(Left: Did Hitler control Hjalmar Schacht or was it the other way around?)
The article on Hitler’s finances and the myth of Nazi anti-usury activism generated a major response. While rehashing the classic revisionist case for Hitler, none has disproven, or even mentioned, the basic case of the article: that the banks financed most of the Nazi economy and that the Reichsmark, like all other currencies, was created through fractional reserve banking, as an interest-bearing debt to these banks.
And many comments point to a wider malaise: deifying the disastrous Adolf Hitler.
I’m now responding to an article written by Justice4Germans and an interview that Deanna Spingola did with Rodney Martin. I’ll also address a number of issues brought forward by feedbackers here and on other sites. Please let me know if there are other serious rebuttals to the article, I’ll have a look at them too, if needs be.
Some fun was made about my sources, most notably the Virtual Jewish library. This was duly anticipated. Few people realize that the best way to find out about somebody is to listen to his enemies. I make a point of looking at all sides of the story and sources should be be judged on the merit of their message first and foremost, while not forgetting who they are or represent. I have no illusions about Ziopedia or the Virtual Jewish Library, but the onus is on the critics to dispel their message and, as we shall see, they did nothing to do that.
Much of what was brought against the article seemed to suggest that these three people had the impression I am not aware of revisionist history, but this is wrong: I’m very well aware of revisionism and go along with a great deal of it. I don’t believe in gas chambers. Stalin wanted to invade Europe and had assembled a major striking force ready to take the whole lot after Hitler and the Western Powers had destroyed each other. Hitler was far from solely to blame for the war. In fact: the Money Power’s people in the British cabinet made sure there would be a war by guaranteeing Poland. Stalin wanted war. Roosevelt did everything in his power to get his, unwilling, people to join the mayhem.
However, Hitler wanted war too, and his apologists simply do not want to see this. Hitler wanted peace with the West, Britain in particular, and his many peace overtures to the West, both before and after September 1st 1939 are what they use to ‘prove’ Hitler’s desire for peace. But he saw war with Russia as his destiny. We can see that both from Mein Kampf and his actions in the late thirties and most certainly after he started Operation Barbarossa. It is most assuredly true that he found a worthy opponent in Stalin, who had his own designs on Europe, quite similar in their utter depravity to what Hitler was planning for Russia.
And what did Hitler intend to do with Russia? To exterminate her and take her land. And to sell it as this wonderful crusade against the bad Jews and their Marxist front. Nothing more and nothing less.
How do we know this?
Reading Mein Kampf is a good start. It’s all about the bad Bolshevists and how German colonization of the East will solve that.
Another very solid indicator is the despicable fate that the millions of Russian POW’s awaited in the German veritable death camps, where they were worked and starved to death by the millions. It seems about 3,5 of the 5,5 million POW’s died in German captivity. The Germans, cowardly, only started to treat them better once they realized they were going to lose.
Yet another brutal example is what happened in the Ukraine. In Barbarossa’s early days, the German invaders were welcomed by the Ukrainians, who had been starved in the greatest genocide of the 20th century, the Holodomor, by Stalin’s mostly Jewish NKVD. But Hitler unleashed such a reign of terror against them, that within months they started their partisan activities and looked at Stalin for answers. As honest commentators know, had Hitler been a reasonable man, really hoping to fight off an evil Bolshevist invasion, he’d have had the Waffen SS recruit a couple of million of Ukrainians, who would have gladly marched on Stalin’s Moscow for him.
But the most damning piece of evidence for the clear and present fact that Hitler was a genocidal maniac in the same league as his ‘great’ antagonists is the Hunger Plan. The well established policy of the Wehrmacht High Command to have the Wehrmacht live off the Russian lands by the third year of the war while calculating this would starve 30 million Russians. That should have left plenty of room for the German Folk! We can already imagine how Nazi propaganda would have been talking about ‘a land without people for a people without land’.
Hitler never had the chance to fully implement the Hunger Plan, but millions of Russians starved because the Germans took their supplies anyway.
What Hitler did to Russia is despicable and Revisionism, notwithstanding its many achievements, becomes a part of the problem when they aim to replace Allied and Russian war propaganda with Nazi agitprop.
The Jewish Question
And that’s another key point: Hitler’s defenders way overrate the Jewish Question. The Jewish Question is real and Jewish supremacy is incredibly annoying, there is no doubt about that. But is it really true that ‘Jews run the World’? I don’t think so: Trillionaires rule the world. Through their control of money, the Banks and through the Banks the Transnationals too. We are ruled by Capital: a small group of families. And they use Jewish Supremacism. They consider ordinary Jews their ‘lesser brethren’ at best, but more likely like total vermin like the rest of us.
How do we know this? Consider this:
1) It were the Jewish Councils that organized the transports to the camps during the war. These Jewish Councils were dominated by Zionists. They had no interest in ‘saving the Jews’. They had an interest in getting those willing to Palestine and they couldn’t care less about the rest. The Zionists, in turn, are owned by the ultra rich, as can be seen from the Balfour declaration, that was directed at Lord Rothschild. We also know that the Zionists did everything in their power to make the Jews’ plight as bad as possible, to uproot them completely, in order to get them to move to Palestine.
2) Jews are interest-slaves too: wealth distribution in the Zionist Entity in Palestine is among the worst in the world.
3) Anti-semitism is used to control the Jewish masses, who are perpetually kept in fear of the stupid Gentiles, who are supposedly always trying to murder them. Holocaustianity is a key part of this agenda. I believe everybody should see the ‘Defamation’ film to understand how the Jews are being manipulated in this way. Combined with this anti-semitism scare is this nasty ultra nationalism that Jews are programmed with and the strong cultural stigma against intermarriage with non-Jews. All this creates a decidedly narcissistic culture, which is very damaging to both the Jews themselves and the poor Gentiles having to live with them.
But the question now is: does that make the Jew our enemy? Or is it those that are programming the Jews? Those to whom the Jews pay their usurious tribute to? Those that made sure they were ethnically cleansed from Europe?
The simple fact of the matter is: Hitler did uproot the Jews and murdered probably about a million of them in the process. But he did nothing to really threaten the ultra rich. He didn’t end banking. The war he wanted was the war they wanted. They made a bundle from their arms manufacturers and their banks too.
It is not the Jewish commoner that is our enemy, however annoying Jewish tribalism may be and however despicable their whitewashing of their elite’s crimes.
Jesus and Paul were closer to the truth. Jesus when he said: “I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.”
And Paul with his famous, brilliant and very telling: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
The Jews are the most manipulated people of them all and if the Money Power has its way some more will be sacrificed in the Greatest War that they have planned in the Middle East.
More on Schacht and Hitler’s Finances
It is unfortunate that there is so little financial literacy. This never ceases to amaze me: we all know that the bankers are behind all wars, owning both sides of the conflict. So why in the world are we not all studying economics and finance??
It tells in many of the comments too. For instance: in my article I noticed that Schacht oversaw the merger of several companies into I.G. Farben. This is then attacked by Martin as in some way ‘defaming’ Schacht. He says I only mention this because I.G. Farben has a bad reputation for Zyklon B and that it was just some sort of benign industrial giant.
Well I didn’t, because Zyklon B was used to delouse the camp inmates. I don’t see a problem with that. I do, however, see a major problem with massively consolidated industry in the hands of very few people, people who then continue to make an incredible amount of money with war profiteering. I.G. Farben was broken up after the war in its original parts. Agfa, BASF, Hoechst and Bayer. Today these are key components of the Big Pharma Cartel, which is behind chemotherapy, vaccinations and the depopulation agenda. I.G. Farben was closely associated with the Standard Oil Cartel, another issue people like to downplay. It is this close association that actually IS Big Pharma today.
Pharmacy and the eugenics link are also tightly connected, another little something I’m not eager to ignore.
Even worse is that Martin says ‘Schacht only provided a loan for the merger’. And this is why I suggest this financial illiteracy is really killing us. Because what is it that bankers do other than lending? It is by their financing that they control the economy! No financing, no deal. It is this prerogative by which they direct all the economies in the world. It is by the usury on the loan that they get their part of the action.
This blindness to banking, how it works and how bankers influence everything is also telling in the way Justice4Germans describes Schacht: “He spoke perfect English, had spent a lot time in America, had connections, was very egotistical and enjoyed having power and prestige, and to be in the limelight. Thus, Hitler was able to use and manipulate him to make him useful and to act as a kind of firewall against the international bankers while Germany was being reorganized under the NSDAP.”
Well, I’ll venture to suggest it was the other way around: Hitler was rather ambitious and through Schacht the Money Power controlled Hitler. The Money Power wanted Hitler to go to war and they made sure, through Schacht, that he could. They did not want him to nationalize the banks or end usury.
Why was Feder and the Nazi left sidelined after the night of the long knives? The fact is: this already happened in 1931, when Hitler’s financial and industrial backers threatened to cut him loose if he didn’t reign in Feder.
Schacht’s position as Reichsbank President was MUCH more important than Feder’s ministerial position, this is another issue the critics overlook. This position was second only to the Fuehrer himself, in terms of real power.
What was that old (probably debunked) quote about ‘give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws’? It seems that this all important lesson continues to elude many.
I repeat the simple fact that Schacht’s is an absolutely exemplary high level Money Power agent bio. Why try to make this go away? To say that Hitler was forced to appoint him to appease his backers (as both Martin and Justice4Germans suggest) basically admits that the power behind the throne was given what they demanded: control of the economy.
Then about Schacht’s policies, allowing the resurrection of the German economy.
As we know the Money Power rules through control of the money supplies of the nations and exploits this control through usury, the manipulation of the volume of money and to direct the economy by financing those it owns (or wants to own) while starving the rest of credit.
What Schacht did, and this is my basic message in the original article, is solve the volume of money. People are highly impressed by the quick solution of German unemployment. I’m not. People like Major Douglas, but also Keynes, would also not have been surprised. The simple fact is that depressions are caused by deflation, a contraction of the money supply. Provide the economy with sufficient liquidity and it will quickly return to full activity.
Schacht provided this much needed liquidity through his MEFO bills. I did not say, as Martin and Justice4Germans seem to believe, that it was rearmament that solved the depression in Germany. I did say that rearmament was where all the (extra) money went. They tried to downplay this, with some justification, by pointing at the public works program (Tempelhof Airport, Bremer Haven, Autobahns) that Hitler initiated, but here too they succumb to whitewashing instead of objectivity, claiming rearmament began only ‘in earnest’ in 1936. However, the mentioned public works clearly greatly enhanced both German productivity and capacity for war and this should not be overlooked. Moreover, Hitler immediately started reinforcing the Wehrmacht, there can be little doubt about that. It was his growing confidence because of the rebuilding Wehrmacht that gave him the nerve to remilitarize the Rhineland in 1935, not because Autobahns provided his troops with an escape route should the French have called his bluff.
German public debt stood at 18 billion in 1939 and total outstanding MEFO bills were at 12 billion Reichsmark. The German money supply must have been even substantially bigger than the public debt. Meaning there were many more Reichsmark than MEFO bills in circulation.
And this is why it is so important to understand that the Reichsmark was created by the banks through fractional reserve banking, as an interest-bearing debt to them.
Martin says I destroyed my own case when I ‘admitted’ I have no hard data on real interest rates in the Nazi era. Nonsense: I was simply pointing at missing statistics that would further elucidate the situation. Let Martin show these statistics with 0% and I’ll be the first to recant. I provided plenty of evidence of Usury in the economy, including Nathan’s very informative essay (which all ignored), the legal Weimar interest rate of 4,5% that Hitler never changed and the fact that rising interest rates were used to cool the overheating German economy in the late thirties.
Justice4Germans, in his completely bogus ‘bottom line facts’ in his rebuttal to my article (claiming Germany had no debt, while it stood at 18 billion before the war broke out) makes the point that “Under the National Socialists, Germany’s money wasn’t backed by gold (which was owned by the international bankers). It was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the government.”
Completely ignoring that Germany left the Gold Standard in 1931, in the final years of the Weimar republic. In fact: most nations would leave the Gold Standard during the thirties. It’s completely irrelevant, whether money is backed by Gold or not, I’ve done more than my fair share in exposing this crucial fact here at Real Currencies over the last few years. What matters is, is the money circulated as an interest-bearing debt or not? Money today is not backed by Gold, that is the whole point: the German monetary system, the Reichsmark, was exactly the same as most nations have today and at the time. That is where the claim of ‘the myth of Nazi anti-Usury activism’ comes from!
The real question is: who owned the banks that lent the Reichsmark into existence during the Nazi era? Only the much maligned (by Hitler apologists) Henry Makow asked this question and my answer can be found under the article on his site. ‘Could it have been the Jews’, Makow wondered? And I’m willing to bet a fiver it were indeed the Jews. I have seen no data whatsoever that the owners of the banks were disowned and it’s a sure bet the Jews owned the banks during the inter bellum.
So Schacht solved the problem of deflation and money scarcity, but he did nothing to address usury. And Hitler didn’t either. Nor did Walter Funk, who succeeded Schacht in 1939.
Martin also makes a very favorable description of the European Economic Zone that the Nazi’s had in mind. Martin explains there were real elections in the occupied Western territories (Holland, Belgium, France). He also mentions the Japanese Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, calling it ‘similar’. Well, this is just a typical example of an all too credulous take on Nazi and Japanese benevolence. Both Empires aimed at a sphere of influence that would put their own countries at the center and the others as suppliers of raw materials and markets for the products of German and Japanese industry. Europe was to become a German dependency. To believe that the occupied territories would have been anything else but vassal states is really a very typical example of taking this Hitler worship way too far.
National Socialism, the Protocols and the Public vs. Private dialectic
Hitler brought the entire economy, including finance, under State supervision. As I described extensively, domestic capital markets were tightly controlled by the State and only the State had real access to them. All available financial means were gobbled up by the rearmament effort, especially after 1935.
And this is something very important, because there is this tendency to think that the problem is that banking, and especially central banking, is private, and that all will be solved if the State takes over. The fundamental mistake underlying this notion is the idea that the State is the Commonwealth or at least represents the public.
Personally, I’m completely cured of that idea. The problem of money and tyranny is NOT going to be solved by having the State take control. Most certainly not if the State does not provide interest-free credit, not just for itself, but also for the commoner, because the key problem is centralization of power and Usury is the ultimate centralizer of power. Capitalism is the concentration of power in private hands, the Plutocracy. But the Plutocracy itself intends to consolidate this power in State hands: they want World Government and the Protocols explain this all too well. Marxism is their tool in the Public vs. Private dialectic, showing they have absolutely no problems consolidating power in State hands. The question is always the same; ‘who owns the State’? And the answer is always the same too: the Plutocracy.
Where the Protocols are famous for their explanation of the conspiracy that is undermining the Gentile peoples and States, their emphasis in the final chapters, say Protocol 18 and beyond, are more focused on how they will manage their Kingdom, once the conspiracy to take over the world has come to fruition.
And this is where it gets really interesting. Because a closer look shows that there is no mode of Government closer to the Protocol’s ideals than………..National Socialism. I know full well that this will sound insane, or even worse, irrelevant, but I strongly suggest reading the latter part of the Protocols again with this idea in mind. I’d be most interested in anybody dispelling this notion.
Here are a few examples:
The Protocols claim that the King who needs a body guard is weak. People will think he has enemies to fear. The Protocols say that their King will walk in public without guards, but encircled by hundreds of people ‘who just happen to be there’, but in fact serve as a shield. This is exactly how the Fuehrer moved in public before the war.
The Protocols also have a strong focus on race although they make it clear that in the end everything will be decided by numbers. Again: this is exactly the same in Nazi Germany, where the German people were more or less God in name, but behind the scenes it were the wealthy that ruled, just as everywhere else.
Another example is the focus on the King as embodiment of the popular will. It’s hard not to think of the Fuehrer here. They also succinctly describe how unemployment is the greatest threat to government and that public works will be used to prevent unemployment and unite the interests of the King (who decides what will be built) and the workers, who will have a job and associated sustenance.
But the most important thing is the way the Protocols describe the State as the center and source of public life. The complete subservience of the individual to the State as the embodiment of the greater whole, being the Nation.
All these crucial issues are clearly at the core of National Socialism. For instance: point 25 of the NSDAP 25 point program says: “For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation.”
What was it with Hitler and Britain?
Just think about it: Anglo-German economic rivalry was the one of the key drivers behind European politics after 1900 and a fundamental reason for the Great War. Germany was industrializing and historians nowadays agree that it would have dominated the European mainland within years, were it not for the war. It is this rivalry that was to drive British business interests in the Greater war too.
And yet Hitler had this incredibly naive notion about the British as Aryan brothers in Mein Kampf.
How is it possible that he would not have known that Jewish Money and the British Aristocracy had merged throughout the 19th century and that the Money Power’s capital was London? Why did he ignore the lethal struggle between German and British economic interests? Why did he make this ridiculous speech about the ‘need’ for the British Empire and its ‘civilizing force’ after insanely letting the British Expeditionary Forces (BEF) escape the continent at Dunkirk? Why did Nazi propaganda only in the late thirties begin in earnest to expose Western Capitalism in the same vein as they had been attacking Marxism, as the Jewish Money Power fronts that they both are? Why did Hitler arrogantly, stupidly and suicidally attack Poland, knowing this would mean war with the Brits?
Was he fooled to believe there would be an Anglo-German entente, allowing him the continent and Russia?
If so, how did this happen? It must have been going on since the early days, because it was already prevalent in Mein Kampf. It would explain a great deal, including his many hopeless peace proposals with the West and Hess’ inexplicable flight to Britain. Just last week it was reported he brought with him a detailed peace treaty, offering to leave Western Europe in exchange for a free hand in Russia.
The idea of Hitler falling in a British/Money Power trap like this is speculation, but it most certainly would be very typical of perfidious Albion.
Conclusion
The Money Power has always pitted nation against nation. The British against the Germans, the French and the Russians. The Dutch against the French and the British, The Americans against most others and the Jews against all.
They get away with this, because people over identify with their nation. It aggrandizes their brittle ego. They are easily fooled with silly propaganda about the bad other. Then they gleefully join in the rape, the plunder and the genocide. Not unlike the Talmudists, they believe they can take the other’s stuff and even lives, if they’re not part of the same race or nationality. Or because we believe they are hopeless and bad.
We are all in this together and this is what we must come to terms with.
The Revisionists don’t understand money and don’t understand how Germany’s monetary system operated in the thirties. What is worse, instead of seeking truth, they are seeking to whitewash National Socialism and Hitler.
It is understandable, considering the insane lies that have been spread about both. Germany must be rehabilitated. Not as a poor victim of the mean Jews, who attacked from all sides, but as no greater part of the problem than we all are.
We are not going to solve the Jewish Question, let alone the real issue, Plutocratic High Priests of the Synagogue of Satan, by becoming them. By taking over the world from them with their own means.
We all suffer from Usury and degeneration brought upon us by the Money Power’s henchmen, among them Organized Jewry. Throughout the war, all the nations suffered immensely, including the Jews. The sole victors were the Plutocrats.
In all this, Hitler was part of the problem and not the solution.
Related:
Hitler’s Finances and the Myth of Nazi Anti-Usury Activism
The Public vs. Private Dialectic, or: Money as part of the Commons
Last Saturday Jason Erb interviewed me. We discussed the basic issues and the last half hour we talked a little about the article and its backlash.
