’s been available online for quite some time, and this is the appendix Radl refers to on Sutton trying to defend Jews.

Radl correctly notes that Sutton’s defense of Jews is very weak. But he brings no attention to the fact that this weakness is in sharp contrast to the care with which Sutton developed the rest of the book and the thoroughness of his other works. Sutton’s weak defense doesn’t befit this scholar.

So why make a weak argument if one is much more capable and wishes to defend Jews? Two possibilities are ignored by Radl: Sutton was trying to save himself from persecution; Sutton took extra steps to prevent the anti-Semitism ad hominem from getting his work dismissed without being read.

Sutton realized what he was up against and was bound to face persecution, which he did, but why make it unnecessarily worse? More importantly, by avoiding the Jewish angle, perhaps going the extra mile, Sutton would force critics to confront the facts documented rather than find a convenient ad hominem to dismiss his work.

Sutton was smart enough to give the intelligent reader a clue about which lines of evidence to pursue to learn more about the Jewish role in Bolshevism, and he did this while superficially portraying it as minor and largely irrelevant. Notice that most of his appendix cites some of the evidence used to claim that the Bolshevist revolution was a Jewish conspiracy, which he lamely dismisses, but the reader that pursues these lines of evidence will learn much about the Jewish conspiracy.

Sutton wrote:

The evidence provided in this book suggests that the New York bankers who were also Jewish had relatively minor roles in supporting the Bolsheviks, while the New York bankers who were also Gentiles (Morgan, Rockefeller, Thompson) had major roles.

Now, anyone who looks into the rise of the Morgans and the Rockefellers would quickly learn that the Jewish Rothschild bankers from Europe had much to do with their rise. Sutton gave the reader a clue where to look to learn more about the Jewish conspiracy. Radl portrays this as Sutton defending Jews!

Look at the work of Radl. He documents the high proportion of Bolshevists who were Jews. This is interesting, but Sutton meticulously documented some of the behind-the-scenes work Jews did to acquire their power. Compared to ranting against Jews, explaining what game Jews have been playing is much more devastating documentation against Jewry even if an attempt is made to avoid making it look like a Jewish conspiracy. Prevent this game from being played and Jewry is neutered, and one never needed to even mention Jews.

ZionCrimeFactory and the prothink folks would surely have noted that Karl Radl spends much time on scholarly documentation of non-contemporary elements of Jewish history, often less important issues. They should try to get Radl to pay some scholarly attention to “Jews did 9/11” and perhaps they’ll understand Radl better.

Where does it go?

Sutton’s work on Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler is part of a trilogy documenting capitalist bankers implementing socialism in three nations: Russia (1910s, Bolshevism), America (1930s, corporate socialism), Germany (national socialism).

Sutton also documented that when the U.S.-U.S.S.R. animosity persisted, with the governments and media of these countries promoting mutual dislike, Wall Street was sending lots of money to the U.S.S.R. to build and empower the Russian federation. Why? A straightforward balance-of-power arrangement. The international bankers don’t put their eggs in one basket. If a powerful nation rebels against them it could be over for them if another powerful nation couldn’t be raised against the rebels. The money/technology transfers balance power; the mutual animosity promoted by the governments and media keep things on a burner, ready to erupt should war be necessary.

The prospects of a powerful Soviet Union that may lose its animosity toward the U.S. and rise against the international bankers were addressed by splitting the Soviet Union and the building up of China. Similar to the American-Soviet era situation, American jobs have been sent to China in droves over the past two decades while the government and media keep screeching about the human rights abuses in China and the ills of the communists. The only reason the animosity toward communist North Korea, for instance, goes with economic sanctions against her is because she denies international bankers central control of her money.

Many here at MR direct outrage against liberals, leftists, commies, socialists, who in turn are blaming conservatives, rightists, racists, Nazis... this is a con game involving false dichotomies, designed to misdirect outrage and waste efforts. Anthony Sutton makes this con game clear. The work of Veronica Clark, Michael Collins Piper and Karl Radl doesn’t; they are at best poor analysts and at worst obfuscators, misleaders, liars and employees of the Jewish international network.

The inference from Sutton is: what matters is control of money. A nation can’t be sovereign without controlling its money. No people can determine the nature of their societies unless they control the money their society uses. The power to create and manage money must be vested in banks owned by the public. This is the direction a reading of Sutton’s work, only a fraction of which is cited, would ultimately send people toward.

Commenters: trolling, verbosity, logorrhea, no content analysis = trash!



Comments:


1

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 02:27 | #

taken issue with the claim that international bankers funded Hitler and the NSDAP into power.

Let us for the sake of argument stipulate that Hitler accepted Jewish money in order to fund the NSDAP to power.  I submit it is not this allegation which causes consternation but the implicit accusation that the National Socialists were as a result witting or unwitting “employees of the Jewish international network.”  The former implied accusation, that the National Socialists knowingly did the bidding of a cabal of international Jewish bankers is absurd on its face as we can hardly be expected to believe said cabal would countenance the total expulsion of all their co-ethnics from Europe.  This leaves the latter implied accusation, that the National Socialists were duped into acting effectively as “employees of the Jewish international network.”  This latter accusation rests upon several faulty assumptions which I suspect are rooted in Richards’ theological convictions and the general obsessive cast of his mind.  He believes, I posit, that “money is the root of all evil”, or at least that it is the greatest temptation to do evil.  He believes, I posit, that Jews are the literal spawn of satan and are hence the devil’s tools on earth which tempt men to do evil, using of course money.  He believes, I posit, that men should “never do evil that good may come of it” (e.g., accept money from Jews).  He believes, I posit, that “socialism” is essentially an “evil” in that it is state-compelled charity and not genuine, voluntary Christian charity; the road to hell is paved with good intentions, yet none the less leads to hell, and all that.  These assumptions are of course “faulty” because they rest upon a hopelessly naive, though perhaps touching, view of reality.  It is not “control of money” which is the brass ring but state power for without the latter one cannot hope to effect much of anything, much less who prints the money and how much of it.  And to grasp the brass ring, in the real world, one must be willing to use all means necessary, however “evil” these means may be.


2

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:54 | #

... what matters is control of money. A nation can’t be sovereign without controlling its money. No people can determine the nature of their societies unless they control the money their society uses. The power to create and manage money must be vested in banks owned by the public.

This sounds pretty good to me. Advocating for a public central bank circumvents the Jewish question.

It reminds me of the suggestion by James Bowery that we avoid attacking the parasite, and focus our attention on the disruption of its metabolic pathway.


3

Posted by dc on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:59 | #

JR,

I don’t understand this post and wish you would summarize the points you are attempting to make.

Under the heading “Sidney Warburg” you write (beginning of fifth para.), “Sutton pointed out that many of the then-little-known facts recorded in the forged book are curate.” What does this mean?

ZionCrimeFactory is more than a little down-market, and so it is a more than a little _infra dig._ to be much concerned with what he has to say. Veronica Clark is another matter. If she has a fault, it is that she writes in a female style, but still, so far as I can see, sensibly. In particular I do not see that she is trying to snow her readers with words. Perhaps I am being gullible. If so I request instruction.

Just to point the question, allow me to pose a few questions about your opinions (and not what you can demonstrate). What proportion of Hitler’s resources do you believe derived from jew banks? To what degree do you suppose that Hitler’s programme was arranged to suit jew interests? Is it your impression that Hitler and his policies remained captive to his sponsors over time, and if so to what degree? It seems to me that you have in the past referred to National Socialism as one among several jew attempts to popularize a form of socialism as a precursor to jew rule. Is this accurate?


4

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 17 Jul 2012 03:29 | #

Someone left a comment complaining of censorship, which was made to join his first comment, in the trash bin at MR.  This isn’t an act of censorship as nothing was altered or deleted.  Commenters were told in advance that trolling, verbosity, logorrhea, no content analysis = trash.

The complainant disputed the claim that international bankers funded Hitler and the NSDAP to power, oblivious to the evidence.  His comment, accordingly, was sent where it belongs.

This individual is welcome to criticize the argument if he addresses the evidence offered by Sutton. 

—————————-

@captainchaos

Don’t jump to conclusions.  Read the evidence that Sutton has to offer. 

It is not “control of money” which is the brass ring but state power for without the latter one cannot hope to effect much of anything, much less who prints the money and how much of it.

Control of money allows bankers to rule the state, from behind the curtains.


5

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 17 Jul 2012 03:38 | #

@dc

Sorry if the context of the entry isn’t very clear.  It’s a reply to ZionCrimeFactory, and you have to know their determination to “dispel myths” regarding what brought Hitler to power to understand what’s posted.  They may be down-market but they are determined, activist and gaining ground, and if their inadvertent spreading of Jewish propaganda can be helped, then it should.  In the present case, I was directly issued a challenge by ZionCrimeFactory. 

Sutton stated about Wall Street financing Hitler, “It is an historical minefield for the unwary and the careless not aware of the intricacies of research procedures.”  Unsurprisingly, the prothink group is a sitting duck for Jewish propaganda.

The best way to understand Veronica Clark is to contrast her with Sutton; you have to read both.  One uses clearly laid out evidence to persuade and the other is dependent on rhetorical tools to give herself an air of authority, listing demonstrably false facts to make up her argument.  Which of these is of scholarly merit is clear.

What proportion of Hitler’s resources do you believe derived from jew banks?

You said resources, which would be the money needed to place the NSDAP into power and the materials needed to fight a future war.

My beliefs on this topic are derived from Sutton.  So I’ll quote some passages from Sutton, which are extensively supported by evidence.

Without funding from international bankers, the NSDAP wouldn’t be a serious contender, let alone acquire power:

The critical point is that the German industrialists financing Hitler were predominantly directors of cartels with American associations, ownership, participation, or some form of subsidiary connection. The Hitler backers were not, by and large, firms of purely German origin, or representative of German family business. Except for Thyssen and Kirdoff, in most cases they were the German multi-national firms — i.e., I.G. Farben, A.E.G., DAPAG, etc. These multi-nationals had been built up by American loans in the 1920s, and in the early 1930s had American directors and heavy American financial participation.

The essential material resources needed for the planned war had much to do with industries established by international bankers:

The contribution made by American capitalism to German war preparations before 1940 can only be described as phenomenal. It was certainly crucial to German military capabilities. For instance, in 1934 Germany produced domestically only 300,000 tons of natural petroleum products and less than 800,000 tons of synthetic gasoline; the balance was imported. Yet, ten years later in World War II, after transfer of the Standard Oil of New Jersey hydrogenation patents and technology to I. G. Farben (used to produce synthetic gasoline from coal), Germany produced about 6 1/2 million tons of oil — of which 85 percent (5 1/2 million tons) was synthetic oil using the Standard Oil hydrogenation process. Moreover, the control of synthetic oil output in Germany was held by the I. G. Farben subsidiary, Braunkohle-Benzin A. G., and this Farben cartel itself was created in 1926 with Wall Street financial assistance.

Sutton showed in detail how false the contention that “American technical assistance was accidental” is.

To what degree do you suppose that Hitler’s programme was arranged to suit jew interests?

The NSDAP program was about financial reform and socialism.  Jews wanted socialism.  Financial reform didn’t suit Jewish interests, but they had their plans to thwart as much of it as possible.  They had their men, such as Schacht, in key positions.  They had an international economic boycott against Germany to retard German economic growth.  They had preparations for a war underway, for profit; bringing the NSDAP to power was their best bets for effecting this war.

Is it your impression that Hitler and his policies remained captive to his sponsors over time, and if so to what degree?

The financial reform plans were retarded till early 1939, but then Schacht was fired as head of the Reichsbank in January 1939, and full-scale banking reform implemented in June 1939.  WWII broke out within months. 

It seems to me that you have in the past referred to National Socialism as one among several jew attempts to popularize a form of socialism as a precursor to jew rule. Is this accurate?
 
Sort of.  What exactly is socialism?  It’s not about people taking care of the weak, the dependent and the downtrodden in society.  It’s about profitting off of debt.  The numbers of the destitute can be increased, and they’ll beg, borrow or steal to survive, but for bankers to deal with individuals, whether in loaning or prosecuting for failure to pay off loans, is inefficient. 

For bankers, nothing beats the efficiency of a government that’s the single largest debt holder in society and increasingly responsible for providing a large portion of the public with food, housing and other forms of assistance.  This government will simply have to take on more debt, and will have the force of law and the apparatus of the state to force austerity on the masses, take away their possessions and hand over public assets, for pennies on the dollar, to bankers demanding their pound of flesh to settle unpayable debt.

This is what socialism is about.  Once you understand that socialism is about profitting off of debt, you immediately know why capitalist bankers would promote it.  You also know how to solve the problem.  Malicious people say reduce the debt, but less borrowing means less money for commerce.  Imagine many people who have to rely on food stamps being unable to get them: you’ll see breadlines, riots, starvation and suicides.  The solution is to focus on the profitting part of profitting off of debt.  When you eliminate interest, the amount of money available to pay off debt always equals the amount of money created as debt, and there are no foreclosures over unpayable debt.  The only problem that could remain with the creation of money as debt is if not enough is created, but this is solved by placing the power to create money in the hands of public-owned banks as the public wouldn’t inconvenience itself by not creating the money it needs.  Since banks create money against collateral or a promise to pay, there’s no way to end up with excess money.  Society ends up with just the amount of money it needs at any given time. 

With scarcity of money eliminated, there’d be a drastic reduction in people dependent on a government to provide them with necessities, no need for a big government, and people will be more in control of their destinies than dependent on others for handouts.  Between a small government and the goodwill of citizens, there’d be enough resources or charity to take care of the vastly reduced numbers of the downtrodden that would remain.


6

Posted by Helvena on Tue, 17 Jul 2012 05:24 | #

Are there financial records of the NSDAP that can be studied?


7

Posted by dc on Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:07 | #

JR,

Thanks for taking the time to reply _in extenso_. Your banker’s view of socialism is particularly interesting, but can hardly be definitive if only because it only has meaning in a society with privately owned banks. Certainly banker profiteering was not something the National socialists were aiming at, and at least by their own account were determined to prevent (see Feder, Goebbels, etc.). It is true that “reform socialism” can be perverted but I don’t see that it must be.

It has been a long time since I read Sutton, so I must go back for the dates. But the matter can hardly be as simple as wanting to “buy a dictator”. Hitler was far from a sure thing as late as 1932, and in fact the Bankers may have been counting more on a civil war followed by a communist victory. Furthermore, it is hard, at least for me, to see how the bankers could hope to control Hitler’s socialism after he attained power (I get the impresssion that Schacht was more window dressing than anything else). Most likely many factors at work, but once the communists were broken, and Hitler’s popularity was sky-rocketing, what could the bankers do but hang on ?


8

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 18 Jul 2012 00:32 | #

@dc

Your banker’s view of socialism… only has meaning in a society with privately owned banks.

Is there something other than the bankers’ version of socialism?

The rudiments of socialism were observed in the French Revolution when the masses were worked up against the absolute monarchy with notions of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”... international bankers, wanting central control of French money, at play.  Later, socialism was implemented in Russia.  Marx railed against capitalism, without even mentioning the Rothschilds and other big international bankers, because he was working for these bankers.  Again, they wanted to get rid of the absolute monarchy. 

It’s the bankers who created socialism.  Any other conceptualization of socialism appears to be a neologism or bastardization of the original banker intent.  More or less cultural universals such as charity or altruism or support for a central organization that’s responsible for societal well-being aren’t enough to evolve into socialism.

Yes indeed, Feder was a problem, but the bankers’ agent, Schacht, managed to get Feder removed as Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in 1934 and himself became the head of the Ministry of Economic Affairs.

Your other concerns are valid, but you have to see them in context.  The only way for international bankers to rule in the long run is via proxy so that people’s anger is directed toward the puppets superficially wielding power instead of the bankers.  This usually carries some risk that the apparently controllable people they place in positions of superficial power [king, president, chancellor, prime minister, etc.], who nominally command the army, might turn against the bankers. 

Before the NSDAP came to power, Stalin had forced out the bankers’ candidate to lead Russia, Trotsky.  Stalin had also been purging some Jews a few years before WWII started.  There was a time when Chairman Mao, having adopted a movement implemented by the bankers, turned against the bankers.  This is when the bankers turned the heat on China: sanctions, stockpiling weapons in Manchuria, arming Tibetan freedom fighters and Taiwanese troops, sending U.S. troops to Vietnam, etc., tightening the noose on China.  Ultimately Mao caved in and China was given Taiwan’s U.N. seat, a free hand in Tibet, Hong Kong, and jobs outsourced from the West.

Seen in this context, there were potential issues with bringing the NSDAP to power, an occupational hazard that goes with the territory, but it worked out great for the international bankers.


9

Posted by dc on Wed, 18 Jul 2012 05:07 | #

JR,

You write, Is there something other than the bankers’ version of socialism?

In my opinion yes. Socialist impulses originate for the most part in the humanist thinking of the Enlightenment, and from outrage at the excesses of the Industrial Revolution, which places us in the late 1700s. Some of the early thinking and experiments were daft, some were hopelessly romantic (as Blake), some were corrupt (as Rousseau), but it is hard to see the hand of the banker behind any of them.  My guess is that the bankers did not see the possibilities available in corrupting socialist ideas into class war until after the fall of Napoleon, and even then, people like Robert Owen seem thoroughly honest. So much for socialist aims.

I’ve yet to read anything that would place plans to exploit the ideas of socialism for profit earlier than about 1830, with the first attempts about 15 years later (Hess, Lasalle, Marx, ... 1848). If I’m showing my ignorance I shan’t mind mockery but please provide references. The difficulty appears to be on the other foot. Early exploitation of socialism seems to be all about facilitating jew dominance. That there was planned banker generation of “socialist” states is purely, so I think, inferential. Do we have any clear case histories ?

To return to Hitler, I believe the socialism of National Socialism to be a legitimate example of a cooperative state, with no apparent banker direction or profit (albeit with hideous amounts of flags, marching and hero worship). It is too much to believe Hitler was a creature of the bankers designed for profit—he consistently tried to avoid war with the banker and jew controlled states, only to have his hand forced.

I make no claim to be an expert, only someone who is curious. So ... if anyone cares to set me straight I shall be grateful.

I’ll get back to the rest once I’ve looked at Sutton again.


10

Posted by J Richards on Sat, 21 Jul 2012 02:18 | #

@dc

In my opinion yes [version of socialism other than bankers’]. Socialist impulses originate for the most part in the humanist thinking of the Enlightenment, and from outrage at the excesses of the Industrial Revolution, which places us in the late 1700s… it is hard to see the hand of the banker behind any of them.

Look at the matter in terms of a marketing issue.  Borrowing humanitarian or progressive ideas [Liberty, Equality, Fraternity] may serve as a good marketing tool, especially if their time has come.  Such ideas can be borrowed from sincere individuals and used to implement one’s nefarious plans, packaged sheep on the outside, wolf inside. 

An example is the free market.  Freedom sounds good.  A plain reading of a free market is people being free to exchange goods and services, but this freedom requires that the medium for exchange, money, is plentiful.  When the bankers talk about the free market, they really mean that the medium for exchange is controlled by them, which they prefer to always keep scarce, and since they create money as debt, they decide who’s loaned money to buy.

So are we looking at two variants of the same concept [free market] or two distinct concepts?  Answer: Two distinct concepts; in one case we have a true free market, in the other a restricted market maliciously labeled a free market.

Now let’s look at the 1700s.  James von Brunn had the following to say about the circumstances of the industrial revolution.

The Satanical character of the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, begun in England (c. 1760), bore the cloven imprint of the Rothschilds. It was they who established the building codes, and ordinances, and set standards and values. JEWS hold NO patriotism for their host country: NO love of the landscape, the State, its history, and its people. They view THEIR TALMUDIC WORLD as one without boundaries; upon goyim as THEIR sheep to be fleeced. Had Aryan Man controlled his own MONEY he would NOT have created hellish factory towns, using his own children as slave labor. He would have shaped the Industrial Revolution with the same artistry and love he used in creating his great music, literature, art, sciences and cathedrals.  USURY degrades. USURY enslaves.

So outrage at these excesses of the Industrial Revolution birth humanitarian ideas which you call socialist.  But do they get implemented?  James von Brunn added:

The gradual change in direction of Western aspirations (c. 1750) proceeding from Culture to Civilization created stress and fractures within the monarchies of Europe, requiring time to diagnose, treat and heal. JEWS sensed in this indisposition an opportunity to attack. What most certainly would have been a peaceful revolution in France was turned into a tragedy.  For the first time the West witnessed JEW POWER: The ILLUMINATI fomented the FRENCH REVOLUTION. L’INFAMIE ignited it.

In France, Jews started with slandering Marie Antoinette, accusing her of indulgence and adultery, turning the public against her.  By the time she was led to the guillotine, she had been accused of orchestrating orgies in Versailles, sending millions of livres of treasury money to Austria, plotting to kill the Duke of Orléans, declaring her son to be the new king of France, incest with her son, and orchestrating the massacre of the Swiss Guards in 1792.

The slander against the royalty worked.  A constitutional monarchy was forced in 1791.  It ended a year later with the royal family imprisoned, the monarchy abolished and the Money Changers forcing France into a war with Austria and Prussia, later also dragging in Spain and Britain.  All sides were forced to borrow from the Money Changers, but France was prevented from repaying loans with assignats (currency in circulation from 1789 to 1796) and prices rose considerably.  Now what would the desperate French masses do?  The canaille (Jewish agitators in the press and on the streets) simultaneously set to work, working France into a frenzy of despair.  Eventually prison and asylum gates were thrown open, and The Terror (1793-1794) was unleashed.  Criminals and lunatics ran wild, burning, raping, killing—screaming “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” and waving Rothschild’s Red Flag.  Jacobin Clubs rounded up and jailed, without trial, bourgeoisie and aristocrats: men, women and children listed for extermination.  The French aristocracy was murdered by the tens of thousands.

The French revolution wouldn’t have been possible if there weren’t enough native French assisting the alien conspirators, but what motivated the native leaders of the revolution?  You can figure this out by noting that nearly all non-Jewish French leaders of the revolution ended up being murdered.  They had been duped.  When Marquis de Mirabeau woke up to the deception, he tried to save the doomed royal family, but was thwarted and beheaded.  Maximilien Robespierre had declined to reveal the alien financiers of the revolution, but he was shot in the jaw nevertheless to prevent him from talking and later beheaded.

So what do we have here?  Jews create a human rights abuse problem, which birth humanitarian ideas, and these, in part, are superficially used for marketing, along with slander, duping enough French to rise against their aristocracy.  The methods employed wouldn’t be approved by the great thinkers who genuinely sought to improve the lives of the people, especially if they knew who was to blame and what their ultimate plans were: lies and slander against the royalty, deceptive marketing [“Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”], duping, destitution following money being made worth less, agitation following this destitution, rape and mass murder. 

So, should the humanitarian ideas that you describe as socialist be considered a version of socialism other than the ones implemented by Jewish bankers?  Sorry, there’s nothing in common.  Socialism can only be used to describe one of these distinct phenomena.  The usage should be limited to what the bankers implemented, the only [twisted] implementation of the just-sounding ideas [preferably not described as socialist] birthed as a result of banker exploitation in the first place and used as a marketing ploy by bankers and other Jews to dupe people.

My guess is that the bankers did not see the possibilities available in corrupting socialist ideas into class war until after the fall of Napoleon, and even then, people like Robert Owen seem thoroughly honest. So much for socialist aims.

I’ve yet to read anything that would place plans to exploit the ideas of socialism for profit earlier than about 1830, with the first attempts about 15 years later (Hess, Lasalle, Marx, ... 1848).

The bankers didn’t have to wait for humanitarian ideas to emerge before they could exploit them into class war.  They created the exploitation that birthed the humanitarian ideas and used them as marketing tools to dupe people into further indebtness and control by bankers.

The Bank of France, the entity Jews wished to create, was established in 1800.  But Napoleon rose against the money power and temporarily caused the Jewish bankers some setbacks.  Napoleonic reforms sought to implement some of the nice-sounding ideas behind the French revolution, but Napoleon sought genuine improvement of the masses, whereas the bankers wanted their enslavement.  This is why they financed other European powers against him.  After the fall of Napoleon, it was resuming from where the bankers were toward the end of the French revolution, before the rise of Napoleon. 

In Marx, it was a refinement of ideas taken from the French Revolution that would be used to dupe people against the aristocracy.  Unsurprisingly, Marx railed against capitalism but ignored the Rothschilds and other big Jewish capitalists.

To return to Hitler, I believe the socialism of National Socialism to be a legitimate example of a cooperative state, with no apparent banker direction or profit (albeit with hideous amounts of flags, marching and hero worship).

As long as the state borrows the money for its functioning, at interest, from bankers, bankers get to profit and control the cooperative state.  So funding the NSDAP to power wasn’t a big problem at the time, of potential use in effecting a major war for profit, potential insurance against Stalin, and plans were underway to retard the financial reforms in the NSDAP program.


11

Posted by A Swain on Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:18 | #

One of the many Ashkenazi ploys is to finance and arm both sides of a conflict simultaneously.

Non-Jewish nations must learn to intercept such ploys before the intended death blow hits and then neutralize them. 

In further dealing with the Ashkenazim, other nations must thoroughly educate their peoples about the workings and machinations of the Ashkenazi mindset, embark on a national genetic profiling of their nation’s respective population(s) and stifle (not deport) those found to be of suspect lineage.

Universal trust, humanitarianism and destructive altruism must be buried for good.

A new universal ethnonational sovereignty world order must see to it that banking and general fiscal practices never be let loose into the private sector ever again.

Capitalism must come to mean something entirely different. 

In other words, in relation to the nation’s fiscal matters, the State must become the only manager and dispenser of it which also means becoming the only legitimate money lender to its population(s).  With regards to concepts of freedom, liberty and equality such a strategy might well be considered dangerous and/or totalitarian, but privatisation of a nation’s monetary/banking system has indeed also proven over and over to be just so as well in relation to these three concepts which concepts also do need redefining.  For example, we must learn to challenge the notion that freedom, liberty and equality are the be alll and by all of human existence.  History more than warns us that these concepts can be and are continually being perverted and exploited by those with an agenda the same as every other concept and the sensible objective should be to create all measures to prevent that from happening, and at the same time entrap any potential elements trying it on so to speak.


12

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:23 | #

Socialism does not offer a cure. It offers a mega dose of the disease itself.

Robert Owen didn’t understand that.

Hitler didn’t understand that.

So better make sure you DO get that!

Long live the American INDIVIDUAL!!!


13

Posted by Anonymous (again) on Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:19 | #

@ J Richards

Mr. Richards,

I’m very impressed by your posts here…

Was wondering if you had a radio show or website that I could
follow similar to some of the other folks on here- ZCF, etc.

I really value your facts/opinions.

I’d love for you and ZCF to do a show together in a low
pressure/relaxed format like he does w/Spingola.

-Anonymous


14

Posted by TruthAdvocate on Sat, 30 Nov 2013 01:19 | #

You might find this link interesting on the capitalist and zionist workings of the NSDAP. Books, articles, and radio podcasts are listed.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/119522234768392/permalink/403659849687961/


15

Posted by Charles Krafft on Tue, 08 Mar 2016 19:33 | #

The Myth of the Big Business-Nazi Axis
K.R. Bolton

The party-line of the Left is that Fascism and Nazism were the last resort of Capitalism.1 Indeed, the orthodox Marxist critique does not go beyond that. In recent decades there has been serious scholarship within orthodox academe to understand Fascism as a doctrine. Among these we can include Roger Griffin,2 Roger Eatwell,3 and particularly Zeev Sternhell.4 The last in particular shows that Fascism derived at least as much from the Left as from the Right, emerging from Italy but also in particular from Francophone Marxists as an effort to transcend the inadequacies of Marxism as an analysis of historical forces.

Among the National Socialists in Germany, opposition to international capital figured prominently from the start. The National Socialists, even prior to adopting that name, within the small group, the German Workers’ Party, saw capital as intrinsically anti-national.  The earliest party program, in 1919, stated that the party was fighting “against usury… against all those who make high profits without any mental or physical work,” the “drones” who “control and rule us with their money.” It is notable that even then the party did not advocate “ socialization” of industry but profit-sharing and unity among all classes other than “drones.”5 (More) http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2015/volume_7/number_3/the_myth_of_the_big_business_nazi_axis.php


16

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:47 | #

Charles, it is not that neo-liberal business would naturally come together with “fascism” or national socialism in the end.

On the contrary.

Neo-liberal business, Jewish interests even (to some extent) coincided pragmatically, to some extent, finding some profit and potential gain in the right wing elements of Hitler’s program; viz., those elements that were NEITHER nationalistic nor socialistic but which were narrowly supremacist and aggrandizingly imperialistic.

Some Jews might profit financially. Their race might be “purified” of mixed elements and those who’d be happy to stay in Europe. In addition, the occasion could provide a strong motivation and warrant to establish Israel again in Palestine, after 2,000 years.

That is not to say that the Jews were pulling Hitler’s strings or that he was doing their bidding. Some practical objectives aligned.

In the case of business, it was much the same. In fact, the Thyssens’ and the Krupps were responsible for encouraging him to turn his back on national socialism, purge its enforcement arm in the night of the long knives (1934), and funding him in pursuit of his right wing plans for militarism as a comprehensive fact of life*, lebensraum and supremacy in exaggerated model of Friedrich the Great’s program.

Big business was not aligning with national socialism or even fascism, it was a pragmatic alignment with right wing elements that went under the banner of NS. That is among the reasons why it is important to watch how right wing elements are operating within the tentosphere.

* War and struggle for supremacy was treated as a fixed fact of nature below or above the social group, and as a brute fact of nature that must be adhered to in an axiomatic way - this is a right wing notion as it attempts to absolutize and affix this theorem beyond - upholding it to run roughshod over - necessary complexities of maintaining the human social group and its relations.

As if we should align with brute nature or some transcendent weirdness; as if we should not seek social homeostasis and proceed on the basis of our human lights, consciously, accountably and agentively managing our human ecologies in the best and optimal manner - showing compassion for those who deserve compassion for their loyalty despite inability to contribute unusually much at this moment, and rewarding with more those who deserve it for having contributed much. Of course we can.


17

Posted by Krafft art on Wed, 09 Mar 2016 15:03 | #

 

While I (DanielS) have criticized Krafft in the past, it was primarily on the basis of the subject matter of his art and politics. In either case, he tends to articulate a dubious subject with some measure of skill.

                     


18

Posted by Hiter&Nature; or EuropeanSocialGroup on Fri, 11 Mar 2016 06:15 | #

This essay of Guillaume Durocher - Schopenhauer & Hitler - serves to confirm a couple of points that I (DanielS) have been making to the right-wing idiots out there who adore Hitler and want to redeem him as perfect:

How strange that a man nourished by the Buddha could in turn inspire the Führer! Although perhaps Buddhism and Hitlerism have some similar assumptions, despite their radically different conclusions. Both seek to put the individual in harmony with the cosmos: Siddhārtha Gautama and Schopenhauer urge denial of the individual will and thus realization of one’s unity with the universe, whereas Hitler demands the individual submit to Nature and her laws (including, where applicable, serving to a National Socialist state itself dedicated to the laws of Nature).

1) Race and its maintenance are a relative concern and not the same as nature, which is an objective phenonenon completely impartial to our race’s existence or not. Therefore, to submit to nature is to subject your race to an arbitrary fate.

2) That Hitler cannot descriptively be called a national socialist in these values. It is a rubric that was partly practiced and helped to gain popularity and then it became a misnomer as he began to implement the right wing features of his agenda.

3) Sheer adherence, submission to Nature and her laws is Right Wing, in all its glorious stupidity and propensity for all the catastrophe that it has brought us as a people - because it is not socially accountable to us a people, it is beholden to supra-social things - in this case, “nature.”

 


19

Posted by STEM nerds & Physics envy on Fri, 11 Mar 2016 06:37 | #

STEM valuation, physics envy, nerd elitism as it were, tend to leave us racially vulnerable as they are a-social, hence a-racial, objectivist criteria; and the kinds who are rewarded and distinguish themselves by these means - irrespective of necessarily relative, racial interests - will, of course want to believe that their merit and reward is objectively grounded, not socially dependent; therefore, they are going to be more inclined to try to maintain and base our distinction, need for separation and protection on the more and more narrowly objective criteria which personally distinguishes them.

That is becoming more apparent as a problem for European racialism as time goes on and I have the misfortune of having to deal with the intransigence of Right-wingers - they often tend to be STEM types or to value the results of their people on the grounds of those STEM achievements; abilities which can insulate themselves for a time from the destruction of Marxist advocacy groups, cultural or otherwise, as these skills are less accessible to Africans and other low I.Q. populations. Given that they are able to gain financial and other reward then, despite liberalism, they are more inclined to go along with it, wanting to believe that they have their position through sheer objective merit (no social construction) and that the casualties among their race are necessary casualties for which they have no accountability; while those who replace us, do so by the same objective criteria that so strongly warrants their position and reward. Meanwhile, their buffering and systemic support network shrinks more and more into miscegenation and displacement….ultimately, perhaps, to where they do not have a sufficient support network.. until finally they might, a bit late, begin to think in more broad, social terms of their group interest - appreciating that their special abilities are not the only necessary abilities and functions.

                          - DanielS


20

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:28 | #

I want to comment a bit on this ‘submitting to nature’ thing, since I think that it comes down to interpretation and the usage of it. In the context of where European culture was going, asserting that the ‘first law of nature’ is that ‘the strong shall live and the weak shall die’, and that everyone should live with that in mind, is supposed to really be taken as a kind of pep talk to remind people to be ruthless because nature is ruthless.

I have always seen those assertions as being an indicator that the ‘gentleman wars’ that liberals had been enjoying up until then were going to come to an end and that the era of total warfare and wars of extermination were about to begin.

This is parallel in a way to the kind of rhetoric that was coming out of Japan as well, for example the assertion that when the liberals called Japanese ‘savages’, that Japanese ‘should not deny this’. The appeal to nature was a rhetorical way of renouncing liberalism. The corrolary that one’s own civilisation might be found to be weaker and be destroyed, is something that serves as a warning too, but even if you are defeated, so long as you survive you can always engineer the circumstances in which you can try again.

For example, some might say that Russia ‘proved itself’ to be stronger than Germany, Italy, and Japan combined. By 1991 however, everyone re-discovered the truth that the Soviet Union really was quite like a rotten barn, when you kick in the door the entire edifice rapidly collapses. It just took a long time. It may also be possible to look back many years and see that the State of Japan will even outlast the Russian Federation too, and someone might pronounce over that entity, “The strong shall live and the weak shall die.”

Of course, the desire to prove yourself stronger, and to stake everything on it, is natural too, and so it actually adds up completely. It makes a lot more sense than people think it does.


21

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:41 | #

With regards to the article itself, it looks to me like J Richards was complaining about the fact that Axis bought from western capitalists a whole length of rope and then tried valiantly to strangle western capitalists with that same rope.

That’s how things have been done since the dawn of time. If one group is ahead of you when it comes to the development of productive forces, then you do your best to attract foreign direct investment into your country in order to develop as quickly as possible and catch up.

That enables you to either sit at the table as a credible negotiator later, or it can also enable you to flip over the table and declare war if you can’t get what you want by other means. Why? Because productive capacity and efficiency act as an exponent on destructive force, and the whole of international relations rests ultimately atop the credible threat of the use of destructive force by one party to impose added costs onto the others.


22

Posted by The ugly little dwarf on Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:34 | #

Well, Nature might have served as a guiding force of the ignorant at one time, and we can all be glad that the ugly little dwarf, Hitler, got hoisted on his own petard. Hopefully now the lesson is learned of the human difference and of Aristotle’s superior wisdom.

It would NOT be a failed wisdom which would turn the fight for our peoples over to forces of nature nor to the objectivist criteria of liberalism. And as inheritors of the lesson of our inferior [Hitler] and his superior [Aristotle] we would use our practical judgment (prhonesis) with regard to our social circumstances and our enemies - practical judgement calling for sufficient ruthlessness on or behalf. So be it. We are in fact, chomping at the bit.


23

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:03 | #

In my view, the primary lesson to be learned is to plan better next time that destroying Russia appears on the agenda, so that it can actually be accomplished. The fact that people failed at that time doesn’t make the ‘nature’ observation incorrect. It just means that it didn’t work out that time.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Alliance of European National Movements
Previous entry: Putting Nowak, et al, In Perspective With “The Extended Phenotype”

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Improving prospects for the AfD' on Fri, 22 Sep 2017 17:09. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Improving prospects for the AfD' on Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:15. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Improving prospects for the AfD' on Fri, 22 Sep 2017 11:45. (View)

Maria lashes Turks and Caicos commented in entry 'Hurricane Irmina Gathering - Worst Case Scenario is Worse than Harvey, Worse than Katrina [updates]' on Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:56. (View)

Christian Zionism: The Tragedy & The Turning commented in entry 'Donald Trump gives Benjamin Netanyahu everything he wants.' on Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:01. (View)

Half empty stadium for Rams/ 49ers commented in entry 'Seduction of NFL Films, Appeal of L.A. Rams 60's, 70's, dodging legacy of sports-fan cuckoldry' on Fri, 22 Sep 2017 07:50. (View)

AltRight Politics: Imperialism commented in entry 'Russia's Geography Problem' on Fri, 22 Sep 2017 06:05. (View)

The enemy is already within the gates commented in entry ''White privilege' as a warrant for expropriation; Christianity as the executing jurisdiction.' on Fri, 22 Sep 2017 00:03. (View)

Conclusion Jorjani statement on Altright.com commented in entry 'Acrimony on the Alt-Right: Predictably, the Inherent Instability of The Right Emerges' on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 22:09. (View)

Jason Jorjani: Why I left Altright.com Inc. commented in entry 'Acrimony on the Alt-Right: Predictably, the Inherent Instability of The Right Emerges' on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 22:07. (View)

Vietnam war documentary by Ken Burns commented in entry 'Fuck You Right Wing. Fuck You Alternative Right. The White Class Will Prevail and is Here to Stay.' on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 19:48. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Improving prospects for the AfD' on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 18:58. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Improving prospects for the AfD' on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 17:14. (View)

The Hackers tried to destroy Red Ice commented in entry 'Red Ice Radio interviews Majorityrights roundtable about Brexit.' on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:33. (View)

European Girl marries into Isil commented in entry 'German girls being conditioned to be mothers with black baby simulator dolls' on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 04:56. (View)

The Viennna School of Logical Positivism commented in entry 'Improving prospects for the AfD' on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 04:21. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Improving prospects for the AfD' on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 02:34. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Improving prospects for the AfD' on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 02:10. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Improving prospects for the AfD' on Wed, 20 Sep 2017 22:41. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Improving prospects for the AfD' on Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:37. (View)

Enoch Powell: I underestimated magnitude & danger commented in entry 'True Briton & Oswald Mosley's Union Movement' on Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:34. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Improving prospects for the AfD' on Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:00. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Improving prospects for the AfD' on Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:04. (View)

Chances of uniting America dwindling commented in entry 'Trump signs resolution condemning White supremacists' on Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:26. (View)

Evacuate Puerto Ricans or die commented in entry 'Hurricane Irmina Gathering - Worst Case Scenario is Worse than Harvey, Worse than Katrina [updates]' on Wed, 20 Sep 2017 03:45. (View)

Hungary Schengen fence celebrates 2yrs commented in entry 'The indisputable success of the Hungarian border fence' on Tue, 19 Sep 2017 23:43. (View)

Maria, I've just met a hurricane named Maria commented in entry 'Hurricane Irmina Gathering - Worst Case Scenario is Worse than Harvey, Worse than Katrina [updates]' on Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:36. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Tue, 19 Sep 2017 01:19. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:18. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Mon, 18 Sep 2017 23:54. (View)

A German woman this time commented in entry 'Polish tourist is gang-raped on an Italian beach while her helpless boyfriend is forced to watch' on Mon, 18 Sep 2017 09:45. (View)

Putin's Chekist side vs the Magnitsky Act commented in entry 'Alt-Right Leaders Passion for Putin' on Mon, 18 Sep 2017 08:12. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Mon, 18 Sep 2017 01:30. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Who do you wish to hear from on Majorityrights Radio?' on Mon, 18 Sep 2017 01:06. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 17 Sep 2017 18:49. (View)

affection-tone