We have the good fortune to live in a time of relative affluence even though subject to a media that maintains a constant barrage of idolatry and consumerism, interspersed with morose soap opera and a smattering of major news stories such as â€˜losing the ashesâ€™ or â€˜which dated, declining celebrity has been evicted from a barren stretch of land in the Australian outback. There seems nothing compares to the importance of the result of a football match or game of tennis, in between, we passively choose to observe the plight of a growing number of street people having had their generic name sanitized from that of tramps, beggars or paupers. Thoughtfully we are also presented with a resident scapegoat, or somebody to blame, with illogical input of immigrants who at least fare better than the Jews in the 1920â€™s and 30â€™s. The irony is, the powers to be havenâ€™t changed their tack, they propagate ill feeling and resentment to divert attention from their mismanagement and thus deter condemnation from their electors. In establishing themselves in positions of authority and security, power brokers are little affected by overcrowded schools and hospitals, or increasing joblessness. Meantime their contemporaries, the employers, make capital on cheap labour and wage structures that may be the basic minimum, but certainly not the basic living wage that indigenous people seek to earn, perhaps unreasonably?(sarcasm) Meantime the â€˜Careâ€™ industryâ€™, notorious for its poor wages, is now inundated with foreign nationals that cannot speak our national tongue. All very ironic really when those they attempt to care for, once fought and bled to maintain their democracy and freedom of speech, now sitting in fear and in silence, wondering whether their sacrifice was worthwhile. Meantime the tool of racial tension is now as valuable to the power brokers as it always was and for as long as our far removed members of parliament and politicians believe their own diet of ★★★★★★★★ about the contribution immigrants bring into this land, which I am sure is true in some cases, they rest assured that â€˜divide and ruleâ€™ will keep them safe and distant from the reality that great tracts of our cities are becoming ghettoâ€™s and no go zoneâ€™s. Meantime our national religion suffers steady decline, and believers are persecuted for wearing symbols of their faith, immigrants impose fundamentalism on the genuinely tolerant and decent kinfolk having formerly embraced sensible levels of immigration in more modest number.
Historically those living in care and silence can recall a time when poverty reached its skin stretched claw into vast tracts of homeland, across swathes of continents including Europe and the northern continent of America. Street people alone are probably the only ones qualified to declare that they know full well how bleak and absolutely demoralising that experience is. On reflection, even following the depression of the twenties, poverty was spared to a large proportion of the western worldâ€™s population, even though they resided in war scarred existence. Surviving, impoverished victors were left wondering what it was all for, sharing cold comfort in the knowledge that at least the western alliance were not further burdened by massive reparations in compensation for losing a war. Having said that I contradict myself by adding, unless you include massive reparations for war loans, which levelled all nationalities equally, advancing the power and dominance of a select few? Seeking redemption from such poverty was another unifying factor that caused people to pursue a way forward, maybe an ideology that could sustain them after such horrendous experiences had extracted all sense of purpose and hope in their lives. Relief from poverty proffered a conscience and subdued feeling of guilt and denial. But what else could they do, they were carried along by the times in which they lived, vainly hoping to acknowledge cold comfort in expectation of a normal, peaceful passage along their journey through life.
Identifying a theology for purpose was restrained by primitive naivety when each belly suffered the most basic insufficiencies to sustain individual needs. On the one hand was the Christian ethic of sharing and socialism, yet reality tempered the restriction of material availability and the quite natural desire in times of need, to provide for and if possible conserve for, those that were nearest and dearest. That said accepting the generosity of spirit, should wealth of produce suffice, there would grow a natural desire to provide and share with others and do so within expanding boundaries of families, relatives, nation and outward. That said, the sheer extent of despair and depravation had pushed Russia into Communism then set about exporting their ideology like a simple domestic product. Political growth was viewed by n many to be challenging long established middle class power brokers, yet none the less repugnant to those that favoured the sanctity of nation and the conservation of its heritage. As lowly as those in poverty were, many retained an inherent loyalty to the little they could hang on to including National pride, believing it could provide for their needs in blissful ignorance of the power and influence of foreign, financial control. Meantime a radical ideology evolved in Germany that on the surface appeared a leveller of class and division and to many, most importantly, a real deterrent to the threat and continued expansion of Communism even though it was now second only in influence to Communist Russia.
Orators delivered stirring speeches promising to end foreign control over national finance, industry and commerce, all echoing a language aimed to reinstate the dignity and pride in their nation. Raised voices assigned blame in sometime irrational accusation of responsibility, just like the High Priests in the temple gave up Jesus for sacrifice, attempting to conserve their position of prominence and power, so now would the lowly Jew reap the wrath and this time the sons of Isaac would pay the supreme price in sacrificial penance for a legacy that was hardly of their choosing. Persecution became a tool of the state just as the zealots orchestrated the crucifixion and very passion whilst ignoring the sentiment that resonates "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." It might well be conceived that at some moment on the cross, Jesus became sin on our behalf, that God the Father, in a sense, turned His back upon the Son. Cold heartedly it says in Hab. 1:13 that God is too pure to look upon evil. Therefore, it is possible that when Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), that the Father, spiritually, turned away? Deaf to the pleas of The Son who may well have cried out in despair "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" Could the savagery of persecution his chosen people endured, be so forsaken as was the Son of God, but in such numbers, under such inhumanely atrocious of conditions?
Meantime the progress of the revolt aimed at destroying the power base of money and control proceeded by resorting to the basest and most consistent human political tool of hate and racial intolerance, in contrast it blatantly presented a unifying feature in professed racial purity and national strength. Ironically the target of channelled resentment could all too often be identified as being materially immune to the ravages of poverty, with a wealth that cushioned them from unfeeling despair the great depression invoked. Identification was not hard but it did leave them the weakest amidst that select community in which to apportion blame and responsibility. Did the Zionist believe that Paul would rise again and redeem their betrayal of his people and, would they allow the multitude to suffer similar persecution and racial intolerance with unreasoning justification? Hardly a defence when one famous orator would declare his belief or suspicion of their assigned guilt in a speech that may well at least identify just one accepted source of racial condemnation that is timeless and persistent.
â€œThis world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of a society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian revolution by these international and for the most part atheistically Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin the majority of leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leadersâ€.
Shocking; maybe? Politically incorrect; yes! Its origin? Not Paul Joseph Goebels, nor Adolf Hitler, but a famous leader much closer to home who was to lead this nation through its darkest hour. None other than Sir Winston Churchill! Furthermore in 1920 Churchill not only repeated these sentiments but expanded upon them further when he recognized the connection between the Illuminati and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. He further observed, in delivering the harsh even damning words expressed by a man who became a legend in his own lifetime.
â€œFrom the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa Luxembourg, and Emma Goldman, this world wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played a definitely recognizable role in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century, and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America has gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads, and has become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.â€
On a more down to earth level, industry thrives during wartime albeit incurring massive debt in the materials designed to keep the machinery oiled, but now, peacetime drew the wheels of industry to a grinding halt. In almost ghostly silence, industrial might became dormant, where dereliction and poverty reigned supreme and a massive slump and recession ensued. National governments were simply unable to deliver on the 'land fit for heroes' following the Great War that left children Fatherless, wives husband-less, and Mothers childless, whilst in America, the land that should have profited from increased wartime production went into a deep recession. The Federal Reserve Bank contrived to ignore national emergencies and was strangely absent from the market place. Yet funding seemed readily available to secure major take-overs of business, companies and industries, where land grabbing was a mere by product being the real power-base of governance was not subservient to the masters of finance but its nurturers. Poverty reached the harshest of extremes during this period and normal established politics were clearly failing the greater majority. Basic living requirements were denied the majority and the state allayed blame upon weaker racial groups or other nationâ€™s demands compounding their woes and losses. Political rhetoric resorted to extremist rantings and as loud and confident as rally calls seemed, it transpired that stable, democratic countries would scream to the heavens for salvation and men of charisma and confidence made sympathetic appeal to the hearts and minds of the struggling masses.
Radical views were absorbed, embraced and even welcomed by great number of impoverished people in countries including the United States, Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany and even Russia in opposition to Communism. Thus, however inconceivable extreme politics are viewed by normal voters in the 21st century it was simply part of everyday life in those times of hardship, as normal as anything in comparison to the promise breaking, self serving varieties of political parties we endure today. Right or left wing ideology flourished in their own way offering a utopia blindly incapable of recognising the closeness and comparisons shared by respective ideologies, where, without labouring the point, refusing to accept the simple similarity of power wielded by financiers â€˜orâ€™ capitalists upon their lives. Contradicting the similarity seems academic as a measure of current poverty is only marginally better than in times gone by, but then we of the twenty first century have at least experienced a reasonable lifestyle in which to make comparison, even accepting we had not fought and died in defence of country thus not unreasonably expecting a decent standard of living upon survival. Whereas we also have the illusion that democracy offers a means of altering, changing or improving our lives in a time of economic recession, where we are led to believe our way of life is both distant and far removed.
Historically we cannot conceive of the possibility that more extreme political ideologies could influence great majorities and if we try to explore the mindset of such dedicated and committed extremists we find it all but inconceivable when watching documentaries on our 47â€ plasma TV screens. Yet we offer tacit consent to politicians to conduct a war against Islamic radicallist and conform to the dubious and questionable edicts that global terrorism is an unseen, ever present enemy. Whereas in the thirties the land itself was barren; cities, villages and industry were in ruin and the welfare state was nonexistent, no more than a revelation of hope. Can any of us that live this time of techno-progress even comprehend the great sorrow and depression that this time must have born to our peers? I sincerely doubt it, yet I still find it important that I personally strive to avert political labelling as I resent the implication, yet accept I might initiate rejection or isolation of these written words.
To approach this concept historically and with the benefit of hindsight it may appear confusing as to why, since the decline of Communism, have so many millionaires become evident as citizens of the Soviet block? Does that not confirm that Communism was at best selective, whilst acknowledging nepotism and favouritism for party members, seemingly just a distant branch of capitalism? Does this not confirm the covert design having been funded from the United States in those early, revolutionary years? In contrast a destitute nation, its neighbour Germany was to explore, investigate, and exploit National Socialism as a direct rival to Communism, where both political extremes had conflicting ideologies yet made an equal and essential contribution to the creation of the New World Order. They both thrived upon disharmony but above all, disunity. Russia under the Czars restricted the aspiration of the overall majority of its people in later-day medieval style, whilst they in turn lived in total opulence. Whereas inevitable dissent evolved from the lowest strata of society, preaching revolt as a resort of despair, yet generating support or sponsorship from the most unlikely of sources. Consider! How many masters did they serve? The western allies facilitated the gathering and transit of prime movers to bring about Communist revolution; even knowing of its major impact on troop movement, yet the Great War conditions of surrender were to make the rising of nationalism an almost total, predictable certainty and not just confined to Germany. Poverty, malnutrition, oppression and a generation in mourning, offered ample fuel for both left and rightwing extremes of politics to flourish.
The very spirit of the people was broken as menfolk endured a need to belittle themselves or indulge in ego based derivation or 'Survival syndrome' in the period following national conflict. In other words, guilt for not taking part or an even greater guilt for surviving it. However much this may seem irrational, it is a fairly widespread 'man thing' that is further exasperated by guilt in not being able to provide for ones own kith and kin. Meantime emancipation was an unheard of concept, the Russian way was to masculinise the female psyche and the right-wing conservative extolled the virtue of womanhood, clearly confined to the constraints of family and home. Personality and sheer charisma of leading political figures attracted support on the wildest of promises and flimsiest of claims, none the less persuading personal choice for a listener between one political faction or another. Militarism was also an ally to both factions whilst loyalties were challenged to add to the confusion, but I know of an example that perhaps personifies the times in question and contradictions that perfectly illustrates mixed loyalties quite ably.
A close friends Father, frustrated and suffering abject despair of the thirties joined Oswald Moseleyâ€™s British Union of Fascists and became a member of his personal body guard the 'Black Guard', the equivalent to Hitlerâ€™s Brown shirts. His roots were firmly amidst the working classes yet remaining fiercely patriotic and proud of his nations achievements, thus his choice to follow this specific leader was perhaps justified by the complimentary manner upon which Winston Churchill referred to Oswald Moseley as â€˜a fine politician of the highest calibreâ€™. All set during a period where nations, dynasties and governments toppled under the strain of global depression and suicide was viewed as a realistic option that many sunk to in despair. Losing faith in failed democracy he believed the greatest threat to his way of life Communism, was expanding like a cancer from Eastern Europe and on the verge of plying its tentacles across Englandâ€™s natural moat, the English Channel. He witnessed what he deduced as the most immediate threat was locked in combat in the Spanish Civil War where brother fought brother he deduced it better fight to contain the threat overseas than allow its spread to the land of his birth.
This perceived threat could be addressed and he cared little for labels such as fascism, nor had he seen the ugly aspect that the next twenty odd years would reveal. Whereby now, the very word conjures up hostility and revulsion, but that was not the case then. He chose to join the un-fashionable side in the Spanish repulsion of Communism, and it became abundantly clear that foreign recruitment was subject to strict application of double standards. Whilst recruits from as far away as the United States were able join the International Brigade, six hundred volunteers from the Republic of Ireland were denied simple transit across the UK when it was discovered their destination was on the side of Franco against Communism, thus alternative transit became necessary. None the less Franco was the victor and Eric had been greatly uplifted by the fight against Communism, causing him to extend his own personal involvement by becoming possibly a unique English member of the Nazi SA (Sturm Abteilung) or 'brown-shirts' fighting Communism on the streets of Vienna.
How confused he must have felt fighting for an ideology which in the very near future, was to become the arch enemy of his own nation? When those he chose to stand alongside, threatened the very thing he loved most, - his own country? Nazi designs on expansion in Europe became evident and the war declaration by his homeland caused him quite naturally as a patriot to return to England and take up his former post in the Royal Naval Reserve. Caution preceding emotion the government of the day could not conceive that patriotism was an all prevailing feature of Fascism and felt it prudent to inter him for the duration of the war on the Isle of Man. His persecution extended well beyond the war years to such an extent that he found it necessary to adopt a false identity and name change. This was all right until his funeral, when his son could not locate the service at the crematorium being unaware of his name change. His Fathers persecution had hounded him to the grave and now his last remains lay scattered in English soil, mourned by few other than a son who would love to have been able to emulate him.
Harsh reality was the surrogate father of the thirties where ideologically Hitlerâ€™s meteoric rise to power was funded and financed by some fairly surprising sources such as the Rothschild controlled Harriman Empire through a company called the Union Banking Corporation (UBC). Virtually all trade between the Nazi's and the United States was under the control of Harriman interests and the stewardship of people like Prescott Bush. (George Bush's grandfather). The Bank also interfaced with the steel and banking empire of Hitler funder, Fritz Thyssen. The Bushâ€”Nazi connection was later highlighted by John Loftus, president of the Florida Holocaust Museum, who pointed out that Prescott Bush derived a portion of his personal fortune from affiliation with the UBC. Furthermore Loftus had been a prosecutor in the Justice Department's Nazi War Crimes Unit, and declared that leading Nazi industrialists secretly owned the 'Harriman/Bush' bank and that they were moving money into the UBC through a second bank in Holland, even after the United States had entered into war with Germany. It was not until 1951 that the bank went into liquidation, upon which Loftus declared that, 'President Boy Bush's grandfather and great Grandfather, Herbert Walker, received $1.5 million as part of that business dissolution. Recounting that this was where the Bush family fortune came from: the Third Reich', Loftus announced in a speech during the Sarasota Reading Festival in 2001, asserting the Rothschild-controlled Rockefeller family funded the work of Ernst Rudin, Hitler's foremost 'racial hygienist', at Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Eugenics, Anthropology and Human Heredity. Other Nazi 'doctors', including the 'Angel of Death' Josef Mengele, conducted incredibly cruel and vicious experiments on live, captive human subjects under the closeted umbrella of this institute. Considering how the Nazi's were to persecute the Jews during their reign, indicates the complete absence of care or concern on the part of Zionist moneymakers for the rank and file Jewish people, fully knowing that their sacrifice would have an infinite value upon long term designs of Zionism that would serve that cause for years to come.
Another danger inherent to global monetary control in the policy demonstrated by the Third Reich concerned its firmly held belief that if goods were available for exchange between nations, then there was no need for either party to resort to international lending houses to finance the deal. Instead, the exchange should take place on a "swap" basis with barter and credit disposing of need for global monetary measures. It takes no great insight to perceive that the success of this system of exchange if employed on a global scale would mean for most practical purposes the end of international finance and of the immense power it confers upon its operators. Meantime fiscal trade and commerce continued unabated, where more practical financial transactions were conveyed covertly by the HSB. As if this were not offence enough in the eyes of the international lending houses, the Third Reich set to work sedulously to repay its external debt and thereby regain control over its own economic destiny. Furthermore Hitlerâ€™s audacity in revaluing his own national currency and calling it the Reich Mark was the true beginning of his end. In contravening the International Monetary Fund control restrictions, he ensured that the value of currency exchange imposed by Wall Street would not control prices within the boundaries of his own national and international marketplace, his fate from that point was doomed and the real reason for the war established.
Hitler also revolutionised the attitude and aspirations of his national work force, motivating it far beyond the constraint of union control in a willing and eager German nation. Basic working hours took second place to a sense of achievement, self respect and national pride. Conditions of employment improved experientially, paid holidays meant just that, paid to be on holiday and a holiday paid for in one of the fast growing holiday and leisure resorts created by National Socialism. People actually wanted to work, thus industry expanded at an unprecedented rate. Plus as a bonus to workers and party members he initiated a national housing scheme that stands to this day as equal to contemporary structures. He further reinforced his nationâ€™s sovereignty in defiantly recovering the Rhineland from its seizure by the French, after which he set about implementing a centrepiece of industrial revival unequalled anywhere in the world at that time. The rest of the world, primarily international finance could never tolerate his fiercely independent nationalism. Yet those capable of independent and neutral thought would declare that Hitler transformed his country into an industrial giant, whilst destroying class divisions and establishing national government clearly absent of international gerrymandering. But the truth is, from the very outset Hitler took his nation into the mind set of being in a state of war which after all is just about the only time a nation works to full capacity. However Hitlerâ€™s naÃ¯ve attempt at governance was doomed to failure unless of course by domination he could seize the assets of conquered countries and diminish them into simple vassal states.
Ironically, speculation exists where Hitlerâ€™s rejection of International Monetary control, or capitalism might well have influenced Stalinâ€™s willingness to enter into a non aggression pact with Nazi Germany. It seems hard to believe Stalin was so naive when reaching the mutual agreement to invade and divide up Poland between the two invading nations. The Communist dictator could hardly have forgotten it was US based monetary investment that funded the Russian revolution, which is hardly likely to have occurred without conditions and controls. History denies us the opportunity to ever know whether Hitlerâ€™s expansion reached further then reclaiming the lands that had largely been confiscated and seized during the humiliation of the Versailles Treaty. Thus with a clear aim to reinstate those out reaching once German colonies to their former status, he placed his nation into clear contravention of Treaty conditions. Whether or not his ambitions could remain within these boundaries is now academic but one thing for certain, he could not be allowed to lead Germany to achieve successful, independent management of its own finances, thus its fate was sealed. The war had started; it was just that not everyone knew it and it occurred well before the invasion of Poland.
Appreciating how hard it is to isolate oneself from the horrors revealed at the end of the war in Nazi Germany, this information is presented only to identify the real reasons and motivations that led to war and the resultant carnage that might just have been averted if negotiation replaced engineered hostility.