The True and Only Nature of the Jew!

Adolf Hitler About the Peasant New Nobility

There is no rise, which does not begin at the root of national, folkish and economic life, the peasant.

Speech of May 1, 1933 in Berlin

---

Salvation of the peasantry means salvation of the German nation.

„Adolf Hitler’s Program”, appeal for the election of July 31, 1932

---

The last decision over the success or failure of our work depends on the success of the salvation of the peasantry.

Speech of October 2, 1933 in Hameln

---

All fluctuations are in the end bearable, all blows of fate can be overcome, if a healthy peasantry is present.

Speech of April 5, 1933 in Berlin

---

The destruction of this peasantry in our folk would lead to the most severe consequences thinkable. The restoration of the profitability of agricultural enterprises may be difficult for the consumer. But the fate, which would strike the whole German folk, if the German peasant was ruined, would not be comparable to these difficulties.

Speech of March 23, 1933 in Berlin

---

We were convinced that the salvation of the German folk must proceed from the salvation of the peasantry. For if any other person must leave his work place or himself loses his business, he can one day find a new place again, found a new business through industriousness and ability; the peasant, however, who has once lost his farm, is usually lost forever. But woe, if this stratum is destroyed in a folk! One can more easily master any distress, but one alone can destroy a folk: When the daily bread is lacking, all experiments and theories stop!

Speech of March 21, 1934 in Unterhaching

---

Any government, which overlooks the significance of such a supportive fundament (the peasantry), can only be a government for the moment. It can indeed rule and administer for a few years, but it will never achieve long-term or even eternal successes.

Speech of April 5, 1933 in Berlin

---

While I fight for the German future, I must for German soil and must fight for the German peasant. He gives us the people in the cities. He has been the eternal spring for millennia, and he must be preserved!

Speech of February 10, 1930 in Berlin

---

It was necessary for the salvation of the peasantry facing total ruin to take trade and price policy measures, through law, however, to again give the peasant a strong and indestructible support.

Speech of January 30, 1934 in Berlin

---

The salvation of German peasantry through safeguarding the German farm.

Speech of May 1, 1934 in Berlin

---

Tremendous sums of millions will serve to reduce payments as well as lower agricultural land tax.

Speech of March 21, 1934 in Unterhaching

---

Every billion, which, instead of going to a foreign country, flows to the German peasant, as a result gives five or six billion in salaries and wages, which benefit the German worker.

„Adolf Hitler’s Program”, appeal for the election of July 31, 1932

---

As long as a folk can pull back to a strong peasantry, it will again and again draw new strength from it.

Speech of April 5, 1933 in Berlin

---

I see... in the preservation and promotion of a healthy peasantry the best protection against social ills as well as against the racial degeneration of our folk.

„Adolf Hitler’s Program’’, appeal for the election of July 31, 1932

---

When I look across all the economic individual manifestations of the time, across all the political fluctuations, at the end always essentially remains the question of the preservation of the folkdom in itself. It will only be able to be favorably answered, if the problem of the preservation of the peasantry is solved.

Speech of April 5, 1933 in Berlin

---

The first and deepest representative of the folk... is that portion, which from the fertility of the earth feeds the people and from the fertility of the family propagates the nation. Just as liberalism and democratic Marxism denied the peasant, so does the National Socialist revolution consciously affirm it as the most secure bearer of the present, the sole guarantor for the future.

Speech of October 2, 1933 in Hameln

---

If a government already fights for the preservation of the German folkdom and thus also for the preservation of the German peasant, then precisely this German folkdom must unconditionally affirm the wants and the deeds of the government.

Speech of April 5, 1933 in Berlin

---

My German peasants!.. .You must not only be the stratum of nourishers, rather you must also be the stratum of will in the German lands!

Speech of October 2, 1933 in Hameln

---

I believe...that this government, while is sees its mission in the preservation of the German folkdom, which is in turn dependent in its interests on the preservation of the German peasant, will never make wrong decisions. It can perhaps here or there err in its means, but it will never do in the principle things.

Speech of April 5, 1933 in Berlin

---

The Russian Economy

Every few months for the past several years I have used this program to warn against the policy of economic globalization, which has been one of the Clinton administration’s favorite policies. I pointed out the dangers for America in so-called „free trade.“ In my past discussions of the subject I focused on America’s loss of autonomy, which is an inevitable consequence of unrestricted international trade. That is, when one country is able to produce a class of products and sell them to another country cheaper than that other country can produce them for itself, the industry which produces that class of products will be driven out of existence in the second country. If that class of products is plastic hair curlers, for example, it doesn’t matter. But if it’s machine tools or some other product essential to an independent economy, the second country loses its autonomy.

 

In view of what’s been happening around the world recently, and the repercussions of those happenings on Wall Street, this is probably a good time to point out that when we allow our economy to become closely linked to the economies of less stable countries, then we lose not only our autonomy but also our own economic stability.

 

It’s absolutely crazy for the United States to develop strong economic linkages to countries in Asia or Latin America. Or perhaps I should say, it’s treasonous. It’s not even good policy to become economically dependent on countries like Russia.

 

The only situation in which any sort of close economic linkage with another country – such as „free trade“ on any significant scale – makes sense is when there is a real community of interests. That is a fundamental and obvious truth, but it is completely ignored by the people pushing for globalization. In order for there to be a community of interests between two countries, in the first place their populations must be of the same race. Thus, it has been the sheerest folly to tie the U.S. economy to those of Asia and Latin America. The basic industries which have been driven out of the United States because of competition from these non-White areas of the world, where wage scales are so different – our machine-tool industry, for example, and our consumer electronics industry – were essential to our autonomy. And now, with the collapsing economies in Asia and Mexico pulling our economy down with them, we can’t simply disengage, because we no longer have autonomy.

 

With Russia we at least have racial similarity, but there are other reasons why too close an economic involvement with Russia is not good for us now. The most important of those reasons is the men who are now running Russia. The man out front, of course, is President Boris Yeltsin. But Yeltsin is, like Bill Clinton, a seriously flawed man: he’s an alcoholic and a skirt-chaser. In fact, he is primarily a clown who also is a good actor, someone who can posture effectively for the television cameras and pull in the votes from the Russian masses. And because of his acting ability he has been strongly supported by the hard, sober men who for all practical purposes own Russia and tell Yeltsin what to do. Unfortunately, the majority of these men are Jews, and many also are gangsters, organized crime bosses.

 

A few days ago MSNBC posted on the Internet a list of what it called „Russia’s Robber Barons: the Twelve Men Who Own Russia’s Economy,“ along with brief biographical sketches of each of these newly made billionaires. It is interesting to note that none of these billionaires had as much as $10,000 to his name ten years ago. They all became enormously wealthy during the so-called „privatization“ of the Russian economy after the collapse of communism at the beginning of this decade.

 

Of these 12 robber barons listed by MSNBC eight are Jews. Eight out of twelve. That is indeed remarkable in a country with only about one-half of one per cent Jews in its population. Not only that, but the Jews are constantly whining in their media about how they’re being „persecuted“ in Russia. They own the country, and they whine to us about Russian „anti-Semitism.“

 

Of course, MSNBC won’t tell you about the Jewishness of any of these robber barons. MSNBC calls them all „Russians.“ But in fact, Boris Berezovsky, Vladimir Gusinsky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Vitali Malkin, Mikhail Fridman, Alexander Smolensky, Vladimir Vinogradov, and Anatoly Chubais are Jews, self-acknowledged Jews, bragged about as Jews in the Jewish community publications that we aren’t supposed to see. One of the twelve, Vladimir Potanin, is actually a Russian, one is probably an Azerbaijani, and I haven’t yet been able to determine the ethnicity of the remaining two. And I should add that although Anatoly Chubais considers himself a Jew, he’s actually only half-Jewish.

 

Before MSNBC’s list of twelve „robber barons“ was posted, the Russians had their own list: the Seven Oligarchs they call them, all of them new billionaires who have backed Boris Yeltsin with money and media support. The seven are the aforenamed Boris Berezovsky, Vladimir Gusinsky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Mikhail Fridman, Alexander Smolensky, and Pyotr Aven, who is also a Jew, and the Russian Vladimir Potanin. That’s six Jewish oligarchs and one Russian.

 

Let me tell you how this bizarre and very dangerous situation came about. When the Bolsheviks overthrew the Russian government in 1917, murdered the Czar and his family, and formed the Soviet Union, there was an extraordinarily high quota of Jews among the communist revolutionaries who formed the Soviet government. Lenin, who was himself only a quarter Russian, had surrounded himself with Jews from the beginning. Lenin’s chief financier during the revolutionary period was the Jew Israel Lazarevich Helphand, who used the pseudonym „Parvus.“ Lenin’s right-hand man was the Jew Grigory Apfelbaum, who used the name „Zinoviev.“ After the revolution the Jew Lev Bronstein, who used the name „Trotsky,“ became the commissar of the Red Army. The Jew Maxim Litvinov became the best-known Soviet diplomat and the ambassador to Britain. Jews were very thick in Lenin’s secret police and in every other branch of his communist government. After Lenin’s stroke incapacitated him in 1922, the government was run by a coalition of three communists: Stalin, Zinoviev, and Leo Rosenfelt, who used the Russian-sounding name „Kamenev.“ Although Stalin, who was a Georgian, was surrounded by Jews almost to the extent Lenin had been, he managed to play the Jews off against each other. He outmaneuvered Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, and all the rest and eventually came out on top. It undoubtedly was to his advantage during this power struggle that the Russian people detested the Jews, from centuries of bitter experience with them.

 

Before Stalin became the undisputed boss of the Kremlin, the Jews had pretty well monopolized the entire Soviet bureaucracy, and even though Stalin began thinning them out a bit in the late 1930s, the Second World War came along before he had time to do much. And before he got around to continuing his program of de-Judaizing the Soviet bureaucracy after the war, he died – with a little help from his right-hand Jew, Lazar Kaganovich, who later bragged that he had saved the Jews by poisoning Stalin. So the Soviet bureaucracy remained heavily loaded with Jews right up until the collapse of communism – although they tried not to be too conspicuous – usually occupying the second-rank positions, where they wouldn’t be so visible.

 

During the communist period Jews monopolized not only the Soviet government but also organized crime: black market operations, illegal currency transactions, large-scale theft of public property. Undoubtedly the Jewish organized-crime bosses had intelligence, organizational skills, and perhaps more of a nose for money than their Russian counterparts, but what gave them their real advantage over the Russians was collaboration from their fellow Jews inside the  government. Knowing what the secret police knew and what the secret police planned to do provided a real edge for the Jewish gang bosses.

 

Several very informative books on Jewish organized crime in the Soviet Union during the communist period are available. Two that I’ve read are Hustling on Gorky Street by Yuri Brokhin and USSR: the Corrupt Society by Konstantin Simis. Both authors, by the way, are Soviet Jews.

 

Communism collapsed when the communists had bled dry the countries they were ruling and there was no more blood to suck. What would have been most beneficial then would have been the violent overthrow of the various communist regimes by the exploited Russians, Poles, Hungarians, Bulgarians, and so on, with a general massacre of the communists and their collaborators by the people. This also would have amounted to an ethnic cleansing of eastern Europe, putting a final end to Jewish mischief there. But instead, what happened nearly everywhere was that the communists realized the game was up, and they simply switched hats, declaring themselves „democrats“ instead of communists. In many cases the same people continued to hold the same jobs in the government that they’d held before – and they continued to collaborate with the same people outside the government that they’d collaborated with as communists.

 

So when the „privatization“ of the communist economies took place – that is, the sale of factories, mines, refineries, and other government-run enterprises to private entrepreneurs – much of the wealth of each country suddenly appeared in Jewish hands. In Russia, for example, instead of giving groups of Russian workers an opportunity to buy shares in the factories where they worked, bureaucrats in many cases arranged „sweetheart“ deals with people outside the government they already had been collaborating with. These collaborators got to buy big chunks of the Russian economy at bargain-basement prices. That’s how virtually all of Russia’s new billionaires – and many of Russia’s new millionaires as well – got their start in this decade. And that’s why at least two-thirds of these new billionaires are Jews – at least two-thirds – in a country where the Jews make up only half a per cent of the population. Jews are smart and often are clever businessmen, but in Russia it has been crookedness rather than business efficiency which has led to their sudden success in the post-communist era. They virtually stole Russia from the Russians.

 

And because organized crime already was in the hands of the Jews, many of Russia’s new Jewish businessmen also are gangsters. Jewish billionaire Boris Berezovsky has been described by Forbes magazine as the godfather of Jewish organized crime in Russia. He speeds around Moscow in an armored limousine accompanied by an army of bodyguards. He has survived several assassination attempts and is said to be responsible for the „disappearance“ of several of his business rivals. Berezovsky certainly seems to be the Jew who has the strongest grip on Boris Yeltsin. He likes to boast that he’s the man who got Yeltsin elected to the presidency. Actually all of the Jews in Russia supported Yeltsin. The Jews in the United States did too. Yeltsin plays a role in Russia similar to the role played in America by Clinton.

 

After Yeltsin’s second election in 1996 he appointed Berezovsky to the National Security Council, which supervises Russia’s military and police organizations. When it became public knowledge that Berezovsky is an Israeli citizen, however, Yeltsin was obliged to dismiss him. Russian patriots were outraged that an Israeli citizen should be in charge of Russia’s national security. Jews, of course, complained that „Russian anti-Semitism“ was responsible for Berezovsky’s dismissal.

 

One might ask, how do the Jews get away with it? Why do the Russian people tolerate them? And the answer is that they get away with it in Russia the same way they get away with it in America: they control the news and entertainment media, and with this media control they not only swing elections to whichever candidate best suits them, but they also keep most of the ordinary citizens distracted, confused, and hypnotized. Berezovsky, for example, controls Russia’s biggest television network, ORT, as well as a number of newspapers and magazines. Vladimir Gusinsky, who also is the president of the Russian Jewish Congress – and like Berezovsky an Israeli citizen – owns Russia’s second-largest television network and a number of newspapers and magazines, as well as one of Russia’s largest banks. When Jews buy control of the mass media, they always have more than just making money in mind.

 

I don’t mean to lead you to believe that the Jews control everything in Russia. In addition to the Jews there are many Russian criminals in organized crime in Russia, for example. The thug who comes by your shop to collect the weekly „protection“ payment from you – and to smash your shop window if you don’t have it – is more likely to be a Russian than a Jew. But the man who pays the thug to come by your shop is more likely to be a Jew than a Russian. Jews control the rackets, and it is Jewish influence which prevents the Russian government from cracking down on organized crime.

 

Organized crime by itself takes a huge toll on the Russian economy. Crime is an unproductive activity, and it operates on an enormous scale in Russia. And because so many of Russia’s new Jewish businessmen also are involved in organized crime, business in Russia tends to be even more predatory than it is in the West. The concept of serving the community or serving the nation with their business activity is completely alien to these Jewish businessmen. Their only aim is to acquire as much money and power as they possibly can as quickly as they can. Not only do they have no patriotic feeling at all toward Russia, but they are positively hostile to any expression of patriotism by the real Russians. This sort of business attitude, the sort of business climate associated with this attitude, does not result in a really stable economy, of course. The irresponsible and unpatriotic attitudes and business practices of Russia’s Jewish tycoons are the main reason for Russia’s present economic collapse.

 

Unlike the situation in the United States, where every major politician is Politically Correct and every element of the mass media toes the party line, in Russia there are political leaders who do speak out against the Jews, and there are general circulation publications which do criticize them. Some journalists, for instance, like to refer to Boris Berezovsky using his patronymic – that is, his middle name – which is Abramovich. They call him Boris Abramovich. They do this not only to embarrass and irritate Berezovsky, but to remind the Russian people that he is a Jew, a zhid, not a Russian.

 

In one way Russia has an advantage over the United States, and that is that the Russian people are much less comfortable. While Jewish billionaires and millionaires buzz around Moscow in their armored limousines flashing their diamonds and furs, most ordinary Russians have a hard time putting enough on the table to eat. The recent devaluation of the ruble and the run on Russia’s banks is making things even harder on the Russians, and it may be that not even the Jews’ control of the television networks will suffice to save them from the well-deserved wrath of the Russian people.

 

And that’s the whole reason behind Mr. Clinton’s recent trip to the Kremlin to hold Mr. Yeltsin’s hand. The people who sent Clinton to Moscow don’t care at all about the welfare of the Russian people. But they are worried that if the Russian economy gets much worse, the Russian people may take it out on Berezovsky, Gusinsky, and the rest.

 

And that, of course, is exactly why it is not in our interest to bail out the Russian economy. What Russia needs is a cure for its long-term problem, not another Band-Aid. And the only thing which will cure Russia is a thorough program of ethnic cleansing, which leaves Boris Abramovich and all of his fellow tribesmen hanging from lampposts all over Russia: an ethnic cleansing which is sudden and sharp and absolutely thorough. That is what is in our long-term interest: a Russia under the control of the Russian people again – our people – after more than 80 years of alien domination.

 

The Russian people are, like the American people, quite passive by nature. It takes a lot to rouse them to do the difficult things they need to do – but the more uncomfortable they become, the more likely they are to take action. Let’s not help the thieves who have stolen Russia stay in power by propping up the Russian economy.

 

You know, some people who want us to keep Berezovsky and his pals in power warn us that if we don’t prop up Boris Yeltsin and the Russian economy, the communists will take over again. That may be so. And you know what I think about communists. I believe that they all should be shot. But it will be better for the Russian people – and for us – for the Communist Party to regain power in Russia than for the crowd around Yeltsin to keep power.

 

Communism is based on two fundamental errors: it assumes that people are all born basically the same – that is, communism is egalitarian – and it stifles the great driving force of every healthy economy, which is the quest for private gain. And because it is based on error it certainly is not a

 

system that we want to impose on any of our people, in Russia or elsewhere. But the people around Yeltsin – the robber barons, the oligarchs – are eating Russia alive, and even communism, so long as it is Russian communism and not Jewish communism, is better than continued rule by Jewish plutocrats.

 

It is interesting to note that even the Russian patriots, the Russian nationalists, agree with me on this matter. They are willing to make an alliance – at least a temporary alliance – with the communists in order to get the bloodsucking, culture-destroying Jews off Russia’s back.

 

Ultimately, of course, we want to see genuine nationalists guiding our people everywhere. If the Russians become hungry enough and exasperated enough to break the grip of the Abramoviches, perhaps similar developments will follow in Bulgaria, Hungary, and the other countries where Jewish Bolsheviks were permitted to simply change hats and declare themselves „democrats“ a few years ago when it became unsafe for them to continue wearing their communist hats.

 

But it really will take a nationalist revolution in Russia to bring that about, and we don’t want to do anything to discourage that. Meanwhile, I hope my comments today have helped you understand a little better what is behind Mr. Clinton’s recent trip to the Kremlin.

Caricatures from "Der Stürmer" - translated in English and colourized - Unknown Date – Part 1!

Unknown Date – Part 1

The Big Lie: Germany Started WW2 – Helmut Sündermann

 

Source: https://www.renegadetribune.com/the-big-lie-germany-started-ww2-helmut-sundermann/

 

When the cloak covering their lies about Germany and the German people has fallen and the cold truth about their war guilt and war crimes comes to light, it will be the dawn of a new beginning for the peoples, which must happen after this war if the world is to remain a home for upright peoples.

 

 

ABOVE: The German deputy national press officer, Helmut Sündermann (middle) greets Vidkun Quisling. Note: there are very few photos I could find of Helmut Sündermann.

 

Helmut Sündermann (19 February 1911 in Munich - 25 August 1972 in Leoni) was a German journalist and one of the most important representatives of NS propaganda. In the National Socialist state, he held the rank of SS-Obersturmbannführer and, as deputy Reich Press Chief of the NSDAP and the Reich government, was part of Adolf Hitler’s inner circle. After the war, he worked as a publicist in „right-wing extremist” circles, founded the „right-wing extremist” Druffel Publishing House in 1952, and remained a „holocaust denier” until his death.

 

At the end of the war, Sündermann was captured by the Judeo-Allies and held in the Dachau internment camp until September 1948. In the Judeo-Soviet Occupation Zone, all of his writings were placed on the list of literature to be segregated. After the loss of the war, Sündermann remained a supporter of National Socialism. He considered the persecution of the filthy jew to be fundamentally necessary. He subsequently explained that the National Socialist „measures against the jew were necessary security measures during the war.” 

 

He also doubted the figure of „6 million” murdered that became known after 1945, and he saw no evidence whatsoever as to who had caused the murder of the jew. According to his account, the resistance fighters of the 20th of July had caused the defeat in the war. In 1951, he was one of the co-founders of the „right-wing extremist” monthly magazine Nation und Europa.

 

Together with his wife Ursula Sündermann, founded the Druffel publishing house in 1952, where leading National Socialists published their memoirs. Sündermann was one of the founders of the Society for Free Journalism. He was chairman of the German Cultural Association of the European Spirit.

 

The Big Lie

 

by Helmut Sündermann

 

We Germans noted with some astonishment of the bloodthirsty slogans with which our enemies, particularly in the West, send their soldiers to Europe’s battlefields. An increasing number of voices in the Anglo-American camp think announcing war aims such as Morgenthau and Vansittart proclaim unproductive, since they can only strengthen the German will to resist.

 

The warmongers surely thought about this possibility. The fact that they nonetheless reveal their true plans and intentions has other grounds: If they want to keep their heavily bleeding, fighting troops going for a little while longer, they have to proclaim war aims that are consistent with the slogans on which they base their battle in Europe. They cannot go before their peoples and say: „We want a jewish world state.” They also cannot use their earlier lying fiction: „For democracy and representative government” because it had no force once the Soviets got involved.

 

The notorious warmonger Vansittart was the first to use the new slogan: „We are fighting not against National Socialism, but rather against the whole German people.” He asserted that for centuries Germany has been the only aggressor in Europe and the world, that since the age of Charlemagne the German element drove „incessantly for bloody expansion” and similar such phrases, which subsumed under the term „Vansittartism” have been circulating amongst our enemies for a long time, fogging the minds of the Anglo-Americans.

 

There supposedly are American soldiers who, convinced by such slogans, really believe in a „crusade” and think that the world will be much better off once the German people are exterminated. They fight with the crazy idea that Germany, the German national character, and „Prussian militarism and caste spirit” are the main barriers to the world peace that will certainly become reality once they gone. Germany and the Germans have been the personification of war for centuries, with a natural passion to conquer and destroy in order to expand.

 

All the slogans of extermination that we have heard in recent years are nothing but a somewhat logical consequence from crazy premises, a continuation and result of a big lie that the Anglo-American war criminals repeated incessantly and with which they have loaded the packs of their soldiers.

 

It requires no great evidence to refute the fundamental ideas of our enemies’ world-wide agitation. Still, it is perhaps helpful to remind ourselves of a few facts that compellingly show where the troublemakers of our troubled globe are in reality, where the real thieving and warmongering peoples and states are, whose imperialist policies have influenced all of modern human history.

 

Here are a few facts to remember to give the proper answer to the historical „proofs” that Vansittart and Morgenthau present. In the course of the last five hundred years – from about 1400 to 1939 – Germany, England, Russia, and since 1776, the year of its founding – the USA – have changed the size of their territory as follows:

 

In 1400 the German Reich was about 950,000 square kilometers. In 1939 it had 635,000. In five centuries, it shrunk by about a third, although its population grew four-fold in the same period.

 

When the United States was established, it had about one million square kilometers. In 1939 – 160 years later – it has 10,854,000 square kilometers. In only a century and a half its size has grown by ten-and-a-half times. This figure would be substantially larger if we included those countries, particularly in Central and South America, which through capitalistic machinations have become fully depending on the USA, without officially belonging to it.

 

The Grand Duchy of Moscow – the beginning of what later became Russia – comprised about 700,000 square kilometers in 1462. The Soviet Union was over 22 million square kilometers in 1939. Over five centuries, Russia increased its territory by more than 130 times.

 

The English kingdom in 1400, still separate from Scotland, may have been around 220,000 square kilometers. British possessions in 1939 were about 40,120,000 square kilometers. That is an increase of 182 times from its beginning.

 

These facts need no elaboration. They reveal everything there is to say about the historic tragedy of the German Reich when compared to the imperialism of England, Russia, and the USA.

 

A word about the „military attitude” and „war lust” that Vansittart, Morgenthau, and their comrades claim is typically German. The British historian Seeley, in his well-known book The Expansion of England, said this about British military policy between 1688 and 1815: „Between the Revolution of 1688 and the Battle of Waterloo, we waged seven major wars, the shortest of which lasted about seven years, the longest twelve. Of the 126 years, 64, over half, were at war.”

 

If we continue Seeley’s calculations, England waged 13 further wars between 1815 and 1918, a total of 36 years, and in addition conducted 14 military actions that given weak resistance cannot be called wars. Its already vast possessions in all parts of the world grew insatiably.

 

The history of the USA after 1800 displays a significant series of military conquests, during which time Germany conducted only wars of liberation, unification, and defense. A North American military operation in 1815 took over Florida, which until then had been under Spanish control. Between 1846 and 1848 it waged a purely military campaign of conquest against Mexico, seizing California and New Mexico. 1854 brought the first military conflict with Japan, into whose harbors an American war fleet forced entrance.

 

In 1898 the United States fought a new war with Spain. This time it was about territory, above all possession of the strategically and militarily important island of Cuba. In the same war, the USA won control of the Philippines.

 

Then there were regular USA military „interventions” in Central and South America. Panama (1903), Nicaragua (1911), Honduras (1914), Haiti, the Dominican Republic, even Mexico, encountered North American expeditionary forces and warships when their internal developments were not as Washington wished. The occupation of Greenland, Iceland, the Azores, and all the other „bases” that Roosevelt demanded in this war are nothing other than the continuation of the constant and often brutal military threats that the USA made against all the smaller states in the Western Hemisphere over the last 150 years.

 

The military undertakings of England, the USA, and the Soviet Union have one thing in common: they aim at the political subordination of other countries, at the conquest of foreign territory. The Soviets have the broadest goal: they recognize no limits to their aim, openly admitting their demand for world Soviet state.

 

Everyone remembers Bolshevism’s wars of conquest in the 23 years between 1918 and 1941. In the two hundred years between 1700 and 1900, the tsars waged no fewer than 22 wars lasting a total of 101 years to expand their territory. Just after taking power in 1918 the Bolshevists attempted to subordinate Finland. In 1918/1919 they waged war for the same reason against Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. In 1920 they made their first attack on Poland.

 

Between 1921 and 1924 in the Caucasus, they fought and subjugated the then independent Georgia. In 1939 the Soviets not only occupied eastern Poland, they incorporated it into their territory. In December they began their first war with Finland, also a pure war of conquest. In 1940 they incorporated the Baltic states and Bessarabia. Molotov’s further demands were met by the only possible answer: the German-Soviet war.

 

Is there any need for further evidence of the enormous lies on which the whole Anglo-American case for their blind war against Germany and the German people is based? The path to lasting peace is not over the ruins of the German nation – which is fighting for nothing other than its very life – but will be blocked as long as an imperialist desire for conquest dominates Anglo-American policy, as long as Bolshevist dictatorship threatens the entire world.

 

We are not surprised that the jewish coalition of our enemies conceals its true intentions. But their lie is too blatant to withstand the test of hard and bloody battles. Let us do all we can to dispel the poison of international agitation by revealing the clear light of historic truth!

 

The enemy’s promises in recent years have collapsed like a house of cards. When the cloak covering their lies about Germany and the German people has also fallen and the cold truth about their war guilt and war crimes comes to light, it will be the dawn of a new beginning for the peoples, which must happen after this war if the world is to remain a home for upright peoples.

 

The source: Helmut Sündermann, „Die große Lüge, Völkischer Beobachter (Vienna edition), 21 January 1945, pp. 1-2.

Inconvenient History - Volume 3

 

DOWNLOAD THE BOOK IN PDF FORMAT.

 

Inconvenient History seeks to revive the true spirit of the historical revisionist movement; a movement that was established primarily to foster peace through an objective understanding of the causes of modern warfare.

The Secret Masonic Victory of WW2 - Part 18 - Who Really Started World War Two

On the Causes of Hostility towards Jews

Source: https://codoh.com/library/document/on-the-causes-of-hostility-towards-jews/

 

by Germar Rudolf

September 1, 1995

 

Introduction

 

In the verdict of my trial before the Stuttgart District Court, Ref. No. KLs 83/94, handed down on June 23, 1995 with a 14-month prison sentence without parole, I was certified to be deeply anti-Semitic, which, in view of the absurdity of this statement, elicited all kinds of emotions from my relatives, friends and acquaintances, ranging from deep consternation to hearty laughter. Especially as the court was looking for a motive for the crime that was falsely attributed to me, but found none apart from “anti-Semitism”, this motive was simply constructed. Since I didn’t even know what Semitism was before the verdict was announced, let alone anti-Semitism, I began to take a roundabout approach to this complex issue, which I will soon have over a year of my life to think about. I hereby present the first results of my thinking about a problem that has so far affected me very little, but which seems to be the central intellectual problem of our time. Is there any better proof of the central importance of this topic than the fact that a young innocent scientist and family man has to spend 14 months in prison just because he holds scientific and technical opinions that certain Semites and philosemites do not like?

 

I

 

Gunnar Heinsohn recently posed the question, which in his opinion remains unresolved to this day: Why could the Nazi genocide occur, which he believes to have been proven.[1] Heinsohn argues that, apart from the many and supposedly comprehensively answered questions of who, how, where, when and how much, the question of why has hardly been asked, let alone answered; that research tends to elevate this question to the mystically unfathomable, which is not conducive to scientific understanding.

 

He listed 42 answers to the question “Why Auschwitz?”, which in his opinion should be taken seriously and which have so far been mentioned in scientific discourse. He discussed them and contrasted them with his own thesis: The mass murder of Auschwitz was the albeit failed attempt of National Socialism to replace the Jewish “Thou shalt not kill!” with the social Darwinist misunderstanding: “Kill the weaker” in the service of a racist world view. In order to be able to abolish the 5th Commandment of the Lord, the most primal cultural bearer of the human prohibition of killing – the Jew – must be killed.

 

There are three interesting things about Heinsohn’s book. First, his first thesis to explain Auschwitz is the revisionist, negating one. He refers to two old books by Paul Rassinier and a leaflet by Robert Faurisson from 1980, hence old and unproductive sources, but cites new sources to refute them, such as the recently published book Denying the Holocaust by Deborah Lipstadt.[2] Since these books are reactions to more recent revisionist publications, such as the Leuchter Report, one has to wonder why Heinsohn does not at least mention these sources. On the other hand, it would probably be more surprising if he were to cite more recent revisionist works,[3] as this would not be customary in “academic” circles.

 

In view of his giving revisionism the short shrift, it seems necessary to clarify what is actually meant by Auschwitz. While Gunnar Heinsohn, in accordance with the official doctrines, primarily understands this to mean the entirety of the industrial mass killings of Jews allegedly planned and carried out by the National-Socialist regime, revisionists are convinced that there was no planned, industrial mass murder. In Heinsohn’s opinion, an explanation of Auschwitz would be superfluous for the revisionists, if the mass murder associated with it had not taken place.[4] I, on the other hand, believe that even in the absence of industrial extermination, the question of why remains justified, and an answer to it necessary. For it remains a fact that in the German wartime sphere of influence, Jews suffered manifold injustices in the form of disenfranchisement, expropriation, expulsion, deportation, internment and forced labor.

 

Even in the opinion of revisionists, the victims of at least grossly negligent malnutrition, lack of medical and sanitary care, overwork and maltreatment as well as killings in the course of draconian punishments or summary hostage shootings as part of the fight against partisans number in the hundreds of thousands. The name Auschwitz also symbolizes this, a camp to which the Reich government sent hundreds of thousands of people despite the epidemics known to be raging there, thus exposing them to a high risk to life and limb through gross negligence.[5] Why this happened will be examined forthwith.

 

Second, Heinsohn does not seem to have found a theory in the academic discourse that has taken place to date which makes the anti-Semitic theories of a (pseudo-)scientific nature the subject of a discussion, on which National Socialism built its Jewish policy after all. The (pseudo-)rational basis of National-Socialist hostility towards Jews therefore does not appear to have been explored to date.[6]

 

Third, it is astonishing that Heinsohn does not recognize this shortcoming and remedy it, but rather that, contrary to his statements, he transports the understanding of the Nazi persecution of the Jews itself into an irrational, mystical sphere instead of examining the causes at the root. For to want to make his conceptual content of the word Auschwitz understandable as a kind of symbolic sacrifice to the Jews in order to lift the human inhibition to kill means nothing other than conceding to National Socialism in toto a mystical dimension of black magic, in which sometimes, for example a doll, is symbolically “killed” in order to achieve something completely different, such as causing harm to a person.

 

If the National Socialists wanted to restore the right to kill by murdering people of a certain worldview, then they would have had far more reason to kill all Christians, for whom the ban on killing goes further than that of the Jewish religion due to their universal claim, and who had and have a far greater influence on the moral formation of modern man than the Jews.

 

Heinsohn takes a similarly mystical approach elsewhere. In an article on the explanation of anti-Semitism, he postulates that the Jews’ rejection of the sacrificial cult of archaic and ancient cultures was the reason for these cultures’ hostility towards the Jews, which continues to this day. He explains the Jewish pogroms as a violent attempt by non-Jews to combat the Jews’ refusal to sacrifice by offering the Jews themselves as sacrifices:[7]

 

“The people educated to take an apocalyptic view of reality […] also choose a sacred king in Hitler, a ritual murderer […]. But the six million Jews who are now thrown into the furnaces of the German extermination camps can neither bring the longed-for salvation, nor are they killed by a Messiah without guilt entanglement for the community. The message of Judaism that no salvation can be expected from human sacrifice […] is to be nullified with the extermination of the Jews […]. The philo-Semitism that often occurs after Jewish massacres naturally resembles the […] idolization […] of the living being killed in the sacrificial ritual. […] But in Germany, too, they [the Jews] are again seen as preventing the removal of guilt – this time German guilt[8] for the murder of the Jews. In order to break through the belief in human sacrifice that led to Auschwitz, the state is now being used to get rid of the guilt for the Holocaust.”

 

Heinsohn then accuses Cardinal Josef Höffner of encouraging a pogrom mood among those contemporaries who are not prepared to remain silent about Kohl and Reagan’s visit to the Waffen SS grave in Bitburg and Kurt Waldheim’s time in the Wehrmacht in Yugoslavia with his thesis that guilt cannot be overcome but can only be forgiven by divine grace. In view of the fact that innocent, young soldiers of a fighting force lie in Bitburg, murdered by the Americans in violation of international law, and that the unsubstantiated accusations against Kurt Waldheim were based on forged documents, this clearly shows what kind of intellectual child Heinsohn is.

 

The common thread running through Heinsohn’s book is the thesis that Judaism, with its fundamental Ten Commandments, established the first moral rock in the human surf of amorality more than 2000 years ago and still holds it today. No religion introduced the prohibition of infanticide and the prohibition of killing in general so early and so comprehensively and made it the highest maxim. No religion has declared charity to be the central concern as early and unreservedly as Judaism.[9] It is another matter that this type of argument is more than embarrassing in view of the anything but new findings of behavioral research on the genetically fixed inhibition to kill members of one’s own species and on the altruistic instincts of humans, which have been expressed in various ways in many cultures since time immemorial.[10] But Heinsohn’s praise of Jewish ethics goes even further.

 

For him, today’s overpopulation problem exists primarily because the Christian church has wrongly universalized the Jewish prohibition of infanticide. While Talmudic Judaism expects Jewish women to have at least two children to reproduce the population and forbids infanticide, it accepts contraception and abortion in order to avoid unwanted and therefore unloved children. Christianity, on the other hand, had already begun to criminalize abortion and contraception as well as infanticide in the third century of our era. The peak of Christian punitive action, the persecution of witches from the late 15th Century onwards, was primarily aimed at wise women with knowledge of contraception and abortion, i.e. midwives and “herbal witches”.[11]

 

There is no doubt that the passages cited by Heinsohn exist in the Old Testament and in the Talmud, the Jewish law book written in late antiquity and based on many rabbinical interpretations of the Torah. However, the selectivity with which Heinsohn quotes these passages[12] is strongly reminiscent of the apologetics conducted by Jewish and philo-Semitic scholars at the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th Century, which had to fend off fierce attacks by anti-Semitic scholars, especially from the German-speaking world.[13]

 

This debate reached its peak during the Weimar Republic. Although the writings published at that time are rare today, some of them can still be found in large libraries. It is worth reading them to find out what stage the “Jewish question” had once reached in the debate. After reading it, one realizes that after the Second World War there was practically no longer any discussion about it, but rather that there is only a monologue from the philo-Semitic side, which can get away with pretty much anything with regard to one-sided interpretations, since arguments against it today can be punishable by law, but in any case lead to social stigmatization.[14]

 

Nevertheless, some of the most important writings of this secondary and tertiary literature on the Jewish scriptures, which played a major role on the part of the anti-Semites at the time, are briefly listed here, and a small summary is attempted in order to approach the answer to the why.

 

It must first be explained that, until the end of the Third Reich, the term anti-Semitism did not have the negative connotations it has today. On the contrary, at that time it was a clear positional designation that was just as inconspicuous as anti-nationalism or anti-Bolshevism. At that time, especially in Germany, there was no ritual of distancing oneself from anti-Semitism, as is essential today if one wants to make a decent living at all. Back then, if someone described themselves as not anti-Semitic, they could certainly be believed, whereas today it is usually lip service, with the speakers usually not even knowing what they are actually distancing themselves from.[15]

 

II

 

Dr. Erich Bischoff, an Orientalist who also acted as an expert witness in these disputes, undoubtedly led the ranks of the outstanding authors in the debate on anti-Semitism at the time with his numerous contributions to this discussion.[16] He, who published in the anti-Semitic publishing house par excellence, Hammer-Verlag, was often quoted by the anti-Semites as a neutral expert,[17] which he undoubtedly was. He did not see himself as an anti-Semite.[18] Bischoff’s writings are still required reading for anyone who wants to understand the events of the time. Gunnar Heinsohn seems to have been unaware of him.

 

The Institutum Judaicum, which has been active in Berlin since the mid-1880s, has also produced a series of writings, the first of which, titled Jüdisches Fremdenrecht (Jewish Alien Law), is probably the most important in this context.[19]

 

In addition, the Buch vom Kahal (Book of the Kahal)[20] should be mentioned, in which the minutes of the Council of Jews in the Minsk Ghetto, which were kept over many decades, were published and analyzed, particularly with regard to Jewish customs.

 

The most prominent German anti-Semite, Theodor Fritsch, also contributed to this dispute with works that were recognized at the time, such as the book Der Streit um Gott und Talmud (The Dispute over God and Talmud).[21]

 

Since it is not important here to determine whether the opinions set out in these writings are correct, but only whether and to what extent they can provide an answer to the revisionist question “Why Auschwitz?”, I would like to limit myself here to the statements made in these publications. The reader should therefore always bear in mind that these are the theoretical foundations of radical anti-Semitism at the beginning of the 20th Century, and not necessarily balanced, comprehensive and scientifically proven findings.[22]

 

The central dispute in the debate on anti-Semitism at the time revolved around the questions of the extent to which the Jewish law books Talmud and Shulchan Aruch 1. corresponded to Christian or Western moral concepts, 2. to what extent they were valid for the Jews of the time, and 3. how their origin can be explained.

 

The first question was thought to have been clearly answered at the time, namely to the effect that the Jewish written law could not be reconciled with our understanding of the law. Firstly, the Talmud and Shulchan Aruch are not formally organized, but rather represented a chaotic collection of laws that contradicted each other over wide areas, and secondly, a good part of these laws would allow Jews, with impunity, to regard non-Jews, and among these especially Christians, as people of lesser right. It was therefore permitted or even required to lie to them, deceive them and exploit them. An oath before a non-Jewish court was not valid. The property of non-Jews was to be regarded as ownerless, their lives were worth as much as those of animals. Furthermore, the Jewish law books would prescribe in various places that Jews should behave justly towards non-Jews if there was no other way of doing so for the sake of peace, and to avoid damaging the reputation of Judaism.[23] These law books also contain extremely misogynistic passages as well as sexually perverse regulations, which I will refrain from mentioning here for reasons of good taste. The fact is that many of these regulations are contradicted by other regulations, so that ultimately everyone can get what they want out of the law books.

 

In his Book of the Shulchan Aruch,[24] E. Bischoff concluded that there was no other religion, world view or politically constituted society in the world that laid down so many contradictory things in its codes of law as the Jewish religion. Moreover, there is probably no code of law on earth that considers behaviors that are otherwise interpreted as clearly immoral to be exempt from punishment or even required when it comes to actions towards outsiders, i.e. that demands ethical behavior only towards members of one’s own ethnos. Although other religions have sometimes acted according to similar ethnocentric or religiocentric maxims, these have never been covered by their law books. The history of Christianity, for example, is a sequence of disenfranchisement and massacres of non-Christians, which was in no way covered by the teachings of Christ.

 

Similar parallels could probably be found for all religions and also for all peoples, who, however, when they behaved unethically towards others, usually acted contrary to their own written laws – if they had any. To elevate ethnocentrism to the status of law would mean, for example, elevating Macchiavellism to the statutes of the UN, and thus to the guiding principle of peoples and nations (which, incidentally, has happened in part in Articles 53 and 107, the anti-German enemy-state clauses). In view of the massacres in Rwanda, Somalia and Serbia/Bosnia, this would be honest and consistent, but would certainly not defuse the conflict.

 

Elevating ruthless ethnocentrism to a written and binding law was therefore reserved for Judaism. The anti-Semitic literature that focused on these passages in Jewish law books therefore sometimes interpreted the Jewish faith as Satanic per se.[25]

 

The second question about the validity of these codes of law for contemporary Jewry was answered dramatically, particularly by the publication of the Book of the Kahal,[20] to the effect that, for Eastern Jewry that dominated Europe at the time and persisted in ghetto life, this validity was also fully given with regard to the passages that were clearly to be regarded as immoral. In Central Europe, too, corresponding incidents brought to public attention revealed that the Talmud was still being used in its entirety to educate young Jews, at least until the end of the 19th Century.

 

Erich Bischoff noted that modern Reformed Judaism had more or less energetically distanced itself from these law books. However, Judaism had no choice but to retain the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch in their entirety if it did not want Judaism to degenerate into arbitrariness, because Judaism was founded on the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch as its only codes of law. As there is no authority in Judaism that decides on the valid dogmas and laws, such as the Pope in Catholicism, one has to rely on what was formed thousands of years ago.[26]

 

While the apologetic side repeatedly pointed out that the radical, anti-human Jewish laws were a consequence of persecution, which the Jews could only escape through extreme, even hostile isolation, the anti-Semitic side sought the justification for Jewish extremism elsewhere. Prof. Passarge, for example, as a geographer and ethnologist, believed that the reason for Jewish amorality lay in their nomadic past of the pre-Christian millennia.[27]

 

In fact, the Talmud was created in the period between the 2nd and 4th centuries AD, especially in the Orient, when there were no particular ghettoization or persecution measures. And even then, the oral Jewish laws recorded in the Talmud will not have emerged from nothing, but will have had a history of many centuries behind them. Heinsohn writes that from around the 1st Century BC, Judaism developed into a religion with high moral standards, moving away from the brutal laws of the Near Eastern peoples.[28] The Talmud, based on the orally transmitted laws of the time and overlooked by Heinsohn, unfortunately speaks a somewhat different language here. However, it is undoubtedly true that the origin of the Jewish laws can be found in the ruthless, brutal laws of oriental life at that time.[29] This life was dogmatically fixed in the Jewish law books and exported to Europe, where it was bound to meet with rejection and hostility in the face of Western Christian moral concepts.

 

The rest of the story can be described as a process of mutation and selection. According to Passarge, those Jews who softened the radical core of their religion vanished by assimilation after a few generations, as the abandonment of the strict Jewish laws often meant a path into the “reformed Judaism” of Jesus Christ, meaning into the bosom of the Christian churches. Judaism could therefore only survive in Europe as such if it defined itself strictly against European moral concepts. According to Passarge, this Jewish amorality in turn could only survive in the isolation of the ghettos, because if lived out freely, harsh conflicts with the rest of the population were the inevitable consequence.

 

Prof. Passarge describes this historically documented oscillation between ghetto here and assimilation there on the one hand and the escape of Jewry from the ghetto and the resulting conflicts with the population, including pogroms, on the other. In his opinion, the confrontation between first-generation emancipated Jews and the host people led to conflicts even when the Jews reformed, i.e. distanced themselves from the Talmudic laws. The reasons for this were that the Jews had been extremely influenced by the teachings of the Talmud before their reformation. Jewish life in the ghetto was shaped by these writings in an extreme way like that of no other people.

 

The result of this extraordinarily authoritarian, even merciless upbringing from childhood onwards were people who, through the study of scriptures, were extremely mentally resilient and often superior to other people in this respect, but who exhibited a state of mind “completely deviating from Western thinking”[30] that could not be grasped either with our logical laws or with our moral concepts. Despite the individual’s formal emancipation from the strict rules of his religion, a reformed Jew or even a convert one could not be expected to be able to shed this state of mind. Solidarity with other Jews, a certain distanced, if not hostile, at least uncomprehending attitude towards the host people, distorted moral concepts and illogical, sometimes even paranoid thought structures could hardly be overcome.

 

Even later generations of such converts would only gradually shed these characteristics, depending on how intensively they were embedded in a non-Jewish, occidental milieu from the outset. It should be obvious that such people, who have the very best prerequisites for an intellectual career, do not exactly become culture bearers for their host peoples in the traditional sense. In fact, these people have always been perceived by certain quarters as a corrosive element that should be eliminated, both in economic life, in politics and in intellectual and cultural life.[31]

 

III

 

By and large, the prevailing opinion in parts of academic society during the Weimar Republic was that Judaism was still characterized by the immoral laws of the Talmud and Shulchan Aruch, as it had undisputedly been for centuries, and as such represented a danger to every society, which is why this danger had to be eliminated. Prof. Siegfried Passarge explained this particularly clearly in his epilogue to the Book of the Kahal, whereby, with his non-racist view, he saw his goal in the disappearance of Judaism, which in his understanding of the law was archaic and nomadic, through assimilation into Europe’s cultural world, for which great patience was required in view of the process lasting several generations. He himself knew that he saw himself in opposition to strong racist movements, which regarded the legal moral concepts of the Jews laid down in the Talmud and Shulchan Aruch as nothing more than an outgrowth of their racial depravity,[17] but he recognized in these ideas those movements which, through their violent excesses, would repeatedly give Judaism the opportunity to see itself justified in its radical moral concepts and thus to reactivate them.[32]

 

The fact that Judaism is as dependent on anti-Semitism as a fish is on water is therefore not something that has only been known since today.

 

The fact that these ideas of the time about Judaism as a materialistic, domineering, racist religion with strong traits of organized white-collar crime are to be seen as the most important driving force behind Auschwitz can be seen, for example, from the importance that the book Handbuch zur Judenfrage (Handbook on the Jewish Question) had in the Third Reich. In fact, the discussion of the Jewish question conducted in and around the Hammer publishing house outlined in detail the measures later carried out against the Jews under National Socialism,[33] and underpinned them with (as far as racism was concerned, pseudo)scientific arguments based on a discussion that had been going on for centuries, if not millennia. Incidentally, it is astonishing that the question of the authenticity of the so-called “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” hardly played a role in the discussion at the time, because in view of the material provided by the Talmud and Shulchan Aruch, it was really not necessary to enter into such propagandistic sideshows. The fact that today one can only hear a discussion about these Protocols when the topic of reasons for anti-Semitism is raised may be due to the fact that the Protocols can easily be used by the apologists to polemicize and distract from the real issues.[34] In any case, Hitler’s view of the Protocols will have had little influence on his opinion of the Jews. It may only have been a further confirmation of his view, similar to the initial role of the Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution.

 

That Hitler was far from alone in his views on the October Revolution can be seen, for example, in the warnings of S. Passarge. In view of the Jews’ part in the Bolshevik atrocities in Russia, however, Prof. Passarge was not the first to warn of new pogroms that would be more terrible than anything that had ever happened before.[35] Sonja Margolina, for example, reports on Russian Jews who saw the situation in exactly the same way at the time.[36] The fact that the escalation of the treatment of the Jews by Nazi Germany, which finally began with the Russian campaign in 1941, had to end as it did has recently been explained by Joachim Hoffmann.[37]

 

New documents found in Russia’s archives prove that Stalin had planned the war as a war of extermination against Germany long before 1941, with all the atrocities at the front and in the partisan warfare that actually took place. Does this not make it clear that during the war the German Wehrmacht was forced to take draconian measures against Stalin’s political commissars and against the partisans, those groups of people who had to carry out Stalin’s extermination order at the base? The fact that Jews made up an extremely disproportionate share of these groups had the familiar, if sometimes exaggerated, consequences.

 

It is true that Bolshevik terror did not, as in the early days, remain conspicuously often in the hands of the Jews, but later, under Stalin, Jews also became victims. However, contrary to the opinion of G. Heinsohn,[38] this does not alter the fact that the anti-Semites regarded the turn of fate of the Russian Revolution towards bloody terror as a product of Jewish decomposition, and thus as a confirmation of their thesis of the harmfulness of the Jews per se. In this respect, the anti-Semitism of the time did not see the fight against the Jews as a fight against Bolshevism, but as a fight against a power that would inevitably lead to inhuman things, including Bolshevism.

 

IV

 

It is remarkable in this context that the most determined, namely racist opponents of Jewish amorality before and during the Nazi era propagated or applied a similar amorality in order to get rid of their opponents. After all, the disenfranchisement and treatment of the Jews, who were declared sub-human in some propaganda, followed nothing other than the ethnocentric rules that had previously been sharply criticized in the Talmud: Classifying people of other faiths as people of lesser right and subsequently disenfranchising and exploiting them (expropriation, forced labor, etc.). By persecuting the Jews for being Jewish in the Jewish way, Hitler himself became, in a certain sense, the “head Jew”. The fact that he had the support of many Zionist Jews in this until 1941 closes the circle.[39]

 

The Jewish form of Talmudic, chauvinistic, racist nationalism and extreme ethnocentrism could also be briefly described as Jewish National Socialism, with millennia-old Judaism representing the original and German National Socialism, which is not millennia old, the bad, because unsuccessful, plagiarism. What did the anti-Semite Hitler do wrong? The true anti-Semite[40] who wants to fight Judaism successfully must fight any publicly expressed unobjective anti-Semitism, which only benefits Judaism in the long term, in the same way as he fights philo-Semitism through appropriate objective criticism.[41] Hitler’s extreme anti-Semitism not only provoked worldwide resistance from Jews, but also helped post-war Judaism to achieve a strength previously thought impossible.

 

Finally, the Talmud-like but openly expressed and implemented ethnocentrism of National Socialism challenged the resistance of other peoples in a way that the hidden Talmudic ethnocentrism never could in such an extreme way.

 

Heinsohn’s theory that Hitler wanted to abolish the morality of the Jews and replace it with his amorality of the right to kill is based, among other things, on Hitler’s statements in which he described parts of the Christian-Western ethics he rejected as being based on Jewish inventions.[42] Furthermore, Hitler described conscience, which prevents people from asserting their natural rights, as a Jewish invention.[43]

 

Would it not be more likely, after the above, that Hitler demanded for his people what the Jews demanded for themselves, namely to place their rights at the very top, above the rights of other peoples? But that he fought against what was then often called falsehood and deceitfulness in the Jews, namely that Judaism speaks with a forked tongue in its writings? Did Hitler criticize the fact that the Christian world adopted only the “conscience” from the moral concepts of the Jews, but stripped away the devious Talmudic ruthlessness and thus enabled the Jews to be the only ones to behave in a deliberately ruthless and insidious manner? Did Hitler cooperate with the Zionist Jews because they openly prioritized the rights of their people to their own empire and their own leader, just as Hitler did for the Germans? And did he fight the other Jews who were unwilling to emigrate because, in his opinion, they spoke with a forked Talmudic tongue and acted accordingly, thereby harming their host peoples?

 

V

 

If the perceptions of Jewish things at that time were as they appear from the publications presented above, and if these publications are rare today, but have not completely disappeared, the question arises as to why established Holocaust research, including Gunnar Heinsohn, does not seem to know or deal with these things. In order to answer this question, we must first ask ourselves where Judaism stands today. To do this, it is worth taking a look at Israel, to which mainly Eastern Jews immigrated after the events of the Second World War. It is at least conceivable that this could have the consequence that the dominance of Talmudic teachings in the Eastern Jewish communities could also have a formative influence here. In his recently published book Jewish History, Jewish Religion,[44] Israeli chemistry professor Israel Shahak takes a sharp line against precisely those excesses that the Talmudic understanding of law has brought about in Israel’s current policy towards non-Jews. The book suggests that today’s Israeli-Jewish understanding of the law hardly differs in many areas from that which was castigated by Central European anti-Semites 60 years ago and more. However, Shahak also mentions that the Jewish group of the Karaites does not recognize the Talmudic scriptures and defines itself solely from the Torah.[45] But the question of the state of mind of the Jews in Israel alone can hardly be decisive for the conduct of Holocaust research worldwide, so that a look at the role and attitude of Jews worldwide seems necessary.

 

According to S. Passarge, the Jews in the Western European states (the so-called Sephardim in France, England, the Netherlands and their colonies) had never been influenced by the ghetto and thus did not exhibit those conflict-promoting Talmudic deformations in such an extreme way as their Eastern co-religionists.[46] That a large stream of Eastern Jews poured into Central Europe, Western Europe, the USA and other overseas territories before, during and after the Second World War is probably undisputed. The fact that this sometimes enormous increase in Eastern Jews (Ashkenazim) could also lead to the undesirable developments that Passarge has described so vividly for Central and Eastern Europe cannot be ruled out. Due to my lack of involvement with this subject matter, I am hardly in a position to judge how the confession of the Jews looks today in Europe, and especially in Germany.[47]

 

The fact that many Jews confronted us Germans after the war according to the slogan “an eye for an eye “[48] and still refer to us in places today as the people of Amalek, whom they swear every year on their Purim festival to wipe out worldwide, including their memory, further demonstrates their attitude, which apparently does not necessarily need to resort to the Talmud in order to be inhumane in its extreme ethnocentrism.[49] Moreover, in view of the many exhortations from the Jewish side on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the end of the war, who would doubt that Judaism has distanced itself from its oriental-barbaric legal rules of ruthlessness, the inability to forgive and forget, clan liability and collective accusation? In any case, there is nothing to be seen here of the love of neighbor and foreigners postulated by G. Heinsohn, which was a morally high good for the Jews.[50]

 

The Jewish writer and poet Erich Fried made it clear to us in 1992 that this cannot be far off the mark: “I remember how proud I was as a child to read in the Torah: ‘You shall not oppress or oppress a stranger,’ and how disappointed I was when I learned that the word STRANGER, -Ger- in Hebrew, only refers to a stranger who has converted to Judaism.”[51] So even today it seems that the Jews are not very far from distancing themselves from racist ideas.

 

How could this be possible in a religion that defines only one people as chosen, that tends to define the members of its own religion by blood (a Jew is anyone who has a Jewish mother), that forbids all those Israeli Jews to marry who are to be described as “bastards” for racial reasons,[52] that promises the Jews the kingdom of God on earth in finite time, in which the Jews will rule over all other peoples (Deuteronomy 15:6; 28:1).[53] Even today, the Jews see themselves not only as a religious community, but also as a strongly ethnocentric people.[54]

 

Now, all this should be of little concern to us if it were not for the hasty submission of our own elites to those personalities who exploit their supposedly experienced or only retrospectively known allegedly singular sacrifice to present themselves as our supreme, unassailable moral apostles. Hans-Dietrich Sander quoted Ernst Wiechert as an example of this, who, in the face of Auschwitz, demanded of the German youth: “Let us recognize that the hard law was written for us: ‘An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, blood for blood.’ Let us not rebel against it… “[55] They were therefore only too willing to submit prematurely to the expected barbaric demands for revenge from the Jewish side.

 

The role of the Jews in the subjugation of the Germans after the war and their alienation from their political and cultural roots has been described phenomenologically by H.-D. Sander using many examples.[56] In view of the impudent audacity (Jewish: chutzpah) with which Mr. Bubis (back then head of the Central Council of Jewish in Germany) and Mr. Friedmann and all those who are preemptively obedient are nowadays able to pretend what is good and what is evil, who dares to contradict the fact that the field voluntarily cleared for the Semites and philosemites is today almost exclusively cultivated by them?[57] These gentlemen in particular often speak of German anti-Semitism without Jews, which they cannot comprehend, and there are said to be people who sway their heads in agreement with these words.

 

The fact that the situation in the Western world is similar to that described by Prof. Passarge as a critical state shortly before pogrom-like riots, namely the domination of the host nations by Jewish elites, is even proudly proclaimed by the latter in places: “When the Israeli weekly Haslem Hazeh on Aug. 4, 1982, p. 30, rejoiced that the American Jews, through their ‘key positions in the media world,’ are in a position to ‘prevent the publication of any information whatsoever,’ things once again drifted into the same river which, with increasing acceleration, is becoming the Maelstrom,” reports H.-D. Sander.[58] If one adds to this the report in the German Jewish weekly Allgemeine Jüdische Wochenzeitung of September 24, 1992, p. 11, in which it is stated how good and important it is that Jewish people are present in every German broadcasting council in order to prevent disagreeable news, then all questions should be answered, especially since the media are the key to power in modern information societies. All that remains is to add, with H.-D. Sander, what the voice of the people used to say: “Back then I helped Jews ten times at the risk of my life. I wouldn’t do that today.”[59]

 

In view of all these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the world’s professors cannot come up with anything witty to answer the question “Why Auschwitz?”, because the consequences of wit in this world are now fatal, which in turn is proof that some things st… Precisely because things are coming to a head, one should always be aware that only permanent assimilation can solve the Jewish problem outside a Jewish nation. Unless one considers expulsion to the Jewish homeland.

---

Endnotes

 

[1] Gunnar Heinsohn, Warum Auschwitz?, Rowohlt, Reinbek 1995.

 

[2] Deborah E. Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, Maxwell Macmillan, New York, 1993.

 

[3] For example: A.R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, 5th ed., Armreg, London, 2024; W. Stäglich, Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence, 3rd ed., Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, 2015; Germar Rudolf, Lectures on the Holocaust, 4th ed., Castle Hill Publishers, Bargoed, 2023; Jürgen Graf, Der Holocaust auf dem Prüfstand, Guideon Burg, Basel, 1993; idem, Der Holocaust-Schwindel, ibid.; idem, Auschwitz: Tätergeständnisse und Augenzeugen zum Holocaust, Neue Visionen, Würenlos, Switzerland, 1994; Serge Thion, Vérité historique ou vérité politique?, La Vieille Taupe, Paris, 1980.

 

[4] G. Heinsohn, op. cit. (Note 1), p. 39.

 

[5] See Ernst Gauss (= Germar Rudolf), “The Controversy about the Extermination of the Jews: An Introduction”, in: idem. (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of ‘Truth’ and ‘Memory’, 4th ed., Armreg, London, 2024, pp. 15-58, esp., pp. 33-36.

 

[6] Only his theory 12: “Auschwitz as liberation from an archaic cultural fossil” contains an approach in the corresponding direction, which, however, is not deepened, G. Heinsohn, op. cit., (Note 1), pp. 66f.

 

[7] “Monotheismus und Antisemitismus – auf immer unerklärbar?”, in: Rainer Erb, Michael Schmidt (eds.), Antisemitismus und jüdische Geschichte, Wissenschaftlicher Autorenverlag, Berlin 1987, pp. 409-447, esp. pp. 446f.; analogously the presentation in: idem, “Was ist Judentum?,” in: Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, 43(4) (1991), pp. 333-344, esp. pp. 343f. In this book, the sacrificial death of the Son of God Jesus for mankind and its symbolic commemoration in the Eucharist in the form of Jesus’s blood and flesh (wine and bread) is assessed as a relapse of Christianity into the cult of sacrifice! In the book criticized here, Warum Auschwitz?, op. cit. (Note 1), p. 15, Heinsohn simply declares Jesus’s sacrificial death as “[…]  the Christian conviction that salvation can only arise from a human sacrifice […] ”, failing to recognize that Christians regard Jesus as the Son of God and thus not as a human being sacrificed for God, but as God himself, who is prepared to sacrifice himself for mankind. Such misinterpretations suggest certain religious ties on the part of Heinsohn. One is also inclined to ask who is actually the cause of repeated protests among animal rights activists worldwide in the face of seemingly senseless, allegedly religiously prescribed ritual slaughter, i.e. the bleeding to death of living animals: Christians or Jews?

 

[8] Behold: Prof. Heinsohn encumbers Germany with collective guilt and clan liability!

 

[9] G. Heinsohn, Warum Auschwitz?, aaO. (Anm. 1), S. 13, 135, 137f.; vgl. auch ders., Was ist Judentum?, aaO. (Anm. 7), passim.

 

[10] See Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeld, Die Biologie des menschlichen Verhaltens, 2nd ed., Piper, Munich, 1986.

 

[11] G. Heinsohn, Otto Steiger, Die Vernichtung der Weisen Frauen, 3rd ed., Heyne, Munich, 1989, esp. pp. 48-51; see also idem, “Theorie des Tötungsverbotes und des Monotheismus bei den Israeliten sowie der Genese, der Durchsetzung und der welthistorischen Rolle der christlichen Familien- und Fortpflanzungsmoral,” in: J. Müller, B. Wassmann (Hg.), L’invitation au voyage zu Alfred Sohn-Rethel, Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag, Unibuchladen Wassmann, Bremen, 1979; on Heinsohn’s population policy theses, see also idem, R. Knieper, Theorie des Familienrechts: Geschlechterrollenaufhebung, Kindesvernachlässigung, Geburtenrückgang, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt on Main, 1974; idem, Rolf Knieper, Otto Steiger, Menschenproduktion. Allgemeine Bevölkerungstheorie der Neuzeit, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main, 1979.

 

[12] Which, by the way, he indirectly admits: G. Heinsohn, Was ist Judentum?, aaO. (Anm. 7), p. 339: “The essay ‘What is Judaism?’ might annoy the connoisseur of detail by reducing to core ideas what in reality exists in great abundance and at the same time in shades of contradiction.”

 

[13] A fairly comprehensive bibliography of anti-Jewish attacks from 1500 to 1887 is listed in: Thomas Frey (= Theodor Fritsch), Antisemiten-Katechismus, Verlag von Th. Fritsch, Leipzig 1887, pp. 209-219.

 

[14] Hans-Dietrich Sander has also hinted at this fact: Die Auflösung aller Dinge, Castel del Monte, Munich 1988, p. 202: “Habermas […]  prose authoritatively decreed that the Rubicon of a critical view of the Jewish question must not be crossed a second time by the German mind”; quoted from Jürgen Habermas, Philosophisch-politische Profile, Frankfurt on Main, 1971, pp. 63, 65. The fact that Habermas received an honorary doctorate from Tel Aviv University for his fight against a taboo-free historical discussion in the so-called Historikerstreit shows who Habermas is willingly or unwillingly at the service of (Stuttgarter Nachrichten, April 24, 1995).

 

[15] Including yours truly, who is only now, forced to confront this issue by the wrongful conviction, beginning to fathom it.

 

[16] Erich Bischoff, Die Kabbalah. Einführung in die jüdische Mystik und Geheimwissenschaft, Th. Griebens Verlag, Leipzig, 1903; idem, Die Elemente der Kabbalah, reprint, Verlag Richard Schikowski, Berlin, 1985; idem, Rabbi und Diakonus, Walter Kramers Verlag, Leipzig, 1929; idem, Rabbinische Fabeln, ibid., 1922; idem, Das Buch vom Schulchan Aruch, Hammer Verlag, Leipzig, 1929; idem, Das Blut in jüdischem Schrifttum und Brauch, Ludolf Beust Verlag, Leipzig, 1929.

 

[17] See for instance Theodor Fritsch, Handbuch zur Judenfrage, 11th ed., Hammer-Verlag, Leipzig, 1932, S. 128.

 

[18] This emerges in particular from his book Die Elemente der Kabbalah, op. cit. (Note 16), Part 2, pp. 210ff., in which he expresses his high regard for Jewish mysticism and theosophy.

 

[19] Gustaf Marx, Jüdisches Fremdenrecht. Antisemitische Polemik und jüdische Apologetik, Schriften des Institutum Judaicum, Berlin, Nr. 1, H. Reuther’s Verlag, Karlsruhe/Leipzig, 1886.

 

[20] Jacob Brafmann, Das Buch vom Kahal, 2 vols., Hammer-Verlag, Leipzig, 1928, edited by Siegfried Passarge.

 

[21] Hammer-Verlag, Leipzig 1922. E. Bischoff mentions him in praise in Das Buch vom Schulchan Aruch, op. cit. (Note 16), p. 110.

 

[22] While it can be assumed that there is no balance, as anti-Semitism was strongly focused on specific aspects of Judaism, the accuracy of some of the statements may well be different, especially as the publications mentioned here dealt intensively with all possible counter-arguments of the Jewish apologists. But if you want to get an objective picture, you have no choice but to study the primary literature (Torah, Talmud, Shulchan Aruch) for yourself, preferably in the original language and with knowledge of the Oriental world of the time. In any case, I do not allow myself to judge whether what was written at that time is true and comprehensive. Cf. e.g. Lazarus Goldschmidt (ed.), Der Babylonische Talmud, 12 vols., Verlag Biblion, Berlin, 1929-1936. A 4th edition of the work is soon to be published by Suhrkamp.

 

[23] E. Bischoff, Das Buch vom Schulchan Aruch, aaO. (Anm. 16), S. 50f. According to Bischoff, the just treatment of non-Jews for tactical reasons alone is morally worthless. But does it not even represent a special form of malice?

 

[24] In English translation: E. Bischoff, The Book of the Shulchan Aruch, Castle Hill Publishers, Bargoed, 2023; https://armreg.co.uk/product/book-shulchan-aruch/.

 

[25] Thus the Hebrew word for their god – (El) Shadai – is occasionally interpreted as having the same root as our word Satan, cf. Theodor Fritsch, Der falsche Gott, Hammer-Verlag, Leipzig, 1919. H. Lummert recently explained to me that this is a misinterpretation: “Our word ‘Satan’ is a Hebrew word: satam (sin-tet-mem); it means to oppose, to feud, to combat. Satan (sin-tet-nun) is the enemy, opponent, adversary. Hasatan (Satan) is the accuser, “our” Satan. Shadai (shin-dalet-jod): mighty, almighty; a name of God (El Shadai); thus roughly The Almighty. Shadad (shin-dalet-dalet): to harm, be violent, devastate, plunder, destroy, annihilate.”

 

[26] Das Buch vom Schulchan Aruch, op. cit. (Note 16), pp. 30-35, esp. p. 33.

 

[27] S. Passarge in: Jacob Brafmann, op. cit. (Note 20), Vol. 2, pp. 343ff.

 

[28] G. Heinsohn, op. cit. (Note 1), p. 137.

 

[29] I am indebted to Horst Lummert for pointing out that the Torah can be better understood if it is not viewed through the lens of a dialog between God and his people, but as the real history of a people with all its good and bad qualities, with positive and negative events. Only through the mythological-theological interpretation of this history did it become a dogmatic religious edifice. Even if one agrees with this, the fact remains that the problems arise precisely from the fact that the Jews often interpret in the Talmud and Shulchan Aruch what was recorded in the Torah as historical events metaphorically, either literally or (un)analogously, but in any case dogmatically.

 

[30] E. Bischoff, Das Buch vom Schulchan Aruch, op. cit. (Note 16), p. 123, note 205.

 

[31] Precisely in the sense of Sanders’s Auflösung aller Dinge (Note 14).

 

[32] S. Passarge in: Jacob Brafmann, op. cit. (Note 20), Vol. 2, pp. 381f.

 

[33] With the exception of the targeted, industrial extermination, of course, which, according to revisionist conviction, did not take place.

 

[34] Hans Sarkowicz, “Der Protokolle der Weisen von Zion”, in: Karl Corino (Hg.), Gefälscht!, Rowohlt, Reinbek, 1992, pp. 56-73.

 

[35] S. Passarge in: Jacob Brafmann, op. cit. (Note 20), ., Vol. 2, pp. 377ff.

 

[36] Sonja Margolina, Das Ende der Lügen, Siedler, Berlin, 1992, esp. p. 58; H.-D. Sander, aaO. (Anm. 14), p. 35, has expanded that series by quoting from S. Dubnow, Mein Leben, Berlin 1937, S. 224: “[…]  Dubonow spoke […]  of the ‘terrible guilt’ with which ‘the Jews have burdened themselves through their participation in Bolshevism.’”

 

[37] Joachim Hoffmann, Stalin’s War of Extermination 1941-1945, reprint, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, 2015.

 

[38] G. Heinsohn, op. cit. (Note 1), Theory acc. to Ernst Nolte: “Auschwitz as a fight against Bolshism,” pp. 119ff.

 

[39] Vgl. Francis Nicosia, The Third Reich and the Palestine Question, 2nd ed., Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, 1999.

 

[40] I still do not count myself among them, even if some philo- and anti-Semites want to force me into such a role; cf. Note 5.

 

[41] An example of how not to do it is the book by Harold Cecil Robinson (= Johannes Peter Ney), Verdammter Antisemitismus, Neue Visionen, Würenlos, 1995, which marks an epochal step backwards in quality compared to the writings on the Weimar period.

 

[42] G. Heinsohn aaO. (Anm. 1), p. 138.

 

[43] Ibid., p. 19.

 

[44] Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, Pluto Press, London, 1994.

 

[45] Ibid., pp. 60, 83, 85f. According to H. Lummert, however, this non-recognition of rabbinical authority is worthy of death in the sense of official Judaism.

 

[46] S. Passarge, in: Jacob Brafmann, op. cit. (Note 20), pp. 360ff.

 

[47] So far I have only come across Josef Ginsburg by chance, who at the time accused the Jews tied up in the Shoah business of (false) Talmudic understanding; see Josef G. Burg, Zionnazi-Zensur in der BRD?, Ederer, Munich, 1980.

 

[48] To realize this, it was not necessary for John Sack’s book of the same title to be published, BasicBooks, New York, 1995.

 

[49] Deuteronomy 25:19; similar H.-D. Sander, op. cit. (Note 14), p. 192.

 

[50] G. Heinsohn, op. cit. (Note 1), p. 137, basing himself on Exodus 22:20; 23:9; Leviticus 19:33f. Of course, he omits the corresponding contradictory passages from the Talmud and Shulchan Aruch.

 

[51] Reprinted in the magazine links, 3/1992, p. 30.

 

[52] According to a report in the German daily Die Welt of December 22, 1994, the Israeli Ministry of Religion is said to have drawn up a list of ten thousand Israelis who are not allowed to marry because they are considered “bastards” or “unclean”.

 

[53] On the anti-Jewish criticism of the Old Testament at the time, see Th. Fritsch, Handbuch zur Judenfrage, op. cit.

 

[54] Defining membership of a group by blood relationship is not unusual for a people, as the German citizenship regulations prove, but it is extraordinary for a religion. In this respect, it becomes clear that the Jews see themselves not only as a religious community, but also as a people. The fact that Germany’s Jews also see themselves first and foremost as Jews may be clear from the name of their association: After all, the Central Council of Jews in Germany is not called the Central Council of German Jews.

 

[55] Ernst Wiechert, Rede an die deutsche Jugend, Munich, 1945, p. 33; as cited by H.-D. Sander, aaO. (Anm. 14), p. 185.

 

[56] H.-D. Sander, op. cit., (note 14), especially p. 189: “As always, the Jews intervened in this world-historical process [of the total subjugation of the Germans to the victors]  only in an aggravating way.” Also worth reading in this context is Hans Jürgen Syberberg, Vom Unglück und Glück der Kunst in Deutschland nach dem letzten Kriege, Matthes & Seitz, Munich, 1990.

 

[57] I am convinced that it is not even the Jews themselves who play the biggest role, but rather those non-Jewish forces who are always rashly prepared to do what they merely believe is in the Jewish interest. Whether this is always the case is doubtful, especially as there are certainly many different opinions among the Jews as to how one should best behave towards them.

 

[58] H.-D. Sander, op. cit. (Note 14), p. 193

 

[59] Ibid., p. 192, footnote. Incidentally, Gottfried Weise also saved the lives of many Jews when he brought them safely through the Russian artillery at the end of the war. For this he was put behind bars for life by a Jewish professional liar and false witness. Would Weise do it again today? Cf. R. Gerhard (ed.), Der Fall Weise, 2nd ed., Türmer, Leoni 1991; Claus Jordan, ” The German Justice System: A Case Study”, in: G. Rudolf (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust, op. cit., pp. 137-171. Otto Ernst Remer told me personally that he also saved the lives of numerous Jews when he used force to prevent the Ukrainian civilian population from committing pogroms at the beginning of the Russian campaign.