The German side justified the 1939 attack to Poland by the repressive treatment of the German minority by the Poles. Germans claimed that Poles had done murders and other atrocities against Germans. There is evidence of murders of German civilians by Poles, but this evidence relates to events after Germany attacked. The most often mentioned case is the Bloody Sunday of Bromberg (Bydgoszcz) 3-4. September 1939. Hitler gave the orders to plan the attack to Poland in April 1939. If atrocities from the Polish side were the reason for Hitler’s attack, these atrocities should have happened before April 1939. There is no evidence of such cases.
The Polish government had the goal of polonization of the country. How much this affected the German minority is unclear. We can assume that the feelings toward Germans were more positive than towards Jews and can assume that polonization was less severe towards Germans than towards Jews. Indeed, Jews picture Poland of the pre-war times as a highly anti-semitic country. The reality does not confirm this opinion. The only “anti-Semitic” law in Poland before 1939 was a law from 1938 limiting the number of ritual slaughters of animals in an area to depend on the number of Jews in the area. A law forbidding ritual slaughter of animals was to come in force 1939, but because of the attack it was not introduced. Many medical studies confirm that the ritual slaughter causes unnecessary suffering for the animal. The only reason, that this practice is still allowed, is political. It should certainly be banned for animal protection reasons. It is an ancient barbaric practice.
There is another example of anti-Semitism in Poland before the WWII. The citizenship law of 1939 removed Polish citizenship from people who spent five years abroad and who lost contact with Poland. There were many Polish Jews, who had moved abroad: to Germany or to France. If they felt like Polish citizens, all they needed to do was to return to Poland. But Jews did not feel like Poles: they welcomed Soviet troops in 1939 and helped to compose lists of Poles to be taken to Siberia. That is why Germans, explaining this to Poles in 1941, managed to instigate many pogroms against Jews in Poland, made by native Poles. So, Jews never felt like Poles, and they did not support the Polish government of the new Polish state established in 1918. Why should such Jews, who moved abroad, were there at least five years, and lost all contact with Poland, be Polish citizen? I see no reason for them to be Polish citizen and for this law to be anti-Semitic. Had the law been enforced, we would know how many Jews left Poland before 1939, but this law came just when Germany attacked.
So, this was the suppression of Polish Jews. I will not especially look at the suppression of Polish Ukrainians, but it was not much worse. Suppression of Polish Germans must have been less severe. Thus, there was some discrimination, but not much. Not enough for starting a war. Danzig was taken over by people closely tied with Nazis. They tried, and succeeded, in creating the crisis of Danzig.
I do understand that Germans, who lost areas in the WWI, which they probably did not intend to start, felt that the corridor of Poland should be German, as Poles are untermenchen. Or do I understand it? Poland lost this area in 1772. For 326 years (from 1446-1772) the Royal Prussia (where Danzig is) was a part of Poland. That was so because the Teutonic Knights lost the battle of Grunwald (1410) against the Polish cavalry. Let me make a small correction: I do not understand why Germans should have considered this land theirs, it was not theirs, but I do acknowledge that many of them did so.\
Nevertheless, Polish atrocities or discrimination of the German minority were not the reason for the 1939 attack. These atrocities did not happen – what happened were atrocities after Germans attacked, and the German minority was not suppressed more than Polish Jews, and that means, almost not at all. There was the aspect of pride: Germany had lost area and it was given to untermenchen, but I do not think Hitler taught in such a naive way.
The issue of the attack to Poland in 1939 is that Hitler ordered planning the attack in April 1939, while Chamberlain stated that England will go to war over Poland in the end of May 1939. Poland had a defense agreement with France. Thus, in April 1939 Hitler knew that by attacking Poland he would get to a war with England and France.
Some people try to claim that Hitler hoped that England and France would not have respected their commitment because of such an unimportant country like Poland (the same with Finland, or any other country, well, that is so, they do not, but this time they did). I do not accept this argument. It is more like Hitler made several operations and waited for England to finally draw a line. Then when England had drawn a line, Hitler made an attack. That means, Hitler wanted to get England into a war.
I know, many people ask: why would Hitler do so, he was a gambler and hoped that England would not stand up to its words. This is nonsense. Hitler knew exactly well that Churchill would object to any peace offer. Germany had made a peace offer to England in the WWI, it had not been accepted. Instead, Zionist bankers had blackmailed England to make the Balfour declaration against the promise that these Zionist bankers (not the Herzl Zionist organization, but a Jewish Masonic body) would bring the USA to the side of England and in this way crush Germany.
Hitler did believe in the International Jewry. He did believe in the stab in the back. He necessarily had to believe that Zionists would try to blackmail England in case England would end up in a very difficult situation. Zionists would demand England to accept the founding of the state of Israel, and in return, they would bring the USA to the European theatre of war. That is, Hitler had to think like this. This is the only way you can think if you believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and in the stab in the back.
So, what does Hitler do? He attacks Poland and gets England and France into a war. Thus, he intentionally starts a world war. Earlier he had spoken that if the International Jewry second time manages to plunge the world into a world war, the result will be different: Jews will be pushed out of Europe. This, naturally, is exactly what the International Jewry wanted: Jews were to be pushed to Palestine because otherwise there could not be Israel.
When Hitler already is in war with Poland, France and England, the Western powers do absolutely nothing. They could have attacked Germany in the beginning. Germany had weak defenses in the West, but they did nothing. Then Hitler let the British troops evacuate in Dunkirk. There was no need for it. England did not make a separate peace, and Hitler must have known that Churchill demands for continuation of the war. So, why did Hitler let the British go? For the same reason as Hitler forbid Finns and Germans in Lapland to attack the second Murmansk railroad: to keep the Allied in the war. It was the same reason why Hitler delayed the attack to Moscow and split the forces: to keep the Soviets in the war. For exacttly the same reason Hitler did not allow Paulus to break through in Stalingrad, to let Soviets win, and why Hitler delayed the attack to Kursk and stopped the battle when Germans were winning. That is, Hitler made very many, more than can be explained, serious mistakes in the war. He actually wanted to occupy countries, collect their Jewish populations, and lose the war.
You do not think so? So what about the Battle of England? By military considerations Hitler never had the chance of attacking over the channel. Even Goebbels, in the diaries, says that Hitler did not really intend to invade England. So, why did he do the battle of England? It had one goal. That goal was not pressing England to a peace agreement: Churchill was there to stop any such peace agreement (Freemason Churchill had been in debts, but got out of them because of help from Jews, so he was in a debt of gratitude for them, maybe more). The goal was to blackmail England to go to the logical conclusion of the Balfour declaration: after the end of the war Israel was created.
We should not forget Roosevelt. But Roosevelt did have some connections to a group of people, didn’t he.
22 Comments
So you’re saying Hitler was a controlled opposition? I’m obviously not promoting National Socialism but it is clear he did everything in his power, apart from some mistakes to counter an eastern communist front that longed to take over EUROPE.
There are a lot of claims you’re making here, and we really don’t know if they are true or not. And all the nazi anti-semitic propaganda was just Zionist propaganda? What I mean is that you’re saying that Hitler was a Zionist? Despite the fact that nearly all of their de stormer or however you spell it magazines (which resemble BDS comics) painted the Zionist elite in a very bad light. That they would destroy Palestine and use the arabs for their own benefit.
Also, although I don’t know if this is true or not, I read that Hitler shut down all Rothschild associated banks.
You are a bit misunderstanding the post. Hitler was not controlled opposition and Nazis were fighting Communism. I will try to explain this very briefly, it is in my other posts. Freemasonry was the revolutionary force up to 1871, the Paris Commune, when Mizraim and Memphis lodges stopped their leftist revolutionary activity. Around the same time started Communists, who largely copied the methods from Mizraim and Memphis (also called Jacobins as they were the descendants of Jacobins). In early 1890s inactive Mizraim and Memphis rites were unified by other Masons and Mizraim documents were read, revealing a leftist plan for world control. The same that Maurice Joly described in Dialogues. Theosophists wrote, based on Mizraim documents and Joly’s book, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, meant to be a warning of Communists and an anti-Semitic document to push Jews to Palestine, as many Jews had joined Communists. Theosophists also started an anti-Semitic movement, and at the same time Herzl created Zionism. The funders of Mizraim activity, and later the funders of Communistic Jews were bankers. These bankers, Freemasons, had for a long time wanted Jews to move to Palestine and to create Israel. Thus, Freemasons and Theosophists (they are masonic) tried to stop Communism by pushing Jews to Palestine, and some Masons wanted to create Israel for Cabbalistic reasons. The Thule Society was one of the offshoots of Theosophy, so it was not a Zionist puppet, it was Theosophist offshoot. The Nazi party was a creation of Thule. Notice here: Theosophists wanted to stop Communists, so Nazis were fighting communists. Thule was not Zionist front, Theosophists had the “Zionist”goal from Freemasons of cleansing the degenerate ancient people of Jews by natural selection and having them set up a state in Palestine. It was an old goal of the builders of the Temple of Solomon, Freemasons. Jews had to be restored to Palestine. This was Hitler’s goal. One of his private books has underlined this sentence. It is a book of an anti-Semitist, who also as a Zionist as he wanted Jews to be moved to Palestine. So, Hitler was this type of a Zionist. Hitler made the Haavara agreement to take some German Jews to Palestine to build infra there. Hitler’s first peace offer to England proposes that Jews are moved to Palestine. There is no doubt whatsoever that the original place where Hitler wanted to move the Jews was Palestine. It always stayed as Palestine, but to pacify Arabs, Hitler suggested Madagascar (no plans made for Madagascar, it would have been impossible to keep Jews there as they did not want there, it would have been a prison island, no, Madagascar was never Hitler’s plan. Neither was a Jewish homeland in Eastern Europe. Jews were to go away from Europe. The place had to be Palestine all the time, but Hitler did not want to say so to Arabs.) Nazis hated Jewish bankers, this is true. It was Jewish bankers who blackmailed European countries that unless Jews are taken to Palestine, they will fund Communistic revolutions. This is why Freemasons and Theosophists warned of the Jewish Elders and Communists. Naturally Hitler would have closed Rothschild associated banks in Germany, Austria and France, but British Rothschilds he could not touch. But you are misunderstanding the post. I am not saying that Hitler was a Rothschild puppet. Try to understand what I am saying: Freemasons (and Theosophists) realized that the dangerous leftist revolutionary movement, which originally was Memphis and Mizraim (the old French Jacobins and Bavarian Illuminati) did not die in 1871. It continued in another form as Communism and Jews were running this new form. That is why they had to support restoration of Jews to Palestine. But they certainly did not need to like the Jewish elite or Jews in general. Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda was part of Theosophist anti-Semitic propaganda intended to push Jews to Palestine. Certainly the makes of this propaganda may have believed every world of it, or some of it. But still they had to take Jews to Palestine, which makes them Zionists.
Or think it this way, maybe it is easier. You know that Lord Byron fought in the liberation war of Greece and was quite well aware of revolutionaries and that they were Freemasons. He gave the topics, probably more than topics, to his guests for writing a horror story. One guest was Mary Shelley. Dr. Frankenstein from Ingolstadt is Freemasons (remember, Adam Weishaupt was from Ingolstadt), the core group, which arranged politics in the 19th century. The Monster is Mizraim and Memphis, or Jacobins, the leftist revolutionaries. This Monster had the habit of massacring people, like in France in the years of terror. So, Dr. Frankenstein tried to kill the Monster, but it escaped to the North (to Russia as Communism, to be precise). So Frankenstein is still persecuting the Monster. And that’s about all in this horror story. So, Nazis as a tool of Frankenstein are no puppets or special friends of the Monster. The Monster should be killed, but as it is a beloved Monster, it could be driven somewhere where it would stay and not harm others.
You mention Arabs and ask if Nazis could have intended to send Jews to Palestine without considering Arab feelings. The Mufti of Jerusalem did visit Hitler and got a promise that Jews will not be sent to Palestine, but Hitler did not keep his promises. A better view to the Nazi support of Arabs is a story in Gehlen’s memories, he was ex-Nazi and ex-intelligence head of Hitler. He tells that he predicted to the day Israel’s attack in 1967 (he must have known it, the USA gave intelligence to Israel for this attack). But then he tells that he had sent to Egypt many ex-Nazis to work in Egyptian intelligence. These ex-Nazis knew exactly well what weapons Israel had got from Germany, but they did not tell it to Egypt or warn Egypt. Thus, ex-Nazis, working for Arabs in 1967, were pro-Israel. Nazis hated some Jews, namely Communist Jews and that Jewish elite that they believed funded Communist Jews. They killed Communist Jews. But by demograpics it follows that they did not kill non-Communistic Jews, so they did not hate them so much. And indeed, they transported them so that they could be settled after the war, and the only place that that is possible is Palestine.
Thank you so much. I have a few questions though. Why did Hitler call Jews a race? They are not considered a race by scholars. I always found that odd. I’m still completely confused by Jewry, not out of spite but out of their many religious, ideological, political, and socioeconomic attributes. You say certain Jews were behind communism, especially during the Bolshevik revolution. That is patently obvious. The head of the Cheka was ethically Jewish and so were the many heads of the gulag system that Solzhenitsyn described as an archipelago. But Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his banned book 200 Years Together, made it clear that some Jewish Zionists in Russia were persecuted and many of them emigrated elsewhere after the Bolshevik revolution. So, there was definitely infighting amongst the Jewish people in Russia, case in point the highly Jewish factions of the Mensheviks, who were supposedly against the Bolsheviks. Then you have the Poale Zion, who were Zionist Marxists who also fought in the revolution against the monarchy, and the Labour Bundists, who were socialists but not particularly nationalistic. It seems that most prominent Jewish organizations and movements in Russia all had Marxian leanings with or without the ideology of a state or a place, as the glue of Jewish “nationalism.” The first Bolshevik government heads were primarily ethnic Jews. But they went onto censor anyone against their ideology, including Zionists who held a nationalist fervor. To the internationalist Bolsheviks, they felt that nationalism, particularly Zionism was antagonistic to Bolshevism and class consciousness. But what is interesting was whilst ethnic Russians were persecuted and executed ; the church macerated and destroyed, Lenin and later Stalin according to Solzhenitsyn made antisemitism by decree (so much as a thought) a death sentence. That a slip of the tongue was a swift execution or a round up to the gulag system. In Pravda we are able to see this decree and the call for more trials of those accused of antisemitism and during Stalin’s reign by his own words, who stated:
“National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism…
“…Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism. In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.”
So, I find that odd, considering many elite Jews today say that Jews of all kinds were persecuted and executed during the Bolshevik and Stalin reign, yet Jewish bankers funded the Bolshevik revolution and many Jews, apostates or not, fronted Bolshevism. Though many of the atheistial Jews fought the monarchy and brought about a ruthless communist state, which was then taken over by Stalin who during the Red Purge killed many of the Old Bolsheviks ;
[Many of those victims were Jewish. It is a historical fact, however, that Stalin didn’t kill because of their ethnicity but out of fear of the old Bolsheviks and internationalists regaining power.]
Solzhenitsyn makes it clear that many communist, atheistical Jews were behind Stalin and worked closely with him.
Also, because being a Jew is ethnic, why are many of the Bolsheviks called Jewish? They were ruthless, and certainly did not adhere to the common culture of being a Jew.
What atheistical Jews have told me is that they are ethnically Jewish e.g are the descendants of Abraham. But how on God’s earth do they know this? That is a lot of time with no real recording.
I also read stuff, with not much evidence that Stalin was a Jesuit or a Catholic or even a Jew, not sure what to make of that. But seeing that there’s so much disinformation on the web, especially, with the Jesuits control everything shtick, you can’t really trust any of the information presented without some sort of poof. It seems that many of the people pushing the Jesuit narrative are in fact Freemasons and Zionists. Also, were not the last 4 prime ministers of Israel Freemasons? What fraternity were they in?
I also read in the minutes of a Zionist World Congress conference a fight between communist Jews and Zionist Jews. I noticed a lot of Communist Jews thought that fleeing Russia showed cowardliness. Could the Zionists of today still have some sort of affinity towards communism? The monster won WWII. It was driven to Palestine, so, essentially these same sort of revolutionaries are in Palestine? The Nazis hated communist Jews but didn’t mind emigrating Zionist Jews and Jews not fond of communism to Palestine? Then you have Churchill funded by a group of Jewish bankers who made it clear in his writings that Bolsheviks were the monster and Zionism is the freedom of the Jewish people.
Silberg, a delegate from Astrakhan in a World Zionist Congress meeting, said [bullets are his words also]:
“Never in the course of its long history had Jewry such an enemy . . . for Jewry, for the Jewish national idea socialism is a mortal foe”
Socialism is all the more dangerous because its bitter pill is lavishly sugared,
because it comes to the unfortunate Jewish people . . . in the guise of a ‘friend’ and ‘deliverer.’ It tells them: ‘Come you, the underprivileged, and I shall deliver you.’
But socialism is not such a ‘platonic altruist’: it demands compensation for its labours.
“What does it require of the Jews?” ask the authors of the document. “A great deal.”
First, it demands flesh and blood sacrifices. Socialism is preparing to overthrow the existing system by force, and such upheavals are inconceivable without bloodshed. . . .
Socialism has inscribed on its banner the words ‘The history of mankind is the history of class struggle,’ i.e., it views crude materialism, the call of the belly as the sole factor of history, an almost exclusive code of life. . . . Whatever form, international or national, socialism might crystallize into, it is equally fatal. . . .
“Yet, if Jewry is to be capable of further historical existence it will have to develop in itself an antidote to the venom of socialism.
And that is exactly what has happened. Raised . . . among the Jews of the world . . . the movement known as ‘Zionism’ is that antidote.
Zionism is creation, revival; socialism is destruction, corruption.
Zionism is peace; socialism is enmity. . . .
Zionism is the unification of the whole of Jewry; socialism is the struggle of one class against another.
Zionism needs a modern system [i.e., capitalism—Y.I.]; socialism raises its sword against this system. . . .
Socialism blocks the path to Zionism. Hence, Zionism and socialism are not merely two mutually repellent poles, but two elements, one completely ruling out the other. Zionism is needed wherever there are Jews, and it is essential where there is ferment in the minds of the Jews.”
“That is precisely what the Jewish problem amounts to: assimilation or isolation?—and the idea of Jewish ‘nationality’ is definitely reactionary not only when expounded by its consistent advocates (the Zionists), but likewise on the lips of those who try to combine it with the ideas of Social-Democracy (the Bundists). . . .
Karl Kautsky, in particular reference to the Russian Jews, expresses himself ever more vigorously. Hostility towards non-native sections of the population can only be eliminated when the non-native sections of the population cease to be alien and blend with the general mass of the population. That is the only possible solution of the Jewish problem, and we should support everything that makes for the ending of Jewish isolation.’ Yet the Bund is resisting this only possible solution for it is helping, not to end but to increase and legitimize Jewish isolation. . . .” (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 7, p. 101.)
With his usual bluntness (now the object of great concern to his adherents) Zionist No.1 disclosed the objectives of “all reactionary forces in Europe,” as Lenin indicated, in their efforts to “consolidate the isolation of Jewry.”
“All our young people,” Herzl wrote,
“who are now between 20 and 30 will sway away from their obscure socialist trends and come to me.”
I also wanted to talk about 9/11 as you’ve written a few posts about the demolition theory. What is particularly odd about the 9/11 charade is how it connects to communist Jews. When we read the 1990 DPG documents, Securing the Realm (a likud party document for Netanyahu), Catastrophic Terrorism: As a National Priority Document, and the PNAC think tank doc. Rebuilding Americas Defenses, we see that neoconservatives were the main people who fronted these plans for a catalyzing event, like a “New Pearl Harbor.” That Pearl Harbor for them was 9/11. 9/11 was the pretext that achieved and set forth all the goals laid out in the aforementioned documents. Interestingly, the neoconservatives are neotrotskyites. They are mostly Jewish with Trotskyist roots. Almost all of them are Zionists. So essentially, they are fervent supporters of Israel, most likely planned 9/11, and are communists. They essentially hijacked the GOP and have further radicalized the protestant denominational churches to lend millions to the ethnostate of Israel. Final note. I find it interesting that many of these neoconservatives loath Trump such as Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol. I do not know how much of this is political theater or is actually a strong hatred for Trump. But considering Trump is deeply united with the Chabad-Lubavitch cult, the Zionists and Netanyahu’s Likud party, why would the neoconservatives not like him? Trump is also good friends with Larry Silverstein and often talks to Netanyahu who works closely with Likudnik neoconservatives, such as Richard Perle. Maybe they despise Trump because of his connections to Putin, even if the whole mainstream conspiracy theory might be a lie. Because the neoconservatives hated Stalin Russia because he kicked out many of the old Bolsheviks and killed Trotsky. Maybe Trump does have some connections to Putin’s Russia and because of that, they despise him for it. And then we have the whole charade of the Duginists and alt-right who are mostly National Bolsheviks playing the roles of White Supremacists. It never ends, there is so much subversiveness and cloak and dagger like organizations in the US and elsewhere that you cannot trust anyone who has any sort of publicity in this media driven world.
And now, in the US we see all these hate speech laws being proposed by Donald Trump who I believe recently converted to orthodox Judaism. His speech a few weeks ago was especially telling. He uttered that those who commit hate crimes (deemed by the state), would face a swift and quick death sentence. They would face the death penalty. I never in all my years would ever think a president would say such a thing, but Trump said it and proposed it A hate crime could be as simple as being accused of something you didn’t do or online bullying. It leaves open determination for the state to pick and choose what is right and wrong. And I believe Trump is a Freemason of the Scottish Germanic rite. At least all his corporate and family name emblems match the Freemason fraternities insignias.
Some of Trump’s words:
“Cultural change [huh?] is hard, but each of us can choose to build a culture that celebrates the inherent worth and dignity of every human life. That’s what we have to do. Third, we must reform our mental health laws to better identify mentally disturbed individuals who may commit acts of violence and make sure those people not only get treatment, but, when necessary, **involuntary confinement.”
That is straight out of communist style dictatorships. Mentally ill people already are disenfranchised enough, and have a lower propensity of committing gun violence than men. 1 and 2 people 50% of the population will be diagnosed with a mental health illness in their lifetime, so Trump’s speech is markedly worrying.
“Today, I am also directing the Department of Justice to propose legislation ensuring that those who commit hate crimes and mass murders face the death penalty, and that this capital punishment be delivered quickly, decisively, and without years of needless delay.
Think about what this means. Most people can understand why a mass murderer should receive the death penalty, so they do not realize how dangerous and insane it is that Trump has also condemned anyone convicted of a “hate crime” to also receive the same fate. A “hate crime” could involve spray painting a swastika, putting a flyer on a synagogue, or hurting someone’s feelings – it does not require physical violence to have been committed! So a non-violent offender could be sentenced to summary execution because he did something deemed “anti-semitic”? This is the sort of decrees laid out in Bolshevik Russia. This is a very recent history.
Just my jumbled thoughts, kind regards and great blog.
Thanks for your comment. It is so long that I will answer in parts. The racial doctrine was a part of Theosophy and came to the Thule Society directly from Sebottendorf, but was influenced by Ariosophy of List. The concept of a race (an inbreeding population) is the correct concept for the struggle of life in darwinism. It is not species that compete for the right to live, it is populations that breed among themselves. This natural truth is suppressed for political reasons, but it is quite correct to call Jews of earlier centuries a race as they did not intermarry other people. That is what dog races are, inbreeding populations, which then develop some own features. Also Jews of the 19th century refer to Jews as a race. That is, a human population does not need to act as a race, it can intermarry other populations, but if it chooses not to intermarry, it is a race. Finns are not a race, only a population that was for a long time in isolation, but quite willing to intermarry other people. Orthodox Jews want Jews to be a race.
Communism developed from leftist Freemasonry and copied most of its methods for making revolutions and controlling people. Originally it was not Jewish, but many Jews become communists. All communists/leftist were not under one leadership and Jews were in different sections without a common leader at this time, as the Polish Commonwealth and the Jewish government of 4 nations had disappeared. Some Jewish bankers started funding some Communistic groups. I am fairly sure it was not because they supported Communism. It is because they wanted Jews to move to Palestine. They supported Communism as a threat to Western gentile nations so that they would get Palestine for Jews: if you do not take Jews to Palestine, there will be Communism in your country. So, it was blackmail.
Jesuits were a force from the 16th century to the 18th century. Then Freemasons managed to get Jesuits banned in many countries, the Jesuit organization was renewed, and today they are not a force in political matters. Still, many anti-Communists do have some Jesuit school background in some places, as Jesuits did know what Freemasons/Communists were.
You correctly note that Zionists were opponents of Communism (though many early Zionist did support Communistic ideas, apart of intermarrying with other people, so they were false Communists, a sect of a kind). As for the WWII, was it caused by Zionists? It was not caused by Herzl’s Zionists, but it was caused by the Masonic and largely Jewish powers, who wanted to create Palestine. Churchill, Stalin and Hitler all agreed that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (which is signed Zion 33. degree, to show that the Elders are Masonic) describe the situation at that time. Thus, there was a Masonic power behind the war. Strangely, today historians ignore these secret societies and try to say that secret societies are fantasy, it was a crazy Hitler or it was the UK and the US wanting to destroy Germany. It was the Masons and it was all about getting Jews to Palestine.
I will comment the rest later.
About 911 we seem to agree. About Trump, I am not so familiar with American politics that I cannot say anything. But I hope Trump means by a hate crime deserving a death penalty something like shooting people, not drawing swastikas.
“And I believe Trump is a Freemason of the Scottish Germanic rite. At least all his corporate and family name emblems match the Freemason fraternities insignias.”
I have not found any proof of this. Furthermore, I think Freemasons are not any more used except for in some special situations. Normal Freemasonry was already mainly a cover for leftist revolutionary Freemasonry in the 19th century, and they infiltrated high positions and helped revolutionaries form there. But today there are fewer and fewer Masons and they are not in high positions, so they cannot do that much, cannot infiltrate as they once did. I think today it is some other cover-organization. Scientology was for a short time, but died out, could it be now Cabbalism? It should be something that infiltrates important organizations.
Very interesting, interested in reading the rest of your historical explanation. Also, the Protocols, are they a forgery? I read everywhere that they were a farce.
You mention the Thule Society and the founder alias – Rudolf Freiherr von Sebottendorff. Because he was a Freemason, a Sufi of the Bektashi order, he was durign Hitler’s reign persecuted. I can find nowhere that Hitler was a member of the Thule Society or that he promoted their ideologies.
Wikipedia states:
Early in 1920, Karl Harrer, a foudner of NAD and member of Thule was forced out of the DAP as Hitler moved to sever the party’s link with the Thule Society, which subsequently fell into decline and was dissolved about five years later,[22] well before Hitler came to power.
Rudolf von Sebottendorff had withdrawn from the Thule Society in 1919, but he returned to Germany in 1933 in the hope of reviving it. In that year, he published a book entitled Bevor Hitler kam ((in German): Before Hitler Came), in which he claimed that the Thule Society had paved the way for the Führer:
“Thulers were the ones to whom Hitler first came, and Thulers were the first to unite themselves with Hitler.”
This claim was not favourably received by the Nazi authorities: after 1933, esoteric organisations were suppressed (including völkisch occultists), many closed down by anti-Masonic legislation in 1935.
Sebottendorff’s book was prohibited and he himself was arrested and imprisoned for a short period in 1934, afterwards departing into exile in Turkey.
Nonetheless, it has been argued that some Thule members and their ideas were incorporated into the Third Reich.[24] Some of the Thule Society’s teachings were expressed in the books of Alfred Rosenberg.[26] Many occult ideas found favour with Heinrich Himmler, who had a great interest in mysticism, unlike Hitler, but the Schutzstaffel (SS) under Himmler emulated the structure of Ignatius Loyola’s Jesuit order[27] rather than the Thule Society, according to Hohne.
Found this interesting, not sure if all of it is true though.
“Very interesting, interested in reading the rest of your historical explanation. Also, the Protocols, are they a forgery? I read everywhere that they were a farce.”
I will first answer this. The Protocols are forgery in the sense that they were composed by the opponents of the so called Elders, but they are not a forgery in the sense that the content would be rubbish. They are what Umberto Eco called them: a true forgery. They first appeared in Theosophic circles in Paris, so the natural assumption is that they were written by some Theosophists. Ohrana did re-edit one version later, but there were two versions, so Protocols were not the work of Ohrana. Protocols are based on true documents of the Mizraim lodge and on the book of Maurice Joly, where the Machiavelli is the forces behind Napoleon III (saint-simonists and behind them Mizraim). Communists copied methods from leftist Freemasonry (Memphis and Mizraim), Trotsky studied Freemasonry while in jail. This is why the methods are so similar. The authors of Protocols did not have access to real Communist plans, but as it turns out, their actions were quite similar. There were the funders of Communism, the Elders. That is, a group of bankers like Jacob Schiff. Jacob Schiff got B’nai B’rith involved in the cause of the Jews in Russia. I wrote a post on the protocols. Category New World Order, who wrote the Protocols…
http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=397&action=edit
What we a read from published history writing is what can be published. Write something that some powers do not want published, and you will see that you cannot get it published and quite possibly you lose your academic job and cannot find any other work form the academy. Thus, what you see written of Thule and Hitler is what the official story says of Thule and Hitler.
They are two different things. Hitler had his own motivation. First Thule.
The Thule Society founded the party DAP. The German army sent Hitler to spy DAP. Hitler joined DAP and renamed it NSDAP, the Nazi Party. The racial doctrine, anti-Semitism, Aryan supremacy are from Thule. The original Nazi leaders and supporters are from Thule: Rudolf Hess, Alfred Rosenberg, Hans Frank, Julius Lehmann, Gottfried Feder, Dietrich Eckart, and Karl Harrer.
A spy never gets converted to the ideas of the organization it was sent to spy. We can conclude that it was not so that Hitler went to a DAP meeting, was not impressed, and joined DAP. It was so that Hitler was sent by the army to take over DAP and make DAP into a major party that would fight the war. Hitler wanted the volkish dreamers out and wanted to turn the party to a political force. So, he cut the connections with the volkish people (=Thule) and threw out some of their leaders.
But notice that Thule ideas were a combination of ideas of the Germanenorder and Theosophy. The volkish ideas (Aryan prehistory and rune texts) were from the Germanenorder. Sebottendorf joined the Germanenorder and splitted out of it Thule. Thus, to purge out volkish ideas means to purge out Germanenorder and to leave the Theosophist ideas of race, natural selection, Jews as a degenerate race that should be cleansed, Freemason idea of restoring Jews to Palestine. All this stayed in the Nazi party.
Cutting ties with Thule does not in any way invalidate the claim that the Nazi party was an offshoot of Theosophy and its goal was to move Jews to Palestine. It only means that if you want millions of Germans to vote for the Nazi party, it cannot appear as an occult volkish society. Hitler did not read Rosenberg’s book and did not think highly of volkish ideas, which indeed were from the Germanenorder.
So, this was of Thule. Now Hitler.
There is a recent paper by Leonard Sax showing that Hans Frank’s claim that Hitler was 1/4 Jewish can very well be true. (It is not true that there were no Jews in Graz in 1836, as the official story claims). Hitler’s friends and clients in Vienna were Jewish. I think Hitler did believe he was partially Jewish and that he had the God-given mission of taking Jews to Palestine. He joined DAP for this purpose. Thus, we do not need to think that Hitler believed in Theosophic ideas. But Rudolf Hess did. He was number two NSDAP.
Thank you Jorma, this is very fascinating. I read Mein Kampf, Stalag Edition, and you are correct in saying Hitler wanted the Volkish dreamers out. He also called Zionism “Great” or that it was “Great” as a movement. Zionism and Nationalism is not that much different from the National Socialism and prohibition of race mixing, and Intermaraige. Though, Hitler was extremely racist and antisemitic in his writings but that is no surprise. He mentioned Freemasons and how Jews infiltrated the lodges. This, I’m not so sure is true. You mention that Freemasonry in the early 19th century was dominated by Catholic membership. Was Freemasonry or any specific Masonic lodge Jewish dominated during the late 19th century and through the 20th century? Because Hitler seemed quite paranoid with Freemasonry.
“Because Hitler seemed quite paranoid with Freemasonry.”
And quite correctly so. The last action I know of Freemasonry was in 1917 when political Freemasonry (fast established for a specific purpose) gave power to Bolsheviks in Russia. Bolsheviks could not themselves infiltrate important positions and they could not have resisted the army, but Freemasonry did this for them. After this time I do not know if Freemasons directly did anything more, but they were behind other societies.
“He mentioned Freemasons and how Jews infiltrated the lodges.”
Jews did try to infiltrate Masonic lodges, but were often rejected. In later times, especially in the USA, Jews have more often joined Freemasonry than non-Jews, but I do not think these lodges ever had any importance to world events.
“Was Freemasonry or any specific Masonic lodge Jewish dominated during the late 19th century and through the 20th century?”
The Jewish “Freemasonry” was and is B’nai B’rith, quasi-Masonic. Some individual Jews had power in gentile Freemasonry: In 1848 Adolphe Cremieux was the head of the Scottish Rite in France and he set Napoleon III as the president. But it was only some people. Jewish power in gentile Freemasonry was the power of financiers: they financed revolutions, so Rothschild, Schiff. Schiff was the head of B’nai B’rith, if I correctly remember.
“You mention that Freemasonry in the early 19th century was dominated by Catholic membership.”
I certainly did not. I said that the members of the revolutionary lodges, Memphis and Mizraim, were mainly Catholic. They mainly acted Catholic countries and were under the French Grand-Lodge, Grand Orient. There were much more Masons in England and the USA, but they were not revolutionary. They did sometimes finance the revolutionary lodges.
“Zionism and Nationalism is not that much different from the National Socialism and prohibition of race mixing, and Intermaraige. Though, Hitler was extremely racist and antisemitic in his writings but that is no surprise.”
I read Leonard Sax’s paper, it is in the web, and think Leo Frank was correct, Hitler was 1/4 Jewish. This could explain a lot. He would hate Jews because some 19 years old son of the employer got his 40 years old grandma pregnant. Later Hitler forbid German women under 45 from working under any Jew. Hitler himself would be a product of this terrible race mixture. (Hitler hated racial mixture, he did not exterminate pure Gypsies, but mixed Gypsy-Germans he put to concentration camps so that they would die out). Maybe if Hitler had only one testicle, he though – see, a result of racial mixture. If so, Hitler could be a strong Jew hater, wanting to push Jews to Palestine and be the Jewish Messiah and Anti-Christ in the same person, hate racial mixture, and believe he is 1/4 Jewish. If so, he did not think of himself as a real German. He would have thought he is a mongrel that should not have been born, and his task was to destroy and set right. This could mean that he wanted Germany to lose the war, after Jews were collected.
I’m reading your reply at this moment, but I had a thought concerning Freemasonary and the communist state of East Germany. Whilst I was searching for the article that detailed the link between freemasonry and this Soviet satellite state I noticed that the East German Flag features the MASONIC Square and Compass.
Here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/Flag_of_East_Germany.svg/1280px-Flag_of_East_Germany.svg.png
It could be, though those masonic tools can also symbolize work. About your previous comment of Thule, I would like to add that esoteric and occult part in Masonic organizations is partly traditional rites and partly to keep outsiders out, so that people would think that the secrecy was needed for making “ancient” rituals. But when you think of Freemasons, like Washington, Jefferson, Lafayette and so on, they were not any occultists or at all interested in esoteric issues. It is just a smoke screen. The core of Freemasonry was the revolutionary freemasonry, aiming to create the New World Order, first it was to destroy the old word order of aristocracy by democracy, then it become more socialistic and Communism developed from that basis. Noting occult, nothing esoteric there. The Thule Society did have some esoteric rites and teachings, and vo”lkish ideas from the national romantic Germanenorder, but the core was that it wanted political power, it infiltrated important positions, it created a political party. Occult and esoteric is just a way to explain to outsiders why the society is secret. But these secret societies were very similar to modern terrorist organizations or secret agencies: they assassinated statesmen, made revolutions, started wars, published propaganda and so on, and as a cover pretended to be charitable organizations (and men clubs), like terrorist fronts do today.
Jorma, I appreciate you taking your time in explaining this history. It is quite fascinating.
You say Hitler had Zionist tendencies and wanted to transferJews to Palestine, may I ask in which writings of Hitler did he note this? Did he utter this in his speeches? The National Socialists worked with Zionists and World Zionist Congress to transfer Jews to Palestine, there’s no doubting that, I’m just asking if there is definitive proof that Hitler’s aim from the beginning was to transfer Jews to Palestine?
I’m sorry if I’m taking up your time but you say:
“Theosophists had the “Zionist” goal from Freemasons of cleansing the degenerate ancient people of Jews by natural selection and having them set up a state in Palestine.”
The Theosophists were racists and anti-semitic. So, the Theosophists goal of creating a Jewish ethnostate, which was promoted by people like Herzl and Untemeyer (who called for German boycott and the destruction of Germany) was not out of some sort of ingrained Zionist belief but out of their desire to kick Jews out of Germany? They simply agreed with the proposition of Zionists, but did not adhere to their beliefs?
And you say
it was the Freemasons goal to cleanse the degenerate Jews by natural selection? Can you go into more detail concerning this? Were not the revolutionary lodges of Freemasonry gilled with Jews? Why would they want to massacre Jews?
Thanks.
“You say Hitler had Zionist tendencies and wanted to transferJews to Palestine, may I ask in which writings of Hitler did he note this? Did he utter this in his speeches?”
1) In Hitler’s personal library there is a book with Hitler’s underline on a sentence: Jews must be restored to Palestine.So, this is what he originally was thinking.
2) Hitler made the Haavara agreement with Zionists. That agreement allowed some 40,000 German Jews to move to Palestine with their property, changed into German products. These people were essential in building infrastructure in Palestine allowing more Jews to move there. Thus, this is clear intention by Hitler of moving Jews to Palestine.
3) Hitler made a peace offering to the UK. This peace offering included withdrawing from the West, allowing some Poland to exist, but the important point was that Jews were to be sent to Palestine. So, he did propose Palestine.
4) In Hitler’s speeches he does say that Jews will be pushed out of Europe, so Hitler did not intend any Jewish homeland in Eastern Poland or other Eastern Europe. That leaves only Madagascar and Palestine. The obvious problem with Madagascar is that Jews did not like to go there, so they would not stay there, which means that were Jews sent there, Madagascar would need to be a prison island to stop Jews getting out of there. This is not realistic, it would require guards. The only alternative that there is left is Palestine.
5) Nazis smuggled at least one ship with Jews to Palestine against British White Paper restrictions.
That is five arguments, probably a historian would know more.
“They simply agreed with the proposition of Zionists, but did not adhere to their beliefs?”
There were Herzl’s Zionists (the Zionist Congress), there were Christian Zionists (who thought Jews must return before Jesus comes, they did not agree with Herzl’s Zionists in most matters), and there were anti-Semitic Zionists, who thought that Jews must be restored to Palestine as they are a problem elsewhere (they did not believe the same as Herzl’s Zionists or Christian Zionists). It you decide that only Herzl’s Zionists were Zionists, then you can call the others pre-Zionists and antisemitic pre-Zionists, or whatever.
“it was the Freemasons goal to cleanse the degenerate Jews by natural selection?”
Here I am a bit unclear. The Thule Society and Nazis combined natural selection of social darwinism with Theosophic concept of Jews as a degenerate ancient race. Thus, the degenerate Jewish race must be cleansed with forced work before they get a homeland. Read the Wannsee conference minutes: undoubtadly many would die (building roads) but the strongest will survive and they will be the new rise of Jewish people, so they need to be treated accordingly (=given a homeland, it does not mean killed, the Jewish survivors were not killed by Nazis, some 300,000-400,000 Jews survived the camps).
Why I used the term Freemason is that I did not use it in the narrow sense of proper Freemasons, but in the wide sense of Masonic. Thus, Theosophy was Masonic, Thule deriving from Theosophy was Masonic. Nazis were enemies of proper Freemasons (who were pro-Semitic and in 1930s did not do anything political), but Nazis as a descendant of Thule were Masonic. (that is, esoteric, occultic, all esoterism in Europe in the time 1700-1950 was from Masonic roots, every single secret esoteric society had Masonic origins or connections).
“Were not the revolutionary lodges of Freemasonry gilled with Jews?”
No, not at all. The members of revolutionary Freemason lodges in 1750-1871 were mainly Catholic. A small number of them were Frankists, who had converted to Catholism. They were called Jews, but they were not Jews. It is that Memphis and Mizraim rites had Cabbalistic content (no other Freemasonic rite had anything of Cabbalah in their teaching material). Mizraim lodges called their high council Sanhedrin and the members of it Rabbis, but these were not ethnic Jews. But it is not these revolutionary Freemason lodges who were the ones who wanted to stop Communists. Revolutionary Freemasonry was leftist and it stopped activity in 1871 to Paris commune. Leftist continued as Carbonaries and the more dangerous type: as Communists. In 1890s Freemasons of other rites reformed Memphis and Mizraim and created Memphis-Mizraim, which still exists and is not revolutionary. They found Mizraim documents, got scared, concluded that Communists are the new revolutionary Freemasonry, and tried to stop it. At that time proper Freemasons could not work as a political force as all police knew that they have to be watched carefully. Thus, Theosophists were the acting force. That is, Theosophists wanted to move Jews to Palestine by force. Nobody massacred Jews. About 1/3 of transported Jews died. So, Nazis got to their hands about 4 million Jews, about 1.5 million of them died. About 850,000 Jews evacuated by Soviets also died and 160,000 Jews put to camps in Romania died. In total about 2.5 million Jews died, but it is incorrect to say that they were massacred. They were transported in a brutal way where 1/3 would die, mainly of diseases and hunger. I have calculations of how many Jews died in the Holocaust controversy category, check there my estimates.
“it was the Freemasons goal to cleanse the degenerate Jews by natural selection? Can you go into more detail concerning this?”
As I said, natural selection (darwinism) belongs to Theosophy, Thule and Nazis, but I can explain the original form.
1) Firstly: Prophecies say that there is a great persecution of Jews and 2/3 or 1/3 dies in it, before Jews return to Palestine. In Zechariah 13:8 God says, 2/3 I will destroy but 1/3 remains and is cleansed with fire and I will call them my people, while Isaiah says even if they are as many as sand grains, only few returns. Notice, 6M is from Zechariah as there were 9 million Jews in Europe and 6 million is 2/3 of 9.
2) Manuel Mordecai Noah, a Jewish Freemason, was taking Jews to Palestine in 1820 (he only managed to take them to Ararat in Rhode Island). Masonic interest in taking Jews to Palestine is shown my Adolphe Cremieux, a Freemason, creating Alliance, which later started agricultural schools in Palestine for Jews, and Rothschild, a Freemason, buying land for Jews in Palestine. In 1842 a Jewish Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalisher wrote that the time of redemption started 1840, Jews have 100 years time to move to Palestine. Cremieux and Rothschild will make this happen. If after 100 years Jews have not moved to Palestine, they will be moved there by force (in the prophecy: the result will be the same but after great suffering). I do not believe in real prophecies, and as Hitler started pushing Jews to Palestine in 1939 with great suffering, 100 years from 1840, I interpret the prophecy of Cabbalist Kalischer as an announcement of what Freemasons have decided to do. That is, already 1842 Freemasons (not Theosophists, Thule or Nazis) had decided that if Jews will not move themselves (which was clear that they would not do so), Freemasons will push them there by force and great suffering. We can safely assume Freemasons knew Biblical prophecies of the great persecution since all Christians know them. Thus, they intended to make the great persecution where 1/3 or 2/3 of Jews would die and the reminder would go to Palestine.
3) It was not Herzl’s Zionists who created Israel. It was pre-Zionists. Rothschild got the Balfour declaration, B’nai B’rith persuaded the USA president to accept Israeli declaration of independence, Rothschild bought land in Palestine, Cremieux started schools there, Jacob Schiff moved Jews from Russia in the Galveston project, B’nai B’rith helped him (this same Jewish banker funded Communists, but his heart was in moving Jews to Palestine, a Freemason).
4) Hitler spoke in a speech in a way that reminds of Kalisher’s prophecy. Hitler said, if international Jewry will again manage to plunge the world into a world war, the result for Jews will be different: they will be pushed out of Europe. Hitles does not say where to, but this is so similar to Kalisher that we can conclude, to Palestine. This is where Hitler wanted to take Jews in the Haavarta agreement and in the first peace offer he made.
5) Hitler did not massacre/mass murder Jews. He moved them. I have made detailed calculations based on Jewish demographic data from AJC yearbooks. Had he murdered the Jews, we would not need to think Hitler wanted to move them to Palestine, but as he did not murder the Jews, he intended to move them somewhere, and that somewhere can only be Palestine. Even main stream historians agree that in the beginning Hitler did not intend to murder Jews and was trying to move them to Palestine.
Hope this helps. Hint: nothing I have written is written without a basis. I do have a basis, though I seldom care to add references or to make it look academic. These are not wild guesses.
“The Theosophists were racists and anti-semitic. So, the Theosophists goal of creating a Jewish ethnostate, which was promoted by people like Herzl and Untemeyer (who called for German boycott and the destruction of Germany) was not out of some sort of ingrained Zionist belief but out of their desire to kick Jews out of Germany? They simply agreed with the proposition of Zionists, but did not adhere to their beliefs?”
Mainly so, but some Adepts may have agreed with Herzl’s Zionists on many things. The issue with Adepts is believed to be as follows: Theosophy was created by Helena Blavatsky, who already as a child was a media. She had an adventurous life and no special connections to the shadowy world rulers up to 1875, but at that year she founded the Theosophic Society. She had before that gained so much publicity that the Society become popular and many high esoterics joined it. Blavatsky claimed that the Society had secret masters in Tibet, well, there were some real Asian masters, names that are known. But the problem was that there were Adepts, also secret. One study I found, and think it is correct, found out that these Adepts were mostly political activists, from Mazzini’s Masonic circles, from Islamic countries and so on. This is how Theosophy got tied to political Masonry. These Adepts apparently wrote texts, which appeared to Blavatsky’s drawers and she explained them as a result of automatic writing. Blavatsky had already created the theory of races where Jews were a degenerated race, but Adepts directed what happened, so they could have different ideas.
We met on Unz website.
Saying Hello!
AS COMMENTS ARE PUBLIC I REMOVED ALL PERSONAL INFORMATION / Jorma
Thanks and wishing all the best! Jorma
My email is no secret, it is in my recent papers. I will of course answer if you have a question of something I have written in those papers, but I hardly ever write emails to anybody, nor do I read mail to me. Nice of you to say hello. All my very best to you.
“Zionism and Nationalism is not that much different from the National Socialism and prohibition of race mixing, and Intermaraige.” (commenter ‘thhhh’ on September 5 above)
Some confirmation for thhhh’s opinion among other things can be find in following article:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_weber.html