The Protocols of Satan, Part 39: Who is your god?

The Protocols of Satan, Part 39: Who is your god?

Before I began last week’s program, I meant to apologize for an error I made in an off-the-cuff remark in part 37 of this series, so I will do that now. As I was presenting my prepared notes, and while searching my mind for the first notable apologist for the capitalist system, the only name I could come up with was Montesquieu, for some reason, and admitted that I may have been incorrect. But that was an error. The name I was looking for was Frédéric Bastiat, the French economist, politician and Freemason whom we had discussed at length in Part 14 of this series on the Protocols. So I apologize for that, and of course I never claimed to be perfect…

For the past several presentations of this series on the Protocols, since Part 35, Inciting Class Warfare, we have been discussing various aspects of a few paragraphs of Protocol No. 3, where the authors had boasted of their intent to incite strife and divisions between the classes, to create a large-scale economic crisis resulting in vast unemployment in Europe which would turn the lower classes to violence against the upper, all as a means of convincing the Goyim to capitulate to their planned Jewish domination of society. This is exactly what happened, and we will culminate that discussion here. Once again, we shall read these paragraphs which we have been discussing from Protocol No. 3, from the text of Boris Brasol’s publication of The Protocols and World Revolution:

Whereas, under the present state of science, and due to the direction of our guidance therein, the people, in their ignorance, blindly believing the printed word, and owing to the misconceptions which have been fostered by us, feel a hatred towards all classes whom they consider superior to themselves, since they do not understand the importance of each caste.

This hatred will be still more accentuated by the economic crisis, which will stop financial transactions and all industrial life. Having organized a general economic crisis by all possible underhand means, and with the help of gold which is all in our hands, we will throw great crowds of workmen into the street, simultaneously, in all countries of Europe. These crowds will gladly shed the blood of those of whom they, in the simplicity of their ignorance, have been jealous since childhood and whose property they will then be able to loot.

They will not harm our people because we will know of the time of the attack and we will take measures to protect them. We have persuaded others that progress will lead the GOYS into a realm of reason. Our despotism will be of such a nature that it will be in a position to pacify all revolts by wise restrictions and to eliminate liberalism from all institutions.

We discussed the first of these three paragraphs at length in this series in Part 35: Inciting Class Warfare and Part 36: Judaism and Bolshevism. There we presented portions of The Communist Manifesto, which was written by Jews for a significantly Jewish Communist League, and which also reflects the Jewish intentions to instigate class divisions among the Goyim which is outlined here in the Protocols.

Now we shall begin to focus on the second and third paragraphs here, which express a Jewish plan to create a large-scale economic crisis, and by the resulting poverty and hunger, to “throw great crowds of workmen into the street… in all countries of Europe” who would then be expected to “gladly shed the blood” of the wealthier classes of the people. Then the Jews would offer themselves to “lead the GOYS into a realm of reason.” In other words, once the Jews got control of the world’s economies, they would use an economic disaster to create a desolation out of Western Civilization, and then offer themselves as a collective Messiah, so that Christendom would submit to the antiChrist. That was their plan, and as we shall see, that is exactly what happened. It just didn’t happen the way it was initially planned, as the Great Depression did not cause Germany and the other nations of Europe to sink into violent chaos. So they ultimately had to resort to another war in order to effect their plans.

So over the last two presentations of this series, Part 37: The Menace of the Money Power and Part 38: William Jennings Bryan, the Last Viable Political Opposition, we discussed how the Gold Standard would put control of the money supply into the hands of the bankers, and then the passing of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 gave those same bankers absolute control over how much money was in circulation in America. They already had that power in much of Europe, and especially in Britain in the Rothschilds and other Jewish banking families of The City of London.

About 18 months ago, in Part 18 of this series, titled Protocol No. 2 and the Economic Plans of the Jew, first we discussed a lengthy Dearborn Independent article from which we borrowed our title, and which was published long before the Great Depression, in 1921. Then we showed, with the help of chapter 16 of a book titled The Unseen Hand, by A. Ralph Epperson, how the banks had purposely caused the Great Depression by expanding credit and the amount of money in circulation for 8 consecutive years, and then suddenly and for no apparent reason they contracted credit, calling in loans, so that in the 9th year, which was 1929, the peak was reached, and by the 13th year, 1933, there was less money in the economy than there had been in 1921. From 1921 to 1929, the amount of money in the economy, during the so-called “Roaring Twenties”, increased by 50%, and then within four years the entire increase, and then some, had disappeared. That same pattern which we can follow in America also happened in Europe, and indeed, millions of workmen were thrown out into the streets in a very short time.

We are not going to dwell on all of the details of how the contraction of the money supply would cause the unemployment of millions of people, as the truth of the general assertion should be perfectly obvious. If a third of the money in any economy vanishes, employers will not be able to obtain the funds which they need to acquire capital, such as machinery, or to purchase raw materials and put men to work turning those materials into finished goods. This is especially true when the stock market crashed as a result of the same economic contraction, and the Dow-Jones industrial index was $66.95 in August of 1921, reached a high of $362.35 in September of 1929, and then sunk to as low as $46.85 in June of 1932, less than thirteen percent of its value at the market’s peak – according to data presented on the Internet by the Federal Reserve itself. Other figures, including those used by Epperson, show a somewhat higher peak and a more drastic swing. But even if these numbers are more conservative, they are still bad enough. This would make it practically impossible for companies to raise money through the only viable alternative method to borrowing, which is the issuing of shares of new stock.

Now we shall present a short article, not for the purposes of offering a better understanding of the causes of the Great Depression, but so that we may see how mainstream society now views that event. The reasons for which we do this shall become manifest later, and we shall offer our own comments as we proceed:

The Great Depression in Global Perspective, an unattributed essay from the Digital History Library of the University of Houston:

The Great Depression was a global phenomenon, unlike previous economic downturns which generally were confined to a handful of nations or specific regions. Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and North and South America all suffered from the economic collapse. International trade fell 30 percent as nations tried to protect their industries by raising tariffs on imported goods. "Beggar-thy-neighbor" trade policies were a major reason why the Depression persisted as long as it did. By 1932, an estimated 30 million people were unemployed around the world.

Of course, this is propaganda, and a view from within-the-box. Under the central banking system, the creation of money occurs when a borrower agrees to be indebted and a bank agrees to the risk. So money only comes into existence upon a promise of repayment at usury. The bank then counts the loan as an asset. Governments participate in this system by issuing bonds, which represent debt owed to the purchasers of the bonds. Corporations can also issue bonds, but only if licensed investment banks are willing to underwrite and broker them. Without the understanding that the Depression was engineered by the central bankers, who had the power to ease credit and release capital into the markets at will, one can only grope around in the darkness assessing what are doomed from the beginning to be unworkable solutions. Most Western governments, beholden to the bankers, could not have possibly formulated a solution to the Depression, since the only viable solution was to take the economy back from the bankers. Continuing with the article:

Also, in contrast to the relatively brief economic "panics" of the past, the Great Depression dragged on with no end in sight. As the depression deepened, it had far-reaching political consequences. One response to the depression was military dictatorship – a response that could be found in Argentina and in many countries in Central America. Western industrialized countries cut back sharply on the purchase of raw materials and other commodities. The price of coffee, cotton, rubber, tin, and other commodities dropped 40 percent. The collapse in raw material and agricultural commodity prices led to social unrest, resulting in the rise of military dictatorships that promised to maintain order.

A second response to the Depression was fascism and militarism – a response found in Germany, Italy, and Japan. In Germany, Adolph Hitler and his Nazi Party promised to restore the country's economy and to rebuild its military. After becoming chancellor in 1932, Hitler outlawed labor unions, restructured German industry into a series of cartels, and after 1935, instituted a massive program of military rearmament that ended high unemployment. In Italy, fascism arose even before the Depression's onset under the leadership of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. In Japan, militarists seized control of the government during the 1930s. In an effort to relieve the Depression, Japanese military officers conquered Manchuria, a region rich in raw materials, and coastal China in 1937.

While I see no need to elaborate on anything concerning non-White nations, all I will say here is that, in my opinion, the military dictatorships in Latin America arose only to protect the interests of the plutocratic investors, and not for the sake of the people of those nations.

In several aspects, this is also propaganda. Fascism in Italy, and National Socialism in Germany, were reactions to the economic slavery which had already been imposed on all nations of the West by usury-based capitalism. What Mussolini and Hitler really did was to take the economies of their respective nations back from the bankers. That was their real sin, and that is why they are demonized by the parties in power to this very day. The writers of this article and most others on the topic simply cannot see that, because they too are products of the paradigm maintained by the parties in power. Continuing with the article:

A third response to the Depression was totalitarian communism. In the Soviet Union, the Great Depression helped solidify Joseph Stalin's grip on power. In 1928, Stalin instituted a planned economy. His First Five Year Plan called for rapid industrialization and "collectivization" of small peasant farms under government control. To crush opposition to his program, which required peasant farmers to give their products to the government at low prices, Stalin exiled millions of peasants to labor camps in Siberia and instituted a program of terror called the Great Purge. Historians estimate that as many as 20 million Soviets died during the 1930s as a result of famine and deliberate killings.

This is a complete lie, not where it speaks of the killings, but where it claims that the oppression under the Soviets was a response to the Depression. Communism as a system was described by Marx and Engels by 1848, and the Bolsheviks were implementing it in Russia 12 years before the Great Depression began. Stalin may have had to cope with the effects of the Depression on Russia, but the Communists were using starvation as a weapon since 1917, and collectivization under communism was inevitable under any circumstances, as the Communist Manifesto denies all rights to the ownership of private property. Communism was really just an alternate and more violent method of executing the plans outlined in the Protocols than the method which was being employed in the West. Again continuing with the article:

A final response to the Depression was welfare capitalism, which could be found in countries including Canada, Great Britain, and France. Under welfare capitalism, government assumed ultimate responsibility for promoting a reasonably fair distribution of wealth and power and for providing security against the risks of bankruptcy, unemployment, and destitution.

This, we have seen, was mentioned as an objective of the economic crisis spelled out in the Protocols. The blind historian may see it as an effect, or as a consequence, but in reality it was the very purpose of the crisis in the first place. Local church or community-based social welfare programs, which prevailed throughout history, were replaced by Government-run social programs. While local churches do what they can with the resources which their respective communities can give them, governments simply borrow money from the bankers. Local churches care for those of the poor who show themselves worthy. Governments provide from borrowed money with taxation as collateral, and give equally to all citizens regardless of conformance to religious principles. The institution of government-operated social services also serve to eradicate the principle of local control and self-government. The article continues:

Compared to other industrialized countries, the economic decline brought on by the Depression was steeper and more protracted in the United States. The unemployment rate rose higher and remained higher longer than in any other western society. European countries significantly reduced unemployment by 1936. However, the American jobless rate still exceeded 17 percent as late as 1939, when World War II began in Europe. It did not drop below 14 percent until 1941.

The article does not differentiate as to how European countries reduced unemployment. Ostensibly, governments in Germany and Italy reduced it by taking the issue of their currency and the control of international trade out of the hands of the Jewish bankers. Then the other countries of Europe reduced unemployment by preparing for war against Germany and Italy, because they were subservient to the interests of those same bankers.

And of course, this statement also does not account for the fact that from the start of the war, which the United States entered into in 1941, over 16 million Americans served in the United States Armed Forces. At the time, the population was approximately 133 million. So it is evident that only the entry into the war brought the unemployment rate down at all, in 1941. In this regard, the United States really entered the war in March of 1941, when the Lend-Lease Act was passed by Congress. This also serves as a proof of the real cause of the Depression. Until Lend-Lease was passed, the economy was stagnant. Then as soon as Lend-Lease was passed, there appeared plenty of money for companies to purchase raw materials, hire employees, and start building bombs, tanks, planes, ships and guns to ship to Europe.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, in their article on Lend-lease: “This legislation gave the president the authority to aid any nation whose defense he believed vital to the United States and to accept repayment “in kind or property, or any other direct or indirect benefit which the President deems satisfactory.” Though lend-lease had been authorized primarily in an effort to aid Great Britain, it was extended to China in April and to the Soviet Union in September. The principal recipients of aid were the British Commonwealth countries (about 63 percent) and the Soviet Union (about 22 percent), though by the end of the war more than 40 nations had received lend-lease help. Much of the aid, valued at $49,100,000,000, amounted to outright gifts. Some of the cost of the lend-lease program was offset by so-called reverse lend-lease, under which Allied nations gave U.S. troops stationed abroad about $8,000,000,000 worth of aid.” As we saw in Part 18 of this series, $49 billion was more money than the United States had in circulation during any year of the Roaring Twenties, which peaked at $45.7 billion in 1928 and 1929. Where all this money may have come from is only understood once it is known that the Federal Reserve can make money appear in thin air, so long as there are willing borrowers, and then loan it out at usury to whomsoever they desire. There is one more paragraph in our article:

The Great Depression transformed the American political and economic landscape. It produced a major political realignment, creating a coalition of big city ethnics, African Americans and Southern Democrats committed, to varying degrees, to interventionist government. The Depression strengthened the federal presence in American life, producing such innovations as national old age pensions, unemployment compensation, aid to dependent children, public housing, federally subsidized school lunches, insured bank deposits, the minimum wage, and stock market regulation. It fundamentally altered labor relations, producing a revived labor movement and a national labor policy protective of collective bargaining. It transformed the farm economy by introducing federal price supports and rural electrification. Above all, the Great Depression produced a fundamental transformation in public attitudes. It led Americans to view the federal government as the ultimate protector of public well-being.

Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal politics provided a new god, government, which became the object of American worship. From this point on in American history, the government would become the benefactor and protector of all, and it would borrow ever-increasing amounts of money from the International Jewish bankers in order to maintain its new status as the god of the people. That situation prevails to this very day. Acknowledging this situation is the next paragraph from the Protocols, except that the Protocols were written long before 1940:

Protocol No. 3 continued:

When the people saw that they obtained concessions and license in the name of liberty, they imagined that they were the masters, and rushed into power; but like every blind person, they encountered innumerable obstacles; they rushed to seek a leader, with no thought of returning to the old one, and laid power at our feet. Remember the French Revolution, which we have called “great”; the secrets of its preparation are well known to us, for it was the work of our hands.

Since then we have carried the masses from one disappointment to another, so that they will renounce even us in favor of a despot sovereign of Zionist blood, whom we are preparing for the world.

And of course this has also been the political experience since 1940, one disappointment after another, because governments are not gods, and because governments and politicians constantly lie. But when people look to governments for their welfare and security, they are indeed engaging in idolatry. The government becomes their god, and when the government becomes god, it asserts the right to regulate the morals and religion of the people who worship it. This is an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of idolatry. Here I am going to read a short article that I wrote while I was still in prison, and after my release it was posted to my relatively new website, Christogenea.org, on March 2nd, 2009. It is titled Who is your god?

Investigating the writings of the founders of this nation, the ideas of plurality which they had did not include any thoughts of multiculturalism or a diversity of aliens which are the supposed ideals of this day, but which in reality are little more than a fulfillment of the perverse fantasies of the anti-Christ jews. Rather, and for example, Benjamin Franklin in the 18th century had hypothesized concerning how many Englishmen could populate such a large country as America in little time, even at the exclusion of their kindred Germans, whom he called “Palatine boors”. Discussing the importation of African slaves, Franklin further stated “Why increase the sons of Africa, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawnys, of increasing the lovely red and white? (See Benjamin Franklin by Carl Van Doren, The Viking Press, New York, 1938, p. 216-218. On these same pages it is also fully evident that Franklin saw the White man alone, from his ruddiness, as being the “red and white”, and he counted for these only the English and the Saxon Germans to the exclusion of most other Europeans – even the Swedes.) While Franklin’s express views may not reflect all of the beliefs of all of the founders of this nation, they are a true and clear reflection of the general principles among them: that “freedom of religion” [generally] meant a freedom of Christian religion, and that any reference to plurality [generally] meant a plurality of White people.

However, by the second half of the 19th century much of the political class in this nation was already composed of corrupt men, who read Marx rather than Paul of Tarsus, and who worshipped the jewish gods of secular humanism rather than the Aryan God of Abraham and David. The reasons for this rather abrupt change in the quality of American leadership are succinctly described in the parable of the trees of the forest told by Jotham, as recorded in Judges Chapter 9 of our Bibles. [Out of all of the noble trees of the forest, the lowly bramble-bush would always naturally rise to be ruler.] It is no coincidence that a single American president – the first to fully and publicly grasp onto the ideas of jewish internationalism – gave this nation not only the jewish-owned and operated Federal Reserve Bank to be the stewards of our economy, but also our first zionist and radical jewish Supreme Court Chief Justice, our first involvement in a European war, and had also relented to the so-called “right” of women to vote, which is clearly anti-Christian. (The proper reading of 1 Corinthians 14:33-34, from the Greek and read literally, is with certainty: “… As in all of the assemblies of the saints, 34 the women in the assemblies must keep silent, indeed they are not to be entrusted to speak in them; rather they are to be obedient, just as the law says.” Having a vote is exactly the same as having a voice in the assembly [and by it women quite often negate the contrary votes of their own husbands].) No outside enemy could ever have damaged the Republic the way Woodrow Wilson damaged it from the inside, while also paving the way for many of those who came after to damage it even more.

The so-called “Great Depression” was the direct result of the turning over of the economy of this nation to the international jew under the guise of the “Federal Reserve” banking system. And with the depression, a different form of politics – that of giving ones vote to whoever could promise one the largest portion of other men’s money – finally allowed the unscrupulous to consistently capture majorities of the electorate. This phenomenon was assisted greatly by both the woman voter – the vast majority of which make such decisions based upon empathy, and the introduction of large numbers of aliens into the electorate once the immigrants from the fringes of Europe started coming to America in significant numbers. Franklin Roosevelt was the first great beneficiary of this change in the makeup of the nation. [As we explained last week in our End Times Update for May, that change had happened from the 1880’s to 1910.]

How far we had already fallen by this time, from the ideals upon which our Republic was founded. The founding fathers of this nation were certainly readers of the Greek and Roman Classical Histories. Surely they must have been aware of the way politicians quickly learn to use promises of favors or money to aliens and minorities as a means of helping to secure votes at the expense of the Patrician class (in this nation, that would have at that time been the true “middle class”), from whom most of the funds available to the State are actually raised. [The first-century BC Roman historian] Livy relates an account of one Spurius Cassius, a Roman politician of the 5th century BC, who had attempted to curry the favor of certain divisions among the people by promising them monies from the state treasury, and how the people of Rome condemned and executed him for that very reason – thereby setting an example for centuries to come. (Livy, History of Rome, 2.41.8-12.) Who knows how high the course this nation may have taken, if Americans had been so vigilant in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was formed, or in 1933 when the Marxist “New Deal” was launched, or in 1964 when the “Great Society” speech was given.

Now this simplification of American history is provided for a purpose other than to discuss politics at all. Rather, it is how Christians even make political decisions which must be discussed, because that is the root of the problem. For over a hundred years now, politicians have been running on platforms promising giveaways of one sort or another, or security of one form or another, and this trend has done nothing except plunge our nation deeper and deeper into tyranny. [This is also a more subtle manifestation of the plan of the Protocols, to foment contention between the economic classes.]

When Christians relied on their God for sustenance and security, they were relatively free to live and work as they chose, and this great nation resulted from that very freedom which our founders intended for us to have: an economic freedom to the fruits of their labors, and the freedom to live in an environment adapted to their own state of morals, in which they worship their God in the manner in which they themselves choose, and not at the dictation of either a pope or the State.

But when people rely upon the State for sustenance and security, the State seeks in turn to regulate the lives of the people. The State then gains the right to dictate morality and the terms of acceptable behavior. The State becomes the god of the people, because the people grant to the State that authority to solve their problems. Subsequently, the State demands more and more of the fruits of the labors of the people. Americans paid relatively very little in taxes up until the time of the “Great Society”, and now over half of their income is eaten away by both direct and hidden taxes. The God of the Bible only asked for a tenth, at most, and that of one’s increase, not of one’s income.

Over the past one hundred or so years, at the same time that the State has slowly become the god of the people, the State has also slowly torn down the moral commandments of the old God – the God of the Bible – and has replaced the morality of Christianity with a new morality: that of Diversity, Inclusion, and Multiculturalism. Old taboos such as divorce, sodomy, and miscegenation have become the norm, and are even protected from Christian admonishment by legislation. The momentum of the growth and development of this nation which has lasted into this century was spurred by the many freedoms achieved upon our foundation, and while White Christians are still the backbone of all meaningful progress today, that backbone now has severe deficiencies, and is gravely ill due to the many parasites which infest the body, as it gets weaker and weaker with each passing year. Finally the aliens are on the threshold of overrunning the founding race of this nation, while an alien sits in its highest political office. [This was written shortly after that Negro president was inaugurated.]

From this situation, there is no political redemption. The Saxon has only one choice for salvation: to abandon the government god and the religious doctrines of jewish capitalism and humanism, along with the rites of wanton consumerism, and to return to the God of the Bible and Christian foundations with a humble and contrite heart.

That is the end of our 2009 article. Now we will take another brief digression to discuss secularism.

The concept of secularism has been foisted upon our Christian society by the Judaized philosophers and Jewish press, and it is a ruse. The English word world was derived from the old Germanic words wer, or man, and ald, or age, and therefore it originally meant age of man. Likewise, the word secular is derived from Latin word saeculum, for an age or generation, which was therefore interpreted in Medieval Church Latin to mean worldly, which would be correct in the context of the original meaning of the word world. So what is secular is what is worldly.

But as the apostle James had written in chapter 4 of his epistle, “4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” Secular thought is worldly thought, which is thought without God, taking things into consideration without any consideration for the will of God. That is how the antiChrist Jew introduces vice and sin into society, by getting people to accept it on secular terms. So secularism is actually a Jewish religion foisted upon Christians to the effect that Jews are thereby permitted to promote sin and vice in Christian society. A philosophical derivative is Libertarianism. Secularism practiced by the Christian is therefore a form of idolatry. One cannot cooperate with Satan for 167 hours a week, and then after spending an hour a week in Church imagine oneself to be a Christian. That is double-minded, and the same apostle warned that “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.”

Now we shall return to our main subject, which is the economic crises of the 20th century, this time with another rather mainstream article from a source which is odious to us. We do this to illustrate the extent of the depression, and at the same time, what modern academia, which to this day is under the control of the same entities which caused the Depression, has to say of its effects. This article is from the website Alpha History, and it is titled:

The Great Depression

The Great Depression was a long and extensive economic crisis, affecting most developed nations in the early and mid 1930s. It was triggered by a stockmarket crash in New York City in 1929, then soon spread beyond the United States, crippling the economies of dozens of nations. The impact of the Great Depression was particularly severe in Germany, which had enjoyed five years of artificial prosperity, propped up by American loans and goodwill. Unemployment hit millions of Germans, as companies shut down or downsized. Others lost their savings as banks folded. The dire conditions of the early 1930s led many German voters to abandon mainstream political parties and look to more radical alternatives, such as Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party.

Notice that they do not admit that the stock market crash was the result of a sudden, drastic and calculated tightening of credit by the Federal Reserve banks. That would lead to all sorts of so-called “conspiracy theories”. So they continue to describe the effects while keeping short of the root cause:

The prelude to the Great Depression was an economic bubble in the United States, caused by years of prosperity and inflated confidence. The 1920s had been a boom decade for American companies, which tallied up record production figures, skyrocketing sales and millions of dollars profit. These profits were passed onto shareholders, who also benefited from sharp increases in share prices. Thousands of Americans rushed to take advantage of the share market, many using their life savings or borrowing against their assets to take advantage of the boom. But the dramatic increases in profits and share prices could not be sustained forever. By 1928 there was considerable over-production in many industries, leading to declining sales and falling profits.

The bubble burst on October 24th 1929, later described as ‘Black Thursday’. Share prices on the New York stock exchange began to fall rapidly, sparking a rush of selling. As more stock went on the market, share prices plummeted – which led to further panic-selling as share owners rushed to minimise their losses. This downward trend continued for three weeks, with share prices falling each day. The economic and social effects of the Wall Street crash were disastrous. Between 1929 and 1932, American industrial production fell by 45 per cent. Many companies were bankrupted or ceased trading; those that stayed in business released workers to cut costs. The most visible outcome of the Depression was mass unemployment. By 1932, more than 12 million Americans – or 24 per cent of workers – were out of a job. The collapse in economic confidence also led to runs on banks, as people rushed to withdraw cash. Hundreds of banks closed and many lost their savings and pensions.

Of course these were small community banks, which do not have the same privileges as the large banks that are members of the Federal Reserve Board, but which are rather at the mercy of the Board. Notice also that the drop in production also correlated with the drop in the money supply, which was down about 50 per cent in that same period. The article continues:

The Great Depression had profound effects on American society – but the impact on Weimar Germany was even more dire. Germans were not so much reliant on production or exports as they were on American loans, which had propped up the Weimar economy since 1924. These loans ceased in late 1929, while many American financiers began to ‘call in’ outstanding foreign loans. The German economy was not resilient enough to withstand significant withdrawals of cash and capital. Banks struggled to provide money and credit, and consumers lost confidence in them. In 1931 there were runs on German and Austrian financial institutions and several major banks folded.

The article speaks of the calling in of loans in this context, but does not admit that as the reason for the New York stock market crash in the first place.

German industrialists had enjoyed prosperous times in the mid- to late-1920s, thanks to foreign loans and investment. But by the early 1930s there was little demand for their products, while capital and credit were almost impossible to obtain. To compound the problem, the United States – at that point the largest purchaser of German industrial exports – put up tariff barriers to protect its own companies. German manufacturers consequently endured a sharp downturn in export sales. Many factories and industries either closed or downsized dramatically. By 1932, German industrial production had fallen to just 58 per cent of its 1928 levels. The effect of this decline was spiraling unemployment. By the end of 1929 around 1.5 million Germans were without a job; within a year this figure had more than doubled; and by early 1933 a staggering 6 million (26 per cent) were out of work.

This unemployment had a withering impact on German society. There were few shortages of food but millions found themselves without the means to obtain it. Germany’s children suffered worst: thousands died from malnutrition and hunger-related diseases. Millions of industrial labourers – the same men who in 1928 had been the best-paid blue collar workers in Europe – spent a year or more in idleness. But the Depression affected all classes in Germany, not just factory workers. Unemployment was also high among white-collar workers and the professions. A Chicago news correspondent in Berlin reported that “60 per cent of each new university graduating class was out of work”. British novelist Christopher Isherwood, who lived in Berlin during the worst of the Depression, described its scenes:

“Morning after morning, all over the immense, damp, dreary town and the packing-case colonies of huts in the suburb allotments, young men were waking up to another workless empty day, to be spent as they could best contrive: selling boot-laces, begging, playing draughts in the hall of the Labour Exchange, hanging about urinals, opening the doors of cars, helping with crates in the market, gossiping, lounging, stealing, overhearing racing tips, sharing stumps of cigarette ends picked up in the gutter.”

The Weimar government failed to respond effectively to the crisis. Heinrich Bruning, who became chancellor in March 1930, feared inflation and budget deficits more than unemployment. Rather than spending to stimulate the economy and create jobs, Bruning opted to increase taxes (to reduce the budget deficit) then implemented wage cuts and spending reductions (to lower prices). Bruning’s policies were rejected by the Reichstag – but the chancellor had the support of President Hindenburg, who issued them as emergency decrees in mid-1930. Bruning’s measures failed, and probably increased German unemployment and public suffering rather than easing it.

Notice the solution to the Depression offered by Alpha History: was government “spending to stimulate the economy and create jobs.” Under the banking system, spending requires money which the government would have to borrow from the banks, and that would in turn lead the nation into a never-ending spiral of debt slavery. This is the only solution offered under the Capitalist political paradigm, because it is the only one which benefits those who control that paradigm. No other solution could work, because no other solution is allowed to work. So the article continues in reference to Bruning’s failed attempts:

They also contributed to further government instability and bickering between Reichstag parties.

“Only when things went economically wrong for Germany did the Nazi Party flourish, and vice versa. Their election successes and their membership rose and fell in exact parallel to the unemployment figures. During the years of prosperity between 1924 and 1928 the Nazis as good as disappeared from the political arena. But the deeper the [economy] subsided into crisis, the more firmly did the fascist party sit in the saddle.” – Alfred Sohn-Rethel, economist

The real beneficiary of the Depression and Bruning’s disastrous policy response was Adolf Hitler. With public discontent soaring, membership of Hitler’s party increased to record levels. The Nazi leader found the situation to his liking: “Never in my life have I been so well disposed and inwardly contented as in these days. For hard reality has opened the eyes of millions of Germans.” Eleven months after the Wall Street Crash, the NSDAP was able to increase its share of the Reichstag vote almost ninefold. In the July 1932 elections the Nazis won 230 seats – by far the highest number held by one party in the Reichstag at any point during the Weimar period:

Here, of course, we must protest the conclusions of the authors of this article. National Socialism was not really an antidote to the poor economy. Rather, it was the antidote to Jewish domination of the economy which created the conditions that caused it to be poor. But the people only vote against the Jews when they cannot eat. Of course, Adolf Hitler recognized the so-called Great Depression, but Hitler wrote Mein Kampf before the Depression began. And even before the Depression began Germany was already in a state of financial distress, caused by the loss of the War and the oppressive measures of Versailles. He outlined all of this in Volume 1 of Mein Kampf, in Chapter 10: Why the Second Reich Collapsed. There he said, in part:

But the downfall of the Second Empire and the German people has been so profound that they all seem to have been struck dumbfounded and rendered incapable of feeling the significance of this downfall or reflecting on it. It seems as if people were utterly unable to picture in their minds the heights to which the Empire formerly attained, so visionary and unreal appears the greatness and splendour of those days in contrast to the misery of the present. Bearing this in mind we can understand why and how people become so dazed when they try to look back to the sublime past that they forget to look for the symptoms of the great collapse which must certainly have been present in some form or other. Naturally this applies only to those for whom Germany was more than merely a place of abode and a source of livelihood. These are the only people who have been able to feel the present conditions as really catastrophic, whereas others have considered these conditions as the fulfilment of what they had looked forward to and hitherto silently wished.

The symptoms of future collapse were definitely to be perceived in those earlier days, although very few made any attempt to draw a practical lesson from their significance. But this is now a greater necessity than it ever was before. For just as bodily ailments can be cured only when their origin has been diagnosed, so also political disease can be treated only when it has been diagnosed. It is obvious of course that the external symptoms of any disease can be more readily detected than its internal causes, for these symptoms strike the eye more easily. This is also the reason why so many people recognize only external effects and mistake them for causes. Indeed they will sometimes try to deny the existence of such causes. And that is why the majority of people among us recognize the German collapse only in the prevailing economic distress and the results that have followed therefrom. Almost everyone has to carry his share of this burden, and that is why each one looks on the economic catastrophe as the cause of the present deplorable state of affairs. The broad masses of the people see little of the cultural, political, and moral background of this collapse. Many of them completely lack both the necessary feeling and powers of understanding for it.

That the masses of the people should thus estimate the causes of Germany's downfall is quite understandable. But the fact that intelligent sections of the community regard the German collapse primarily as an economic catastrophe, and consequently think that a cure for it may be found in an economic solution, seems to me to be the reason why hitherto no improvement has been brought about. No improvement can be brought about until it be understood that economics play only a second or third role, while the main part is played by political, moral and racial factors. Only when this is understood will it be possible to understand the causes of the present evil and consequently to find the ways and means of remedying them.

Before Hitler came to power, the Great Depression failed to cause the masses to rise up against the higher classes, as the Jews who wrote the Protocols had desired. They tried to bring Soviet Communism to Germany after the First World War, even forming a Red Republic in Bavaria and attempting to do the same in other areas, but they were ultimately defeated by the Freikorps. The Capitalist Jews nevertheless had free reign throughout the decadent Weimar era, but that came to an end with the rise of National Socialism.

After Adolf Hitler came to power, he threw the devils out of the temple of the German economy by basing the German currency on labor production rather than on usury, by ceasing to borrow from foreign banks, and by demanding that foreign nations accept German goods in kind as payment for imports, among other measures. Those measures brought to Germany a rapid economic recovery while the balance of the world outside continued to suffer in the economic depression. Adolf Hitler was a major obstacle to the Jewish designs for Germany and the rest of the Continent. So a change in strategy was necessary, and another great war was the method by which the Jews ultimately conquered Europe. Hitler knew that his having relieved Jewry of its control of the German economy was the primary reason for the war. Hitler also fully understood that International Jewry was doing its best to start such a war, and that Roosevelt and Churchill were their primiary agents in its execution.

To a great degree this is reflected in Hitler’s Declaration of War on the United States, which we shall now quote in part:

After such a bitter experience, why is there now another American president who is determined to incite wars and, above all, to stir up hostility against Germany to the point of war? National Socialism came to power in Germany in the same year [1933] that Roosevelt came to power in the United States. At this point it is important to examine the factors behind the current developments.

First of all, the personal side of things: I understand very well that there is a world of difference between my own outlook on life and attitude, and that of President Roosevelt. Roosevelt came from an extremely wealthy family. By birth and origin he belonged to that class of people that is privileged in a democracy and assured of advancement. I myself was only the child of a small and poor family, and I had to struggle through life by work and effort in spite of immense hardships. As a member of the privileged class, Roosevelt experienced the [First] World War in a position under Wilson's shadow [as assistant secretary of the Navy]. As a result, he only knew the agreeable consequences of a conflict between nations from which some profited while others lost their lives. During this same period, I lived very differently. I was not one of those who made history or profits, but rather one of those who carried out orders. As an ordinary soldier during those four years, I tried to do my duty in the face of the enemy. Of course, I returned from the war just as poor as when I entered in the fall of 1914. I thus shared my fate with millions of others, while Mr. Roosevelt shared his with the so-called upper ten thousand.

After the war, while Mr. Roosevelt tested his skills in financial speculation in order to profit personally from the inflation, that is, from the misfortune of others, I still lay in a military hospital along with many hundreds of thousands of others. Experienced in business, financially secure and enjoying the patronage of his class, Roosevelt then finally chose a career in politics. During this same period, I struggled as a nameless and unknown man for the rebirth of my nation, which was the victim of the greatest injustice in its entire history.

Two different paths in life! Franklin Roosevelt took power in the United States as the candidate of a thoroughly capitalistic party, which helps those who serve it. When I became the Chancellor of the German Reich, I was the leader of a popular national movement, which I had created myself. The powers that supported Mr. Roosevelt were the same powers I fought against, out of concern for the fate of my people, and out of deepest inner conviction. The “brain trust” that served the new American president was made up of members of the same national group that we fought against in Germany as a parasitical expression of humanity, and which we began to remove from public life.

And yet, we also had something in common: Franklin Roosevelt took control of a country with an economy that had been ruined as a result of democratic influences, and I assumed the leadership of a Reich that was also on the edge of complete ruin, thanks to democracy. There were 13 million unemployed in the United States, while Germany had seven million unemployed and another seven million part-time workers. In both countries, public finances were in chaos, and it seemed that the spreading economic depression could not be stopped.

From then on, things developed in the United States and in the German Reich in such a way that future generations will have no difficulty in making a definitive evaluation of the two different socio-political theories. Whereas the German Reich experienced an enormous improvement in social, economic, cultural and artistic life in just a few years under National Socialist leadership, President Roosevelt was not able to bring about even limited improvements in his own country. This task should have been much easier in the United States, with barely 15 people per square kilometer, as compared to 140 in Germany. If economic prosperity is not possible in that country, it must be the result of either a lack of will by the ruling leadership or the complete incompetence of the men in charge. In just five years, the economic problems were solved in Germany and unemployment was eliminated. During this same period, President Roosevelt enormously increased his country's national debt, devalued the dollar, further disrupted the economy and maintained the same number of unemployed.

This is why mainstream articles discussing the history of the 20th century can only demonize “Nazis”, and never speak of Hitler’s government objectively: because if they did, the false paradigm of economics under which Jewry holds the whole world in debt slavery would be exposed for the fraud that it is, and the criminal ring of Jews that operate it would finally be faced with the holocaust that they themselves know they deserve. Continuing with Hitler’s criticism of Roosevelt’s economic failures, which are trumpeted as a great success today by all the usual propagandists:

But this is hardly remarkable when one realizes that the intellects appointed by this man, or more accurately, who appointed him, are members of that same group who, as Jews, are interested only in disruption and never in order. While we in National Socialist Germany took measures against financial speculation, it flourished tremendously under Roosevelt. The New Deal legislation of this man was spurious, and consequently the greatest error ever experienced by anyone. If his economic policies had continued indefinitely during peace time, there is no doubt that sooner or later they would have brought down this president, in spite of all his dialectical cleverness. In a European country his career would certainly have ended in front of a national court for recklessly squandering the nation's wealth. And he would hardly have avoided a prison sentence by a civil court for criminally incompetent business management.

Many respected Americans also shared this view. A threatening opposition was growing all around this man, which led him to think that he could save himself only by diverting public attention from his domestic policies to foreign affairs. In this regard it is interesting to study the reports of Polish Ambassador Potocki from Washington, which repeatedly point out that Roosevelt was fully aware of the danger that his entire economic house of cards could collapse, and that therefore he absolutely had to divert attention to foreign policy.

The circle of Jews around Roosevelt encouraged him in this. With Old Testament vindictiveness they regarded the United States as the instrument that they and he could use to prepare a second Purim against the nations of Europe, which were increasingly anti-Jewish. So it was that the Jews, in all of their satanic baseness, gathered around this man, and he relied on them.

There was indeed an awakening to Jewish treachery in Europe in many places, which resulted in a rise of fascism as a response to Jewish world supremacy. Fascist, or National Socialist, parties arose in many nations, not only in Italy and Germany. Today Christians everywhere have blindly believed the Jewish accounts of history, and are therefore totally ignorant of the true causes of the conflict, while they sit in the shackles of Jewish debt slavery and mistakenly think that they are “free”. Concluding this part of Hitler’s speech:

The American president increasingly used his influence to create conflicts, intensify existing conflicts, and, above all, to keep conflicts from being resolved peacefully. For years this man looked for a dispute anywhere in the world, but preferably in Europe, that he could use to create political entanglements with American economic obligations to one of the contending sides, which would then steadily involve America in the conflict and thus divert attention from his own confused domestic economic policies.

The confused domestic policies still prevail in America, which was only pulled out of the economic depression by its entry into the War, and America has been the lapdog of World Jewry ever since, and the enforcer for all of its causes.

The plan of the Protocols, that after the economic crisis the Jews would become the Messiahs of a new age, were certainly fulfilled. But when the unemployed masses did not rise up to destroy the higher classes of Europe, the Jews incited a war which had essentially the same effect. Then they used the religion of the Holocaust and cries of “anti-Semitism” to attain the status of gods, a people elevated to super-human status to a level where they cannot even be criticized, thereby achieving the Messiah status they had sought, and the introduction of a new world order of Jewish supremacy. The process in the West took a lot longer to put into effect than Bolshevism did in Russia, but in the end the outcome is practically the same.

So long as the people of the West continue to see the government as their god, the Jews will continue to rule over them as their self-appointed Messiah. This is the rule of the antiChrist.