By Denis Wise
By Denis Wise
Originally published under the title: „Der Hitlerprozeß“ – by Karl Richard Ganzer
Whoever views the history of the Weimar Republic and its countless effort to preserve its existence will find that in the struggle against its domestic enemies it again and again resorted with noticeable clumsiness to measures that in the end benefited these enemies. It struck at its opponent – but it hit him so that he only became harder, more tenacious, more insubordinate and burst the old fronts with a new defiance. The republic perished, because it did not summon up the courage for ultimate decisions. When it was still young, it indeed mocked Imperial Germany – but it allowed itself to be saved by counterrevolutionary troops. When it believed itself to be in its peak years, but was already very aged, it removed the shirts from the charging opposition – but it did not find the courage to totally exterminate the opponents. There is not one of its measures that did not suffer from the worst of all political evils, half-measures. And there is not more precise proof for the lack of political instinct than the fact that this always the same failure, this always the same indecisiveness, this always the same half-measure could continue to thrive despite all bad experiences through the fifteen long years – to the deserved end.
One must also view the Hitler trial in the context of the system’s extraordinary inner insecurity in order to grasp it in its full significance. For indeed, on November 9th the rulers had triumphed at the Feldherrnhalle with salvos of fire. And indeed, after this bloody victory the system powers from all camps – from the red and black and bourgeois – came together in a unified front of loudly stressed confidence, but actually just poorly concealed fear. But as self-serving as they again and again confirmed their own glory, as permanently as the National Socialist movement seemed to be mashed and shot up: a single force, the decisive force in all history’s conflicts, escaped the clever and all too selfcertain deliberations of the „victors”: the folk.
For now the new political idea, which had proven for the first time that one could also die for it, sprang like a river of fire into the hearts of countless people who were waiting, hesitating, unbelieving. The folkish movement experienced an upsurge in Bavaria like never before. And opinions were henceforth sharply divided. November 9th had already, in the middle of the great despair of these hours, let one experience how quickly a folk can transform itself, if a great example stirs the slumbering courage and the hidden defiance. In the following weeks as well, the excitement did not abate. Quite the opposite: the more arrogantly the „victors” of November 9th bragged in their statesmen speeches and the louder their sympathetic press attested their great statesmanship, the more hostile the mood of the masses in broad circles became. An intensive leaflet struggle, combated by the police only unsuccessfully, put the government under the heaviest bombardment for months. The government itself brought up its heaviest guns with its official dispatches, press declarations and large wall posters. A generous influencing of public opinion against the imprisoned leaders of the revolt set in – already many weeks before the trial, which was supposed to clarify the question of guilt unbiased. But while the confidential memos of Kahr, Lossow and Speisser, in which the gentlemen put the blood guilt of November 9th on National Socialism and elevated themselves into heaven as innocents and made the rounds, spreading poison, in the loyal newspaper offices, in the circles of „good society” and in all circles of influence and rank, the folk outside remained true in a moving way. Undeterred, Hitler’s soldiers sang their old song: „Hitler spirit in the heart must not perish, Storm Troop Hitler will soon be resurrected!” And even the children, enchanted by the name Hitler in a strange way, found a new version for their counting verses: one, two three, Hitler will be free” [„Eins, zwei drei, der Hitler, der wird frei…”]
Could one employ police against this? And what did the base agitation publications of the white-blue reactionary, with which one flooded the land, miss here through miscalculation? Say those infamous pamphlets in white-blue jacket, which an anonymous „Veni Vidi” had written and proved with an introduction, which was ingratiating like a bad sermon and in the process dripping with hidden insults? Hitler was portrayed as the typical ambitious man from lowly origins who had been made megalomaniac through flattery; one of the dead of the Feldherrnhalle, Scheubner-Richrer, was defamed as an adventurous political swindler who from the background fatefully guided the decisions of a hesitant Hitler; Ludendorff was described as the great Prussian militarist who had only come to Bavaria in order to prepare a new war – there was nobody who was not attacked by the poisonous spite of this hidden writer.
Nonetheless: what did such insults count? They just pulled the front of the reliable closer together and incited them to even greater passion in their own struggle. For it was felt clearly enough that no moral, and hence no political, energies stood behind a government that recruited witnesses of the inferior quality of such slanderers.
The first hour of the „victory“‘, after all, had already proven how unsure and inwardly unstable this government was, how it allowed itself to be ruled by such dangerous half-measures even in its most objective decisions. Already in the night of November of 8th it had boldly banned the NSDAP, the Bund Oberland and the Reichskriegsflagge, and thereby believed it had broken forever the revolutionary movement; but now these organizations had expanded beyond their own independence and merged together into the „Deutschen Kampfbund”, which was its own legal body: but one had forgotten to ban the one who had actually carried the revolt! Should the folk gain confidence in a government that in hours of decision loses its nerve so much that it only knows the language of the machinegun and in its other measures commits half-measure after half-measure? Could the folk continue to give its agreement to a system that accuses its shot down opponent of hostility to the constitution a hundred times on one day and today smashes his organization – but on the next day assures that it would allow him to enter the parliaments unhindered, if he just wishes it. True to parliamentarian error, the Reich Chancellor back then announced that the ban of the political parties merely prohibited the outward activity and the organizational union of those who belonged to the banned political parties; it „did not hinder giving expression to political views through election of certain representatives for parliamentary bodies.” The opponent who had just stood on the whipping-post as the enemy of all enemies — he could march along in the same republic, if he just put up a parliamentary appearance…. The folk has an unerring feeling for the inner strength of an institution that makes political decisions.
I hit just like the Bavarian, so did the government of Ebert-Stresemann as well reveal in its decisions the evil of half-measures, which the healthy sense of the folk never forgives. The „traitors” had to make all that much greater an impression, who, even if they had failed, had nonetheless always let be surmised that history-shaping energies stood behind their will!
It was no wonder that, in the face of this background of pitiful uncertainty, even more energetic plans that the system rallied to found no echo. Even though the Weimar Republic took action against rebelling communists and Seeckt’s emergency decrees had preserved makeshift order, it could still be sensed behind it that there existed nowhere a firmly founded authority under Ebert’s rule. Even the sole positive accomplishment of those months, the creation of the Rentenmark [currency], was not able to bestow any superiority on the system; for one knew everywhere that the plans for the security of the totally shaken currency had been worked out by the politicians of the opposite and not by system big-shots such as perhaps Hilferding.
The Bavarian government as well found little support when it strove to demonstrate its security and systemization of its political conceptions with great enterprises. It was quickly proven that after as before the innermost striving of the ruling white-blue regionalism aimed at a loosening of the Reich. Then the suspicion of the National Socialist influenced masses only became greater.
The Hitler revolt had smashed the Reich threatening plans of the separatist reaction. But now it cloaked its old goal in constitutional forms: a few weeks before the court was supposed to decide whether Hitler had committed high treason, the Bavarian presented a renewed attack against the Reich’s unity in a great memo. It demanded that the governmental sovereignty of the individual states be re-established to the full extent; the Reich’s right of sovereignty had to be restricted; even military sovereignty has to be greatly loosened; hence the Bavarian provincial commander should be named and removed only with the consent of the Bavarian government; even „a temporary dispatch of Bavarian troop elements to a non-Bavarian location (!) may only take place with the consent of the Bavarian government”; hence Bavarian troops were to be obligated to the Bavarian government in addition to the Reich government; and if the Weimar Constitution with incomprehensible generosity allowed the individual states to conclude state treaties with other states, leastwise with the Reich’s consent, then this Reich destroying memo wants to allow the Reich the meaningful right of a mere protest, with which nobody concerns himself… Eighteen young Germans had died at the Feldherrnhalle for the winning of a single, solidly unified Reich. But Hitler and his friends had stood up for the strengthening of the Reich in a time of utmost urgency, they sat behind the walls of the Landsberg fortress and waited for the verdict about their „high treason”. But while one treated these rebels for the power and the glory of the Reich like state criminals, one pushed forward wedge after wedge against the Reich structure oneself…
The Hitler trial prepares itself in such a situation, in the middle of a time filled with great tensions, amidst excitement, lack of clarity, in a city that is filled with political guerrilla warfare with leaflet, poster and press work, but also in a city in which the accused have at their disposal almost no public means of defence against the pubic attacks of the officials and the pro-system press. For weeks, the masses wait for the scheduling of the beginning of the trial. For weeks they are stalled, comforted, fed uncertain answers to burning questions. For weeks a breathless tension lies over Munich, because each asks how far Kahr wants to still expand his regimen of ban; whether the official influencing of public opinion, of the witnesses, yes, of the court would not finally cease; how the rulers would probably behave in a painful questioning of the witnesses.
For weeks such questions hang in the air unanswered. Then the arming news suddenly comes that Kahr and Lossow with him have resigned from their offices.
A few days after that the trial begins: „Against Hitler and associates for high treason and abetting high treason”.
For a long time it had been a main concern of the Bavarian government whether one would be able to protect the trial against disruptions: so correctly did one assess the folk mood, which viewed the case as the act of a dead paragraph judiciary. After long hesitation, one had nonetheless chosen Munich as the trial site. The court was supposed to convene in the same infantry school whose ensigns had marched under the swastika flag on November 8 to the Bürgerbräukeller. The ensigns’ dining hall has been transformed into the courtroom.
A few days before the beginning of the trial large posters hang everywhere in the city. They announce the security measures, which the government deems necessary in order to avoid surprises. One reads the sentences with concern and pedantry.
A whole part of the city around the infantry school is put under special law: assemblies of three (!) or more people is forbidden here. Photographing or filming is forbidden here. Peddling, even newspapers, is forbidden. No political assemblies may be held in the halls in this district; but since the largest halls of Munich lie here – Löwenbräu, Arzbergerkeller, Augustinerkeller and Zirkus Krone – the political assemblies relating to the events in the trial are largely prevented. Furthermore, the whole quarter is under the strictest police observation. All motor traffic is blocked. Violations are punishable with prison. And when on the first day of the trial the residents along the Blutenburgstrasse look out their windows, they even discover that the square in front of the infantry school is barricaded with bard-wire and chevaux de frise like in wartime. Narrow passages are left open, they are guarded by armed sentries. The sparse visitors who are admitted to the trial, even the reporters, even the women, wait inside the building for a painful body search for weapons…
Munich, the city with the calmest populace, is amazed…
Already many weeks before the beginning of the trial a brisk rush for the available press cards had set in. Special attention had been aroused by the participation of the foreign press: it was obvious that it did not view the case as a purely legal every or as merely an internal Bavarian matter, rather as a sign of crisis that should provide insight into the inner strength of the Weimar Republic. The press was so strongly represented that only a few rows of chairs remained free for the other visitors.
The defendants, with one sole exception, wore civilian clothes, even the old General Quartermaster of the old army. The press noticed uniformly that Adolf Hitler looked around in the courtyard with interest: they had looked forward all too much to seeing a crushed sinner in order to not be amazed now to find him with the free certainty of the attacker. The press of the left feels it a provocation that he wears the Iron Cross First Class; but the bourgeois press from the Kahr camp, moved, remains silent that one drags the bravest soldiers, proven leaders, before the judge. And certainly, it is also not an easy office for the chief judge to now have to try these defendants by the same procedure that is also the exact same for chicken thieves. The report with the customary „here”, these ten „traitors” – Adolf Hitler, „author in Munich”, the victor of Tannenberg, Ludendorff the highest judge in Bavaria, Pöhner, the high Bavarian administrative official Frick, the general staff member Kriebel, the front officers Brückner, Wagner, Weber, Röhm, Pernet… They let the banality of this naming pour over them – and then the prosecutor reads the indictment. In whose first sentences two paragraphs resound like a symbol: „The behaviour of the accused constitutes a crime of high treason according to § 81 No. 2 and § 47 of the Reich Legal Code…”
The reading of the indictment lasts one and one- quarter hours: it is so detailed, it expresses the events under indictment down to the smallest detail. Often it rises to sharply pointed, dramatic portrayals; then it again carefully arranges its accusations together point by point – in the most painstaking effort not to forget a single offense from the plenitude of suspicions. It teams with names and details, with quotes and testimonies, it reveals an amazing effort in the gathering of material – what it lacks, so that it remains poor and meager despite its extensive contents, is something very essential: the understanding for the tremendous necessities of the political situation and the unnameable tensions out of which the deed of November 9th took place. This indictment is down to the smallest detail thought out legalistically. But that beyond legal systems there exists a life full of elemental conflicts, this it excludes from its deliberations. That the people of the year 1923 hunger and from their distress shout like crazy for some kind of solution, it does not figure in. That foreign claws tear at unprotected German borders, it leaves unspoken. That the threat of the end has grinned over Germany since the ruinous day when the masters of the new German conditions smashed a fighting army and defiled a proud Hag; that shame and rage glowed in proud hearts for years until a decision flamed up from these fires, has no room in the cool logic of these legal doctrines. When the accused could still fight out there for their image of a new Reich, their enemies were the many powers of German decay. Now, in this hall, they find themselves before a new enemy: their opponent is the paragraph with its claim to regulate according to rigid law life, in which since ancient times only the creative passions of great men of deeds are valid.
But when then in the afternoon Adolf Hitler states his position on the indictment, with his words he draws precisely the worlds into the field of vision of which the prosecutor’s indictment did not have the vaguest idea. With a single blow, the impressions have transformed themselves: no longer the pale shadow of paragraphs and pandects, rather the swaying words of the political shaper dominate in the hall.
Adolf Hitler begins with great calm. But already his first sentence points to a historical tension, which almost nobody in Germany feels yet and in which nonetheless the fate of this republic lies most innately determined: „It seems amazing that a human being who for almost six years was accustomed to blind obedience now suddenly comes into conflict with the state and its constitution…”. The decisive problem of the whole post-war period has here in a single sentence been thrust into a bright light: that the prevailing condition of Weimar remains so tremendously distant from a genuine state that it must trigger the rebellion of all truly creative people. Where in Germany did there exist a more passionate will for state and power and clear folk structure than in Adolf Hitler? And where did there exist worse insults and slanders of these highest values of a community than among the Weimar mighty, who had the audacity to cloak themselves with the claims of any genuine state despite their secret hostility toward the state? It was not otherwise: the will for genuine state power and strong public order lived from the start on only among those whom one dragged before the court as national rebels and dangerous desperados. The powers, however, who set themselves up us judges, had never known the creative passion, the strict breeding, the lofty discipline from which the „rebels’’ drew their formative energies. They had become great through treason against the state; they lived from continued dissolution of all order; they practiced an ongoing subversion of the community idea. If there existed anywhere in Germany these eternally same values, which were always necessary for the establishment of a state, then solely among the outlawed opposition, which had never accepted the decay. It was no wonder that already just this basic position gave the accused Adolf Hitler immeasurable superiority over the passionless world of the paragraph. It was nonetheless surprising, however, how he immediately exploited this inner superiority for an attack of historical rank. He has just spoken for a few minutes when the fact began to show itself that made this trial become one of the most memorable political trials: namely that the accused who were called to account by a doubtful political system rose up to become merciless accusers against the same system and to encounter it with such blows that looking back it loses the moral foundations for its indictment. The speech with which Adolf Hitler is supposed to defend himself becomes a dismissal without pity.
Will he crawl to the cross and disavow his struggle, which, after all, has failed? That is what the wise men in all camps hoped. But each sentence of this speech becomes a grip on the decisive leverage points of German distress; and beyond that, each sentence becomes an attack against the sources of the great decline.
„I came to Vienna as a seventeen-year-old human being and learned to study and observe three important questions there: the social question, the race problem and finally the Marxist movement. I left Vienna as an absolute anti-Semite, as mortal enemy of the whole Marxist world-view, as pan-German in my political thinking.
„The Marxist movement is a life question of the German nation. By Marxism, I mean a doctrine that in principle rejects the value of personality, which replaces energy with mass and hence has a destructive effect on all of cultural life… Germany’s future means the destruction of Marxism. Either this race tuberculosis thrives and then Germany dies off, or it is expelled from the folk body, then Germany will thrive…”.
„The German revolution (of 1918) was a revolution and hence successful high treason [against the state], which, after all, is known to be not punishable…. What happened in 1918 in Germany, however, was not high treason, rather betrayal of country, which can never be forgiven. For us, that was a vile crime against the German folk, a stab in the back of the German nation…”
The blows struck home. The Marxist press will howl in a wild chorus. A flow of insults on the following day will be the answer, arrogant, impertinent, with the screaming shamelessness of the exposed. The reporters in the hall jot down the insults for the next day’s lead article: „November criminals around Ludendorff, big mouth Hitler, politically bankrupt people, criminal dilettantes…” But the Führer continues to speak.
He portrays the rise of the party from the band of the first seven unknown men. He reports about the creation of the first S.A.: „For the man who is willing to fight with intellectual weapons, we have intellect, for the others, the fist.” He glows with rekindled shame over the pitiful bearing of the system politicians in the Ruhr struggle. And he finally comes to speak about Bavaria as well and the national movement under the protection of the Bavarian government authorities: for the first time, the name Kahr is mentioned. Hitler’s first sentence about him is a verdict: „I became acquainted with Mr. Kahr in 1920. He made the impression on me that he was an honourable official, but that was all.” And after a clear portrayal of the highly tense situation in late summer 1923. including all the essential threads, an equally annihilating verdict over Lossow comes out: “A military commander in an army with only seven divisions. Whoever has one division in hand and rebels against his chief, must be determined to take it to the end, or he is a common mutineer and rebel.”
The relationship of the forces which in autumn 1923 wrestled for the fate of Bavaria and Reich, is very sharply outlined. And now the direction of the thrust also becomes visible: for the first time, he refers to the separatist threat, in which Bavaria tottered for months: The struggle such as Dr. von Kahr wages, is a crime, unless one is determined from the first minute on to integrate oneself into the German national uprising… The path of looking around for foreign help is for every German the most shameless one that exists… Lossow thought in the Ruhr struggle that there were two possibilities: either to dress the resistance in an energetic form, or, if the thing collapsed, each individual state must see how it got through; that would naturally lead to the Reich ‘s disintegration. Back then, I was very moved inwardly by that; for my position is: rather be hanged, if Germany turns Bolshevik, than to perish under French saber rule.”
They must have been fearful minutes when Hitler spoke about these dangers. And the listeners, moved, again and again felt from his words the desperate struggle that back then had to have been waged for the decisions of the triumvirate Kahr-Lossow-Seisser: how Hitler again and again made attempts to push them back from the Reich threatening plans; how at each discussion he struggled anew for the shared German solution; and how he finally thought he could believe that the three gentlemen were in full agreement with his own direction of will. From the words with which he portrayed the final result of these conferences, from these bitter, disappointed, accusing words, one senses the feeling of salvation that obviously prevailed within him when the unity of views seemed achieved: „The fact was: Lossow, Kahr and Seisser had the same goal as we, namely to eliminate the Reich government in its present international and parliamentarian orientation and to replace it with an anti-parliamentarian government. If indeed our whole enterprise would have been high treason, then Lossow, Seisser and Kahr must have been committing high treason with us the whole time, since during all these months nothing else was discussed than that for which we now sit in the defendant’s chair…”.
A movement of amazement passes through the hall. What consequences will these words have?
Initially, they had no other consequences than that they revealed the direction of the second thrust that the accused planned to make in this trial. If the one line of their offensive defence aimed at Bavarian separatism, then this second one followed the daring, yes, adventurous sounding idea of forcing the accusers themselves onto the defendant’s seat. The plan is unique. Again and again, Hitler presents it to the court:
„We did not threaten in the Bürgerbräukeller, rather I reminded the gentlemen what they had promised us the whole time, and they offered to draw the consequences, whereby, however, I foresaw that they would go to prison with us, if the thing fails – an opinion, however, that I must correct today… It is impossible that I committed high treason, for that could not lie in the events of November 8th, rather in all the negotiating and bearing of the previous months – and then I am amazed that those who did the same thing as I do not sit next to me… If we committed high treason, then Kahr, Lossow, Seisser and an endless number of others did the same thing. I deny any guilt, as long as my company is not supplemented with those gentlemen who helped prepare things down to the most minute detail!”
The attack continues. A barrage of reprimands, refutations, facts flies at the opponent and covers him. Bit by bit, it has smashed his carefully constructed positions into pieces. The hardest will, the boldest intellect from the front of attackers has already on the first day whipped the charge forward, and the companions only have to make sure to catch up with the charging ardour. The attack had been launched from a quite unfavourable basis. But now it has already penetrated deep into the enemy zone. Overwhelmed, the observers follow the unaccustomed collision. Their feelings are already leaning toward the leader of the charge, who now at the conclusion of his attack signal declares in triumphant defiance:
„I feel myself as best German who has wanted the best for the German folk.”
It is not possible to subject the justification speeches of the other defendants to a thorough examination. Decisive is that the companions as well without exception charged behind the Führer. Decisive is furthermore the courage of the thinking that dominated them all uniformly. Seldom has the court seen a similar loyalty to one’s own deed, which has nonetheless suddenly been declared a crime: not one who does not declare that he would repeat this „crime” at any hour, because Germany demands that from him. Seldom as well did a group of defendants confront its judges in a similar competition for the responsibility: Adolf Hitler had already declared in his speech that he as leader demanded sole responsibility. Now his companions claimed responsibility for their own decisions with the same passion. There are no requests for forgiveness. There is only the attack in the same front.
Again and again, both lines of attack in this battle also become visible: the attack against the not accused fellow traitors Kahr, Lossow and Seisser, and the attack against the diverse regionalist tendencies in Bavarian politics.
Most of the accused had for years already played a leading role in Bavarian post-war politics – some as high officials of the state, others as officers, still others as leaders of paramilitary formations, which, after all, since the days of the local militias had also always worked very closely with the political groups around Kahr. Their testimony then put a spotlight on the background of previous Bavarian politics; and again and again they let it be seen that these politics – exactly like the action of the defendants themselves – had been glaringly directed against the Weimar constitution: yes, after all. only the common front against the Weimar system had brought the National Socialist opposition into a unified front with the Bavarian government men. But now that Weimar had the upper hand in the conflict with Hitler, the Bavarian „battle companions” had defected to the victorious camp. How shameful for them and their political honour the memories of the joint actions against Weimar, the „misfortune” of yesterday, the „legal power” of today, is now put to them from all sides – by men, who after November 9th did not crawl in homage before the Weimar presidential seat, rather who remained true to the old political conviction and the old oaths and manly words.
Pöhner, Bavarian judiciary official, for years in close political contact with Kahr, testifies: „I learned to highly value Kahr, since he, like I, was of the opinion that what had played out in November 1918 had been a crime… I was (on November 8th) very pleased that somebody had finally been found who possessed the courage to pull along with himself the gentlemen who long already planned what the new government in the Reich had long since decided… I do not hide my whole political position. If what you accuse me of is high treason — I have been engaged in this business for five years already! ”
And a defence attorney, who asks him whether Kahr in the year 1920 and again in 1922 had taken very illegal paths in order to come to power, receives the answer with laughter: „Yes, I was there, after all!”
Lieutenant-Colonel Kriebel jumps to his side as he relates the same matter, where Kahr had ensured himself leadership in Bavaria: „Back then I earned my state coupe spurs.” But Kriebel passes a different verdict over the time when Kahr, in possession of power, began to switch to „legal” circumstances: that „Kahr is a man of the open backdoor, who does not draw the final consequences from a decision.” And at the conclusion of his examination, quite agitated: „I feel no kind of regret to have helped, I am proud that I have done it, because I have long already loathing for men who have spoken with the mouth to do something, but who have never done something”.
Robert Wagner, First Lieutenant in the Reichswehr, also attests of General Lossow that he has done nothing other than the struggle against the Weimar constitution, to which he had sworn an oath, and which he brushed aside in a coup d’état manner when he had his own division swear allegiance to Bavaria: „General Seeckt called Lossow’s action a breach of oath… But we saw in Lossow the new Yorck.”
Exactly so docs Frick remember Kahr’s very illegal political past, who does not fit his present sudden loyalty at all: „During the Kapp revolt I got close to Kahr, who on March 13th and 14th played an outstanding role…”.
All of them then also go into extensive presentations about the days immediately before November 8th. when one conference followed the other and each ended with the realization that Kahr, Lossow and Seisser wanted to push their already long made break with Berlin to a violent confrontation as soon as the desired opportunity to strike just presented itself. When the examination of the defendants has ended, there can no longer be any doubt that the three winners of November 9th have been hard hit in their present assurances of loyalty: that their loyalty to the constitution, which they now put on display so sedulously, did not always inspire them; that even a few months ago they were totally one with the accused in hostility against the constitution, for whose benefit they now level their indictment. The day’s media waits with suspense, since the most important counterparts of the defendants, the gentlemen Kahr, Lossow and Seisser, must present themselves to the court as witnesses. This expectation becomes all the livelier when one of the defending attorneys summaries the result of the previous proceedings and then in the process also refers to the various secret negotiations that the trial has already brought with it. After all, the public had always been excluded, when „state security” appeared to be threatened by the testimony. But it had again and again been guessed that often enough an incrimination of the three Bavarian government men was connected to these testimonies. Now on the day when witness examination begins, the defence hurls its attacking statement at the court: „These witnesses, who appear as crown witnesses against the accused, were the wire-pullers of the whole enterprise, so that it is impossible that the people who instigated the whole enterprise now appear as witnesses against those who carried out the enterprise”.
Here the plan is very sharply outlined, according to which the accused led the great campaign for their justification and for smashing the opponent’s positions.
But now the examination of the defendants has made yet another main question pops up, which makes the public hold its breath: each of the defendants had in his testimony also supported the thrust against Reich threatening Bavarian separatism introduced by Adolf Hitler.
Ludendorff wielded the sharpest weapon in this struggle, when he referred to the again and again appearing machinations of the politicized clergy – to the lurking spider in the separatist web that spread itself out in Germany. It had been forgotten all too quickly, after all, how closely the Centrum had since its existence stood in one front with all Reich threatening forces. And in the confusion of the post-war period it had also been relatively little noted that the leading Centrum prelates and leading men of the clergy led Bavarian Folk Party had again and again in very incriminating negotiations become involved with the French and with separatists, with conspirators for a new Rhine Federation and with proponents of a Catholic Danube monarchy. Ludendorff pulls these dark plans into the light, presents in broad outline their history since Bismarck’s days, shows how they become alive again since the November revolt. All the questionable figures of the separatist underworld in Bavaria are conjured up – the Bothmers and Leoprechtings, the Fuchs and Machhaus, the French agent Richert and the French emissary Dard, who let his money flow through all possible dark channels. Kahr’s politics are outlined: he spoke „of strong states in a strong Reich, while I had spoken of healthy states in a strong Reich.” The whole dangerousness of this position pops up when the general brands the words of the „temporary separation of Bavaria from the Reich”: „I have always viewed the idea of a temporary separation of Bavaria from the Reich as high treason.” But the great question about the wire-pullers and beneficiaries of such politics always stands above it. And this question always finds the answer in an old historical realization: „The creation of a powerless Germany was the result of ultra-Catholic politics such as they put in an appearance at the Reich foundation and then during the world war”.
The general presents example after example. The signal terrifies the separatist and politicized clerical front. From the Cardinal’s palace in Munich to the smallest chapel residence, from Rome to San Francisco, the ecclesia militans feels hit at a nerve. Its press howls…
This is how the attack unfolds across the broadest front through the defendants when witness examination finally begins. The court had already questioned many witnesses about a series of details. Then the day came on which the examination of the main witnesses Kahr, Lossow and Seisser will start.
What typifies the testimonies of the three gentlemen is initially an amazing agreement in the testimonies down to individual formulations. One clearly recognizes that shared discussions have preceded, in which the statements were coordinated. Whether it is about the controversial scenes in the Bürgerbräukeller, where Lossow, according to his testimony and that of his companions, claims to have issued the motto „comedy games”; where the talk is about the measures of the witnesses immediately after the Bürgerbräukeller assembly; where the inner stand on the enterprises is put to question at all: in all these statements the testimonies of the three gentlemen betray a careful common revision. Nobody can claim that the gentlemen faced the examination unbiased, all the less so, since Kahr namely again and again tries contrary to trial regulations to read his testimony from a brought along memorandum.
But even aside from such individual questions, the gentlemen show a noticeable agreement in the great political line of their presentations. The position of the back then ruling circles on National Socialism itself downright appears in them.
Above all, it is conspicuous that with amazing boldness they equate their own mortal person with the eternity of the state. Lossow, aggressively: „If Kahr and the bearers of the state’s power sectors are with all means made despicable, that is not directed against our person, rather against the state idea and the authority of the state. Not Kahr and his companions are injured here, rather the state… Who gave the order to fire at the Feldherrnhalle? I can answer the question exactly: the state gave the order!”
Kahr also gives himself airs: „My activity was devoted above all to Bavarian interests, the preservation of state authority and the establishment of the idea of state power. Only the state and state power may be master in the land and one clearly hears behind that his old self-conscious claim: „But state power is embodied in we!”
Seisser confirms this claim: „Kahr wanted to gather the patriotic forces under his own command, under „unconditional subordination to state authority.”
But they all forget that in November 1923 any state authority was already long smashed to pieces and that any national order and all faith in the folk could only be maintained through the work of the defendants, whom one now endeavoured with all means to portray as criminals against the state.
Kahr’s, Lossow’s and Seisser’s second claim went that they had indeed wanted to form a new government in the Reich, but naturally only in a totally legal way. While the defendants again and again portrayed and through witnesses proved that the three gentlemen as well must have thought of a violent advance and always instructed the Kampfbund [fighting federation] in this sense, the three gentlemen now claimed that they had always endeavoured for a totally peaceful change of the government in the Reich. A confusing shift of all previously valid political concepts hence then set in: if one had spoken of a „march to Berlin” in 1923, one now explained that as totally harmless, that it was just about a soft „pressure on Berlin” or even just a „spiritual rejuvenation”; if one had had speakers from the most diverse associations in 1923 speak all through the land without contradiction of the necessity of a national „dictatorship” and again and again affirmed this demand, one made these clear and hard words harmless in that one speaks of a „directorship” that was supposed to be formed back then; if Lossow had declared himself ready for any coup d’état, if it just offered a chance of success, he now defines this clearly violent term with soft formulations, which completely conform to the parliamentarian feelings of the Weimar world and could not offend even the most loyal Republican. No concept remains unblurred during the testimonies of the three gentlemen, no shared plan of 1923 unaltered.
For an endless flood of insults and accusation forms the third trait in the examination of the three main prosecution witnesses. Each according to the temperament of the three gentlemen, they pounce more or less vigorously upon the defendants. Kahr weighs his utterances most carefully: he gladly conceals himself in the cloak of contempt put on display, when he, for example, instead of immediately answering one of Hitler’s questions, turns to the chief judge as a mediator or even merely addresses the speaker’s podium. Seisser formulates his attacks sharply, cleverly concealed, but in a dialectic so insulting that the Führer once mutters the word „shamelessness”. Lossow, however, rages around cursing in the courtroom as if he were passing time in a barracks courtyard dressing down a company of recruits. Already during his extensive speak he had coarsely insulted: „I noticed that Hitler lacked the sense of reality, the measure for what is useful and achievable… I often declared that Hitler is not capable of leadership of a dictatorship. But I agreed that he could be the political drummer… Hitler is fixated on the word brutality, I have never heard the word sentimentality from him.” And when the general must in cross examination answer to even very sensitive questions, he quickly falls into such agitation that he totally loses his nerves. Agitated, biting, barking, he throws his answers at the defence, rattling his spurs he runs back and forth in front of the witness seat, each answer, instead of remaining objective, is seasoned with a raging after-taste. In this mood he then encounters Hitler as well, who at various important problems – the question of dictatorship or directorate, about violent march or peaceful „pressure”, about Lossow’s participation in the preparations for the universally planned „coup d’état” – intervenes in the examination with sharply outlined questions. When Hitler attempts to correct that shameful accusation that he broke his word of honour on November 8th, it comes to a clash that has become famous.
Hitler, with concise statement: „November 8th was the execution of a long-discussed plan.”
Lossow: „Seisser has raised the objection right from the start: ‘Between us stands your breech of word of honour.’ You have replied: ‘Forgive me, it is in the interest of the fatherland.”‘
Hitler, outraged by the ongoing insults, in sharp attack: „Was that the sentimental or the brutal Hitler, who requested forgiveness?”
Lossow, totally uncontrolled: „That was neither the sentimental nor the brutal Hitler, rather the Hitler with the guilty conscience!”
Hitler, quite agitated: „I need no guilty conscience in regard to breech of word of honour, such as of which Mr. von Lossow accuses me, all the less so, as the only one who broke his word of honour was Mr. Von Lossow, and indeed on May 1st!”
Lossow storms to the door and slams it closed behind him menacingly. The trial is adjourned, because the witness has through his illegal departure removed himself from examination…
The trial escalates to such dramatic scenes several times. Specifically, there are clashes when the public is supposed to be excluded again. That occurs regularly, when the further testimony will in all probability prove things that incriminate the witnesses Kahr, Lossow and Seisser. Regarding the question what was the nature of the enterprise that they themselves planned, nothing has hence been publicly determined through the trial.
Kahr’s examination as well has not provided any decisive open answers here. If Lossow had provided a unique example of the attempt with which one could behave so crudely in front of a court, then Kahr presented the equally unique role of a man who in a hardly conceivable manner refused all dangerous answers at all. As soon as he encountered the question of the background to November 9th’which proved that he himself and his cronies were most intimately entangled in the anti-republican plans, he held ready the same pitiful answer – dozens of times, with an amazing courage for (light: I cannot remember – or: I am bound by official secrets – or: I am not allowed to say. Dozens of times, tricky questions pelt down on him, and dozens of times, he refuses to reply – an unprecedented image of a lost human being, with lowered head, regrettable victim of his own inadequacies, trembling down to his deepest soul with the feverish wish to just as quickly as possible escape this torture. When his examination has ended the world knows that here a man who once felt himself to be the called representative of the state has collapsed in a humiliating manner with all his great claims…
But this is not the place to deal with the details of the lines of questions to which the witness examination was devoted. Already before the announcement of the verdict, as the decisive result of the trial, the fact came out, which, after all, after an almost ten-year long struggle then experienced the same historical justification, that namely inner right, the greater moral weight, the great historical courage for decision and for responsibility stood solely on the side of the accused. The representatives of the accusing state had, perhaps with the most honest intentions, defended an inwardly rotten world. Kahr’s pitiful fall was a symbol of that, and Lossow’s noisy trump playing was only the sign of the weakness of an order that was not firm enough within itself in order to fend off an attack with calm certainty. At any rate, the action-readiness of the defendants showed that the instinct for history-shaping values was more alive in them than in the called representatives of state authority. The courageous have always triumphed over the hesitant, straightforwardness over evasion, the man over the bureaucrat.
Above all, the trial had clarified that the many honour slighting accusations against the Führer and his companions were defamation. It furthermore clarified that the three main accusers had for months in eternal hesitation discussed with the defendants anti-constitutional plans, which the defendants alone in their own way had the courage to achieve. It finally clarified that the actual plans of the three government men were probably aimed at different and highly dangerous final goals than the decisions of the „rebels”; but the final disclosures about precisely this question, the most interesting one of the whole trial, do not lie in the protocols of the public, rather only of the closed proceedings. When witness examination is closed and when the prosecution and defence have tested themselves with sharp juristic weapons, the historical result stands firm: the enterprise of November 8th and 9th had to come given the situation back then, it was the release of a tension that had become unbearable, the daring incision into the centre of a ravaging fever that convulsed the body of the German folk. An unspeakable confusion had dominated the period before November 9th, chaos, plans, dissatisfaction, projects, violent, talk. An energetic will intervened sharply into this turmoil – and the tangled, drifting, dangerous forces of unrest and sickness already arranged themselves.
So November 9th had brought clarity in any case. As the day of the announcement of the verdict approached, the historically so decisive question does not aim so much at the degree of punishment. It is different: which of the opposing forces will preserve for the future the ability to transform the experiences and knowledge of the year 1923, and the decisions of the trial, into creative impulses for future political formations?
The last days of the trial have provided the answer to this question to every awaken and believing human being. On the 19th day of trial, the prosecutor in an extensive speech gives the basis for the requested punishment. On the 24th day of the trial, Adolf Hitler in his closing speech once more summarizes for himself and his friends realization and obligation. In the speeches, both opposing historical worlds encounter each other, which will still struggle for ten more years for the final result.
The prosecutor’s feelings are conflicting. As a human being, he does not deny how deeply the defendants have moved him in their purity, their affirmation and their national passion. Sometimes it seems as if he wants to affirm his goal with an unconditional Yes. But the office suffocates the moved human being, to represent the prosecution for the state, in a tangle of paragraphs and doctrines, which give no room for human affirmation. Indeed, he admits what was the decisive impulse for the defendants’ deed: „Certainly, what happened in November 1918 was a crime of high treason”; and this confession is amazing. Nonetheless, he believes that he should protect the Weimar state: „The Weimar constitution forms the foundation of the Reich. Opposition against the constitution, even if it may appear justified for national reasons, must never lead to one trying to change or eliminate the constitution by force.” This speech is dominated by the dangerous doctrine that any political system, insofar as it simply possesses outer power, is also good and God given, inviolable and unalterable. A rigid formalism forbids any rebellion, even it is being ever so necessary for the life of the folk. The bond to a dead constitutional regulation appears more obligating than the burning faith in the future of the nation, which feels this constitutional regulation to be a rope around all its limbs. The prosecutor formulates his demand quite sharply to affirm every right of even an unhealthy governmental condition insofar as it is simply outwardly covered by a constitution: „It is a dangerous illusion, which has formed in the world of ideas of the nationalist activist circles, that everything that happens out of patriotism and in the interest of the national cause is also simply allowed, even if one thereby still so very much violates valid laws and the legal order.” The naked consequence is clear: „legal order” stands above the well- being of the folk, even if it would be exploited by a Bolshevik regime…
In contrast, it will remain eternally memorable how Adolf Hitler countered this cool doctrine with a new political faith. His speech is attuned to a mighty chord: a condition is only good and just, if it serves the folk; a constitution may be legally ever so good: but if it harms the folk, every rebellion against it is sacred right and even more sacred obligation. At the hour when he and his political work were supposed to be smashed, he preached more fervently and compelling than ever before the inalienable right of a betrayed folk for a creative national revolution.
He stands before the count as an accused. But every word that he speaks into the hall, into the open hearts of moved human beings, becomes an indictment, which passes its verdicts on the strength of historical right. The Germany of the November crime is surrendered to his lashing will.
Has the revolt of 1918 benefited the German folk? Has it through construction and daring formation legalized the fact that it emerged through high treason? The answer, which the speaker draws from an observation of the German present, paints apocalyptic images:
„The failure of the new masters in the economic sphere is so horrible that the masses are driven onto the streets: the soldiers, who are supposed to fire into the masses, however, do not want to constantly shoot at the folk… What all did the revolution prophesize politically? One heard about the folks’ right of self- determination, about the League of Nations, about the self-government of the folk. And what came? A world peace on our field of corpses… Self-determination for every Negro tribe, but Germany does not count as a Negro tribe. We have become the pariah in this world. What else are our government organs than the executive organs of our external tyrants? Can anybody say the revolution has succeeded, while the object of the revolution, Germany, perishes?”
Imploring the words, compelling the voice, the hall listens as if enchanted. For weeks, jurists have calculated here brooding, but now suddenly all the distress and the energy, the inexhaustible treasure of faith and the fate of all German desperation are conjured up in this somber room. The files no longer rustle, diligent pens no longer write thick volumes of protocols, fate itself reckons now through this mouth about the rise and the fall of this struggling folk, whose deepest energies have become awake in these raging words that have the courage to examine, to elevate and to pitilessly reject. He fetches them, the destroyers of German authority, who have done their work since the November betrayal, and his speech threatens:
„The young soldiers stand up, who went to their deaths in Flanders with the German national anthem on their lips, and call: You are at fault that we lie here as victims of your crimes. Then the expellees come, who had been driven out, and accuse… Our proud ships lie on the bottom of the sea and accuse those who helped to destroy the pride of a sixty million folk…”
Yes, he makes himself the executor of the humbled living Germans and the betrayed German dead, and stands large like a judge before the countenance of the nation:
„I accuse Ebert, Scheidemann and comrades of treason against the nation and of high treason. I accuse them, because they destroyed a seventy million folk.”
The words swing over listening Germany like the ring of alarm-bells, like a threat that one day the end will dawn for the powers of German decline a different one than the one they themselves are determined to prepare for the leader of the coming uprising.
For that he has been bestowed the leadership office of the German nation, he knows even at the hour when one will send him behind prison walls. And that more stands behind his claim than a vain personal wish, namely the mission of fate and necessity itself, he affirms with bold freedom: „I take the standpoint that the bird must sing, because it is a bird. And a man who has been born for politics must engage in politics, whether he is free or in prison, sits on silken seat or must be satisfied with a hard bench. The fate of his folk will move him from the earliest morning until late into the night. Whoever has been born to be a dictator, which not be pushed back, rather he wants to, he will, himself push forward… Whoever feels called to govern a folk does not have the right to say: if you want me or fetch me, I will go along. Me has the duty to do it.”
Unforgettable words! The world had expected the imploring gestures of a humbled and broken man, but now it must experience that this persecuted man more masterfully than ever reaches for the leadership of the folk; that his will for power has only become greater. An unbounded certainty resonates in his words: „In my eyes it would be pitiful to plead for something of which I know that posterity will give it to me anyway… What stood before my eyes was from the first day on was to become a thousand times more than a [government] minister. I wanted to become the destroyer of Marxism. And I will fulfil this task!”
For a long time now, this speech has no longer been a speech of justification. It has become a stern affirmation, and now it totally soars to the blaze of a prophecy, devout, unerringly certain in the validity of the proclaimed word:
„The deed of November 8th has not failed. It would have failed, if a mother had come to me and had said: You also have my child on your conscience. But I may assure you: no mother came. Quite the opposite, thousands of others have come and have joined our ranks. That is the visible sign of the success of November 8th, that in its aftermath the youth has arisen like a flood and joins together. That is the greatest gain of November 8th, that it is has not led to depression, rather has contributed to greatly enthusing the folk. I believe that the hour will come when the masses who today stand on the street with our swastika flag will unite with those who on November 9th fired upon us. I believe that the blood will not eternally separate us… The army that we have formed grows faster from day to day, from hour to hour. Precisely in these days I have the proud hope that the hour will one day come when these wild throngs become battalions, the battalions regiments, the regiments divisions, that the old cockades will be pulled out of the dirt, and that the old flags will again flatter up front, that then reconciliation comes at the eternal final judgment of God, to which we are willing to step. Then, from our bones and from our graves, the voice of the court will speak which alone is called on to judge us. For not you, my sirs, pronounce the verdict over us, the eternal court of history pronounces the verdict… That court will judge us, the General Quartermaster of the old army, his officers and soldiers, who as Germans wanted the best for their folk and fatherland, who want to fight and die You may pronounce us guilty a thousand times, the goddess of the eternal court of history will laughingly tear up the prosecutor’s request and the court’s verdict: for she acquits us!”
When the court pronounces the verdict the following day, the republic has apparently triumphed over the captured high traitors. Adolf Hitler, together with Weber, Kriebel and Pöhner, is sentenced to five years imprisonment. But while the chief judge reads aloud the verdict in the hall, outside on the streets, watched by police lines, thousands and thousands wait for the opportunity to perhaps see one of the convicted men, so that they can cheer him: cheer like only an enflamed folk cheers a victor. The hearts of thousands burn brightly. Each of them carries on his faith. Each of them is an invincible force of loyalty and affirmation. Each of them is an incalculable threat to the condemning republic.
Then one led the „high traitors” to the fortress at Lech. And the victors were happy that the bearers of German unrest would supposedly for years be shut off from the only places where they could have an effect. But again, the calculation proved itself wrong. For while the system now proceeded, with all tricks and all terror, to put into effect the Dawes Plan, the new pariah pact that one had tried to force upon the folk with golden talk, in Landsberg a tenacious will forged new weapons. But behind the walls, a restless prisoner walks up and down and dictates a book. A time will come when the system realizes with horror that this book represents a most dangerous weapon: that here the weapons are stockpiled that will smash all old walls; that here the foundation stones are hewn from which one day a new order will rise over Germany. They still mock and revile, the powers of right and left, the reds and the blacks [conservative Catholic Centrum] and the masters of big business. But with a solemn ardour, in the solitude of his cell, an imprisoned man pieces together the plan that will one day smash the rotten and shape the new. Like from the trumpets of Jericho, it echoes in the Jew related world: Victory, victory, the enemy has been destroyed. But the traders have never known that danger still threatens, if just one single brave heart carries its faith forward like a flag.
Renegade Editor’s Note: Please show me one shred of evidence this event even took place. It is quite a coincidence they ran an active shooter drill at a synagogue in Squirrel Hill 9 months prior, right next to Tree of Life. By the way, a gabbai is a synagogue helper.
By Whitney Webb
(MPN) — In the wake of the mass shooting at the Pittsburgh Tree of Life Synagogue on Saturday, action has been taken to remove an alternative social media network on which the shooter responsible for Saturday’s massacre, Robert Bowers, had posted. The decision comes not long after a coordinated effort by Facebook and Twitter that deleted hundreds of anti-establishment accounts and pages.
Gab, a Twitter alternative that has thus far been largely dominated by “alt-right” users and those that have been “banned” or “shadow banned” on Twitter, has now been booted by both its hosting company, Joyent, and the domain registrar GoDaddy, after both companies stated that the posts Bowers had made on the social network violated their terms of service. Bowers allegedly posted just minutes before the shooting on the Gab platform, writing “I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.” Bowers had allegedly blamed the Jewish people for “committing genocide” against white Americans.
Upon learning of the shooter’s account on the platform, Gab deleted the account and backed up the data, which it also provided to the Department of Justice and FBI. In addition, via a statement, Gab disavowed “all acts of terrorism and violence” and said its mission is “to defend free expression and individual liberty online for all people” by offering an uncensored social networking platform.
Gab later noted that its coordination with the DOJ and FBI regarding the shooter’s account helped provide law enforcement with “concrete evidence” and a “clear motive” for the crime, adding that “more speech is always the answer.”
Nevertheless, despite the extent of the cooperation between Gab and the legal authorities, Gab subsequently posted on Twitter that it was “being forced off the internet for the disgusting actions of one man.” Notably, Robert Bowers also had accounts on other social media platforms including Twitter, but those social networks were not targeted for those accounts or any of the posts created by those accounts.
Breaking: @joyent, Gab’s new hosting provider, has just pulled our hosting service. They have given us until 9am on Monday to find a solution. Gab will likely be down for weeks because of this. Working on solutions. We will never give up on defending free speech for all people. pic.twitter.com/YvnBOFoQQn
– Gab.com (@getongab) October 28, 2018
Media reports on the shooting have noted that Gab’s minimal restrictions on user-posted content are related to the decisions from Joyent and GoDaddy to deplatform Gab. In a statement sent to Gab by GoDaddy, the domain name registrar stated that it had “discovered numerous instances of content on your site that both promotes and encourages violence against people.”
Gab’s removal from its hosting provider and domain name registrar could result in the site being down for several weeks, according to posts made by Gab on social media. Currently, the site is inaccessible for users, as the main homepage now only displays a message from Gab’s CEO, Andrew Torba.
In addition, PayPal also severed ties with Gab after the shooting, stating that the company was invoking its right to terminate an account “for any reason and at any time” contained within the PayPal user agreement. Notably, PayPal did not state that Gab had violated any terms of service. Instead, it appears that PayPal had unilaterally decided to terminate Gab’s use of the platform.
– Gab.com (@getongab) October 27, 2018
The effort to deplatform Gab followed similar threats from Microsoft levied against Gab in August. At the time, Microsoft was providing hosting services to Gab and threatened to cease those services over two anti-Semitic posts it had identified on the social network. Gab subsequently deleted the offending posts and chose Joyent as its new hosting provider.
Beyond Social-Media Pruning: Pulling out Alternative Content by the Roots
While Gab’s current user base and its uncensored approach to content are bound to result in controversial content being hosted on the site, the larger context in which its deplatforming occurred has chilling consequences for the public’s free access to information via the internet.
On October 11, Facebook deleted more than 800 pages from its platform for “inauthentic behavior,” even though it admitted that the targeted pages had produced “legitimate” content. Facebook defined “inauthentic behavior” as using “sensational political content – regardless of its political slant – to build an audience and drive traffic to their websites.” In other words, the pages were removed for publishing and promoting controversial political content.
Soon after, Twitter deleted many of the accounts of pages that had been deleted by Facebook, suggesting coordination between the two largest social networks in silencing alternative voices and perspectives. Following these events, some concerned internet users turned to Gab as an uncensored alternative to Facebook and Twitter.
However, the events that have followed the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting show that alternative platforms like Gab – even if they are committed to uncensored content – can still be silenced through pressure from hosting providers and domain name registrars. The deplatforming of Gab sets a disturbing precedent, as it shows that websites can now be targeted outside of social networks if pressure is applied via the very companies that enable a page’s presence on the internet.
Concern over these precedents will likely only grow, as establishment censors recently announced that efforts to silence voices on the internet have only just begun. Indeed, on October 15, Jamie Fly of the German Marshall Fund, a think tank funded by the U.S. government and NATO, announced, “we are just starting to push back” against alternative media and independent voices, adding that the recent Facebook/Twitter purge of users and pages was “just the beginning.”
With the deplatforming of Gab, the self-appointed censors have now shown that their ability to censor spreads far beyond censorship within the dominant social networks to the very internet presence of the sites themselves.
On Purim, Feb. 25, 1994, Israeli army officer Baruch Goldstein, an orthodox Jew from Brooklyn, massacred Palestinian civilians, including children, while they knelt in prayer in a mosque. Goldstein was a disciple of the late Brooklyn Rabbi Meir Kahane, who told CBS News that his teaching that Arabs are “dogs” is derived “from the Talmud.” University of Jerusalem Prof. Ehud Sprinzak described Kahane and Goldstein’s philosophy: “They believe it’s God’s will that they commit violence against goyim, a Hebrew term for non-Jews.” (NY Daily News, Feb. 26, 1994, p. 5).
“The Red Terror became so wide-spread that it is impossible to give here all the details of the principal means employed by the [Jewish] Cheka(s) to master resistance; one of the most important is that of hostages, taken among all social classes. These are held responsible for any anti-Bolshevist movements (revolts, the White Army, strikes, refusal of a village to give its harvest etc.) and are immediately executed. Thus, for the assassination of the Jew Ouritzky, member of the Extraordinary Commission of Petrograd, several thousands of them were put to death, and many of these unfortunate men and women suffered before death various tortures inflicted by cold-blooded cruelty in the prisons of the Cheka.
I have in front of me photographs taken at Kharkoff, in the presence of the Allied Missions, immediately after the Reds had abandoned the town; they consist of a series of ghastly reproductions such as: Bodies of three workmen taken as hostages from a factory which went on strike. One had his eyes burnt, his lips and nose cut off; the other two had their hands cut off.
The bodies of hostages, S. Afaniasouk and P. Prokpovitch, small landed proprietors, who were scalped by their executioners; S. Afaniasouk shows numerous burns caused by a white hot sword blade. The body of M. Bobroff, a former officer, who had his tongue and one hand cut off and the skin torn off from his left leg.
Human skin torn from the hands of several victims by means of a metallic comb. This sinister find was the result of a careful inspection of the cellar of the Extraordinary Commission of Kharkoff. The retired general Pontiafa, a hostage who had the skin of his right hand torn off and the genital parts mutilated.
Mutilated bodies of women hostages: S. Ivanovna, owner of a drapery business, Mme. A.L. Carolshaja, wife of a colonel, Mmo. Khlopova, a property owner. They had their breasts slit and emptied and the genital parts burnt and having trace of coal.
Bodies of four peasant hostages, Bondarenko, Pookhikle, Sevenetry, and Sidorfehouk, with atrociously mutilated faces, the genital parts having been operated upon by Chinese torturers in a manner unknown to European doctors in whose opinion the agony caused to the victims must have been dreadful.
It is impossible to enumerate all the forms of savagery which the Red Terror took. A volume would not contain them. The Cheka of Kharkoff, for example, in which Saenko operated, had the specialty of scalping victims and taking off the skin of their hands as one takes off a glove…At Voronege the victims were shut up naked in a barrel studded with nails which was then rolled about. Their foreheads were branded with a red hot iron FIVE POINTED STAR. At Tsaritsin and at Kamishin their bones were sawed…At Keif the victim was shut up in a chest containing decomposing corpses; after firing shots above his head his torturers told him that he would be buried alive. The chest was buried and opened again half an hour later when the interrogation of the victim was proceeded with. The scene was repeated several times over. It is not surprising that many victims went mad.” (S.P. Melgounov, p. 164-166; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 151-153).
“The overthrowing of imperialistic governments by armed uprisings and the organization of an International Soviet Republic is the way of the international dictatorship of the working class. The most forceful way to maintain the international revolution is by the organization of the armed forces of revolution…The workmen of all Europe will do, and in fact are already doing, the same…Sooner or later we will have the International Republic of Soviets.” (Memorandum on Certain Aspects of the Bolshevist Movement in Russia, p. 46, Issued by the Department of State, Washington, D.C., 1919).
“Being ill, Raskolinkoff dreamt that the whole world was doomed to a peculiar but dreadful, unknown plague, sweeping from the depths of Asis towards Europe. Everybody had to perish with the exception of several, very few chosen. There appeared some kind of new germs, microscopic creatures which penetrated into human bodies…
Men who were affected by them immediately became possessed with a devil, falling into madness. But never, indeed never, did men feel themselves more clever and more firm in their beliefs than those affected by the disease. Never did men consider their judgments, their scientific conclusions, their moral convictions and faith more steady and firm.
Entire communities and cities, whole peoples, became affected by this disease and acted as insane. Everybody was alarmed and nobody understood, each being convinced the the truth was in him alone, and everybody suffered, looking at others, beating their chests and wringing their hands in despair. It was not known who would be persecuted, nor how, nor what should be considered as being evil or good. Neither was it known who should be accused, who should be defended. People slew each other in a state of irrational fury. Armies were raised against each other; but while on their march they suddenly began to tear themselves to pieces, their ranks became destroyed, and soldiers attacked each other, killing, biting and devouring one another. In the cities alarm bells were rung all day long. People were calling together but nobody knew who was making the appeal nor for what purpose and everybody was alarmed.
The usual trade was discontinued because everybody insisted upon his own thoughts, presenting his own amendments, and no agreement could possibly be reached. Agriculture was suspended. In some places men gathered in groups, agreed upon something and took oath not to part, but immediately after that they began to do something quite different from what they themselves had anticipated and then they began to accuse and to slay each other. Fires broke out and famine started.” (Crime and Punishment, Epilogue, Translation from the Russian, Raskolinkoff Dostojevsky; The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, pp. 37-38).
“By sending Lenin to Russia our (German) Government had, moreover, assumed a great responsibility. From a military point of view his journey was justified, for Russia had to be laid low. But our Government should have seen to it that we also were not involved in her fall. The events in Russia gave me no cause for complete satisfaction. They considerably eased the military situation, but elements of the greatest danger still remained.” (Luden dorff’s Own Story, Vol. II, pp. 126-127, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1919; The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, p. 67).
“There was not a political organization in the vase Empire which was not influenced by the Jews or directed by them; the Social-Democrats, the Revolutionary Socialist Parties, the Polish Socialist Party, all counted Jews among their directors; Plehve was perhaps right when he said that the combat for political emancipation in Russia and the Jewish question were practically identical.” (The Pioneers of the Russian Revolution, Dr. Angelo Rapport).
“Among them” narrates Princess Radziwill, “was a man named Kameneff, whose name was found later on among the signatures at the bottom of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk and who introduced himself as a confidential friend of both Lenin and Trotzky. This Kameneff was another repulsive Jew, but undoubtedly an intelligent creature whose only principle was to enrich himself at any price and in the shortest of time. He was eager for action, because he realized that it was only through some upheaval or other that he would be enabled to lay his greedy hands on the Russian public exchequer. Captain Russtenberg heard afterwards that when it came to the partition of the millions which Germany paid for the betrayal of Russia to the Bolsheviks (Jews), Kameneff was the man who got the lion’s share.” (Princess Catherine Radziwill, The Firebrand of Bolshevism, pp. 203-204, Small, Maynard & Company, Boston, Mass., 1919. Kameneff, whose real name was Rosenfeld, was one of the most notorious Soviet officials. He replaced Krassin as Chairman of the Bolshevist delegation to Great Britain, which was dispatched to conduct negotiations for the resumption of trade relations between England and Soviet Russia. Rosenfeld-Kameneff is said to be a brother-in-law of Trotzky (Bronstein); (The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, p. 68).
“During the summer of 1916 a secret report was received by the Russian General Headquarters from one of its agents in New York. This report, dated February 15, 1916, reads in part as follows: ‘The Russian Revolutionary Party of America has evidently resumed its activities. As a consequence of it, momentous developments are expected to follow. The first confidential meeting which marked the beginning of a new era of violence took place on Monday evening, February 14, 1916, in the East Side of New York City. It was attended by sixty-two delegates, fifty of whom were ‘veterans’ of the revolution of 1905; the rest being newly admitted members. Among the delegates were a large percentage of Jews, most of them belonging to the intellectual class, as doctors, publicists, etc., but also some professional revolutionists…The proceedings of this first meeting were almost entirely devoted to the discussion of finding ways and means to start a great revolution in Russia as the ‘most favourable moment for it is close at hand.’ It was revealed that secret reports had just reached the party from Russia, describing the situation as very favourable, when all arrangements for an immediate outbreak were completed. The only serious problem was the financial question but whenever this was raised the assembly was immediately assured by some for the members that this question did not need to cause any embarrassment as ample funds, if necessary, would be furnished by persons in sympathy with the movement of liberating the people of Russia. In this connection the name of Jacob Schiff was repeatedly mentioned.’ It was further added in the report that: ‘The soul of this new revolutionary movement is the German Ambassador in Washington, Count Bernstorff. Dr. Albert, the financial agent attached to the German Embassy in Washington, is manager of this revolution which took place in Mexico. He is aided in his task by the first Secretary of the German Embassy.'” (The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, pp. 69-70).
“Indeed, this was more than a German plot; it was a world-conspiracy, first against Russia and next against Christian civilization at large. The following two documents throw a peculiar sidelight upon the nature of this sinister enterprise.
“It will be recalled that Furstenberg, who also assumed the name of Ganetzky, together with his Jewish friend Rdek, alias Sobelsohn, became later prominent members of the Soviet Government. In March, 1917, Furstenberg took an active part in the ‘defeatist’ propaganda in Russia, and it was through his medium that part of the money contributed by the German-Jewish bankers to the leaders of the destruction of civilization was forwarded to Russia. The documents above quoted reveal the active participation of international banking organizations in the ‘undertaking of Comrade Trotzky.’ The Disconto-Gesellschaft, the Rheinish-Westphalian Syndicate, the international banking firm of Warburgs, the various subsidiary banking institutions in Scandinavia, such as the Nya Banken, all of them were working in harmonious accord with the red generals of the world-revolution. This was the ‘one big union’ the aim of which was the complete destruction, if possible the annihilation , of ‘holy Russia” the corner-stone of European Christianity.” (The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, pp. 71-73).
“Only now, after the terrible events…it has become possible to appreciate fully the accuracy of the information presented in the secret report of Count Lamsdorf, former Russian Foreign Minister, to Emperor Nicholas II, dated January 3, 1906, on the international aspect of the first revolutionary outbreak in Russia in 1905. Some of the passages in this report are so striking that we feel it necessary to quote them in extends: ‘The events which took place in Russia during 1905, and which assumed especially acute forms at the beginning of October last, when after a series of strikes, they brought about an armed revolt in Moscow, and many other towns and localities of the Empire, plainly indicate that the Russian revolutionary movement; apart from its deeper, internal, social-economic and political causes, has also quite a definite international character…The most decisive indications which warrant this conclusion are given by the circumstances that the Russian revolutionaries are in possession of great quantities of arms which are imported from abroad, and of very considerable financial means, because there can be no doubt that the leaders of the revolution have already spent on our anti-government movement, the organization of all sorts of strikes included, large amounts of money. Since, however, it must be acknowledged that such support given to the revolutionary movement by sending arms and money from abroad can hardly be ascribed to foreign governments (with very special exceptions, as, for instance, that of Sweden supporting the revolutionary movement in Finland, and of Austria which helped the Poles) one is bound to come to the conclusion that there are foreign capitalists’ organizations which are interested in supporting our revolutionary movement. With this conclusion the fact must be confronted that the Russian revolutionary movement has the outspoken character of a movement of the heterogeneous nationalities of Russia which one after another, Armenians and Georgians, Letts and Esths, Finns, Poles and others, arose against the Imperial Government…If we add to the above, that, as has been proved beyond any doubt, a very considerable part among these heterogeneous nationalities is played by Jews, who, individually, as ringleaders in the other organizations, as well as through their own (the Jewish Bund in the Western Provinces), have always come forward as the most bellicose element of the revolution, we may feel entitled to assume that the above-mentioned foreign support of the Russian revolutionary movement comes from Jewish capitalist circles. In this respect one must not ignore the following concurrences of facts which lead to further conclusions, namely, that the revolutionary movement is not only supported but also to a certain degree directed from abroad. On one hand, the strike broke out with special violence and spread all over Russia not before and not after October, that is, just at the time when our government tried to realize a considerable foreign loan without the participation of the Rothschilds and just in time for preventing the carrying out of this financial operation; the panic provoked among the buyers and holders of Russian loans could not fail to give additional advantages to the Jewish banks and capitalists who openly and knowingly speculated upon the fall of the Russian rates…Moreover, certain very significant facts, which were also mentioned in the press, quite confirm the obvious connection of the Russian revolutionary movement with the foreign Jewish organizations. Thus, for instance, the above-mentioned importation of arms, which according to our agents’ information was carried on from the European Continent through England can be duly appreciated if we take into consideration that already in June, 1905, a special Antlo-Jewish committee of capitalists was openly established in England for the purpose of collecting money for arming fighting groups of Russian Jews, and that the well-known anti-Russian publicist, Lucien Wolf, was the leading member of this committee. On the other hand, in view of the fact that the sad consequences of the revolutionary propaganda affected the Jews themselves, another committee of Jewish capitalists was formed in England, under the leadership of Lord Rothschild, which collected considerable amounts of contributions in England, France and Germany for the officially alleged purpose of helping Russian Jews who suffered from pogroms. And lastly, the Jews in America, without thinking it necessary formally to distinguish between the two purposes, collect money for helping the pogrom sufferers and for arming the Jewish youth.'” (The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, pp. 73-76).
On the fifteenth day of March, 1917, Emperor Nicholas II abdicated from the Russian throne for himself and for his son. Six days later the following Army Order No. 371 was issued by General Alexeev, Chief of Staff of General Headquarters: ‘Emperor Nicholas II, who abdicated the throne, before his departure from the region occupied by the army in the field, addressed the troops with the following farewell words: ‘For the last time I apply to you, much beloved armies. After abdicating for myself and my son from the Russian throne, the power was transferred to the Provisional Government which was established on the initiative of the Imperial Duma. Let the Lord help it to lead Russia in the path of glory and prosperity. Let the Lord help you, gallant troops, to protect our fatherland against a wicked foe. For two and one-half years continuously you rendered hard battle service. Much blood was shed. Many efforts have been made and the hour is close when Russia, tied to her gallant Allies, by means of one combined effort towards victory, shall break the last resistance of the enemy. This unprecedented war must be pursued to a final victory. He who at present thinks about peace, he who strives for it, is a betrayer of his country; a traitor. I am confident that every honest soldier is of this belief. Therefore, perform your duty, bravely protect our great country, obey the Provisional Government, obey your superiors, and remember that every weakening in military discipline is to the advantage of the enemy. I am firmly convinced that you boundless love for our great country is not extinguished. May the Lord bless you, and may St. George, the martyr and the victor, lead you to final victory. Nicholas.'” (The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, pp. 88-89).
“The Revolution is on. We received today the only cheering news within the last three years of the bloody World War. The hearts of every working man and woman burst with joy and gladness at this news. Nicholas is overthrown. The Duman has taken the Government in its hands and the liberal government rules. Hurrah!” (The Forward, a Jewish daily paper published in Hew York City).
“He considered the Rvolution a victory for the Jews, which opinion, he said, prevailed on the East Side where rejoicing knew no bounds. We felt, added Mr. Cahan, that this is a great triumph for the Jews’ cause. The anti-Jewish element in Russia has always been identified with the anti-revolutionary party. Jews having always sat high in the Councils of the revolutionists, all of our race became inseparably linked with the opponents of the government in the official mind.” (New York Call, March 17, 1917, Upheaval in Russia Is Fight for Liberty, Abraham Cahan).
“…It was in England, the home of the Jews, says Mr. Pitt-Rivers, that the Tsar’s Government was always systematically vilified, for years made out as the blackest home of tyranny and oppression in the world. although there were English writers like Mr. Stephen Graham who, years ago, went out to Russia to live there because he considered it the freest country in Europe. It was, of course, the least commercialized, while England, one of the most commercialized countries; and the greatest lovers and entertainers of Jews, in the world, in consequence, sees no merit in a simple agricultural existence. Neither is it surprising in view of her cult of unlimited industrialism, and its consequences; an ever expanding industrial and urban population, free commercial exploitation by all and sundry middlemen, usurers, Jews; and the translations of all values into money-values, by which alone can be realized that ideal of personal equality, dad-levelness and compulsory mediocrity in which she glories under the name of Liberalism and Democracy. Can England with her tradition of three hundred years of Jeww-loving free-mammonism, democratic-shopkeeping, Puritanism, and obsessional urban-industrial expansion, in any case understand the healthier ideal of rural simplicity and paternal government, which, in spite of the obvious shortcomings of his successor, was the ideal of Alexander III.” (George Pitt-Rivers, The World Significance of the Russian Revolution, with preface by Dr. Oscar Levy, pp. 20-21, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1920).
“Wrangel pretended to combat the Bolsheviks, Bolshevism is Jewry. In order to retain the favour of the Jews holding the real power in England, France and the United States, Wrangel showed to the Jews signs of his submission to them. Thereafter the Russian masses abandoned Wrangel as a traitor or as a comedian. It is impossible simultaneously to be an auxiliary of the Jew and an enemy of the Bolsheviki who are Jews. Be it incoherence or treason, Wrangel deserved the same fate as Denikin and he got it.” (La Vieille-Fraonce, No. 200, December 2, 1920, article entitled The Enigma of Wrangel Explained; The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, p. 342).
“The goal of Russia is in the first instance a World-Revolution. The nucleus of opposition to such plans is to be found in the capitalist powers, England and France in the first instance, with America close behind them. There follows a certain community of interests (of Russia) with Germany, which is being threatened by the demands of these powers. The most profound animosity of Russia is directed against Poland, the ally of the world Powers and Russia’s immediate neighbour. Herein lies the point of Russia’s closet rapprochement with Germany…The fact that the Western Powers, by helping Russia, expose themselves to a great danger is too obvious to require further proofs…As far as we are concerned, this danger exists considerably nearer, but nevertheless our position between France and Poland compels us to try to remain in constant touch and in close understanding with Russia in order not to fall into complete dependence upon the Western countries. This position will remain compulsory for us no matter whether the present regime in Russia continues or not.” (General von Seckt, Speech delivered on January 24th, 1931, before the Economic Society of Munster, in Westphalia. by C.F. Melville, The Russian Face of Germany, pp. 158-159; The Rulers of Russia, Denis Fahey, pp. 20-21)
“Bolshevism (Judaism), this symbol of chaos and of the spirit of destruction, is above all an Anti-Christian and Anti-Social Conception. This present destructive tendency is clearly advantageous for only one national and religious entity: Judaism. The fact that Jews are the most active element in present day revolutions as well as in revolutionary socialism, that they draw to themselves the power forced form the peoples of other nations by revolution, is a fact in itself, independent of the question of knowing if that comes from organized world-wide Judaism, from Jewish Free Masonry or by an elementary evolution brought about by Jewish national solidarity and the accumulation of the capital in the hands of Jewish bankers.
The contest is becoming more definite. The domination of revolutionary Judaism in Russia and the open support given to this Jewish Bolshevism by Judaism the world over finally clear up the situation, show the cards and put the question of the battle of Christianity against Judaism, of the National State against the International, that is to say, in reality, against Jewish world power.” (Weltkampf, July 1924, p. 21; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 140).
“…the new Bolshevist orthodoxy of Stalin is probably more dangerous to Europe in the long run than the more spectacular methods of Trotsky and the more vocal methods of Zinoviev in the heyday of the Third International. I say more dangerous…and more formidable, because a more practical conception than the old Trotskyist idea…It is just the growth of this Stalinist conception which has made possible the continuance, on an ever-increasing scale, of the secret relationship between ‘Red’ Russia and ‘White’ Germany.” (The Russian Face of Germany, C.F. Melville, pp. 169-170; The Rulers of Russia, Denis Fahey, pp. 20-21)
“The Soviet movement was a Jewish, and not a Russian conception. It was forced on Russia from without, when, in 1917, German and German-American-Jew interests sent Lenin and his associates into Russia, furnished with the wherewithal to bring about the defection of the Russian armies…The Movement has never been controlled by Russians.
(a) Of the 224 revolutionaries who, in 1917, were despatched to Russia with Lenin to foment the Bolshevik Revolution, 170 were Jews.
(b) According to the Times of 29th March, 1919, ‘of the 20 or 30 commissaries or leaders who provide the central machinery of the Bolshevist movement, not less than 75 percent, are Jews…among minor officials the number is legion.’
According to official information from Russia, in 1920, out of 545 members of the Bolshevist Administration, 447 were Jews. The number of official appointments bestowed upon Jews is entirely out of proportion to their percentage in the State: ‘The population of Soviet Russia is officially given as 158,400,000 the Jewish section, according to the Jewish Encyclopaedia, being about 7,800,000. Yet, according to the Jewish Chronicle of January 6, 1933: Over one-third of the Jews in Russia have become officials.” (The Catholic Herald, October 21st and 28th and November 4, 1933; The Rulers of Russia, Denis Fehay, p. 31-32)
“The Communist soul is the soul of Judaism. Hence it follows that, just as in the Russian revolution the triumph of Communism was the triumph of Judaism, so also in the triumph of fascism will triumph Judaism.” (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Rabbi Harry Waton, p. 143-144).
“The sombre destiny of the Russian Empire was profoundly terrified souls and brought trouble into the world. The Bolshevik ideology by its nature and the will of its creatures, is in the first place international; so that it may have a chance to triumph, it is not enough to subjugate Russia, it must also disorganize and subjugate the rest of the world. For this end the Treasury of Russia, fallen into the hands of the Moscow tyrants, is placed at the service of an intense outside propaganda, and the funds are sent into all countries by clever propaganda agents; if three-quarters of the Bolshevik staff are Jews, its agents abroad with rare exceptions are all Jews…It appears, therefore, that Bolshevism is one of the most power and actual causes of the universal anti-Semite movement.” (Le Probläme Judic, (1921), Georges Batault).
“Almost all the Russian sects, as they existed in the time of the rule of the Tsars, and still exist in the midst of the Bolshevik world of orthodox materialism, show in their spiritual principles a predominantly religious-rationalist character. It is true that there are also a number of brotherhood of orgiastic, mystical tendencies; but in their rites, religious worship and articles of faith, a trained psychologist will also recognize, without difficulty, many of the roots and first stages of present day Bolshevism…If we pass in review all these Russian sects we can…establish a remarkable advance in the form in which they express the idea of communism, which is fundamental in them all, the Molokay and the Dukhobors and all the other rationalist sects confined themselves to proclaiming a community of earthly possessions (to these, we are told, Tostoi owed his system of social ethics); but among the Khlysty we see an advance; love, marriage and the family have ceased to be a private matter, and with them we find promiscuous sexual intercourse…
Finally, if we consider that we can hardly be in error in estimating the number of the members of these sects, before the Revolution, at about one-third of the total population of this enormous country, we are bound to admit that we are here confronted by a phenomenon of truly elemental power, which must be of the greatest significance, not only from the religious, but also from the socio-political point of view. For these rationalistic- chiliastic (millennium) notions of the Russian sects…soon forced their way into the higher strata of the Russian intelligentsia, and even into the world of ideas of the politicians…Linking up these half-mystical notions with the modern principles of Marxist materialism, for it was only by the amalgamation that the whole was prepared for the Bolshevik revolution.” (René Fulop-Miller, The Mind and Face of Bolshevism (1927)).
“Then Karolyi came and prepared the way for Bolshevism in the education of Hungary’s younger generation. The mass appointment of Jewish Masonic professors and teachers; the Bolshevik reform of school books; the destruction of the souls of the children; the degradation of parental authority; the systematic destruction of moral and patriotic principles; the revelation of sexual matters; all these were the work of Karolyi’s Government.” (An Outlaw’s Diary, Cecile de Tormay).
by Dr. William L. Pierce
Sometimes the most important things occur virtually unnoticed, while people’s attention is focused on things of no consequence. Last week, while everyone was glued to his television screen, oohing and ahing over Hurricane Floyd and watching the huge traffic jams of lemmings fleeing the southeastern coastal areas lest they be obliged to do a little wading, much more dangerous and sinister doings than wind, rain, and high tides were afoot, but hardly anyone noticed. The Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington was holding a public hearing and listening to suggestions from various pressure groups on ways to eliminate free speech on the Internet.
That’s not what they called it, of course; they said they were trying to devise ways of keeping „hate“ off the Internet. They want to protect children from being exposed to „hate,“ they say. They want to reduce the amount of violence in the country, they say; many people learn from the Internet to hate, and then having learned to hate, they run out and commit acts of violence. Keep „hate“ off the Internet, and then there will be less violence. That’s what they claim to believe.
Well, whether their theory about the Internet provoking people to violence is correct or not, it sounds as if the Senate Judiciary Committee really means well, doesn’t it? I mean, who could be against reducing the amount of „hate“ in America? That’s really a Mom and apple pie issue, isn’t it?
Of course, if you’re a skeptical sort of person, as I am, you might want to know exactly what this „hate“ consists of that the senators and the witnesses testifying for them are so eager to keep off the Internet. „Hate,“ it seems to me, could be a tricky thing to define. Would you call any expression of dislike or contempt „hate“? Maybe only a strong expression of dislike? How strong? Maybe whether an expression of dislike or contempt is „hate“ depends on who is making the expression and who is the target of the dislike. I mean, really, how do you decide what is „hate“ and what isn’t?
Well, listen, you will be pleased and relieved to learn that we don’t have to bother our little heads about that at all. We don’t have to decide what is „hate“ and what isn’t. We have some very public-spirited people who have volunteered to do that for us. Lucky us! These are the very same public-spirited people who persuaded the senators to hold the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in the first place and then appeared as witnesses before the committee. They are Howard
These public-spirited citizens are referred to uniformly by the controlled media as „civil rights experts“ or „human rights advocates.“ Isn’t that reassuring to know that these people who want to protect us from „hate“ on the Internet also are concerned about our civil rights?
Reading the testimony of these Jewish witnesses and the comments of the eager-to-please politicians on the committee is a surreal experience. Their language is Orwellian. Nothing really
means what it sounds like it means. Rabbi Abraham Cooper referred to the Internet as a „terrorism tutor“ and implied that a substantial part of the violence in American life is the consequence of permitting „hate“ on the Internet. The truth, of course, is that most of the violent criminals in America never have had their hands on a computer keyboard. There is no evidence that even one act of real terrorism in the United States had anything at all to do with the Internet.
If, in fact, terrorists learn their trade from the media or are provoked to commit violent acts by the media, I would suspect Hollywood long before I would suspect the Internet. But I guess that Rabbi Cooper and Mr. Berkowitz and Mr. Dees would want to change the subject in a hurry if you began talking to them about violence inspired by television or by Hollywood films, however. After all, it’s their tribe which is in control of the television and film business.
The witnesses at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing spoke of Internet sites where one can learn to make a bomb. Perhaps there are such sites, although I’ve never seen one. But I cannot think of a single terrorist bombing in the United States in which the bomber could have learned from the Internet how to build his bomb. Neither Timothy McVeigh nor the people accused of bombing the World Trade Center in New York were ever on the Internet, so far as I am aware. Certainly, no evidence was presented by the government at their trials to indicate they were.
Really, the whole notion that people commit violent crimes or terrorist acts as a consequence of „hate“ on the Internet is simply ridiculous. Do you know what these anti-hate crusaders presented as evidence of terrorism inspired or facilitated by the Internet? I’ll quote directly from the transcript of the hearing. The committee chairman, Utah’s Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, said that he was pleased to have as a witness the assistant U.S. attorney from Los Angeles, Michael Gennaco, who had gained „the first conviction against a hate-crime assailant for acts taken on the Internet.“ Assistant U.S. Attorney Gennaco then related his achievement to the committee:
„On the morning of March 5, 1998, 42 Latino faculty members turned on their computers at Cal State Los Angeles to read their e-mails. They read a mean-spirited derogatory statement against Latinos. Using the most demeaning racial slurs, the sender told the faculty members that he hated their race, that he wanted them to die, that the only reason the professors were hired was because of Affirmative Action, that their race was stupid, greedy, and ugly, and that the sender was going to personally come down and kill each of them.“
The student who sent this message to the Latino faculty members was tracked down, arrested, tried, and convicted. Of course, the name of the offending student wasn’t mentioned in the hearing – just for your information, his name is Kwon – and it also wasn’t mentioned in the hearing that Kwon is Chinese, because that inconvenient fact doesn’t fit the general theme the committee wanted to develop. Before we get into that theme, however, let us remember that what this Chinese student did – essentially sending a death threat by wire – certainly was nothing new, and it required no new laws for its prosecution.
The fact that this was the best example the committee could come up with of a genuine Internet- related „hate crime“ ought to tell us that this whole pretense of being concerned about the connection between „hate“ on the Internet and violence is phony. These Jewish „human rights
advocates“ like Berkowitz and Cooper understand that there simply are no convincing cases of violence or terrorism stemming from the Internet, so after giving us the pitiful example of Kwon and his derogatory e-mail to the Mexican faculty members – and giving it to us in such a way that many of us would assume that Kwon was a heterosexual White male, their stereotypical „hater“ – after this they try to bolster their case with all sorts of innuendo and misdirection.
For example, much was made in the hearing of the facts that Benjamin Smith, the University of Indiana student who shot a Korean and a Black this summer, belonged to the World Church of the Creator, and the World Church of the Creator has an Internet web site. The not so subtle implication was that if the World Church of the Creator had been kept off the Internet in some way, then the Black and the Korean shot by Benjamin Smith still would be alive. But that’s really a false implication. Benjamin Smith wasn’t incited by the Internet to shoot anyone. He knew personally the man who heads the World Church of the Creator; he was his close associate and helper. That man is an attorney; he has a law degree and wants to practice law in Illinois. And when that man was denied a law license by the Politically Correct Illinois bar committee because they didn’t like his religious beliefs, Smith went on a rampage. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the Internet had anything to do with it.
And there was a lot of other deliberate misdirection too by the politicians and the Jewish witnesses. The shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado were invoked by several witnesses. Rabbi Cooper claimed „In 1999 the Internet can serve as a terrorism tutor; it did for Eric Harris at Columbine.“ Rabbi Cooper seems to have forgotten that Eric Harris had a Jewish accomplice, Dylan Klebold.
The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Joseph Roy, who was also a witness, testified:
„In Littleton, Colorado, the two youths who opened fire on their classmates at Columbine High School may well have been inspired, in some part, by neo-Nazi propaganda they encountered on the Net. It seems clear that they found plans for building pipe bombs and other weapons there.“
Now, that is really deceptive, and I’m sure that Mr. Roy intended it to be. He knows that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were not „neo-Nazis“; he knows that one was a Jew and that both were anti-racist. He knows that Eric Harris had an Internet web site in which he said that he wanted to torture and kill White racists. If Harris and Klebold were inspired by anything they encountered on the Net, it certainly wasn’t „neo-Nazi propaganda“; on the contrary, the evidence suggests that they were inspired by the sort of multicultural „love“ and diversity-mongering with which the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith poison the Net. As to whether or not Harris and Klebold found plans on the Net for making pipe bombs, that’s really beside the point, since they did all of their killing and wounding with shotguns and pistols. They neither killed nor injured anyone with a pipe bomb.
So without the least bit of evidence that Politically Incorrect web sites on the Internet have any connection to terrorism, why did the Jews and the politicians bother to have this hearing? Why try to persuade anyone that the Internet is a „terrorism tutor“ when it plainly isn’t? What’s the point?
The point is that the Jews aren’t concerned about the Internet as a so-called „terrorism tutor“; that is just a smoke-screen. What they are concerned about is keeping inconvenient facts and ideas off the Internet. They don’t want to stop terrorism; they want to stop the spread of truth. Until the Internet came along the Jews had a virtual monopoly on the dissemination of ideas and information to the general public. If they wanted to persuade the public that in most interracial crime White males are the aggressors, there was no one to contradict them with the facts. They could report – over and over and over again, with non-stop coverage – any interracial crime in which Whites actually were the aggressors and ignore all Black-on-White crimes, which is essentially what they’re still doing – but with the Internet people like me are embarrassing them with the facts.
Five or six years ago they could talk about „Russian“ organized crime on television or in the New York Times, and there was no one to tell the public that it wasn’t „Russian“ organized crime at all: that it was 100 per cent Jewish organized crime. They could whine about how they were „persecuted“ by the Swiss and the Germans and the Swedes and the Poles and the Ukrainians and the Russians and the Lithuanians and the Latvians and everyone else during the Second World War, and how everyone owed them hundreds of billions of dollars in „reparations“ now, and there was no one to tell the world about the persecution of other peoples and nations by the Jews. There was no one to point out to the world that for every dollar taken from the Jews during the war, the Jews stole 100 dollars from those countries which fell victim to their communist racket. They could moan to the world about how the cold and cruel Gentiles just stood by and let six million Jews be led into the gas chambers, and so now the very least the world could do for the Jews was to give them a free ride. Anyone who questioned their story was immediately shrieked down as a „Holocaust denier,“ and the questioner had no way of presenting the historical facts to the public. People like me could print a few pamphlets and distribute them on street corners, but for all practical purposes we had no effective way of exposing the lies of the Jews.
The Jews liked it that way. They liked having a monopoly on the dissemination of ideas and information to the public. The Internet robs them of that monopoly, and they don’t like that a bit. They don’t like having me and others exposing their lies and telling the public things they prefer to keep quiet.
Of course, even with the Internet available to us, we can’t challenge the hold the Jews have on America’s political system – at least, not yet. The great mass of the voters, the couch potatoes, the ball game fans, don’t use the Internet and never will – except perhaps to access porno sites and check their horoscopes. But the perceptive and intelligent minority of White men and women capable of independent thought now have a new information medium, a new medium for the exchange of ideas, and the Jews aren’t able to control it. That’s what they don’t like. That’s what they’re afraid of, certainly not terrorism.
They’re afraid of the fact that as the sickness of American society becomes more and more evident to the perceptive few, that as the craziness and destructiveness going on in Washington and Hollywood take a greater and greater toll, more and more of the people who really count, the intelligent and productive White men and women in the universities and in the professions and in industry who somehow keep this civilization staggering along under its growing burden – these people are looking for answers, and Rabbi Cooper and his fellow tribesmen are afraid they may
find the answers. They are desperately afraid of that. And that’s why they told the politicians to hold the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week. They are desperate to control the Internet the same way they control television and the New York Times; they are desperate to censor the Internet, to choke off the free flow of information. But of course, they won’t tell us that. What they tell us is that they want to protect us from violence and terrorism caused by „hate“ on the Internet.
So what do you think? Are the American people too smart to fall for that sort of deception? Are we so fond of our freedom that we won’t give it up just because the Jews have cleverly labeled it as „hate“? Can we relax because Senator Hatch and the other senators on the committee all swore to uphold and defend the Constitution and therefore won’t let these Jews get away with their scheme?
Listen, you know as well as I do that Senator Hatch and every other politician in the Congress would fall all over themselves to abolish the whole Bill of Rights in order to please Rabbi Cooper and Mr. Berkowitz and the rest – if they thought the American people would let them get away with it. They know that the couch potatoes won’t object, but they’re still concerned about that minority of perceptive and responsible White Americans who aren’t quite ready yet to give up their freedom without a fight.
So the hearing last week was well larded with assurances that new laws can be devised to keep „hate“ off the Internet without infringing on anyone’s freedom of speech. If that leaves you a little uncertain as to exactly what these Jews have in mind, let me tell you about something which happened this month in the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, suburb of Oakland Park. Lloyd Shank is a 73-year-old retired carpenter who lives in Oakland Park, which is in Broward County. Mr. Shank doesn’t much like the Clinton government, and he also doesn’t like Jews. On August 23 he hand-delivered copies of a one-page letter he had written to members of the Broward County Commission. All but one of the members of the county commission are Jews, and the one who is not is a woman married to a Jew. After the Second World War New York Jews migrated in large numbers to Florida and virtually took over the southeastern part of the state.
In his letter Mr. Shank said some unkind things about the Clinton government, including the charge that the government is responsible for the deaths of more than 80 members of a church in Waco, Texas, that the FBI and other secret police agencies laid siege to and then burned to the ground on April 19, 1993, with most of the church members, including women and children, inside. Mr. Shank also said some unkind things about Jews in his letter, calling them „perverts“ and accusing them of liking to be hated. He wound up his letter with the statement:
„When your holocaust reprisals come, hide in the New York subways for security from nuclear bombs. Don’t forget your money.“
No threats, just an expression of dislike.
Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t see the point in sending letters to Jews telling them that they’re bad people and that you don’t like them. To me that seems like foolishness and a waste of time. But we have a right to be foolish and waste our time if we want to. We have a right to send
letters to people and call them perverts and tell them that we don’t like them, whether they are Jews or not. The Jews should not be exempted from criticism, and no one should be punished for criticizing them. We do still have a Constitution and freedom of speech – except in Broward County, Florida, apparently.
The Jews ran immediately to the police with Shank’s letter and demanded that he be arrested. Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne jumped to obey. With an eagerness to please that put Senator Orrin Hatch in the shade, Jenne arrested Shank and began making statements to the press: „We will not allow extremists to terrorize any member of our community.“ That sounds suspiciously like the sheriff of Broward County and his Jewish constituents believe that extremists – which is to say, people who criticize Jews – should have fewer rights than the rest of the citizenry.
A news story in the September 10 issue of the Miami Herald about Mr. Shank’s arrest stated:
„In the wake of a shooting spree at a Jewish community center in Los Angeles last month, authorities are taking anti-Semitic rhetoric like Shank’s seriously.“
Yes, but apparently they no longer take the Constitution of the United States seriously in Broward County. And believe me, that’s exactly what Rabbi Abraham Cooper and Mr. Howard Berkowitz and Mr. Morris Dees and their pals have in mind for the rest of the country, despite all of their deceptive claims that they’re not out to abolish the First Amendment.