Der Stürmer

The official blog of the site "Der Stürmer" – http://der-stuermer.org

Caricatures from “Der Stürmer” – translated in English and colourized!

Unknown Date – Part 4

Advertisements

Who Are the Haters?

by Dr. William Pierce

My organization, the National Alliance, concerns itself with all things relevant to the welfare and progress of the European peoples, the White people of this earth. We are advocates for all things which could be beneficial to our people, and we are opponents of all the influences and tendencies and groups who are harmful or to our people. As a consequence of this we receive a certain amount of hate mail, and I find it interesting to read these hate letters and try to understand the psychology, the motivations, of the people who write them. I won’t read any of these hate letters to you today, because they’re all pretty nasty and tend to lean pretty heavily on the use of four-letter words. They also tend to be blindly and irrationally hateful and to be based less on what I actually have said or done than on some misrepresentation about me or the National Alliance which has appeared recently in the controlled media.

In fact, there’s a strong correlation between some sensational story appearing on television or in the New York Times or the Village Voice about the National Alliance being a so-called “hate group” and my novel The Turner Diaries being a “blueprint” for various acts of domestic terrorism on the one hand, and on the other hand the arrival of these hate letters at our office a few days thereafter. It is clear to me that these sensational stories in the controlled media, which all purport to be against hate — in fact, they claim to deplore the growth of hate in our society, to be alarmed about it, and to be seeking ways to ameliorate it — these stories denouncing hate have the effect of causing the arrival of hate letters at our office. There is a cause-and-effect relationship. And the more I’ve thought about it, the more I’ve become convinced that it was planned that way.

Which is to say, all of these media protests about the growth of hate in America are intended for the specific purpose of provoking hate, of inciting hate. If you collect these stories from the New York Times, Time, Newsweek, or other Jewish publications and study them, you’ll see a certain pattern. For example, they always use the word “hate” in writing about me or the National Alliance. Even a short story may use the word “hate” or “hater” or the phrase “hate group” a dozen or more times. It’s clear that this isn’t just a fluke, because it occurs so consistently. What they’re deliberately trying to do is create an association in the mind of the average reader or television viewer between any mention of me or my organization and the emotion of hatred. In fact, they not only want the listeners or viewers to reflexively think “hate” when they hear my name or the name of the National Alliance, they want them to feel hate. And it seems to work to a certain extent, judging from this correlation I mentioned between the appearance of these stories and the arrival of hate mail at our office.

It’s an irrational, Pavlovian sort of thing, because as I mentioned a minute ago, the National Alliance is not a hate group of any sort but instead is a group dedicated to the welfare and progress of our people. But clearly there are folks out there who feel threatened by any such effort: folks who regard any activity aimed at building a sense of racial solidarity and racial consciousness among Europeans as a threat to themselves. And foremost among these folks are those who control the mass media: those who own the New York Times, the Village Voice, Time, Newsweek, and the rest. They are a deceitful bunch. They don’t come right out and say that they are opposed to White people regaining an understanding of our roots and an appreciation for our own unique qualities in a rapidly darkening world and a sense of responsibility for the future of our people. They don’t say this. Instead they attempt to generate negative associations in the minds of their mass audience. They attempt to use psychological trickery to keep our people confused and disorganized. They don’t want us thinking clearly about what is in our own interest and what is not. They deliberately attempt to incite hatred against me and others who are concerned about the future of our people.

They’ve had a lot of experience at inciting hatred. If you’re a person of German ancestry, you’ll certainly understand this. For the past 60 years, ever since the late 1930s, the media bosses have been cranking out films — hundreds of them — designed to incite hatred against Germans: crude, heavy-handed films, full of distortions and outright lies, but still effective enough to profoundly affect public opinion and national policy.

You may be better able to understand this media bias if you compare the films they have made about Germans with the films they have made about Japanese. You know, it was Japan who attacked the United States in the Second World War, not Germany. The Germans wanted to avoid a conflict with America and even ignored the deliberate provocations of the Roosevelt government, such as American attacks on German ships. After we were in the war, the Germans treated American prisoners correctly, in contrast to the Japanese, who often behaved brutally toward American prisoners, starving and torturing them. But the films coming out of Hollywood don’t reflect this reality. For every anti-Japanese film there are a hundred anti-German films. In fact, Hollywood’s tendency has been to generate sympathy toward the Japanese by reminding Americans at every opportunity about our internment of Japanese civilians in concentration camps in this country during the war. By way of contrast, the Germans are portrayed as sadistic automatons, clicking their heels and shouting “Sieg Heil” as they massacre prisoners.

Think about this difference between the Hollywood portrayal of Japanese and Germans. You won’t have to think very long to understand that the reason the media bosses want to incite hatred against the Germans but not against the Japanese is based on the fact that the Germans were in the business of freeing their own country of Jewish influence and of fighting against Jewish Communism everywhere in Europe, while the Japanese were blessed by not having a Jewish problem to deal with. The media bosses, in other words, couldn’t care less about the fact that the Germans treated American prisoners of war correctly and the Japanese didn’t; all they care about is the way their fellow Jews were treated. That ethnic self-centeredness of theirs shows up in almost all of their propaganda.

For the last few years their hate propaganda has been directed not just at Germans, but also at everyone who is not Politically Correct — especially those groups like the National Alliance whose stand on the Jewish issue or the race issue differs from their own. And they have added a new twist: using a pretended campaign against hate to incite hate.

You know, I didn’t think much about hate myself until becoming the target of this Jewish hate campaign. And then I had to ask myself, am I really a hater? Certainly not in the way the people who send those hate letters are. But, yes, I suppose I do hate some people.

Whenever I look at what has happened to our cities and our schools during the past 30 or 40 years, I cannot suppress my feeling of hostility toward the Blacks, mestizos, and Asians who have made so much of our country an enemy-occupied wasteland. I feel a surge of anger every time I see a non-White face on television or in an advertisement. Thirty or 40 years ago, before all of the new civil-rights laws gave them a privileged status and when there were 25 or 30 million fewer of them in the country, I didn’t feel this hostility. I figured that we could each stay in our own communities and we wouldn’t get in each other’s way. But now I want them out of our country, out of our living space. But even so, my hostility toward these non-Whites who are overrunning my world is not the nasty sort of hatred embellished with obscenity that I see expressed in the hate letters I receive.

When I see a hate letter I often feel a flash of anger at the hater who wrote it, but I cannot say that I really hate even these hate-letter writers. They are simply the people, most of them White, who are incited by the real hatemongers, the media bosses. My feeling toward these Jewish media bosses — and all of the clever, little Jewish propagandists who write news stories about so-called “hate groups” in an attempt to make ordinary people hate me — is much closer to real hatred. Over the years they have done enormous damage to our people with their poisonous propaganda, and they aspire to do even more. One way or another we must stop them and make sure that they can never harm our people again.

But I reserve my most heartfelt hatred for the collaborators among my own people who make it possible for the Jews to do their damage: collaborators who consciously and deliberately betray their own people, lie to their own people, in order to gain advantage for themselves — the politicians, generals, public officials, clergymen, professors, writers, businessmen, and publicists who are not incited to hatred by the psychological tricks of the Jews, as are the suggestible fools who write hate letters, but who consciously and deliberately choose race treason, believing that they will gain a personal advantage from it. There is no fire in hell hot enough to punish these traitors, and there will be no place for them to hide when the day of retribution comes.

Yes, I hate traitors, I hate liars and deceivers, and I cannot say that I feel at all apologetic about the fact that I hate them. Hate may be an unpleasant sort of emotion, but it can serve a good purpose, and that is why Mother Nature gave us the capability to hate. It is one of the faculties which protects us from traitors and deceivers by ensuring that we will punish them, that we will weed them from our midst when we catch them, instead of forgiving them and giving them a chance to betray us again.

Nevertheless, I reject the label of “hater,” with which the real hatemongers have tried to brand me. I spend very little of my time hating and a great deal of my time spreading understanding with the hope that it will benefit my people. One of the things I believe that we must understand, that we must always be aware of, is the motivation of the professional hatemongers, as well as the trickery with which they ply their trade.

Their trick of using the pretense of altruistically fighting hate in order to incite hate against their enemies is relatively new. They invented the terms “hate crime” and “hate speech” only a little over a decade ago — unless one wants to give the credit for that to George Orwell, who popularized the essentially identical concept of “thought crime” in 1948, with his futuristic novel 1984. In any case, they used their political influence to force the government and the various police agencies around the country to give official recognition to their invention, or Orwell’s invention if you prefer, with the passage of the so-called “Hate Crimes Statistics Reporting Act” of 1990. Then almost overnight all of the mass media began using the terms. Now they’ve got the President of the United States running around the country giving speeches about stamping out “hate crime” and “hate speech.” It’s their way of demonizing their enemies, of making their enemies seem like irrational, dangerous, and hateful people: the sort of people that it’s all right for decent folks to hate.

So the trick is new, but the hate they bear against humanity certainly isn’t new. Two thousand years ago the great Roman historian Tacitus noted as the principal distinguishing characteristic of the Jews their hatred for every nation but their own. This hatred they bear against other peoples may serve a useful purpose for the Jews by helping them to remain apart and to retain their own identity while existing as a small but influential minority among much larger host populations, but it certainly isn’t helpful to our people. They almost instinctively are hostile to every institution of ours which holds us together and gives us our strength and solidarity. Back during the Vietnam war they were at the forefront of the flag-burners, and they persuaded a whole generation of university students and other young Americans to despise patriotism. Today their deceptive hate campaign is still directed against patriots, whom they portray as terrorists or potential terrorists.

Consider the whole set of ideas and attitudes associated with Political Correctness. Political Correctness really has not been codified in any formal way, so that one can refer to some official proclamation in order to determine what is Politically Correct and what is not. Nevertheless, we all know. We absorb this knowledge from the mass media.

We know, for example, that the United Negro College Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People are Politically Correct. No one flinches or protests at the mention of those very real organizations. But at the same time we all know that if anyone dared to attempt to organize a college fund reserved for White students, he would be met with howls of outrage from the guardians of Political Correctness. We know that any association for the advancement of White interests will be branded immediately a “hate group” by the Jewish media and all of the politicians who dance to their tune, as the National Alliance is. In fact, any club or other organization with an all-White membership is bound to be under suspicion of being a “hate group,” although the same suspicion is never directed against an all-Jewish organization, an all-Chinese organization, or an organization all of whose members are American Indians.

We all know that to express revulsion for the practices of homosexuals is the height of Political Incorrectness and will get us branded as “haters” in an instant. Even if we want to give our own children positive examples of heterosexual masculinity or heterosexual femininity in order to guide the development of their own attitudes toward sex, we had better do it quietly if we don’t want to be accused of “hate.” Likewise, any expression of support for the maintenance of traditional sex roles — any suggestion that armed combat is not a proper role for women, for example — is sure to bring one under suspicion as a “hater.”

We all know that whenever White people, European people, are in conflict with non-Whites, whether in South Africa or America or anywhere else on this increasingly overcrowded planet, it is Politically Correct to be on the non-White side. To be on the White side is to be a “hater.” If one expresses agreement with the French people who believe that the French government should cut off the immigration of Africans from the former French colonies in Africa, for example, one is a “hater.” If one agrees with the Germans who believe that there are too many Turkish “guest workers” in Germany, one is a “hater.” If one agrees with Englishmen that the Pakistanis in England should be sent back to Pakistan, one is a “hater.” And if we suggest that the American government should not let wetbacks continue to pour into the United States across the Rio Grande, we are “haters.” Indeed, only a “hater” would dare use the term “wetback” these days.

If we are sufficiently sensitive to the message of the controlled media, we understand that any expression of concern for our people, any effort to safeguard the future of our people, any public support for our traditions and our culture and our folkways is hateful. The unspoken message is that we will be hated if we are not Politically Correct. The message is that the sort of trendy fools who send me viciously obscene hate letters will be incited to hate anyone who does not toe the political line of the Jewish media.

It’s a shame that it still has to be that way for a while yet. It’s a shame that any of our people are incited to hate others of our people. But we have a big mess to clean up in America and elsewhere throughout the White world, and until the mess has been cleaned up there will be hatred.

At least, we can understand who is responsible for this hatred. We can understand who the real haters are.

Book Links Israel to 2 700 Assassination Operations

Source: https://infostormer.com/book-links-israel-to-2700-assassination-operations/

A new book has documented how Israel has been linked to 2 700 different assassination operations over its 70-year existence.

None of this is a surprise.

National Post:

Poisoned toothpaste that takes a month to end its target’s life. Armed drones. Exploding cell phones. Spare tires with remote-control bombs. Assassinating enemy scientists and discovering the secret lovers of Islamic holy men.

A new book chronicles these techniques and asserts that Israel has carried out at least 2 700 assassination operations in its 70 years of existence. While many failed, they add up to far more than any other Western country, the book says.

Ronen Bergman, the intelligence correspondent for Yediot Aharonot newspaper, persuaded many agents of Mossad, Shin Bet and the military to tell their stories, some using their real names. The result is the first comprehensive look at Israel’s use of state-sponsored killings.

Based on 1 000 interviews and thousands of documents, and running more than 600 pages, “Rise and Kill First” makes the case that Israel has used assassination in the place of war, killing half a dozen Iranian nuclear scientists, for instance, rather than launching a military attack. It also strongly suggests that Israel used radiation poisoning to kill Yasser Arafat, the longtime Palestinian leader, an act its officials have consistently denied.

Since the Jews don’t have the numbers to raise a formidable army it is not a shock that they would rely on assassinations. It is likely to assume that they killed Arafat. He died quickly and under very suspicious circumstances.

The Jews also relied upon terrorism to carve out what is now known as Israel via Jewish terrorist organizations like the Irgun. They were primarily responsible for the bombing of the King David Hotel building which resulted in the deaths of many British citizens.

But if the Jews didn’t have a stranglehold over American foreign policy, Israel would have been destroyed decades ago by the surrounding Arab countries. It is only through this diabolical arrangement that any of this has been allowed to happen.

These Jews are a bad bunch. They do bad things everywhere they go and it is why we need them purged from our nations.

On top of that, I hope to see the day when Israel is destroyed and the Jews driven into a sea. They deserve such a fate considering all they have done.

Sylvia Stolz – Lecture

An Overall objective lecture, asking very relevant questions about a Taboo subject that has made illegal to do free inquiries into this topic and anyone that surrounds it.

“Jews Control Swedish Media,” MP Quits

Source: https://zionistreport.com/2016/10/jews-control-swedish-media-mp-quits/

The Bonnier Group owns 96 book publishers, 42 business and trade press newspapers, 105 digital news platforms, 9 film production companies, 176 magazines, 23 major newspapers, 33 TV stations, and 33 “other” media outlets – and quite literally dominates the controlled media in Sweden.”

To clarify, this Swedish MP didn’t resign on her own will. In fact, she was forced to leave by the Zionist “Mattias Karlsson,” who has more influence on the Sweden Democrats than the leader Jimmie Åkesson. Mattias Karlsson has worked with the radical-left intelligence service financed by George Soros called ‘EXPO’ to locate Nationalistic people in the party – so they can be kicked out. In sum, the Sweden Democrats is a infiltrated useless party today that works in the interests of Israel.

To understand the extent of Jewish control of media and power in Sweden read the following article: “The Chosen People” In The Swedish Media.

Swedish Democrat party member of Parliament Anna Hagwall

“‘Jews Control Swedish Media,’ MP Quits,” Source: newobserveronline.com

Swedish Democrat party member of Parliament Anna Hagwall has announced her resignation from all party posts and will not stand for reelection in 2018 after a furor following her exposure of the fact that a single family of Jews control the Swedish media.

The uproar followed her letter to the Aftonbladet newspaper in which she said that “ethnicity should be a factor” in determining media ownership of more than 5 percent – an obvious reference to the Jewish Bonnier family media group.

The Bonnier Group owns 96 book publishers, 42 business and trade press newspapers, 105 digital news platforms, 9 film production companies, 176 magazines, 23 major newspapers, 33 TV stations, and 33 “other” media outlets – and quite literally dominates the controlled media in Sweden.

Hagwall had earlier submitted a motion to the Swedish parliament which proposed cuts to the state subsidies paid to media in Sweden.

Although she never mentioned Jews by name, Hagwall said in an explanatory letter to the Aftonbladet that it would be a good idea to “let Bonnier’s newspapers go under” so that “no family, ethnic group, or company” could control more than 5 percent of the media.

“An entire 80 percent of the media is owned and controlled by the same owners,” Hagwell wrote. “This is not acceptable. Therefore, media ownership should be spread over many independent companies and people. In order to change this, I suggest backtracked press subsidies [for the independent media].”

When asked by Aftonbladet how the abolition of press subsidies to the country’s local newspapers reduce Bonnier’s power over the media in Sweden, Hagwall answered by email that “most small newspapers are directly or indirectly controlled by Bonnier, and why they have to be subsidized by the Swedish taxpayer is a mystery.

“Let the little Bonnier newspapers in the provinces go under, because then a void will be created which can be filled by newspapers that care about people and business owners.”

She also said that the Swedish public service broadcaster, Sveriges Television (SVT), should be switched to pay channels to “reduce SVT’s propagation of the politically correct agenda.”

The comments provoked a stream of attacks upon Hagwall, and the Swedish Democrat leadership also distanced itself from her, saying in a statement that the matter will “affect her future in the party.”

This week, Hagwall resigned her position as a member of the Parliamentary Committee on Taxation and internal group leader of the Sweden Democrats’ tax policy group. She also will not seek reelection to Parliament in 2018 at the request of the party leadership, and it is currently unclear if she will continue to sit in parliament for the remainder of the current term.

Caricatures from “Der Stürmer” – translated in English and colourized!

Unknown Date – Part 3

Meet the Jews in the Trump Administration

Source: https://zionistreport.com/2017/01/meet-jews-trump-administration/

For those who still believe that Trump is his “own man,” will drain the swamp,” and “put America first,” this article will make you think twice. Make no mistake about it, the Trump Administration has been fully infiltrated by the members of the Tribe. They are using America, and exploiting the Goyim there, to advance their Zionist agenda.

Meet the Jews in the Trump Administration,” Source: timesofisrael.com

Trump’s strongly conservative Cabinet picks also back policies on health care, the environment, abortion and civil rights often diametrically opposed to the views of most Jewish voters. Yet others have praised Trump’s stance on Israel and his nomination of David Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer who supports West Bank settlement construction and has expressed doubts about the two-state solution, as US ambassador to Israel.

Trump won 24 percent of the Jewish vote, with especially strong support in the Orthodox community.

Here is a look at the president’s Jewish advisers who will be helping to shape US policy for the next four years.

Jared Kushner

NEW YORK, NY – DECEMBER 7: Jared Kushner exits Trump Tower, December 7, 2016 in New York City. President-elect Donald Trump and his transition team are in the process of filling cabinet and other high level positions for the new administration. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Trump’s Orthodox son-in law is serving as a senior adviser to the president. Kushner, the 36-year-old scion of a prominent real estate family from New Jersey, will not receive a salary and will focus on the Middle East and Israel as well as partnerships with the private sector and free trade, according to The New York Times. A day before his appointment was announced, Kushner said he would step down from his role as CEO of his family firm, Kushner Properties.

Kushner, who married Trump’s daughter Ivanka in 2009, played a crucial role in the president’s campaign, especially on Israel. He worked on Trump’s speech to the AIPAC annual policy conference that earned the real estate mogul a standing ovation, and helped plan a trip to Israel for his father-in-law last year. (Trump cancelled the trip after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slammed his call to ban Muslim immigration to the United States.)

Trump appears to be smitten with Kushner, often referring to his “fantastic” son-in-law when boasting of his pro-Israel credentials.

Kushner may have become a household name during the campaign, but he’s no stranger to the limelight. In 2006, at 25, he bought the New York Observer newspaper. Two years later he became CEO of Kushner Properties, four years after his father was sent to jail for tax evasion, illegal campaign donations and witness tampering. In 2015, Fortune named Kushner to its 40 Under 40 list, an “annual ranking of the most influential young people in business.”

David Friedman

Donald Trump and attorney David Friedman exit the Federal Building, following an appearance in US Bankruptcy Court on February 25, 2010, in Camden, New Jersey.

Friedman, a bankruptcy expert and longtime Trump attorney, was tapped as the US ambassador to Israel. A statement by Trump’s transition team in December said Friedman, who speaks Hebrew, would serve from Jerusalem, but White House press secretary Sean Spicer said last week that Trump had yet to decide on moving the embassy from Tel Aviv.

Friedman, who is in his late 50s, is the son of a Conservative rabbi with a family history of ties to Republican presidential candidates — his family hosted Ronald Reagan for a Shabbat lunch in 1984, the year he won re-election. He lives in Woodmere, New York, in the largely Jewish area known as the Five Towns, and owns a home in Jerusalem’s Talbiya neighborhood, according to Haaretz.

Friedman has expressed support for and funded construction in Israeli settlements, and has expressed doubt about the future of the two-state solution, traditionally a pillar of bipartisan US policy in the region.

Some of his controversial statements — including slamming backers of the liberal Israel advocacy group J Street as “far worse than kapos” and charging President Barack Obama with “blatant anti-Semitism” — have sparked outrage from liberal groups.

Jason Greenblatt

Jason Dov Greenblatt, Donald Trump’s top real estate lawyer and an Orthodox Jew, is one of three members on the Republican nominee’s Israel Advisory Committee.

Greenblatt, the long-time chief legal officer for the Trump Organization, is working as special representative for international negotiations focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, US-Cuba relations and American trade agreements with other countries. An Orthodox Jew and Yeshiva University graduate, Greenblatt studied at a West Bank yeshiva in the mid-1980s and did armed guard duty there.

A father of six from Teaneck, New Jersey, Greenblatt said he speaks with people involved in the Israeli government but has not spoken to any Palestinians since his yeshiva studies. He has cited the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as one of his main sources for staying informed about the Jewish state, and helped draft Trump’s speech at the lobbying group’s annual conference in March.

Greenblatt, who has said he supports the two-state solution, has implied that Trump will take a laissez-faire approach to peace building.

“He is not going to impose any solution on Israel,” Greenblatt told Israel’s Army Radio in November. He also said that Trump “does not view Jewish settlements as an obstacle to peace.”

Steven Mnuchin

Steven Mnuchin arriving at the Trump Tower for meetings with US President-elect Donald Trump, in New York.

Trump picked Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs executive who worked as Trump’s national finance chairman during the campaign, to serve as Treasury secretary.

Trump and Mnuchin have been friends for 15 years, and prior to being in charge of Trump’s campaign finances, Mnuchin, 54, served as an adviser. Part of what The New York Times describes as one of Manhattan’s “most influential families,” Mnuchin and his father — the prominent art dealer Robert Mnuchin — both became wealthy working at Goldman Sachs. The younger Mnuchin also co-founded the entertainment company RatPac-Dune Entertainment, which has worked on such Hollywood hits as “Avatar” and “Black Swan.”

Some saw Trump teaming up with Mnuchin as unusual, considering that the real-estate mogul had consistently bashed Goldman Sachs during his campaign — but it doesn’t seem to have hindered a good working relationship.

Stephen Miller

Stephen Miller in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York City, Nov. 11, 2016.

Trump named Miller, who has played a crucial role in his campaign by writing speeches and warming up crowds at rallies, as senior adviser for policy.

Miller, who has described himself as “a practicing Jew,” joined the Trump campaign in early 2016, quickly rising through the ranks to become “one of the most important people in the campaign,” as Trump’s campaign manager told The Wall Street Journal.

Previously the 31-year-old worked for seven years as an aide to Trump’s choice for attorney general, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., helping the lawmaker draft materials to kill a bipartisan Senate immigration reform bill. Some of Sessions’ arguments are similar to the harsh and often controversial statements by Trump on the issue, such as calling for building a wall on the Mexican border and banning Muslim immigration to the US.

Though Miller grew up in a liberal Jewish home in Southern California, he was drawn to conservative causes early. As a high school student he wrote a letter to the editor of a local paper in which he slammed his school for providing free condoms to students and for making announcements both in English and Spanish, among other things.

Carl Icahn

NEW YORK, NY – NOVEMBER 03: Chairman of Icahn Enterprises Carl Icahn participates in a panel discussion at the New York Times 2015 DealBook Conference at the Whitney Museum of American Art on November 3, 2015 in New York City. (Photo by Neilson Barnard/Getty Images for New York Times)

Icahn, a businessman and investor, is serving as a special adviser on regulatory reform issues. He is working as a private citizen rather than a federal employee or special government employee.

An early supporter of Trump’s candidacy, Icahn, 80, is the founder of Icahn Enterprises, a diversified conglomerate based in New York City formerly known as American Real Estate Partners. He has also held substantial or controlling positions in numerous American companies over the years, including RJR Nabisco, Texaco, Philips Petroleum, Western Union, Gulf & Western, Viacom, Revlon, Time Warner, Motorola, Chesapeake Energy, Dell, Netflix, Apple and eBay.

Icahn is a major giver to Mount Sinai hospital in New York City, among other philanthropic endeavors. In 2012, he donated $200 million to the renamed Icahn School of Medicine there.

In addition, Icahn established seven Icahn Charter Schools in the Bronx borough of New York.

Gary Cohn

President and COO of Goldman Sachs Gary Cohn speaks onstage during Fortune’s Most Powerful Women Summit at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel on October 13, 2015 in Washington, DC.

Cohn, the outgoing president and chief operating officer at Goldman Sachs, heads the White House National Economic Council. At Goldman Sachs, where he had worked since 1990, Cohn answered to CEO Lloyd Blankfein and was considered a strong candidate to lead the bank.

The 56-year-old father of three has a reputation for abrasiveness, but also for getting things done, according to a Wall Street Journal profile last year. In a 2014 New York Times op-ed, Goldman Sachs executive Greg Smith wrote on the day he resigned that Blankfein and Cohn were responsible for a “decline in the firm’s moral fiber” that placed its interests above those of its clients.

Cohn, a Cleveland native, in 2009 funded the Cohn Jewish Student Center at Kent State University named for his parents.

Success wasn’t always obvious for Cohn, whose struggle with dyslexia made school difficult for him. But the Goldman Sachs banker, who was featured in a book on underdogs by writer Malcolm Gladwell, told the author that his learning disability also taught him how to deal with failure and that “I wouldn’t be where I am today without my dyslexia.”

Boris Epshteyn

Boris Epshteyn on June 30, 2015.

Epshteyn, a Republican political strategist who appeared as a Trump surrogate on TV, is working as a special assistant to the president. Epshteyn, who is in his mid-30s, also is serving as assistant communications director for surrogate operations.

A New York-based investment banker and finance attorney, Epshteyn was a communications aide for Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2008, focusing his efforts on the Arizona senator’s running mate, then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

He defended Trump on major TV networks over 100 times, according to The New York Times. TV hosts have described Epshteyn, who moved to the United States from his native Moscow in 1993, as “very combative” and “abrasive.”

In 2014, he was charged with misdemeanor assault after being involved in a bar tussle. The charge was dropped after Epshteyn agreed to undergo anger management training and perform community service.

David Shulkin

David Shulkin, the Under Secretary of Health at the Department of Veterans Affairs, leaves a meeting with President-elect Donald Trump at Trump Tower, Monday, Jan. 9, 2017, in New York.

Shulkin, the undersecretary for health at the Department of Veterans Affairs, will lead the department as secretary under Trump if confirmed by the Senate. He would be the first holdover appointment from the Obama administration, in which he served since 2015.

Shulkin, 57, is an internist who has had several chief executive roles, including as president of hospitals, notably Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City. He also has held numerous physician leadership roles, including as chief medical officer for the University of Pennsylvania Health System, and academic positions, including as chairman of medicine and vice dean at the Drexel University School of Medicine.

As an entrepreneur, Shulkin founded and served as the chairman and CEO of DoctorQuality, one of the first consumer-oriented sources of information for quality and safety in health care.

Reed Cordish

Reed Cordish attending the Celebration of Xfinity Live! Philadelphia, March 30, 2012

Trump chose Cordish, who is friends with his son-in-law Jared Kushner, to serve as assistant to the president for intragovernmental and technology initiatives. He will be responsible for initiatives requiring multi-agency collaboration and also focus on technological innovation and modernization.

Cordish is a partner at his family’s real estate and entertainment firm, the Baltimore-based Cordish Companies.

Cordish’s father, David, the chairman and CEO of The Cordish Companies and an AIPAC board member, is a friend of Trump. The two met during the mediation process of a lawsuit in which Trump sued The Cordish Companies.

And Cordish, who is in his early 40s, has another connection to the Trump family — he was introduced to his now-wife Margaret by none other than Ivanka Trump, who attended the couple’s wedding in 2010 with husband Jared Kushner. Cordish and his wife were listed as co-hosts for a Manhattan fundraiser for Trump’s presidential campaign in October, Jewish Insider reported.

Avrahm Berkowitz

Avi Berkowitz with NSA Gen. Mike Flynn – via Twitter

Berkowitz, 27, is serving as special assistant to Trump and assistant to Jared Kushner. Berkowitz and Kushner met on the basketball court of an Arizona hotel during a Passover program, Jewish Insider reported. The two stayed in touch and Berkowitz went on to work with Kushner in several capacities.

After graduating from Queens College, Berkowitz worked for Kushner Companies and later went on to write for Kushner’s paper, the New York Observer. In 2016 Berkowitz, who was then finishing up his last semester at Harvard Law School, directed a Facebook Live talk show for the Trump campaign. Later he worked on the presidential campaign as assistant director of data analytics.

Berkowitz’s first cousin is Howard Friedman, who served as AIPAC president in 2006-2010, according to Jewish Insider.

The Jews and the Russian Revolution

Source: http://www.renegadetribune.com/jews-russian-revolution/

This is Hervé Ryssen’s 2017 documentary about the bloody Bolshevik revolution and the horrors that these revolutionary jews unleashed.

The Day of the Aryan Awakening

Source of the text: How Hitler Consolidated Power in Germany and Launched A Social Revolution by general Leon Degrellé

We have the power. Now our gigantic work begins.“

Those were Hitler’s words on the night of January 30, 1933, as cheering crowds surged past him, for five long hours, beneath the windows of the Chancellery in Berlin.

His political struggle had lasted 14 years. He himself was 43, that is, physically and intellectually at the peak of his powers. He had won over millions of Germans and organized them into Germany’s largest and most dynamic political party, a party girded by a human rampart of hundreds of thousands of storm troopers, three fourths of them members of the working class. He had been extremely shrewd. All but toying with his adversaries, Hitler had, one after another, vanquished them all.

Standing there at the window, his arm raised to the delirious throng, he must have known a feeling of triumph. But he seemed almost torpid, absorbed, as if lost in another world.

It was a world far removed from the delirium in the street, a world of 65 million citizens who loved him or hated him, but all of whom, from that night on, had become his responsibility. And as he knew – as almost all Germans knew at the of January 1933 – that this was a crushing, an almost desperate responsibility.

Seventy years later, few people understand the crisis Germany faced at that time. Today, it’s easy to assume that Germans have always been well-fed and even plump. But the Germans Hitler inherited were virtual skeletons.

During the preceding years, a score of „democratic“ governments had come and gone, often in utter confusion. Instead of alleviating the people’s misery, they had increased it, due to their own instability: it was impossible for them to pursue any given plan for more than a year or two. Germany had arrived at a dead end. In just a few years there had been 224,000 suicides – a horrifying figure, bespeaking a state of misery even more horrifying.

By the beginning of 1933, the misery of the German people was virtually universal. At least six million unemployed and hungry workers roamed aimlessly through the streets, receiving a pitiful unemployment benefit of less than 42 marks per month. Many of those out of work had families to feed, so that altogether some 20 million Germans, a third of the country’s population, were reduced to trying to survive on about 40 pfennigs per person per day.

Unemployment benefits, moreover, were limited to a period of six months. After that came only the meager misery allowance dispensed by the welfare offices.

Notwithstanding the gross inadequacy of this assistance, by trying to save the six million unemployed from total destruction, even for just six months, both the state and local branches of the German government saw themselves brought to ruin: in 1932 alone such aid had swallowed up four billion marks, 57 percent of the total tax revenues of the federal government and the regional states. A good many German municipalities were bankrupt.

Those still lucky enough to have some kind of job were not much better off. Workers and employees had taken a cut of 25 percent in their wages and salaries. Twenty-one percent of them were earning between 100 and 250 marks per month; 69.2 percent of them, in January of 1933, were being paid less than 1,200 marks annually. No more than about 100,000 Germans, it was estimated, were able to live without financial worries.

During the three years before Hitler came to power, total earnings had fallen by more than half, from 23 billion marks to 11 billion. The average per capita income had dropped from 1,187 marks in 1929 to 627 marks, a scarcely tolerable level, in 1932. By January 1933, when Hitler took office, 90 percent of the German people were destitute.

No one escaped the strangling effects of the unemployment. The intellectuals were hit as hard as the working class. Of the 135,000 university graduates, 60 percent were without jobs. Only a tiny minority was receiving unemployment benefits.

„The others,“ wrote one foreign observer, Marcel Laloire (in his book New Germany), „are dependent on their parents or are sleeping in flophouses. In the daytime they can be seen on the boulevards of Berlin wearing signs on their backs to the effect that they will accept any kind of work.“

But there was no longer any kind of work.

The same drastic fall-off had hit Germany’s cottage industry, which comprised some four million workers. Its turnover had declined 55 percent, with total sales plunging from 22 billion to 10 billion marks.

Hardest hit of all were construction workers; 90 percent of them were unemployed.

Farmers, too, had been ruined, crushed by losses amounting to 12 billion marks. Many had been forced to mortgage their homes and their land. In 1932 just the interest on the loans they had incurred due to the crash was equivalent to 20 percent of the value of the agricultural production of the entire country. Those who were no longer able to meet the interest payments saw their farms auctioned off in legal proceedings: in the years 1931-1932, 17,157 farms – with a combined total area of 462,485 hectares – were liquidated in this way.

The „democracy“ of Germany’s „Weimar Republic“ (1918 – 1933) had proven utterly ineffective in addressing such flagrant wrongs as this impoverishment of millions of farm workers, even though they were the nation’s most stable and hardest working citizens. Plundered, dispossessed, abandoned: small wonder they heeded Hitler’s call.

Their situation on January 30, 1933, was tragic. Like the rest of Germany’s working class, they had been betrayed by their political leaders, reduced to the alternatives of miserable wages, paltry and uncertain benefit payments, or the outright humiliation of begging.

Germany’s industries, once renowned everywhere in the world, were no longer prosperous, despite the millions of marks in gratuities that the financial magnates felt obliged to pour into the coffers of the parties in power before each election in order to secure their cooperation. For 14 years the well-blinkered conservatives and Christian democrats of the political center had been feeding at the trough just as greedily as their adversaries of the left.

Nor did the bribing of the political parties make them any more capable of coping with the exactions ordered by the Treaty of Versailles. France, in 1923, had effectively seized Germany by the throat with her occupation of the Ruhr industrial region, and in six months had brought the Weimar government to pitiable capitulation. But then, disunited, despising one another, how could these political birds of passage have offered resistance? In just a few months in 1923, seven German governments came and went in swift succession. They had no choice but to submit to the humiliation of Allied control, as well as to the separatist intrigues fomented by Poincaré’s paid agents.

The substantial tariffs imposed on the sale of German goods abroad had sharply curtailed the nation’s ability to export her products. Under obligation to pay gigantic sums to their conquerors, the Germans had paid out billions upon billions. Then, bled dry, they were forced to seek recourse to enormous loans from abroad, from the United States in particular.

This indebtedness had completed their destruction and, in 1929, precipitated Germany into a terrifying financial crisis.

The big industrialists, for all their fat bribes to the politicians, now found themselves impotent: their factories empty, their workers now living as virtual vagrants, haggard of face, in the dismal nearby working-class districts.

Thousands of German factories lay silent, their smokestacks like a forest of dead trees. Many had gone under. Those which survived were operating on a limited basis. Germany’s gross industrial production had fallen by half: from seven billion marks in 1920 to three and a half billion in 1932.

The automobile industry provides a perfect example. Germany’s production in 1932 was proportionately only one twelfth that of the United States, and only one fourth that of France: 682,376 cars in Germany (one for each 100 inhabitants) as against 1,855,174 cars in France, even though the latter’s population was 20 million less than Germany’s.

Germany had experienced a similar collapse in exports. Her trade surplus had fallen from 2.872 billion marks in 1931 to only 667 millions in 1932 – nearly a 75 percent drop.

Overwhelmed by the cessation of payments and the number of current accounts in the red, even Germany’s central bank was disintegrating. Harried by demands for repayment of the foreign loans, on the day of Hitler’s accession to power the Reichsbank had in all only 83 million marks in foreign currency, 64 million of which had already been committed for disbursement on the following day.

The astronomical foreign debt, an amount exceeding that of the country’s total exports for three years, was like a lead weight on the back of every German. And there was no possibility of turning to Germany’s domestic financial resources for a solution: banking activities had come virtually to a standstill. That left only taxes.

Unfortunately, tax revenues had also fallen sharply. From nine billion marks in 1930, total revenue from taxes had fallen to 7.8 billion in 1931, and then to 6.65 billion in 1932 (with unemployment payments alone taking four billion of that amount).

The financial debt burden of regional and local authorities, amounting to billions, had likewise accumulated at a fearful pace. Beset as they were by millions of citizens in need, the municipalities alone owed 6.542 billion in 1928, an amount that had increased to 11.295 billion by 1932. Of this total, 1.668 billion was owed in short-term loans.

Any hope of paying off these deficits with new taxes was no longer even imaginable. Taxes had already been increased 45 percent from 1925 to 1931. During the years 1931-1932, under Chancellor Brüning, a Germany of unemployed workers and industrialists with half-dead factories had been hit with 23 „emergency“ decrees. This multiple overtaxing, moreover, had proven to be completely useless, as the „International Bank of Payments“ had clearly foreseen. The agency confirmed in a statement that the tax burden in Germany was already so enormous that it could not be further increased.

And so, in one pan of the financial scales: 19 billion in foreign debt plus the same amount in domestic debt. In the other, the Reichsbank’s 83 million marks in foreign currency. It was as if the average German, owing his banker a debt of 6,000 marks, had less than 14 marks in his pocket to pay it.

One inevitable consequence of this ever-increasing misery and uncertainty about the future was an abrupt decline in the birthrate. When your household savings are wiped out, and when you fear even greater calamities in the days ahead, you do not risk adding to the number of your dependents.

In those days the birth rate was a reliable barometer of a country’s prosperity. A child is a joy, unless you have nothing but a crust of bread to put in its little hand. And that’s just the way it was with hundreds of thousands of German families in 1932.

In 1905, during the reign of Kaiser Wilhelm II, the birthrate had been 33.4 per one thousand. In 1921 it was only 25.9, and in 1924 it was down to 15.1. By the of 1932, it had fallen to just 14.7 per one thousand.

It reached that figure, moreover, thanks only to the higher birth rate in rural areas. In the fifty largest cities of the Reich, there were more deaths than births. In 45 percent of working-class families, there were no births at all in the latter years. The fall in the birthrate was most pronounced in Berlin, which had less than one child per family and only 9.1 births per one thousand. Deaths exceeded the number of new births by 60 percent.

In contrast to the birthrate, politicians were flourishing as never before – about the only thing in Germany that was in those disastrous times. From 1919 to 1932, Germany had seen no less than 23 governments come and go, averaging a new one about every seven months. As any sensible person realizes, such constant upheaval in a country’s political leadership negates its power and authority. No one would imagine that any effective work could be carried out in a typical industrial enterprise if the board of directors, the management, management methods, and key personnel were all replaced every eight months. Failure would be certain.

Yet the Reich wasn’t a factory of 100 or 200 workers, but a nation of 65 million citizens crushed under the imposed burdens of the Treaty of Versailles, by industrial stagnation, by frightful unemployment, and by a gut-wrenching misery shared by the entire people.

The many cabinet ministers who followed each other in swift succession for thirteen years – due to petty parliamentary squabbles, partisan demands, and personal ambitions – were unable to achieve anything other than the certain collapse of their chaotic regime of rival parties.

Germany’s situation was further aggravated by the unrestrained competition of the 25 regional states, which split up governmental authority into units often in direct opposition to Berlin, thereby incessantly sabotaging what limited power the central Reich government had at that time.

Even at the beginning of the First World War (1914-1918), the German Reich included four distinct kingdoms (Prussia, Bavaria, Wurttemberg and Saxony), each with its own sovereign, army, flag, titles of nobility, and Great Cross in particolored enamel. In addition, there were six grand duchies, five duchies, seven principalities, and three free cities.

Each regional state had its own separate government with parliament, prime minister and cabinet. Altogether they presented a lineup of 59 ministers who, added to the eleven Reich ministers and the 42 senators of the Free Cities, gave the Germans a collection of 112 ministers, each of whom viewed the other with a jaundiced eye at best.

In addition, there were between two and three thousand deputies – representing dozens of rival political parties – in the legislatures of the Reich, the 22 states and the three Free Cities.

In the Reichstag elections of November 1932 – held just months before Hitler become Chancellor – there were no less than 37 different political parties competing, with a total of 7,000 candidates (14 of them by proxy), all of them frantically seeking a piece of the parliamentary pie. It was most strange: the more discredited the party system became, the more democratic champions there were to be seen gesturing and jostling in their eagerness to climb aboard the gravy train.

Honest, dishonest, or piratical, these 112 cabinet ministers and thousands of legislative deputies had converted Germany into a country that was ungovernable. It is incontestable that, by January of 1933, the „system“ politicians had become completely discredited. Their successors would inherit a country in economic, social and political ruins.

Today, more than half a century later, in an era when so many are living in abundance, it is hard to believe that the Germany of January 1933 had fallen so low. But for anyone who studies the archives and the relevant documents of that time, there can be no doubt. Not a single figure cited here is invented. By January 1933, Germany was down and bleeding to death.

All the previous chancellors who had undertaken to get Germany back on her feet – including Brüning, Papen and Shleiher – had failed. Only a genius or, as some believed, a madman, could revive a nation that had fallen into such a state of complete disarray.

When President Franklin Roosevelt was called upon at that same time to resolve a similar crisis in the United States, he had at his disposal immense reserves of gold. Hitler, standing silently at the chancellery window on that evening of January 30, 1933, knew that, on the contrary, his nation’s treasury was empty. No great benefactor would appear to help him out. The elderly Reich President, Paul von Hindenburg, had given him a work sheet of appalling figures of indebtedness.

Hitler knew that he would be starting from zero. From less than zero. But he was also confident of his strength of will to create Germany anew – politically, socially, financially, and economically. Now legally and officially in power, he was sure that he could quickly convert that cipher into a Germany more powerful than ever before.

„It will be the pride of my life,“ Hitler said upon becoming Chancellor, „if I can say at the end of my days that I won back the German worker and restored him to his rightful place in the Reich.“ He meant that he intended not merely to put men back to work, but to make sure that the worker acquired not just rights, but prestige as well, within the national community.

The objective, then, was far greater than merely sing six million unemployed back to work. It was to achieve a total revolution.

„The people,“ Hitler declared, „were not put here on earth for the sake of the economy, and the economy doesn’t exist for the sake of capital. On the contrary, capital is meant to serve the economy, and the economy in turn to serve the people.“

The Social Revolution

It took several years for a stable social structure to emerge from the French Revolution. The Soviets needed even more time: five years after the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, hundreds of thousands of Russians were still dying of hunger and disease. In Germany, by contrast, the great machinery was in motion within months, with organization and accomplishment quickly meshing together.

The single task of constructing a national highway system that was without parallel in the world might have occupied a government for years. First, the problem had to be studied and assessed. Then, with due consideration for the needs of the population and the economy, the highway system had to be carefully planned it all its particulars.

As usual, Hitler had been remarkably farsighted. The concrete highways would be 24 meters in width. They would be spanned by hundreds of bridges and overpasses. To make sure that the entire Autobahn network would be in harmony with the landscape, a great deal of natural rock would be utilized. The artistically planned roadways would come together and diverge as if they were large-scale works of art. The necessary service stations and motor inns would be thoughtfully integrated into the overall scheme, each facility built in harmony with the local landscape and architectural style.

The original plan called for 7,000 kilometers of roadway. This projection would later be increased to 10,000, and then, after Austria was reunited with Germany, to 11,000 kilometers.

The financial boldness equalled the technical vision. These expressways were toll free, which seemed foolhardy to conservative financiers. But the savings in time and labor, and the dramatic increase in traffic, brought increased tax revenues, notably from gasoline.

Germany was thus building for herself not only a vast highway network, but an avenue to economic prosperity.

These greatly expanded transport facilities encouraged the development of hundreds of new business enterprises along the new expressways. By eliminating congestion on secondary roads, the new highways stimulated travel by hundreds of thousands of tourists, and with it increased tourism commerce.

Even the wages paid out to the men who built the Reichsautobahn network brought considerable indirect benefits. First, they allowed a drastic cut in payments of unemployment benefits, or 25 percent of the total paid in wages. Second, the many workers employed in constructing the expressways – 100,000, and later 150,000 – spent much of the additional 75 percent, which in turn generated increased tax revenues.

Hitler’s plan to build thousands of low-cost homes also demanded a vast mobilization of manpower. He had envisioned housing that would be attractive, cozy, and affordable for millions of ordinary German working-class families. He had no intention of continuing to tolerate, as his predecessors had, cramped, ugly „rabbit warren“ housing for the German people. The great barracks-like housing projects on the outskirts of factory towns, packed with cramped families, disgusted him.

The greater part of the houses he would build were single story, detached dwellings, with small yards where children could romp, wives could grow vegetable and flower gardens, while the bread-winners could read their newspapers in peace after the day’s work. These single-family homes were built to conform to the architectural styles of the various German regions, retaining as much as possible the charming local variants.

Wherever there was no practical alternative to building large apartment complexes, Hitler saw to it that the individual apartments were spacious, airy and enhanced by surrounding lawns and gardens where the children could play safely.

The new housing was, of course, built in conformity with the highest standards of public health, a consideration notoriously neglected in previous working-class projects.

Generous loans, amortizable in ten years, were granted to newly married couples so they could buy their own homes. At the birth of each child, a fourth of the debt was cancelled. Four children, at the normal rate of a new arrival every two and a half years, sufficed to cancel the entire loan debt.

Even before the year 1933 had ended, Hitler had succeeded in building 202,119 housing units. Within four years he would provide the German people with nearly a million and a half (1,458,128) new dwellings!

Moreover, workers would no longer be exploited as they had been. A month’s rent for a worker could not exceed 26 marks, or about an eighth of the average wage then. Employees with more substantial salaries paid monthly rents of up to 45 marks maximum.

Equally effective social measures were taken in behalf of farmers, who had the lowest incomes. In 1933 alone 17,611 new farm houses were built, each of them surrounded by a parcel of land one thousand square meters in size. Within three years, Hitler would build 91,000 such farmhouses. The rental for such dwellings could not legally exceed a modest share of the farmer’s income. This unprecedented owment of land and housing was only one feature of a revolution that soon dramatically improved the living standards of the Reich’s rural population.

The great work of national construction rolled along. An additional 100,000 workers quickly found employment in repairing the nation’s secondary roads. Many more were hired to work on canals, dams, drainage and irrigation projects, helping to make fertile some of nation’s most barren regions.

Everywhere industry was hiring again, with some firms – like Krupp, IG Farben and the large automobile manufacturers – taking on new workers on a very large scale. As the country became more prosperous, car sales increased by more than 80,000 units in 1933 alone. Employment in the auto industry doubled. Germany was gearing up for full production, with private industry leading the way.

The new government lavished every assistance on the private sector, the chief factor in employment as well as production. Hitler almost immediately made available 500 million marks in credits to private business.

This start-up assistance given to German industry would repay itself many times over. Soon enough, another two billion marks would be loaned to the most enterprising companies. Nearly half would go into new wages and salaries, saving the treasury an estimated three hundred million marks in unemployment benefits. Added to the hundreds of millions in tax receipts spurred by the business recovery, the state quickly recovered its investment, and more.

Hitler’s entire economic policy would be based on the following equation: risk large sums to undertake great public works and to spur the renewal and modernization of industry, then later recover the billions invested through invisible and painless tax revenues. It didn’t take long for Germany to see the results of Hitler’s recovery formula.

Economic recovery, as important as it was, nevertheless wasn’t Hitler’s only objective. As he strived to restore full employment, Hitler never lost sight of his goal of creating a organization powerful enough to stand up to capitalist owners and managers, who had shown little concern for the health and welfare of the entire national community.

One of the first labor reforms to benefit the German workers was the establishment of annual paid vacation. The Socialist French Popular Front, in 1936, would make a show of having invented the concept of paid vacation, and stingily at that, only one week per year. But Adolf Hitler originated the idea, and two or three times as generously, from the first month of his coming to power in 1933.

Every factory employee from then on would have the legal right to a paid vacation. Until then, in Germany paid holidays where they applied at all did not exceed four or five days, and nearly half the younger workers had no leave entitlement at all. Hitler, on the other hand, favored the younger workers. Vacations were not handed out blindly, and the youngest workers were granted time off more generously. It was a humane action; a young person has more need of rest and fresh air for the development of his strength and vigor just coming into maturity. Basic vacation time was twelve days, and then from age 25 on it went up to 18 days. After ten years with the company, workers got 21 days, three times what the French socialists would grant the workers of their country in 1936.

These figures may have been surpassed in the more than half a century since then, but in 1933 they far exceeded European norms. As for overtime hours, they no longer were paid, as they were everywhere else in Europe at that time, at just the regular hourly rate. The work day itself had been reduced to a tolerable norm of eight hours, since the forty-hour week as well, in Europe, was first initiated by Hitler. And beyond that legal limit, each additional hour had to be paid at a considerably increased rate. As another innovation, work breaks were made longer; two hours every day in order to let the worker relax and to make use of the playing fields that the large industries were required to provide.

Dismissal of an employee was no longer left as before the sole discretion of the employer. In that era, workers’ rights to job security were non-existent. Hitler saw to it that those rights were strictly spelled out. The employer had to announce any dismissal four weeks in advance. The employee then had a period of up to two months in which to lodge a protest. The dismissal could also be annulled by the Honor of Work Tribunal. What was the Honor of Work Tribunal? Also called the Tribunal of Social Honor, it was the third of the three great elements or layers of protection and defense that were to the benefit of every German worker. The first was the Council of Trust. The second was the Labor Commission.

The Council of Trust was charged with attending to the establishment and the development of a real community spirit between management and labor. „In any business enterprise“, the Reich law stated, „the employer and head of the enterprise, the employees and workers, personnel of the enterprise, shall work jointly towards the goal of the enterprise and the common good of the nation.“

Neither would any longer be the victim of the other-not the worker facing the arbitrariness of the employer nor the employer facing the blackmail of strikes for political purposes. Article 35 of the Reich labor law stated that: „Every member of an Aryan enterprise community shall assume the responsibilities required by his position in the said common enterprise.“ In other words, at the head of the company or the enterprise would be a living, breathing executive in charge, not a moneybags with unconditional power. „The interest of the community may require that an incapable or unworthy employer be relieved of his duties“

The employer would no longer be inaccessible and all-powerful, authoritatively determining the conditions of hiring and firing his staff. He, too, would be subject to the workshop regulations, which he would have to respect, exactly as the least of his employees. The law conferred honor and responsibility on the employer only insofar as he merited it.

Every business enterprise of 20 or more persons was to have its „Council of Trust“. The two to ten members of this council would be chosen from among the staff by the head of the enterprise. The ordinance of application of 10 March 1934 of the above law further stated: „The staff shall be called upon to decide for or against the established list in a secret vote, and all salaried employees, including apprentices of 21 years of age or older, will take part in the vote. Voting shall be done by putting a number before the names of the candidates in order of preference, or by striking out certain names.“

In contrast to the business councils of the preceding régime, the Council of Trust was no longer an instrument of class, but one of teamwork of the classes, composed of delegates of the staff as well as the head of the enterprise. The one could no longer act without the other. Compelled to coordinate their interests, though formerly rivals, they would now cooperate to establish by mutual consent the regulations which were to determine working conditions.

Every 30th of April, on the eve of the great national labor holiday, council duties ceased and the councils were renewed, pruning out conservatism or petrifaction and cutting short the arrogance of dignitaries who might have thought themselves beyond criticism.

It was up to the enterprise itself to pay a salary to members of the Council of Trust, just as if they were employed in the work area, and „to assume all costs resulting from the regular fulfillment of the duties of the Council“.

The second agency that would ensure the orderly development of the new German social system was the institution of the „Workers’ Commissioners“. They would essentially be conciliators and arbitrators. When gears were grinding, they were the ones who would have to apply the grease. They would see to it that the Councils of trust were functioning harmoniously to ensure that regulations of a given business enterprise were being carried out to the letter.

They were divided among 13 large districts covering the territory of the Reich. As arbitrators they were not dependent upon either owners or workers. They had total independence in the field. They were appointed by the state, which represented both the interests of everyone in the enterprise and the interests of society at large.

In order that their decisions should never be unfounded or arbitrary, they had to rely on the advice of a „Consulting Council of Experts“ which consisted of 18 members selected from various sections of the economy in a representation of sorts of the interests of each territorial district.

To ensure still further the objectivity of their arbitration decisions, a third agency was superimposed on the Councils of Trust and the 13 Commissioners, the Tribunal of Social Honor.

Thus from 1933 on, the German worker had a system of justice at his disposal that was created especially for him and would adjudicate all grave infractions of the social duties based on the idea of the Aryan enterprise community. Examples of these violations of social honor are cases where the employer, abusing his power, displayed ill will towards his staff or impugned the honor of his subordinates, cases where staff members threatened work harmony by spiteful agitation; the publication by members of the Council of confidential information regarding the enterprise which they became cognizant of in the course of discharging their duties. Thirteen „Tribunes of Social Honor“ were established, corresponding with the thirteen commissions.

The presiding judge was not a fanatic; he was a career judge who rose above disputes. Meanwhile the enterprise involved was not left out of the proceedings; the judge was seconded by two assistant judges, one representing the management, another a member of the Council of Trust.

This tribunal, the same as any other court of law, had the means of enforcing its decisions. But there were nuances. Decisions could be limited in mild cases to a remonstrance. They could also hit the guilty party with fines of up to 10,000 marks. Other very special sanctions were provided for that were precisely adapted to the social circumstances; change of employment, dismissal of the head of the enterprise or his agent who had failed in his duty. In case of a contested decision, the legal dispute could always be taken up to a Supreme Court seated in Berlin-a fourth level of protection.

This was only the end of 1933, and already the first effects could be felt. The factories and shops large and small were reformed or transformed in conformity with the strictest standards of cleanliness and hygiene; the interior areas, so often dilapidated, opened to light; playing fields constructed; rest areas made available where one could converse at one’s ease and relax during rest periods; employee cafeterias; proper dressing rooms.

With time, that is to say in three years, those achievements would take on dimensions never before imagined; more than 2,000 factories refitted and beautified; 23,000 work premises modernized; 800 buildings designed exclusively for meetings; 1,200 playing fields; 13,000 sanitary facilities with running water; 17,000 cafeterias. Eight hundred departmental inspectors and 17,300 local inspectors would foster and closely and continuously supervise these renovations and installations.

The large industrial establishments moreover had been given the obligation of preparing areas not only suitable for sports activities of all minds, but provided with swimming pools as well. Germany had come a long way from the sinks for washing one’s face and the dead tired workers, grown old before their time, crammed into squalid courtyards during work breaks.

In order to ensure the natural development of the working class, physical education courses were instituted for the younger workers; 8,000 such were organized. Technical training would be equally emphasized, with the creation of hundreds of work schools, technical courses and examinations of professional competence, and competitive examinations for the best workers for which large prizes were awarded.

To rejuvenate young and old alike, Hitler ordered that a gigantic vacation organization for workers be set up. Hundreds of thousands of workers would be able every summer to relax on and at the sea. Magnificent cruise ships would be built. Special trains would carry vacationers to the mountains and to the seashore. The locomotives that hauled the innumerable worker-tourists in just a few years of travel in Germany would log a distance equivalent to fifty-four times around the world!

The cost of these popular excursions was nearly insignificant, thanks to greatly reduced rates authorized by the Reichsbank.

The National Labor Service

Hitler created the National Labor Service not only to alleviate unemployment, but to bring together, in absolute equality, and in the same uniform, both the sons of millionaires and the sons of the poorest families for several months’ common labor and living.

All performed the same work, all were subject to the same discipline; they enjoyed the same pleasures and benefited from the same physical and moral development. At the same construction sites and in the same barracks, Germans became conscious of what they had in common, grew to understand one another, and discarded their old prejudices of class and caste.

After a hitch in the National Labor Service, a young worker knew that the rich man’s son was not a pampered monster, while the young lad of wealthy family knew that the worker’s son had no less honor than a nobleman or an heir to riches; they had lived and worked together as comrades. Social hatred was vanishing, and a socially united people was being born.

From the first months of 1933, his accomplishments were public fact, for all to see. Before end of the year, unemployment in Germany had fallen from more than 6,000,000 to 3,374,000. Thus, 2,627,000 jobs had been created since the previous February, when Hitler began his „gigantic task!“ A simple question: Who in Europe ever achieved similar results in so short a time?

Not without reason were the swastika banners waving proudly throughout the working-class districts where, just a year ago, they had been unceremoniously torn down.

High Finance

Part I


„Under the pressure of international finance the atmosphere in Europe became very congested. Instead of using the huge money resources for cultural purposes, the international banking houses urged unlimited armaments of European States, and sometime deliberately precipitated military adventures. In this connection it is of interest to recall a statement of Israel Zangwill, the well-known Zionist leader, to the effect that it was Mr. Jacob Schiff who financed ‘the Japanese War against Russia,’ (See Israel Zangwill’s „The Problems of the Jewish Race,“ p. 14, The Judaic Publishing Company, New York). as well as another statement, that of Mr. George Kennan, revealing the fact that it was the same banker who financed the revolution among Russian war prisoners in Japan (Compare the report on a Socialist meeting held in Carnegie Hall on March 23, 1917, to celebrate the Russian Revolution, as recorded in the New York Times, March 24, 1917). Immense munition plants, such as Krupp and Szkoda, Poutiloff, and Manfred Weiss, Deutsch & Son, and Schneider, were all controlled directly or indirectly by high finance, forming part of the interlocking system. Nor should it be forgotten that the same group of cosmopolitan bankers invariably have given their support to varioius enterprises which helped the Central Powers to further their imperialistic plans. Thus, soon after the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, when the Dual Monarchy began her war preparations against Italy, it was this bankers’ group which loaned 300 million kronen for the expansion of the Austrian navy, with the result that the new battleships were christened by one part of the European press as „Rothschild dreadnaughts.“ (The World at the Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, pp. 11- 12).


„Thanks to the terrible power of our International Banks, we have forced the Christians into wars without number. Wars have a special value for Jews, since Christians massacre each other and make more room for us Jews. Wars are the Jews’ Harvest: The Jew banks grow fat on Christian wars. Over 100-million Christians have been swept off the face of the earth by wars, and the end is not yet.“ (Rabbi Reichorn, speaking at the funeral of Grand Rabbi Simeon Ben-Iudah, 1869, Henry Ford also noted that:It was a Jew who said, ‘Wars are the Jews’ harvest’; but no harvest is so rich as civil wars.’ The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem, Vol. III, p. 180).


„I fear the Jewish banks with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America. And use it to systematically corrupt modern civilization. The Jews will not hesitate to plunge the whole of Christendom into wars and chaos that the earth should become their inheritance.“ (Bismarck)


„…the main purveyors of funds for the revolution, however, were neither the crackpot Russian millionaires nor the armed bandits of Lenin. The ‘real’ money primarily came from certain British and American circles which for a long time past had lent their support to the Russian revolutionary cause…The important part played by the wealthy American Jewish Banker, Jacob Schiff, in the events in Russia…is no longer a secret.“ (Red Symphony, p. 252)


„Mr. Lawton, in one remark, throws a sidelight on the moving forces behind the revolution, which might suggest to him further investigation as to the origin of what has become a world movement. That movement cannot any longer be shrouded by superficial talk of the severity of the Russian regime, which is so favorite an excuse among our Socialists for the most atrocious action, of the Bolsheviks, who did not come into power till six months after Tsardom was ended: I wish to emphasize the paramount role which the power of money played in bringing about the Revolution. And here it may not be out of place to mention that well documented works have recently been published in France proving that neither Robespiere nor Danton were isolated figures upon the revolutionary stage, but that both were puppets of financial backers…

When the first revolution broke out Lenin was in Zurich, where he was financially helped by an old Swiss merchant, who later went to Russia to live as a permanent guest of the Revolution, and some time afterwards disappeared. If Lenin had not obeyed the orders of his pay-masters how long would he have remained in the land of the living?“ (The Patriot; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Léon De Poncins, pp. 168-169).


The influence of the Jews at the present time is more noticeable than ever. That they are at the head of European capitalism, we are all aware…In politics many of the Jews are in the front rank…That their excessive wealth, used as it has been, acts as a solvent influence in modern society cannot be questioned…But while on the one hand the Jews are thus beyond dispute the leaders of the plutocracy of Europe…another section of the same race (people) from the leaders of that revolutionary propaganda which is making way against that very capitalist class, representing their own fellow Jews. Jews, more than any other men…are acting as the leaders in the revolutionary movement which I have endeavored to trace.“ (Nineteenth Century, January, 1881, pp. 10-11, art. by H.M. Hyndman, entitled The Dawn of a Revolutionary Epoch).


„Some years ago a Jewish financier was reproached for pouring millions of dollars into Soviet Russia. ‘Have you,’ he tersely retorted, ‘ever visualized in your mind what would happen to our brethren in Russia should – God forbid – the Soviet regime collapse? the retaliatory measures would be terrible, apart form the outbursts of the avengeful populace.’ The fact remains that in Russia anti-Semitism obtains now in the same degree as in the Czarist days with the sole difference that now it is driven underground, which aggravates the malady.“ (The Patriot).


The constant wars which followed William’s accession had compelled the king to borrow large sums from the London merchants (Jews). Out of these loans sprang, first the National Debt, which was destined to grow, eventually by leaps and bounds, from less than a million of pounds up to so many hundred millions, that all thought of ever paying it is now given up. The second result was the organization of a company for the management of this colossal debt, the Bank of England.“ (D.H. Montgomery, The Leading Facts of English History, (1893) 2nd Edition, p. 288).


„The financial career of the Rothchilds is the key to the history of the Jewish Banking in the nineteenth century…The plan adopted by him of establishing branches in the more important European capitals, over which he placed his sons, was followed by other Jewish banking-houses…the influence of Jews on Banking…was due to the preliminary advantage given to them by their international position.“ (The Jewish Encyclopedia (1902), Vol. II, p. 492-93) {The other Jewish families that adopted the Rothschild plan of establishing local banking branches in European cities include: The Lazards, Sterns, Speyers, Seligmans, Warburgs and Leob families}.


„It was the Jews who first permitted kings to maintain costly armies of mercenaries. In Spain, it was largely the part of Jewish finance that allowed the king to defeat the Arabs.“ (Abram Leon, The Jewish Question, p. 166)


„Give me control of the money of a country and I care not who makes her laws.“ (Meyer Rothschild).


„The Rothschilds introduced the rule of money into European politics. The Rothschilds were the servants of money who undertook the reconstruction of the world as an image of money and its functions. Money and the employment of wealth have become the law of European life; we no longer have nations, but economic provinces.“ (New York Times, Professor Wilhelm, a German historian, July 8, 1937).


„Dear Sirs: A. Mr. John Sherman has written us from a town in Ohio, U.S.A., as to the profits that may be made in the National Banking business under a recent act of your Congress (National Bank Act of 1863), a copy of which act accompanied his letter. Apparently this act has been drawn upon the plan formulated here last summer by the British Bankers Association and by that Association recommended to our American friends as one that if enacted into law, would prove highly profitable to the banking fraternity throughout the world. Mr. Sherman declares that there has never before been such an opportunity for capitalists to accumulate money, as that presented by this act and that the old plan, of State Banks is so unpopular, that the new scheme will, by contrast, be most favorably regarded, notwithstanding the fact that it gives the national Banks an almost absolute control of the National finance. ‘The few who can understand the system,’ he says ‘will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.’ Please advise us fully as to this matter and also state whether or not you will be of assistance to us, if we conclude to establish a National Bank in the City of New York…Awaiting your reply, we are.“ (Rothschild Brothers. London, June 25, 1863. Famous Quotes On Money).

In reply to the above letter Messrs. Ikelheimer, Morton and Vandergould replied: Dear Sirs: ‘We beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 25th, in which you refer to a communication received from Honorable John Sherman, of Ohio, with reference to the advantages, and profits, of an American investment under the provisions of the National Banking Act.

Mr. Sherman possesses, in a marked degree, the distinguishing characteristics of a successful financier. His temperament is such that whatever his feelings may be they never cause him to lose sight of the main chance. He is young, shrewd and ambitious. He has fixed his eyes upon the Presidency of the United States and already is a member of Congress (he has financial ambitions too). He rightfully thinks he has everything to gain by being friendly with men, and institutions, having large financial resources, and which at times are not too particular in their methods, either of obtaining government aid, or protecting themselves against unfriendly legislation…Requesting that you will regard this as strictly confidential, Most respectfully yours, Ikelheimer, Morton and Vandergould.“ (Pawns In The Game, William Guy Carr, pp. 55-57).


„If you will look back at every war in Europe during the nineteenth century, you will see that they always ended with the establishment of a ‘balance of power.’ With every re-shuffling there was a balance of power in a new grouping around the House of Rothschild in England, France, or Austria. They grouped nations so that if any king got out of line, a war would break out and the war would be decided by which way the financing went. Researching the debt positions of the warring nations will usually indicate who was to be punished.“ (Economist Sturat Crane).


„The Jews…are at the root of regicide, they own the periodical press, they have in their hands the financial markets, the people as a whole fall into financial slavery to them…“ (The Siege, p. 38)


„For the last one hundred and fifty years, the history of the House of Rothschild has been to an amazing degree the backstage history of Western Europe…Because of their success in making loans not to individuals but to nations, they reaped huge profits…Someone once said that the wealth of Rothschild consists of the bankruptcy of nations.“ (Frederic Morton, The Rothschilds)


„The fact that: The house of Rothschild made its money in the great crashes of history and the great wars of history, the very periods when others lost their money, is beyond question.“ (E.C. Knuth, The Empire of the City)


„Under this roof are the heads of the family of Rothschild — a name famous in every capital of Europe and every division of the globe. If you like, we shall divide the United States into two parts, one for you, James [Rothschild], and one for you, Lionel [Rothschild]. Napoleon will do exactly and all that I shall advise him.“ (Reported to have been the comments of Disraeli at the marriage of Lionel Rothschild’s daughter, Leonora, to her cousin, Alphonse, son of James Rothschild of Paris).


„Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power and chattel slavery destroyed. This, I and my [Jewish] European friends are glad of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. This can be done by controlling the money. The great debt that capitalists will see to it is made out of the war, must be used as a means to control the volume of money. To accomplish this, the bonds must be used as a banking basis. We are now awaiting for the Secretary of the Treasury to make his recommendation to Congress. It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that.“ (Hazard Circular, issued by the Rothschild controlled Bank of England, 1862).