Jews Control Germany


foxnews contrived islamophobia iraq war neocon zionists
Go to Russiagate page....Rachel Maddow and Wolf Blitzer demonized Trump for nearly three years, then the truth hit...their ratings suffered greatly

amazon wordpress banned holocaust revisionist books new source
There's no principle difference between NeoNazism, Jewish Chosenness and White Supremacism...all forms of supremacism are wrong....

holocaust revisionism holohoax auschwitz ig farben hitler germany nuremberg
Amazon, WordPress and other have banned Holocaust revisionist books, but that doesn't mean they're not available...MORE

jfk rfk jfk-jr assassination johnson ben gurion israel
Amazon, WordPress and other have banned Holocaust revisionist books, but that doesn't mean they're not available...MORE

clinton obama bush death list
Clinton Bush Obama death lists...over 300 names suspicious deaths...Clintons by far the worst

cultural marxism frankfurt school jews destroy western culture marxism socialism communism
Cultural Marxist goal is to destroy Christian nationalist culture. LGBTQ is just one disengenuously elevate LGBTQ above all other issues as a club against white males...all for Jewish megalomania

yellow vests france nonviolent protest 1 percent 99 percent midwest trump populism
The Yellow Vests movement in France has severely weakoned the (((globalist Jews))) despite government attempts to infiltrate groups with violent actors

newsfollowup link 9-11 jfk holocaust hoax cultural marxism to modern events
Go to original home page

cultural marxism frankfurt school jews destroy western culture marxism socialism communism illegal immigration
Amazon, WordPress and other have banned Holocaust revisionist books, but that doesn't mean they're not available...MORE

cultural marxism frankfurt school jews destroy western culture marxism socialism communism illegal immigration
Communism is just Talmudism politicized.. both seek centralized power, abolish the family, state and Christian religion

9-11 truth israel nuked wtc silverstein netanyahu false flag war iraq afghanistan patriot act
9/11 was a false flag attack on America by a cabal consisting of Israel, US, Britain and Saudi Arabia...executed to start Iraq War

THE POST WW II OCCUPATION of Germany by US troops continues to this day.
There are currently 21 US military bases in occupied Germany.
Angela Merkel, Chancellor of the Jew-ruled Federal Republic of Germany, pretends to tout a ‘German independent line’…and most recently…by threatening sanctions against Russia.
But as Ukrainian Jew oligarch Igor Kolomoysky’s “Jews News 1” convincingly proves, she’s only saying what her Jewish masters dictate to her.
Truth is, Germany is not an independent nation but under foreign rule.
Proof of this is that questioning the Jewish version of history is illegal and ends you up in a German jail.
Further proof is that referendums on self-determination were blocked in Holland…and in Ireland the people were forced to vote again after an undesirable result.
Both the Dutch and Irish people were against joining the EU, which means subjecting them to open borders and a Jew-controlled central bank.
By denying the Dutch and Irish their right of self-determination the Jews impose a collective consciousness permeated by the poisonous atmosphere of Judengeist.
Why was Switzerland allowed a referendum resulting in limited immigration?
It’s because Switzerland maintained itself as a “neutral” country and thus immunized itself (to a greater degree than the rest of Europe) against Jewish control.

THE WORLD WAR II war for the Jews resulted in FDR’s/Truman’s intensive Jew-ruled occupation of Germany, Jewry’s grand prize.
Moreover, the occupation cannot be said to be based on an armistice like the Rhineland occupation after World War I, since no “peace treaty” between the Allies and Germany was ever signed that officially ended the war.
The “1990 – Final Settlement with Germany” was not a “surrender” nor a “ceasefire” but only a “settlement” in order to define new frontiers in lieu of the pending re-unification of East and West Germany.
In fact, there is no other “occupation” in contemporary history that the post WW II scenario can be likened to. The only tenable definition of Germany’s plight is that it is, (as many contend), an occupatio imperii.
The problem of the legal status of occupied Germany, (as Dr J.L. Kunz points out in his treatise, “The Status of Occupied Germany Under International Law: a Legal Dilemma”), is that it entirely depends on the solution of a preliminary question: whether Germany has or has not ceased to exist as a sovereign state.
Many argue that Germany indeed ceased to exist as a sovereign state at war’s end on the basis of “debellatio”…which in Germany’s case designates its having been “conquered” even though no annexation took place.

THE “CONQUERED” THEORY was used as a make-shift legal basis for the prosecution of German ‘war criminals’ at the Nuremberg Trials.
But this “debellatio” notion has been rejected by the majority of German international lawyers and by many decisions rendered by Swiss, Austrian, and German courts.
On the side of German scholars is the concept of political wish to prove that Germany, notwithstanding the events of 1945, has not ceased to exist as a sovereign state.
They argue that Hitler’s regime was “illegal” – exactly as the French reasoned after the defeat of Napoleon in 1815. View Entire Story
But International Jewry, which oversees the occupation of Germany, will never allow this political wish to gain admission as it would undermine their ongoing Holocaust hype and reparations rip-offs.
The bottom line is that legally World War II never ended, no peace treaty was ever signed, Germany has no Constitution, and that Germany is STILL occupied territory.
And given its “occupied” status, Germany remains hostage to the tyranny of world Jewry.


Jewish controlled Germany.
Germany since 1919 has been controlled and run by Jews without any interruption of their power and control. From the 1920's and onwards since a high percentage of Germans JEWS were in mixed marriage with gentile Germans, Jewish power naturally expanded in the country through the use of crypto-Jews..........with Hitler being the possible ultimate example of a crypto-Jew.("Rabbi" Goebbels with his overtly ultra-OTT German nationalism was used to hide their Jewishness and their globalist Jewish agenda, Eichmann, Hess, Heydrich, Himmler )

Jewish power in Germany is not obvious thus. German Crypto-Jews don't for social/political reasons EVEN TODAY openly publicize their Jewish lineage lest it is quickly identified/connected with their beliefs and actions, which may have linkages with their overall tribe's agenda's in the International plain.

Since world war II, where the country was utterly destroyed, occupied by 4 Jewish powers (USSR, JEWSA, Rothschild France and UK) guilt ridden, shamed, defeated with 10 million Germans dead........and CONTROLLED, the country after 1949 was allowed to re-build based on the fake Jewish narrative of the COLD WAR, as an important Capitalist buttress against Communism.

The Jews briefly between 1945--1949 toyed with the idea of further genocides under occupation (explained as food problems...Iraq......2 million German POWs were starved to death thus during 1945--46 under American care, and many more under Soviet care) and turning the country into one big agrarian farm for Europe.

Germany is now a rich prosperous country, and the fifth largest economy on earth...and is termed as the "powerhouse of Europe" (It pays for and runs the EU, and bails out its failed economies) It is a burden it must bare for its "crimes" during WWII into infinity.

There is strong anti-American feelings within Germans, maybe because of the occupation by their troops....and a healthy skepticism of what American governments do and say. In a recent poll 89.5% of Germans do not believe the official American government explanation for 9/11. But save for sections of the older generation who have not been "re-educated" by the occupation forces there isn't any Antisemitism in the country. Why should there be?........Germany is rich, and most Germans are happy with their country.......unlike Russians or Iranians high percentage of Germans don't want to emigrate to the USA.

But everything is not perfect in Germany. To be sure Germany has done well in comparison to the rest of Europe from the Jewish banking crisis of 2008, but in the long term there are fundamental structural problems which thinking Germans are well aware of.

The issue of population, and emigration.

The issue of European integration.

Whether Germans really do have free and fair elections or whether they are fixed, with status quo Jew controlled political parties.

Do Germans have ultimate control of the security of their country, or is it the USA through the security apparatus of Germany, as an occupation power?

Such issues which some might term esoteric for a nation obsessed with cars, football, beer...........and the good life, but maybe in the future they may become fundamental questions to ask given the long term direction the nation is heading....I'm talking about 2050...2070.

Herr Guido Westerwelle the German Foreign minister sacked by the JEWS within his own party the FPD, because he pursued a German specific foreign policy which was also favorable to the rest of the world, AND not based on an International Jewish agenda. Germany since 1919 has been run by JEWS.


The Jews Sacked Germany's Foreign Minister Westerwelle (From his own party)

Even His Party Friends Used the Expression "Mangy Dog." By the Authors of the National Journal Translated by J M Damon The original is posted at

Never before in the history of the so-called Federal Republic of Germany has the head of a political system-party been so abruptly and disgracefully driven from office as Guido Westerwelle (photo). Even the expression "mangy dog" has been used in conjunction with his forced resignation as party head.

In the view of the Jewish Lobby, Guido Westerwelle's hesitation to participate in the war against Libya (engineered by Jewish do-gooders Nicolas Sarkozy and Henri Lévy) caused the cup of "Anti-Semitism" to overflow. Westerwelle committed too great an indiscretion for the Jewish power centers. Henri Lévy pronounced the political death sentence on Westerwelle when he "decreed" in the 28 March issue of DIE WELT: "Gaddafi has got to go, and so does Westerwelle."

On 18 February 2011, Westerwelle played a decisive role in Germany's vote against Israel in the United Nation's condemnation of that country's policy of building settlements on Palestinian lands. To this day, the Lobby-controlled media has effectively hushed up that vote against Israel, presumably because Westerwelle might well have received broad public approval.

It is significant that just a few days after Westerwelle's fall, Israeli Prime Minister Netanjahu called on Chancellor Merkel in Berlin. On that same day, 7 April 2011, Merkel announced that Germany would station soldiers in Libya. Needless to say, this was touted as a "humanitarian mission" (like Germany's war in Afghanistan.)

It was a kind of declaration of war against the Jewish Lobby early last year when Westerwelle called for the removal of American nuclear weapons from German soil. According to SPIEGEL magazine on 13 April 2010: "The American ex-Nato Secretary General George Robertson strongly attacked Foreign Minister Westerwelle, saying his demand was irresponsible." It goes without saying that the German occupation government did not support Westerwelle's demand for the removal of nuclear weapons from German soil.

It is significant also that immediately following the victories of CDU/CSU and FDP in the elections of 2009, the Lobby media began warning of the danger of a new "Teutonic identity" in Germany. "Following the national election, the eyes of the world are on Germany. The judgment and expectation of the international press have a certain implication or implied judgment. They say that a new 'Teutonic consciousness' is evolving." (wap.n24, 28 September 2009)

The list of Westerwelle's transgressions against the Jewish power centers is long, going back to the days of Jürgen Möllemann. Möllemann died in a highly suspicious "accident" in 2003. That is why the campaign against Westerwelle was launched in the Lobby media soon after the election of 2009. At that time Westerwelle was "advised" to let the office of foreign minister go by and accept instead a ministerial position that would not entail contact with foreign governments. An opinion survey was staged right after the election to persuade Westerwelle to decline the office of Foreign Minister: "According to the opinion of the voters, Westerwelle should not take the foreign office." (WELT.DE, 7 October 2009)

At that time SPIEGEL, the voice of the Lobby, referred to Westerwelle as "The Disliked." (SPIEGEL, 41/2009, page 42) And Israel made it unmistakably clear to Chancellor Merkel that it greatly esteemed her dedication and loyalty to its interest but would be displeased to see Westerwelle named as foreign minister: "The possible designation of the head of the Free Democratic Party, Guido Westerwelle, to be the new German Foreign Minister is meeting with reservation in Israel. The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem would not comment on questions regarding its misgivings. Previously the daily newspaper Jerusalem Post had reported that the prospect of Westerwelle's naming as Germany's foreign minister was causing 'wrinkled brows' in Jerusalem. As a representative of the new Generation of Germans born after Holocaust, '...he does not have the same reflexive sympathy for Israel that characterizes German politicians throughout the political spectrum'." (NN-ONLINE.DE, 29 September 2009)

Why this sudden dislike of Westerwelle so soon after the federal elections of 2009? After all, he is homosexual, which is actually a prerequisite for high government office within the international "Lobby Democracies." In contrast to his former party colleague Jürgen Möllemann, Westerwelle was not to be expected to resist to the "ruling" of the Central Council of Jews in Germany.

In reality, the Jewish power structure tends to block politicians from influential positions when those politicians have intimate knowledge about them. This is especially true if they suspect that the politicians harbor a secret disinclination against international Jewry, even though they keep their mouths shut. The Jewish power brokers never forgave Westerwelle for not distancing himself from Möllemann until the latter was ousted for the dropping shot: "Westerwelle did not immediately distance himself from Möllemann, but rather waited for public pressure to build..." (NN-ONLINE.DE, 29 Sep 2009)

The Central Jewish Committee and Israel are correct in this respect. During his visit to Israel in 2002 Westerwelle dropped a rhetorical bomb, after the customary kowtowing and guilt ritual: "...Referring to Friedman [the then vice president of the Jewish Council in Germany], Westerwelle denied that Friedman had a ‘higher moral position' in the debate. Responding to the question of his relationship to Germany's National Socialist past, his response was: 'We all need to ask different questions and come up with different answers'. He declined to explain what he meant by that." (SPIEGEL, 41/2009, page 42)

For Israel and international Jewry, such a remark, even if denied and relativized a thousand times, has the same effect as if the "Holocaust" Story should be exposed as a lie in YAD VASHEM (the Israeli "Holocaust" Memorial).

Another thing for which international Jewry can never forgive Westerwelle is "Campaign 18" that he and Möllemann launched years ago. It is known in the worldwide resistance movement that "18" signifies "A.H." It is obvious to everyone that Westerwelle and Möllemann did not really believe they would win 18 percent of the vote! "18" was instead a cabalistic jab at the Power Jews, who reacted abruptly. Acting on instructions of the Jewish Central Council, the head of the FDP in Berlin Dahlem, Susanne Thaler, accused Möllemann of Nazism and Racism: "Playing with fire like as Möllemann is doing is 'repulsive and dangerous' said Thaler, accusing her party colleague of harboring 'internalized Nazi racism' ... She had doubts as to whether the goal of '18 percent' had not been chosen with more profound significance. Among Neo-Nazi, the number 18, in numerization of the alphabet, stands for the abbreviation AH, or Adolf Hitler." (SPIEGEL online, 6 June 2002)

The number 18, being 3x6, also represents the diabolical number in the Kabala and in Revelations. Möllemann was sending a signal: "You have been recognized: we know who you are." Obviously, Westerwelle was collaborating in this.

The object in those days was to hinder Möllemann from becoming Foreign Minister... Westerwelle was following in his footprints. This has now been revised. Westerwelle has been neutralized.

In our article following the Federal elections, we at the National Journal foresaw Westerwelle's fall. We wrote the following commentary, which can be read on our 2009 web page: "Guido will be carved into mincemeat by Merkel the Lobby Moll, with the intention of bursting the coalition bubble. This is because the queer QUIETSCHFROSCH (stuffed frog, a child's plaything) will now be required to throw all his campaign promises overboard. We have not forgotten how he flatly promised that he would not sign any coalition agreements unless they contained his promised tax reductions and simplifications: 'The Chancellor knows that I will sign a coalition agreement only if it contains a system of taxation that is lower, simpler and more fair.' (Westerwelle on his website.) Probably the Mossad will not have to bump him off as it disposed of Möllemann. Westerwelle has squashed himself, since his promises of tax reductions will still be empty promises until the next elections."

During the 2011 regional elections, the campaign to dump Westerwelle was carried out under the slogan that under his leadership, the FDP became the party of broken promises. Again and again his simplistic promises to lower taxes have been emphasized and pilloried. The turning point in atomic energy policy, following the constant stream of horrific reports from Japan, finally brought the campaign to a successful conclusion. In a way, this was understandable. How can a mentally stable person initially swear on the Bible assuring the public that atomic power is absolutely safe, and then admit that it is not safe? Nobody can appear less credible than such a person. On top of this, his party colleague Rainer Brüderle whispered to the nuclear potentates that talk about abandoning nuclear power should not be taken seriously.

Now the Jewish Lobby has driven the brainwashed masses into the life-threatening arc of the Greens. The Greens whine about nuclear power plants, but they have nothing against American warplanes armed with concrete-penetrating munitions conducting war games above these installations, as MONITOR reported on 7 April 2011. In addition, the Greens want to continue stuffing the international cartel of finance criminals with guarantees of more German billions. And of course the Greens are maneuvering to assure that in a few more years Germany will surpass the number of 100 million foreigners.***(1) This hate-filled conglomeration has marshalled its forces to totally wipe out the Germans. Greens such as Volker Beck, leader of the Green faction in the Federal Parliament, considers it their duty to pass legislation establishing child abuse as a human right for pedophiles. In his book DER PÄDOSEXUELLE KOMPLEX Beck writes that "the struggle for human rights includes the decriminalization of pedophilia", and this demand is supported by broad sectors of the Green Party.

In the case of Guido Westerwelle we can see that homosexuality, the predicate of "Lobby-Democracy," means nothing once the Jewish power structure recognizes a critic lurking behind that "preference."

Acting on orders of the Zionist Lobby, the wretched FDP knifed its chairperson in a manner normally used against Neo-Nazi. Westerwelle was abroad when his party colleagues, led by Mr. Kubicki (who in turn was egged on by Mrs. Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger) used the expression "mangy dog" on N-TV, in conjunction with Westerwelle. Kubicki's literal remark was: "We have to allow Westerwelle the possibility of stepping down from the leadership of the party... we should not drive him away like a mangy dog."

Now the Free Democrats are seeking salvation through the nomination of Vietnamese-born Philipp Rösler (adopted by German do-gooders) to head the party and fill the office of vice chancellor. This "beacon of hope" speaking German with Asian sibilants makes a good impression on politically correct Germans, and the FDP hopes to win back the favor of the Lobby with the nomination of a Multiculti figure. Besides, Rösler has already made a name for himself with health insurance "reforms" that so restrict the delivery of health care that many Germans no longer expect effective assistance. Furthermore he did this while simultaneous he makes Germans pay for first class medical treatment for millions of foreigners in their native land: "German public health insurance must now pay for family members of foreign employees... They pay the costs of treatment even of family members who do not live in Germany, but rather in their native countries. This applies to countless parents of foreigners who are national health insured in Germany, including foreigners in Turkey and countries that were formerly part of Yugoslavia." (WAMS, 13 April 2003)

What a superb vice-chancellor for Germany!


***1. Germans are a significant part of the Indo-European race, as are Iranians. Both races evolved as distinct races with their own languages in Russia. In the case of the Germans between the Urals and the Baltic republics in the Northern section of their original homeland before being driven out or assimilated by invading Slavs from Siberia during the First and Second Great Migrations in the Steppe. Iranians evolved South of the Germans, in the Pontic Steppe.......though they are related the two races are also different.

There are 71 million ethnic Germans in the federal Republic and another 12 million foreigner guest workers, with families mostly from Eastern Europe and other parts of Europe, and Turkey.

Germany contains the largest number of foreigners within her borders, and the greatest percentage (about 18%) in comparison to ALL European countries.

Future projections show that by 2040 given the current low birth rate, the ethnic German population will drop to about 54 million, and the foreign element depending on a number of intervening factors, about 30 million. If this trend continues then ethnic Germans will become a minority in their own country by 2060 or 2070. The problem thus for Germans is both the low birth rate, and high emigration to the country due to its prosperity, and EU emigration laws of open borders within the community.

This we may term a slow genocide of the German race in Germany. Granted that Germans as a race don't just exist in Germany, and that during the Great Migrations they went all over North and West Europe and hence into the New World there after....Spain the Goths...thus later Central and South America.....France the Franks....United Kingdom the Angles, Jutes, Saxons and hence North America and the other colonies.

But is this slow genocide of Germans Jewish driven, through careful social engineering? Maybe.....Most Third World nations without much central planning tend to achieve high birth rates.....Tanzania 4%, so why can't Germany given the sheer efficiency of the state? Sweden experiencing poverty and high emigration from the 18th and 19th century has managed to stabilize her population through careful social engineering....why can't Germany? Is this because of the Jews who control the country?

We note that Russia has the same problem. Its population will decline from the current 142 million to 80 million by 2050, and maybe 30 million by 2100. Russia is controlled by Jews, and we note that during the Jewish Bolshevik rule of the country between 1918--1991, 60 million Soviets were murdered by the Jewish Bolsheviks (Alexander Solzhenitsyn).

Is this the secret Jewish master plan for both countries? Close surveillance of the Rothschilds, and other top globalist Jews such as Soros, the Rockefeller's might give us valuable clues, using the usual latest surveillance techniques with remote viewing.

In the USA the Jews are using another technique in relation to the host population....flooding the country with Hispanic emigrants. By 2040 European Americans will become a minority of 38% in the country, and the Hispanics the largest ethnic group.(see previous posts)

Why do Jews hate certain gentiles more than others?

The Jew is a schizophrenic paradox.......due to his weird North African Bongo Bongo religion written in the Torah and the Talmud....and how it is interpreted to them by their Rabbi.

The Jew loves Western Occidental society, where the Jew exclusively resides. The Jew loves and benefits from the achievements of the Occidental....the Western culture, innovation, hard work, civilizational achievement.......what is Israel if its not a dirty little geographical strip which oozes and boasts of how Western, European it is? Israeli leaders boast about their Westerness ALL the time....with their nude beaches, whore houses with Ukrainian ladies stolen from the country......and their gay parades fashioned like the Mardi Gras.

And where do ALL Israelis have their second passport to?.......Why of course Occidental countries in Europe and North America in case the Rothschild funded little experiment fails.

But the Jew who is a schizophrenic paradox who is also dangerous because he is paranoid and fearful of the Occidental.........especially of Great nations with Great people like the Russians, Germans and Americans. Therefore to satisfy this paranoia and fear of the gentile, the Jew seeks to destroy these very nations through war, financial collapses and social engineering.

Jews Control Europe
My view now is: Both world wars were about–
      • 1 Killing as many goyim as possible (or possibly killing in numbers specified in the Talmud), using propaganda power to ignite wars between what were described as 'nations', and prolong them, and get simpletons to fight with new, powerful, dangerous, expensive weapons. This is not the traditional view—but consider what happened AFTER WW2 was supposed to have ended—millions of deaths in eastern Europe and Russia. This was intended! And
      • 2 Using Jew money power to exchange worthless money to collect as many assets from goyim as possible-
visible assets: gold, silver, housing, farms, usable water, factories, transport, and
less visible: legal and financial assets, notably control of banks and control of legal systems, and ownership, rents, secret alliances of the 'Freemason' and education types. And
      • 3 Founding Israel and probably other, secret, locations. The NSDAP-Jewish 'leaders' agreement (Haavara Agreement) was important in putting German infrastructure into Palestine at German expense.
... and it took me years to interpret the world this way, with Jews as a secret separate power bloc, interacting with Jewish puppets and Jewish subservients around the world. And Jews themselves as a hybrid collection of opportunist thugs, fanatics with a quasi-religious myth of origin, and second-rate rejects from aristocracies and other families, party groups, police, and so on, with their own training in deception.

Here's a good example of an obvious point, buried very successfully. I just noticed (on 1st July 2019) that the British Alliance with Poland—I've known for years, through Hilaire Belloc, that Poland had a high proportion of Jews—was not with Poles, but with Jews in Poland who controlled that country. Once you see it, it is obvious. So we have Jews in Poland dealing with Jews in Britain via Churchill, and Jews in the USA, and Jews in the USSR nominally under Stalin, all deciding what they would do, in secret. They probably synchronised with Hitler, arranging Jews in Poland to start the war with Germany, then Jews in Poland secretly arranging for Stalin to invade Poland. No doubt Poles died, and raised the white death toll; but Jews in Poland were not killed.

For USA readers: Note that Jews can treat each state as they do countries, by controlling news between states so that black crime, Jewish fraud, migration numbers, education standards and so on are minimised for other states. Same with money flows, unemployment, etc.

I've just found (by looking at logs of this website) which is an early site on this topic, by Hexzane527, apparently French. Its entries date from 2013 to 2015. It is still a live site.


The idea that the whole of WW2 was a hoax
It seems to be true that WW2 was organised behind the scenes by Jews, who of course are distributed world-wide, and their collaborators: USA paper money, London finance, the Moscow and Soviet empire, France corrupted by Freemasons ("francmaçons"), Jewish penetration into China, etc.
      The world was divided into regions by Jews, which enabled them to arrange propaganda appropriate to each region.
      The USA was not bombed. Britain was spared much bombing, but Germany was not. France was reputedly bombed more than any country except Germany. The newspaper and radio propaganda was controlled for each region, and the different languages allowed each region to be pinpointed. So the various areas were treated separately.
      Consider the post-war situations: with eg Korea, Vietnam or Afghanistan, no US operations were reported accurately in the USA. During WW2, complete censorship applied. The truth about Hiroshima and Nagasaki—they were fire-bombed—was completely censored, as it still is in Japan, as my own site logs show.
      I don't want to give endless examples—Greece, Italy, north Africa, Estonia, Lithuania, Eire, ....—but the idea that the entire WW2 was a hoax is credible only in a few countries to people who haven't understood the world's zones of propaganda at the time.
 But, on the other hand, look at this black and white photo, from In Darkest Germany, by Victor Gollancz, published by Victor Gollancz in London, 1947. Gollancz was a Jewish propagandist. Bear in mind that models and fakes were used in the black and white movie film industry which flourished in the 1930s, and that cinema newsreels included fake atomic bomb images. Do those images of ruined buildings with identical undetailed window sizes stacked in narrow buildings look genuine?
      Miles Mathis in dresden.pdf (January 28, 2016) gives a series of variously-faked images, his article having been avoided by 'experts' (as far as I know). So there are problems.


Are Jews under-represented?   Paul Bustion: I do tend to believe that Jews are overrepresented in the military, not underrepresented in it. I believe that they would need a substantial presence in the military in order to either start wars or to hoax them or to do some combination of both. In order to have genocides, or to hoax them, they need a presence in the military.
      I believe that in having these wars, both in real wars and in hoaxed wars, Jews need to be pulling the strings and in the case of real wars, arranging in advance who wins and who loses, and in the case of hoax wars, hoaxing battles. And Jews need a substantial presence in the militaries of both sides for that to work, and further, they need to have people in both military who are not only Jews, but closely related to Jews in the enemy's military, for this to work. For these reasons, I believe that Jews are overrepresented in the military. I believe that the AntiJews who originated the claim that Jews are underrepresented in the military were likely crypto-Jews trying to cover up Jewish control and influence in the military, so that people would not figure out that Jews are starting wars and hoaxing events. By couching the argument that Jews are underrepresented in the military as an insult against Jews, pointing to it as proof of their cowardice and of their manipulation of the Goyim into dying in wars for them, it prevents people from suspecting that the claim is being made in order to prevent suspicion against Jews, so people just accept the claim without question.

      RW: Thanks for clarifying your claim on Jews being over-represented, so they could affect the result in their favour. A claim which I can't recall ever hearing before. The received view is that Jews go for the financial positions (Baruch in the Great War obvious example) and in intelligence, eg at Bletchley Park. And in high-level posts, eg Roosevelt and Eisenhower. And in world propaganda: newspapers, books, radio, film, TV. It's not that easy to test; you have to look at many wars and assess Jewish interests, then try to work out who were Jews if any...

My attention was drawn to a site by UNZ, purporting to be revisionism of WW2 by a Jew. I've edited it down, and put it on my site, here. It's old stuff, fake revisionism plus product placement. Interesting as a sample, but I recommend not spending time on it.
I watched part of an 8-hour DVD, made from my VHS tape in 1991, showing a few days of TV 'News' in Britain about war on Iraq. Youtube removed my channel, without permission; so has Bitchute, obviously just another controlled site.
      Anyway, here's my brief commentary: The scenes of bombers, locations presumably hidden, the rather (but not very) highly-paid actors reading out the anonymous communal words assembled from Jew controllers, the mixed-race general (or something), the zombie talking-doll politicians, the scenes of simple unquestioning soldiery who think dropping bombs is 'fighting', the announcement that the armed forces will have a pay rise, the careful avoidance of information on likely damage and deaths, on atrocities, and on anything invisible—assets which may be grabbed, mortgages on building, land, entire countries, ownerships, central banks which may be set up, laws which may be imposed, debts which can add to impoverishment—chemical effects on people, future joke inquiries, hatreds for Americans ...

All this is depressing, at least to me. My perception is that at the root of the modern world is Jew infiltration, and my piece extends the idea to the Second World War. We're in a world in which Jews routinely lie, but they also censor, and destroy evidence. We therefore have to rely on inference and guesswork, reinforced by observations of actual 'Jewish' behaviours. Let me summarise my view of the last two thousand years, before starting on the world's biggest war. Some of this is likely to be wrong; feel free to read other versions. But at least make some attempt to understand the world!

      For whatever reasons—Cheap papyrus, and intensive reading and writing? Habitual travel, with the feeling of outsidership? A common secret language, made of terms from assorted parts of the world? Exploitation of absence of forensic techniques at the time? Exploitation of cities, evolutionarily new in human societies? Inherited psychopathologies? Lack of opposition?—'Jews'—speaking vaguely, since accuracy is impossible—developed, for want of a better word, as parasites. The Roman Empire fell, and with it many skills and techniques. However, it seems Jews exploited the remains, by intruding a new religion, bending it to their own purposes, largely be simple repetition—the endless repetition of the Holohoax fraud, now, illustrates their propaganda method. To this day many whites don't understand that Christianity is an oriental fake.
      Jews pulled the same trick by inventing Islam, and tailoring that written message to groups who they thought, correctly, could be used as armed thugs.
      Christianity and Islam both spread. Note the structural similarities to Judaism: they spread across many nations, with the implicit threat that, as any one time, all might act against a single member state. They each had a lingua franca, Hebrew, Latin, Greek, Arabic—the component groups or nations or tribes had representatives who could talk with each other. Another important aspect is that they provided careers: in return for literacy, some simple activities and ceremonies, and some common activities enlarging their groups, castes of the privileged, generally men, appeared, and were often very durable: Alfred North Whitehead, for example, was supposedly descended from clerical (in the religious sense) men since England was converted to Christianity, itself achieved by a mixture of methods, including violence.
      It's important that increasing travel should allow regions to discuss their common interests, presumably with a common language and a hierarchy; the tragedy is that the methods were pioneered, or taken over, by secretive psychopaths.
      The new nominal belief systems were at a level below ordinary European thought; one wonders if 'Jews' were intermixed with negroes, and simply were primitive in their most fundamental thinking. I wonder whether the outbursts at the present day—by freakish bearded mutilated men wearing suits fashionable in 18th century Poland—wanting rape and deaths for whites, endless wars and debt, child sex, ruining of entire countries by immigration—may be intended to provoke non-Jews into getting rid of them once and for all, to the benefit of Europeanised Jews.
      Christianity and the money aspects of Judaism are popularly supposed to be in opposition, but this seems likely to be a myth; rather, the Jewish monopoly of banking must have been supported by churches, who prevented local people from taking part in financial activities, which, after all, are simple enough. Probably churches obtained tithes and priestly income (and priories, sales of indulgences, fees etc) in co-operation with Jews. Certainly, the activities of churches in the last few centuries show little concern with moral values.
      Many people still think the main issue with Jews was 'usury'. This propagandist view is still promoted by Roman Catholics. In fact, this is a near-irrelevance, hiding the real issues—large-scale taxes, rents, tithes, interference with money, swindles, parasitic shareholdings, wars. The churches concealed these facts in a symbiotic relationship with Jews. As we'll see, Hitler made use of this deception.
      From about 1500, when the Americas were discovered (or rediscovered) by Europeans, Jews diffused west, typically from Venice, and often by intermarriage. The East India Company grew from 1600. The Netherlands and British Isles provided ideal bases; Jews like islands (and the suggestion in the 1930s that Jews move to Madagascar would have made sense, if Africa could have been developed). The Bank of England is described as being founded in 1694, after the English 'Civil War', and the earlier Tudor Constitution of 'Merrie England' was finally replaced. The 18th century was marked by impoverishment and inflation. USA was the first country known to me established from the start as Jewish—or, more accurately, as Freemasonic. The 19th century was marked by science and technology; if we regard any society as made up partly of day-to-day construction, repair, and necessities, and partly of surplus, the white world had more surplus than ever before, directed in many ways—but secrecy about the activities of Jews was almost universal, as witness the Opium Wars against China. The twentieth century may be shown up in centuries to come as the apex of Jewish power, from which decline was inevitable. The two world wars in my view were Jewish-propelled, which is the focus of this article.

      There seem to be three possibilities:

Jewish hegemony will increase, following the Roman Empire pattern, with loss of many technical skills and rise in superstition, and general decline: including militarism, which will be too expensive and perhaps resulting in fierce actions against anyone regarded as an oppressor. At present, Jewish propaganda is frantically attempting to remove all references to Jewish media and money ownership, and to their own race policies (forced invasions, but their own exclusivity), and Jewish mass crimes, for example in the USSR, but it is possible these will be losing battles.
Jewish hegemony will decrease, as the effects of their profits from wars and atrocities, failing propaganda, and evident lies become clear. Probably attacks against Jews, both overt and secret, will grow:-
      (i) by countries, and co-operation between countries, including the USA, China, Russia, and India; possibly international groups will evolve, perhaps including US states, acting for populations, not for Jews and their puppets. Perhaps communications between Jews will be stopped, and/or spying increased;
      (ii) by Jewish institutions, such as synagogues, Jew based schools, yearbooks, business organisations, and media such as the BBC;
      (iii) by organisations set up to study aspects of Judaism: Talmudic study to identify typical patterns of Jewish crime and corruption, and investigation of absurdities and weaknesses; serious and uncompromising study of such things as Freemasons and Common Purpose; historical study to establish likely timelines; study of laws and lawmakers, to identify Jewish policies and strategies; educational research, to identify Jewish patterns of weakening education; medical and biological research, to look for traditional Jewish attitudes, such as poisoning and disease spreading; science research, into big frauds, NASA and 9/11 being obvious examples; and of course comparative notes between countries, of which the USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia, Hungary stand out.
Something else. It's clear enough that historians generally have overstated the difficulties of historical work. Much of history is far more forecastable than it seemed to the Jew-naive. However, their dishonesty (or incompetence) doesn't prove that nothing new will emerge. For example, maybe laws will emerge relating population size, organisation sizes, technical details of communication, and the biology of human understanding.
      'Revisionist' Work is Likely to Expand:
Contrary to Jewish repetitive propaganda, ‘Jews’ are not a race. Their policy, at least of the aggressive ones, has been to interbreed with other groups, in the hope of spreading their influence. There are more ‘Jewish’ surnames than in any other group. It’s only the intensive teaching that keeps them together. Many people seem to share the delusion of ‘Jews’ as a race; in fact, as with all animals, the lifetime experiences of parents are not passed to offspring. No doubt typical Jews are more fanatical, more obsessive, more liable to form lifelong attachments to groups they find themselves in, and to show extreme responses to pre-scientific stimuli. But they are not a ‘race’. They are creatures of the Talmud, and if this is removed, they will fade away. I can’t wait.
Probably understanding of Jewish techniques will grow and cross-fertilise. It will be seen as childish and amateurish to have no awareness of Jews. Such expressions as "American policy" will be seen as pitifully incomplete if Jewish views on America are not identified as different from those of Americans. The belief in isolated heroes, Great Men, Messiahs, Monarchs will be seen as Jewish mythology, distraction from the truths that effects are obtained by large numbers of people co-operating. Weak historical generalisations such as "England has always wanted a weak and divided continental Europe" will be replaced by sounder statements, such as "Supposed English policy has been to keep Jews united in secret." Americans will take it for granted that their supposed individualism, as used two centuries ago, was a Jewish construct, and will be opposed by Jews now as they attempt to disarm them. The use of aggressive techniques by Jews (such as the written credit agreement, shetar, or starr, in medieval English documents. The basis of the shetar, or "Jewish Gage," was a lien on all property which gave a huge bas towards Jews.) which are easy enough to understand, when exposed.
Freer understanding of white psychology—that genetic possibilities need nurture—may improve all aspects of education. Just as children teach themselves to walk, and learn language, and discover their surroundings, until they are in a preparatory stage to learn, they will not be deluged with Jewish lies, propaganda, and damaging third-rate trash. There will be better understanding of the treachery of collaborators, and the historical ways such people have been paid, used and discarded.
An example of an occupied country: I hope the next breakthrough in human thought—if it ever happens—will be theories of human lives, abilities, and possibilities. This may mean as big a change as recognition of Darwinian facts, which make much of old European thought so feeble and unsound. Just one tiny sample from the 20th century:
      The sources the Stasi [Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, or Ministry for State Security] themselves considered most important were the “unofficial collaborators”, the IMs [Inoffiziale Mitarbeiten]. The numbers are extraordinary. According to internal records, in 1988 – the last “normal” year of the GDR [German Democratic Republic] – the Ministry for State Security had more than 170,000 “unofficial collaborators.” Of these, some 110,000 were regular informers, while the others were involved in “conspiratorial” services, such as lending their flats for secret meetings, or were simply listed as reliable contacts. The Ministry itself had over 90,000 full-time employees, of whom less than 5,000 were in the HVA [Hauptverwaltung Aufklärung, Main Administration Reconnaissance] foreign-intelligence wing. Setting the total figure against the adult population in the same year, this means that one out of every fifty adult East Germans had a direct connection with the secret police. The Nazis had nothing like as many. In 1941, the full-time staff of the Gestapo, the Nazis’ Secret State Police, for the vastly larger territory of Greater Germany, including Austria and what is today the Czech Republic, was less than 15,000. Even adding the Reich Security Service and other possibly comparable units, one can still not reach anything like the Stasi proportions. We have no national figures for the number of regular informers, but it seems clear that this was also very much smaller. Over its relatively short life, starting with real popular enthusiasm and ending with five-and-a-half years of war, the Third Reich could rely much more on voluntary denunciations – as I found in those dusty People’s Court files. In East Germany, the regime was never popular to start with, and the longer it went on the more it came to rely on this huge network of informers. (From The File: A Personal History, Timothy Garton Ash, HarperCollins, London, 1997, chapter V, pp 74-5)
The Second World War's Missing Link: ‘Jews’   [ Top of page ]
• Contrary to the usual Jewish propaganda, the fact is that Jews were and are casual and relaxed about twentieth-century events. Just a few examples: A H Lane's 1934 book The Alien Menace gives details of the effortless way Jews invaded Britain, and were invited in, for example by the BBC radio of the time after the Jewish takeover in Russia in 1917. Chapters 10 ('Aliens and Revolution') and 11 ('The Hidden Hand') give a good overview. A H M Ramsay's The Nameless War (a survey from the time of Cromwell, first published in 1952) includes this:

‘ ... control shares of the Daily Mail were for sale. ... a severe advertisement boycott had been put in operation against the paper following upon its having printed ... a pro-Franco view of the Spanish Civil War (in reality, it was just the truth), the news was no great surprise to me. ... I decided to approach a certain very wealthy and patriotic peer, the head of a great business. ... I gave [him] a survey of the activities and power of Organized Jewry in general, and of their secret publicity control in Britain in particular ... “I daren’t,” he replied, “"... I must refuse.” On our expressing astonishment that Jewry could inflict such crushing retaliation on a man of his financial strength and industrial power, and so conspicuous a national figure, he gave us details of just such retaliation directed against him by Organized Jewry ... He had refused to comply with some demands they had made of him affecting his works. After a final warning, which he ignored, a world boycott had been started against him, which had become effective in 24 hours, wherever he had agents or offices. Fires and strikes also mysteriously occurred. The resulting losses had finally compelled him to give in. Within 24 hours the boycott was lifted all over the world...’ Note that the BBC sided with the Jewish oppression of Russia, suppressing any evidence of mass murder of tens of millions.
      The 'Jack the Ripper' issue, Boer War faked agitation, 'votes for women' scam to promote war, are examples before the Great War; Jewish riots in London, for example Cable Street, carry the same message. After the Second World War, US servicemen returning to New York found huge numbers of Jews there. In the UK, the Jew-controlled ship, renamed Empire Windrush, importing blacks into Britain into 1948 (see Andrew Joyce), just after Jewish lawyers had stated that hundreds of millions from the ex-Empire were entitled to passports. Jews were given special treatment: I was amused to see that J Gold, of vibrators for women, said her Jewish father didn't fight—he said he had hay fever. The USA had some remaining leftovers from its supposed foundation, but Jewish control of money led to frauds and waste on a scale unequalled in the whole or world history: bases around the world, fake 'astronauts', fake nuclear weapons and power, fake revolutions in for example Cuba, complete control of printed media, mass invasion of previously white countries. A truly amazing story. ...
      All this is familiar to some people. If it's new to you, look at my long historical list of Jewish activities around the world which I compiled over a number of years, and which goes back to the start of identifiably 'Jewish' material.   (Within that page is Teaching Real Jewish Studies: What Everyone Should Know About Jews—Suggestions for Awareness Courses.)

• One of the strengths of Jews has been the myopic inattentiveness and gullibility and venality of various groups of non-Jews. Here's a random selection of notes:
      A website of elderly ex-employees of 'Her Majesty's Stationery Office' in Britain (now gone) has many anecdotes on offices, working-practices and what have you; they helped produce endless state propaganda and lies, but have not the slightest awareness of the world. Various teachers I've known had not the remotest idea of the effects of (e.g.) Gove, when he was politically involved in education; just one example. I remember meeting Mike Todd, responsible for the technology of the BBC; he had zero idea of the influence of Jews in the world, and thence on the BBC. I recall a story of a woman near death, looking at the miscellany of badly-qualified immigrant nurses, saying "Who would have thought it would end like this?"
      Jewish secrecy has been an astonishing success. One of the first modern books on the subject, The Jews by Hilaire Belloc, was first published in 1920. Obviously, censorship by Jews has been hugely influential; the US film industry, which has never had any serious treatment of Jewish power, illustrates the point; so does e.g. my look at Jewish propaganda books in Britain around the Second World War.
      A view of 19th century history is given in Oscar Wilde's mistitled The Rise of Historical Criticism. Which is almost entirely concerned with historians. Wilde was a classicist, but also familiar with French and German; Victor Cousin, L'Art de Vérifier les Dates, Mommsen, and Hegel make appearances. Wilde has Herodotus and Thucydides and many others, including philosophers (Plato, Aristotle ... Spencer). And attitudes including miracles and rationalism, cycles typically with deluges marking restarts, bookish people vs men of action, ends, laws, order, oratorical and poetical presentations, critical comparison, eclectism, and attractive analogies from science. There is not the slightest trace of awareness that human groups may be parasitical. Wilde finishes with praise at the opening of the sixteenth century, from the little Venetian printing press came forth all the great authors of antiquity, each bearing on the title page the words Aldo Menuzio, a Roman and a lover of Greece... The reference to Venice must chill any serious modern revisionary. Note that Wilde omits Maitland, an historian of the laws of Britain, who may have had some insight into the invisible aspects of history—ownership, rents, payments, expiry dates, impositions on populations.
      I've just read from Studies in Contemporary Biography by James Bryce (1903) (of the Bryce Report, atrocity propaganda against Germany during the Great War) the chapter on Sir George Jessel (1824-1883), a Jew who was made 'Master of the Rolls', part of the intrusion into the British legal system. It's agonising to revisit the 19th century, and observe the indolent incuriosity, and the cowardly backing away, from all Jewish issues, including financing of subversions and wars, and financing of religions. Especially as Bryce was aware, to some extent, of the facts.
      Two generations later, A J Toynbee continued the tradition—though to an astonishing extent; he must have been selected for the 'Royal Institute of International Affairs' precisely because of his lack of percipience. Toynbee on Bertrand Russell. Both were useful idiots. The only exceptions I've found were Russell on the Belgian Congo, Russell's Vietnam War work, and Russell on Palestine.

• Jewish Talmudic theory makes a very logically consistent set of beliefs and commands. These include: instructions to kill any non-Jew investigating the Talmud; instructions to kill 'the best' of non-Jews; instructions to harm and defraud non-Jews when practicable; instructions to lie; and an annual ceremony to disavow any legal oath made to non-Jews. There are few serious non-Jewish students of the Talmud, no doubt as a consequence. One of the few is Michael Hoffman, in for example Judaism's Strange Gods. (That link is to my review).
      I've claimed the Talmud is ‘very logically consistent’, speaking as someone not very familiar with it, and who regards it as a nuisance and a menace. But very probably there are serious weaknesses. Examples:
      [1] Jews seem to argue that, when something is over, it's no longer important: I've seen this argument used to deflect comments on Jew mass murder in the USSR. And of course there's some truth, especially in the long term. But it is a double-edged blade: if there is a move to genuinely exterminate Jews, the proponents can argue that, once it's over, it won't matter.
      [2] Jews, or at least rabbis, say that goyim must be warned of some trick or fraud; then it becomes their fault if they don't see it. 9/11 for example was advertised in several ways. Is this a well-thought out policy? I'm not sure.
      [3] Jews have a revenge, or pseudo-revenge, attitude. Dresden for example hosted an early conference on the Jewish menace; the Germans obtained the Ukraine's harvest during WW1; Hungary fought against the Jew Bela Kun after WW1; Sweden was neutral in WW2, supplying iron ore to Germany; and these places were all targeted for later Jewish hate. For that matter, Jews show no gratitude for British and US actions, despite nominally helping them. Are these things well-thought out?
      [4] Jewish Talmudic theory explicitly looks forward to exterminating non-Jews, preferably en masse. It's true this is kept secret when possible, though sometimes it leaks out—freakish bearded 'rabbis', absurd low-grade US 'academics', women with the brainpower of Sunday School teachers—but is it a workable policy?

• Since Jewish power can be inferred to be considerable, and since their school of ethics is extremely hostile to non-Jews, clearly Jews must be viewed as a power bloc, analogous to nations, but spread out across those nations, much as a parasite might spread threads and spores and umbilical cords where it can find nutrition. These will be hidden where possible, but the effect on genuine scientific historical interpretations ought to be enormous. Here are three of my files on Jews and their activities, which I put here for completeness:
Guide for the Perplexed about Jews   A Guide for the Perplexed: Cutting Through the Jungle of Jewish Influences on White Ideas. Includes a long list of words and phrases corrupted by Jews (just a few: Appeasement | Reform | Democracy | Socialism | Anarchism | Communism | Primitive Communism | Capitalism | Collectivism | Feudalism | Foreign Aid | Do Targets Always Fail? | Foreign Aid | Do Targets Always Fail? | Individualism | Free Thought | Slavery | 1960s | 'Concentration Camps' | 'Minorities'...) & Evolution of Jews as parasites | Identifying aggressive Jewish Plans and patterns & Jews and Learning IDENTIFYING AGGRESSIVE JEW PLANS AND PATTERNS & Economics | Politics | Sociology | History | Religion | Health & some videos.
Articles on Jews   going back to 2012. (Originally in British Resistance, a defunct website). About 60, including: Is Lipstadt a Covert Counter-Mossad Truther?—and Other Puzzles: Trump | US 'Education' | Race Wars | Thugs | Man-Made Races | Holocaustianity | Was Early Christianity Hijacked by Jews? | Jo Cox, Jews, Invasion, Housing | 'Migrant Crisis' | Flat Earth Promotion; Why? & 'Jew Shock' | New View of Suffragettes & Blaming Women | Understanding Money, Banks, Jews, and Varieties of Capitalism | Nuclear Scepticism and Revisionism | Jewish Murders & Mass Murders | Eugenics | Image Fakery, Event Fakery, Crisis Actors | How Jews Use Blacks | Jewish Liars, Trolls, Nudgers, Reputation Managers | Jews and Unions | Jews and Fake Information | Jews and Wars Considered as Jewish-Run Cock Fights | Jews 5: Jewish Hate for Whites
Teaching about Jews   Jewish influence as damaging to academic subjects
Holocaust Revisionism, Free Speech, and Internet is one of my earliest articles, with material added later in sequence. It's known that Jews invented atrocities against the Germans, for various reasons including extorting money. But if Jews around the world controlled propaganda, then propaganda originating from Russian Jews may have its own purpose; for example, Bolshevik atrocities may have been invented to inflame Germans. And the 'pogrom' frauds were obviously used as a device to move to the USA, Britain, and othewr places.

Note on 'Jews': throughout I use the 'popular' sense of Jews as a self-identified group, including such aspects as supposed racial unity despite interbreeding, supposed maternal descent—which appears to be relatively new—and supposed 'chosen people' status. The further secret aspects—name-changing, deceit, Talmudic viciousness, destruction of beauty, health, achievements—and the selective application of laws in favour of Jews—appear still not to be widely known. In my view, these behaviours are largely genetic, resembling psychopaths, and mediated by written texts. So the attitudes are transmissible by the written and spoken word.


Below is an extract, on the aftermath of WW1, from H G Wells's The Outline of History, Popular Edition (Sept 1930)
Published by Cassell & Company (Jewish. London, Toronto, Melbourne and Sydney). I believe it was never translated into any other language.

I've selected Wells because of his popularity in the Anglophone world; his views must have been widespread.   Notes to bear in mind before looking through Wells (most important few notes bold):

      • Wells had little idea of the importance to Jews of Russia. Such events as the Jewish-financed Japanese war on eastern Russia, the constant attacks and assassinations by Jews from the 'Pale', the propaganda by Jews in Britain and the USA, and the huge effort of the Jewish coup in Russia, is over-ridden by constant references to Germany and Europe. The centrality of Russia in Jewish intentions—a huge part of the next war—is never noted by Wells, as of course Jews wanted.

Arthur Greenwood, Amery &c were all crypto-Jews, wanting wars for Jewish gain. Challinor had no real understanding of that—or perhaps he kept it secret      • H G Wells never identified 'British' Jewish interests as likely to be alien to British interests. He never identifies the catastrophic costs to Britain in funding Jewish loans, or the deaths and destruction fomented by Jews. This is not entirely his fault: national accounts were primitive, and details of loans were as far as I know completely secret, no doubt deliberately. In 1914, Britain allegedly held about 40% of the world's total overseas investment, something the Jews would be well aware of; by 1940 Britain was bankrupt, presumably in the cash holdings sense, not ownership of lands and assets.
      • His endless attention to European small states distracts him from Armenian genocide, Ukrainian genocide, mass USSR killings, Balfour (and Sykes & George Picot), and the changes to the Ottoman empire. All details of interest to Jews.

      • Wells was almost completely Jew-naive, in common with most well-publicised 20th-century authors. But not completely; there are occasional glimmers, such as his comment on 'currency cranks'. (NB he was educated with the 'Jew' who I think became the newspaper political cartoonist nicknamed 'Low').
      • Wells had no idea of the penetration of 'Jews' in the world's capitals, or the basic beliefs of 'Jews'. He had no idea that of the throngs attracted to Versailles, many of the 'experts' and translators were 'Jews'. Many of the supposed leaders were funded by Jews or crypto-Jews, whose concern was to increase their power in their own regions—areas outside Europe (think Ukraine, Armenia, Turkey) and within Europe (Poland, Hungary, Roumania, for example) not just the USA, France, Britain, and Russia. The borders drawn at Versailles were arranged under Jewish pressure, probably taking account of local Jewish 'communities' and planting seeds of future disruptions and wars.
      • Wells, following 'Jew' propaganda, believed such things as The world of the Western European civilizations in the years that followed the end of the Great War was like a man who has had some very vital surgical operation very roughly performed. There was widespread propaganda favouring war—not, of course, that 'Jews' would fight themselves. 'Healthy cleansing', 'the ancient Greeks were warlike', 'muscular Christianity' were common; so were such ideas as 'bored populations', 'restlessness' and so on—the evidence being 'Jewish' violence, Jew-supported groups (Irish and women and Boer War advocates, for example, and bomb-throwing 'anarchists' in and near Russia). It's obviously important for 'Jews' to spread the idea that wars can only be stopped by people controlled by 'Jews'.
      • A century later, we can see some of the pieces of ignorance in Wells:
        (1) He had little idea about paper money, and zero idea of the 'Fed'; all his life, up to about 50, currencies had been gold, silver, and copper, plus notes and cheques.
        (2) He had no idea that the 'changes in mood' were products of 'Jewish' propaganda. For example, after the Balfour Declaration, which Wells doesn't mention, 'Jews' in the USA propagandised in the press, popular music, cinema, and other media, switching from neutrality/indifference to anti-Germanism in about 1916.
        (3) He shares the naive view that wars are simple contests between geographical groups; he says nothing about equipment, supplies, and costs—and, especially, secret deals on repayments of loans.
        (4) He accepts various scrappy 'Jew' errors and lies, such as revolutions propelled by revolutionary masses: his account of the 'Russian Revolution' is taken from 'Jew' sources. His use of 'imperialism' is another Judaism, copied and modified from Hobson: Wells never seems to have considered that the spread of useful new things isn't 'imperialism' in the hostile sense, or that finance is a separate issue from colonies and trade.
        (5) Such phrases as 'The new Russian republic had to fight unsupported' show Wells had no idea of the capacities of Jews to transfer money, to use nepotistic networks, use telegraphic information, and control news.

      • Many new things have come to light, for example President Wilson being blackmailed by Jews after his adultery. Wells seems never to have known that the November 11th 1918 armistice was a truce, but not an official end to the war. Kerensky later 'worked' in a US university. Jews were forced into the US Supreme Court. Stalin was a Jewish dictator, not a 'socialist'.
      • Wells quotes from Keynes's Economic Consequences of the Peace—though Keynes never mentioned Jewish funding, either through ignorance, or corruption. England had destroyed, as in each preceding century, a trade rival; writes Keynes of Clemenceau; he must have meant Spain, Netherlands, France, and (recently) Germany and one can't help but wonder How Jewish was Keynes. (A 2013 piece plainly claims Keynes was a Jewish liar). Wells also quotes from Emile Joseph Dillon's Inside Story of the Peace Conference. Neither dealt with the start of the war. Wells unfortunately was not competent to summarise the financial repayment system, or summarise the damage that had been done. And Wells was fiercely against 'profiteering', just as Jews hated 'Kulaks', but was unaware he was backing profiteering on a new and unprecedented scale. It's a sad commentary on Wells's humanitarian outlook that the never faced issues such as small businesses, though (for example) one of his novels ends with the family man hero running a bike shop, painting bikes in the customers' choice of colour. But he seemed happy to extinguish small businesses when the supposed public interest insisted.
      • The start of the war, and events such as starvation and weaponisation of food, were then, and still are, secret. Wells himself took part in shameless war propaganda: Joad later wrote something like It is only my respect for a great man which prevents me from quoting some of the things Wells wrote during the war. This of course is a 'Jew' attitude: once they start a war they want it to continue. Germany being at fault was the leading idea. I'd suggest Jews in Russia wanted war, and got it, Germany being the last 'great power' to mobilise.
      • Note that Wells makes no mention of Hitler—even as late as 1930. Hitler's supposed primacy of monstrousness came later, as 'Jews' shifted their propaganda focus. Mussolini was liked by many at the time, for example Coudenhove-Kalergi, and two Jewish monopolists, Counts Volpi and Pirelli, who between world wars are well-known figures in the City of London. Mussolini's Abyssinian adventure was, in part, financed by the Paris Rothschilds,and his Abyssinian expert was a Jew... The American Ambassador to Italy lauded Mussolini.
      • Mein Kampf (my review) comments on Mussolini, and the intelligent review of his life by Miles Mathis, who also wrote on Lenin. Both were figureheads of Jews, one as an actor, the other as a money co-ordinator. The point of this piece is to point out that Hitler was very likely another actor and co-ordinator.
      • Wells had no idea of three-way wars backed by Jews. (Listen to Tony Benn—another Jew puppet politician—in 1994 talking on 'fascism': It’s time we did a bit of reexamination ... of the 1930s and got away from the idea that the British government believed in appeasement. They didn’t .. appease Hitler. They supported Hitler. They backed Hitler. .. captured German foreign office you’ll find that when Halifax went to talk to Hitler on behalf of the British government the first thing he did was to congratulate the German chancellor on having destroyed communism in Germany, and acted as a bulwark against it in Europe. And the whole of that 1930s period was a period when western governments were happy to use fascism in order to destroy socialism in all its forms, not just in Russia [sic] but in the west as well. ... maximising deaths of Germans and Russians, by giving weapons to whichever side was losing. ...)
      • Wells accepted the idea of Roman Catholic responsibility for the Second World War, in his Penguin-published book Crux Ansata. This is a fairly popular half-truth, which flickers about. The Jesuits are a later post-1945 favourite. Jews, Catholics, and Islam are part of a trinity of 'Jew' nonsense which it is essential to understand. But Wells never disentangled his ideas to consider Jews as a collectivity, or the relationships between Jews and Christians.

THE OUTLINE OF HISTORY - {1084} the representative body, attempted arrests of liberal leaders, the formation of a provisional government under Prince Lvoff, and an abdication (March 15th) by the Tsar.
      For a time it seemed that a moderate and controlled revolution might be possible—perhaps under a new Tsar. Then it became evident that the destruction of confidence in Russia had gone too far for any such adjustments. The Russian people were sick to death of the old order of things in Europe, of Tsars and of wars and great powers; it wanted relief, and that speedily, from unendurable miseries. The Allies had no understanding of Russian realities; their diplomatists were ignorant of Russian; genteel persons, with their attention directed to the Russian Court rather than Russia, they blundered steadily with the new situation. There was little goodwill among the diplomatists for republicanism, and a manifest disposition to embarrass the new government as much as possible. At the head of the Russian republican government was an eloquent and picturesque leader, Kerensky, who found himself assailed by the deep forces of a profounder revolutionary movement, the "social revolution," at home and cold-shouldered by the Allied governments abroad. His allies would neither let him give the Russian people land nor peace beyond their frontiers. The French and the British Press pestered their exhausted ally for a fresh offensive, but when presently the Germans made a strong attack by sea and land upon Riga, the British Admiralty quailed before the prospect of a Baltic expedition in relief.
      The new Russian republic had to fight unsupported. In spite of their great naval predominance and the bitter protests of the English admiral, Lord Fisher (1841-1920), it is to be noted that the Allies, except for some submarine attacks, left the Germans the complete mastery of the Baltic throughout the war.
      The Russian masses were resolute to end the war. There had come into existence in Petrograd a body representing the workers and common soldiers, the Soviet, and this body clamoured for an international Conference of socialists at Stockholm. Food riots were occurring in Berlin at this time, war-weariness in Austria and Germany was profound, and there can be little doubt, in the light of subsequent events, that such a conference would have precipitated a reasonable peace on democratic lines in 1917 and a German revolution. [I emphasize this sentence to show how little grasp Wells had of top-down methods of control-RW].
      Kerensky implored his Western allies to allow this conference to take place, but, fearful of a world-wide outbreak of socialism and republicanism, they refused, in spite of the {1085} favourable response of a small majority of the British Labour Party. Without either moral or physical help from the Allies, the "moderate" Russian republic still fought on and made a last desperate offensive effort in July. It failed after some preliminary successes and another great slaughtering of Russians.
      The limit of Russian endurance was reached. Mutinies now broke out in the Russian armies, and particularly upon the northern front, and on November 7th, 1917, Kerensky's Government was overthrown and power was seized by the Soviet Government, dominated by the Bolshevik socialists under Lenin, and pledged to make peace regardless of the Western powers. Russia passed definitely "out of the war."
      In the spring of 1917 there had been a costly and ineffective French attack upon the Champagne front, which had failed to break through and sustained enormous losses. Here, then, by the end of 1917, was a phase of events altogether favourable to Germany, had her government been fighting for security and well-being rather than for pride and victory. But to the very end, to the pitch of final exhaustion, the people of the Central Powers were held to the effort to achieve a complete victory.
      To that end it was necessary that Britain should be not merely resisted, but subjugated, and in order to do that Germany had already dragged America into the circle of her enemies. Throughout 1916 the submarine campaign had been growing in intensity, but hitherto it had respected neutral shipping. In January, 1917, a completer "blockade" of Great Britain and France was proclaimed, and all neutral powers were warned to withdraw their shipping from the British seas. An indiscriminate sinking of the world's shipping began, which compelled the United States to enter the war in April (6th), 1917. Throughout 1917, while Russia was breaking up and becoming impotent, the American people were changing swiftly and steadily into a great military nation. And the unrestricted submarine campaign, for which the German imperialists had accepted the risk of this fresh antagonist, was far less successful than had been hoped. The British navy proved itself much more inventive and resourceful than the British army; there was a rapid development of anti-submarine devices under water, upon the surface, and in the air; and after a month or so of serious destruction, the tale of submarine sinkings declined. The British found it necessary to put themselves upon food rations; but the regulations were well framed and ably administered, the public showed an excellent spirit and intelligence, and the {1086} danger of famine and social disorder was kept at arm's length.
      Yet the German imperial government continued to fight. If the submarine was not doing all that had been expected, and if the armies of America gathered like a thunder-cloud, yet Russia was definitely down; and in October the same sort of autumn offensive that had overthrown Serbia in 19l5 and Roumania in 1916 was now turned with crushing effect against Italy. The Italian front collapsed after the Battle of Caporetto {1087} and the Austro-German armies poured down into Venetia and came almost within gunfire of Venice. Germany felt justified, therefore, in taking a high line with the Russian peace proposals, and the peace of Brest-Litovsk (March 2nd, 1918) gave the Western Allies some intimation of what a German victory would mean to them. It was a crushing and exorbitant peace, dictated with the utmost arrogance of confident victors.
      All through the winter German troops had been shifting {1088} from the Eastern to the Western front, and now, in the spring of 1918, the jaded enthusiasm of hungry, weary, and bleeding Germany was lashed up for the one supreme effort that was really and truly to end the war. For some months American troops had been in France, but the bulk of the American army was still across the Atlantic. It was high time for the final conclusive blow upon the Western front, if such a blow was ever to be delivered.
      The first attack was upon the British in the Somme region. The not very brilliant cavalry generals who were still in command of a front upon which cavalry was a useless encumbrance, were caught napping; and on March 2lst, in "Gough's Disaster," the fifth British army was driven back in disorder almost to Amiens. The jealousies of the British and French generals had prevented any unified command of the Allied armies in France, and there was no general reserve whatever behind Gough. Nearly a thousand guns were lost by the Allies, and scores of thousands of prisoners. Throughout April and May the Germans rained offensives on the Allied front. They came near to a break through in the north, and they made a great drive back to the Marne, which they reached again on May 30th, 1918.
      This was the climax of the German effort. Behind it was nothing but an exhausted homeland. Marshal Foch was put in supreme command of all the Allied armies. Fresh troops were hurrying from Britain across the Channel, and America was now pouring men into France by the hundred thousand. In June the weary Austrians made a last effort in Italy, and collapsed before an Italian counter-attack. Early in June Foch began to develop a counter-attack. By July the tide was turning, and the Germans were reeling back. The Battle of Chateau-Thierry (July 18th) proved the quality of the new American armies. In August the British opened a great and successful thrust, and the bulge of the German lines towards Amiens wilted and collapsed. "August 8th," says Ludendorf, "was a black day in the history of the German army." The British attack on the Hindenburg line in September ensured the Allied victory.
      Germany had finished. The fighting spirit passed out of her army, and October was a story of defeat and retreat along the entire Western front. Early in November British troops were in Valenciennes and Americans in Sedan. In Italy also the Austrian armies were in a state of disorderly retreat. But everywhere now the Hohenzollern and Habsburg forces were {1089} collapsing. The smash at the end was amazingly swift. Frenchmen and Englishmen could not believe their newspapers as day after day they announced the capture of more hundreds of guns and more thousands of prisoners.
      In September a great Allied offensive against Bulgaria had produced a revolution in that country and peace proposals. Turkey had followed with a capitulation at the end of October, and Austro-Hungary on November 3rd. There was an attempt to bring out the German fleet for the last fight, but the sailors mutinied (November 7th).
      The Kaiser and the Crown Prince bolted hastily, and without a scrap of dignity, into Holland. On November l1th an armistice was signed and the war was at an end. . . . For four years and a quarter the war had lasted, and gradually it had drawn nearly everyone, in the Western world at least, into its vortex. Upwards of eight millions of people had been actually killed through the fighting, another twenty or twenty-five millions had died through the hardships and disorders entailed. Scores of millions were suffering and enfeebled by under-nourishment and misery. A vast proportion of the living were now engaged in war work, in drilling and armament, in making munitions, in hospitals, in working as substitutes for men who had gone into the armies and the like. Business men had been adapting themselves to the more hectic methods necessary for profit in a world in a state of crisis. The war had become, indeed, an atmosphere, a habit of life, a new social order. Then suddenly it ended.
      In London the armistice was proclaimed about 11 A.M. on November 11th. It produced a strange cessation of every ordinary routine. Clerks poured out of their Offices and would not return, assistants deserted their shops, omnibus drivers and the drivers of military lorries set out upon journeys of their own devising with picked-up loads of astounded and cheering passengers going nowhere in particular and careless whither they went. Vast vacant crowds presently choked the streets, and every house and shop that possessed such adornments hung out flags. When night came, many of the main streets, which had been kept in darkness for many months because of the air raids, were brightly lit. It was very strange to see thronging multitudes assembled in an artificial light again. Everyone felt aimless, with a kind of strained and aching relief. It was over at last. There would be no more killing in France, no more air raids—and things would get better.
      People wanted to laugh, and weep—and could do neither. {1090} Youths of spirit and young soldiers on leave formed thin processions that shoved their way through the general drift, and did their best to make a jollification. A captured German gun was hauled from the Mall, where a vast army of such trophies had been set out, into Trafalgar Square, and its carriage burnt. Squibs and crackers were thrown about. But there was little concerted rejoicing. Nearly everyone had lost too much and suffered too much to rejoice with any fervour. {1091}
      The world of the Western European civilizations in the years that followed the end of the Great War was like a man who has had some very vital surgical operation very roughly performed, and who is not yet sure whether he can now go on living or whether he has not been so profoundly shocked and injured that he will presently fall down and die. It was a world dazed and stunned. Militarist imperialism had been defeated, but at an overwhelming cost. It had come very near to victory. Everything went on, now that the strain of the conflict had ceased, rather laxly, rather weakly, and with a gusty and uncertain temper. There was a universal hunger for peace, a universal desire for the lost liberty and prosperity of pre-war times, without any power of will to achieve and secure these things.
      In many respects there had been great deterioration. Just as with the Roman Republic under the long strain of the Punic Wars, so now there had been a great release of violence and cruelty, and a profound deterioration in financial and economic morality. Generous spirits had sacrificed themselves freely to the urgent demands of the war, but the sly and base of the {1092} worlds of business and money had watched the convulsive opportunities of the time and secured a firm grip upon the resources and political power of their countries. Everywhere, men who would have been regarded as shady adventurers before 1914 had acquired power and influence, while better men had toiled unprofitably. In the phase of post-war exhaustion it was difficult to restrain these newly rich and newly powerful men.
      In the course of the war there had been extraordinary experiments in collective management in nearly all the belligerent countries. It had been realized that the common expedients of peace-time commerce, the higgling of the market, the holding out for a favourable bargain, was incompatible with the swift needs of warfare. Transport, fuel, food supply, and the distribution of the raw materials not only of clothing, housing and the like, but of everything needed for war munitions, had been brought under public control.
      No longer had farmers been allowed to underfarm; cattle had been put upon deer-parks and grasslands ploughed up, with or without the owners' approval. Luxury building and speculative company promotion had been restrained. In effect, a sort of emergency socialist state had been established throughout most of belligerent Europe. It was rough-and-ready and wasteful, but it was more effective than the tangled incessant profit-seeking, the cornering and forestalling and incoherent productiveness of "private enterprise."
      In the earliest years of the war there had also been in all the belligerent states a very widespread feeling of brotherhood and of the need for service in the common interest. The common men were everywhere sacrificing life and health for what they believed to be the common good of the State. In return, it was promised, there would be less social injustice after the war, a more universal devotion to the common welfare. In Great Britain, for instance, Mr. Lloyd George was particularly insistent upon his intention to make the after-war Britain "a land fit for heroes." He foreshadowed the continuation of this new war-socialism into the peace period in discourses of great fire and beauty.
      In Great Britain there was created a Ministry of Reconstruction, which was understood to be planning a new and more generous social order, better labour conditions, better housing, extended education, a complete and scientific revision of the economic system. And the word "Reconstruction" coloured the lives and sustained the hopes of the distressed multitude {1093} everywhere. Similar promises of a better world sustained the common soldiers of France and Germany and Italy. It was premature disillusionment that caused the Russian collapse. So that two mutually dangerous streams of anticipation were running through the minds of men in Western Europe towards the end of the war. The rich and adventurous men, and particularly the new war profiteers, were making their plans to prevent such developments as, for example, that air transport should become a State property, and to snatch back manufactures, shipping, land transport, the trade in staples, and the public services generally, from the hands of the common weal into the grip of private profit—they were securing possession of newspapers and busying themselves with party caucuses and the like to that end; while, on the other hand, the masses of common men were looking forward naively to a new state of society planned almost entirely in their interest and according to generous general ideas. The history of 1919 is largely the clash of these two streams of anticipation. There was a hasty selling off, by the "business" government in control, of every remunerative public enterprise to private speculators. . . .
      By the middle of 1919 the labour masses throughout the world were manifestly disappointed and in a thoroughly bad temper. The British "Ministry of Reconstruction" and its foreign equivalents were exposed as a soothing sham. The common man felt he had been cheated. There was to be no reconstruction, but only a restoration of the old order—in a bleaker form necessitated by the poverty of the new time.
      For four years the drama of the war had obscured the social question which had been developing in the Western civilizations throughout the nineteenth Century. Now that the war was over, this question reappeared gaunt and bare, as it had never been seen before.
      And the irritations and hardships and the general insecurity of the new time were exacerbated by a profound disturbance of currency and credit. Money, a complicated growth of conventions rather than a system of values, had been deprived within the belligerent countries of the Support of a gold Standard. Gold had been retained only for international trade, and every government had produced excessive quantities of paper money for domestic use. With the breaking down of the war-time barriers the international exchange became a wildly fluctuating confusion, a source of distress to everyone except a few gamblers and speculators. Prices rose and rose—with an infuriating effect upon the wage-earner. On the one hand was his employer {1094} resisting his demands for more pay; on the other hand, food, house-room, and clothing were being cornered against him. And—which was the essential danger of the situation—he began to lose whatever confidence he had ever possessed that patience or industrial willingness he displayed would really alleviate the shortages and inconveniences by which he suffered.
      In most of the European countries there was an urgent need of houses. Throughout the war there had been a cessation not only of building but of repairs. The shortage of houses in the last months of 1919 amounted to between 250,000 and a million homes in Britain alone. Conditions in France and Germany were even worse. Multitudes of people were living in a state of exasperating congestion, and the most shameless profiteering in apartments and houses was going on. It was a difficult but not an impossible situation. Given the same enthusiasm and energy and self-sacrifice that had tided over the monstrous crisis of 1916, the far easier task of providing a million houses could have been performed in a year or so. But there had been corners in building materials, transport was in a disordered state, and it did not pay private enterprise to build houses at any rents within the means of the people who needed them. Private enterprise, therefore, so far from bothering about the public need of housing, did nothing but corner and speculate in rents and sub-letting. It now demanded grants in aid from the State—in order to build at a profit.
      And as another example of the inadequacy of a profiteering system to solve the problems of the time, there was a great crowding and dislocation of goods at the depots because there was insufficient road transport. There was an urgent want of cheap automobiles to move about goods and workers. But private enterprise in the automobile industry imagined it would be far more profitable to produce splendid and costly cars for those whom the war had made rich. The munition factories built with ready money could have been converted very readily into factories for the mass production of cheap automobiles; but private enterprise had insisted upon these factories being sold by the State, and would neither meet the public need itself nor let the State do so.
      So, too, with the world in the direst discomfort for need of shipping, private enterprise insisted upon the shutting down of the newly-constructed State shipyards.
      Currency was dislocated everywhere, but private enterprise was busy buying and selling francs or marks and intensifying the trouble. {1095}
      These are facts that the historian of mankind is obliged to note with as little comment as possible. Private enterprise in Europe in 1919 and 1920 displayed neither will nor capacity for meeting the urgent needs of the time. So soon as it was released from control, it ran naturally into speculation, cornering, l and luxury production. It followed the line of maximum profit. It displayed no sense of its own dangers; and it resisted any attempt to restrain and moderate its profits and make itself serviceable, even in its own interest.
      And this went on in the face of the most striking manifestations of the extreme recalcitrance on the part of the European masses to the prolonged continuance of the privations and inconveniences they suffered. In 1913 these masses were living as they had lived since birth; they were habituated to the life they led. The masses of 1919, on the other band, had been uprooted everywhere, to go into the armies, to go into munition factories, and so on. They had lost their habits of acquiescence, and they were hardier and more capable of desperate action. Great multitudes of men had gone through such brutalizing training as, for instance, bayonet drill; they had learnt to be ferocious, and to think less either of killing or being killed. Social unrest had become, therefore, much more dangerous.
      It was not that the masses had or imagined that they had the plan of a new social, political, and economic system. They had not, and they did not believe they had. The defects we have pointed out in the socialist scheme were no secret from them. It was a much more dangerous state of affairs than that. It was that they were becoming so disgusted with the current system, with its luxury, its waste, and its general misery, that they did not care what happened afterwards so long as they could destroy it. It was a return to a state of mind comparable to that which had rendered possible the debacle of the Roman Empire.
      Everywhere in Europe the forces of social revolution began to stir, and most notably in Italy and Germany. Communism displayed exceptional aggressiveness in Italy. In various parts of Italy there appeared communist mayors, and in Bologna there was a forcible attempt to put communist principles into Operation. In July, 1920, Giolitti, a neutralist who had opposed the war, replaced Signor Nitti as head of the government. He made various experiments in co-partnership between the industrial workers and their employers. In September many steel works and other factories were seized by the workers, who began to operate them on socialist lines. These proceedings received the support and endorsement of the government. {1096}
      The slide towards communism continued during 1921 in the face of a gathering opposition, and there was rioting and violence in Florence, Trieste, Puglia, Pisa and many other places. The socializing measures of Giolitti had produced a violent reaction among the classes interested in private property, and an organization of young men had grown up, the Fascisti, who affected shock heads, black shirts, nationalism of the intensest sort, and anti-socialism. They met violence with violence, they carried it to new extremes, they established an anti-socialist terror. They found a leader of great energy and slight scruples, Benito Mussolini, formerly a radical journalist. Under his skilful direction the Fascisti speedily outdistanced the sporadic and sentimental outrages of the communists. Liberal leaders and writers were waylaid and beaten with clubs. A favourite method of the Fascisti was the administration of over-doses of castor oil to those who criticized their proceedings unfavourably. Murder, beatings, torture, the burning of the private property of liberal thinkers, became the methods of social control in Italy. The shadow of communism was replaced by the reality of brigand rule.
      By October, 1922, the Fascisti had grown to such strength that they constituted a veritable army and could march upon Rome. The Cabinet proclaimed martial law and prepared to fight, but the king refused his assent to these measures and invited Mussolini to take control of affairs. This he did. [I emphasize this sentence to show how little grasp Wells had of top-down methods of control-RW]. He became head of the government, and agreed to disband his blackshirts—a promise which was never kept. The Fascisti were put in control of the police and armed forces of the country, the freedom of the Press was destroyed, elections became a farce, political opponents continued to be assaulted, terrorized, murdered; and Mussolini, under the title of Il Duce, became virtual dictator, the king falling back into relative obscurity.
      For a time a certain rough economic efficiency was restored to Italy, but to this day the social outlook of that great country remains dark and uncertain. The Italian situation remains profoundly interesting to all the world, because it manifests in the harshest and crudest forms the quality of the extreme left and the extreme right in contemporary human affairs, the impracticability and incapacity of the former and the readiness with which private ownership and enterprise, when put upon the defensive, can degenerate into violence and brigandage. Italy, like Russia, has become a jail for every free-minded person. The creeping disease of illegality, upon which we have already animadverted in our criticism of [Kipling's] Stalky and Co., {1097} is in full flower in both these countries. But Italy does not stand alone in this matter; it is merely the most fully developed instance of a universal tendency of the times. In Germany, France and Great Britain Fascisti have found rivals and imitators, but so far their activities in these countries have amounted to a nuisance rather than a tyranny.

§2 President Wilson at Versailles.
      We have noted the general social and economic disorder of the European communities in the years following the war, before giving any account of the work of world settlement that centred on the Peace Conference at Paris, because the worried and pre-occupied state of everyone concerned with private problems of income, prices, employment and the like goes far to explain the jaded atmosphere in which that Conference addressed itself to the vast task before it. One cannot expect a vigorous public life when individual lives are confused and distressed.
      The story of the Conference turns very largely upon the adventure of one particular man, one of those men whom accident or personal quality picks out as a type to lighten the task of the historian. We have in the course of this history found it very helpful at times to focus our attention upon some individual—Buddha, Alexander the Great, Yuan Chwang, the Emperor Frederick II, Charles V, and Napoleon I, for example—and to let him by reflection illuminate the period in which he lived. The conclusion of the Great War can be seen most easily as the rise of the American president, President Wilson, to predominant importance in the world's hopes and attention, and his failure to justify that predominance.
      President Wilson (1856-1924) had previously been a prominent student and teacher of constitutional law and the political sciences generally. He had held various professorial chairs, and had been President of Princeton University (New Jersey). There is a long list of books to his credit, and they show a mind rather exclusively directed to American history and American politics. He retired from academic life, and was elected Democratic Governor of New Jersey in 1910. In 1913 he became the Democratic presidential candidate, and as a consequence of a violent quarrel between ex-President Roosevelt and President Taft, which split the dominant Republican party, President of the United States.
      The events of August, 1914, seem to have taken President {1098} Wilson, like the rest of his fellow-countrymen, by surprise. We find him cabling an offer of his Services as a mediator on August 3rd. Then, for a time, he and America watched the conflict. At first neither the American people nor their President seem to have had a very clear or profound understanding of that long-gathered catastrophe. Their tradition for a century had been to disregard the problems of the Old World, and it was not to be lightly changed. The imperialistic arrogance of the German Court and the alleged inclination of the German military authorities towards melodramatic "frightfulness," their invasion of Belgium, their use of poison gas, and the nuisance of their submarine campaign, created a deepening hostility to Germany in the United States as the war proceeded; but the tradition of political abstinence and the deep-rooted persuasion that America possessed a political morality altogether superior to European conflicts, restrained the President from active intervention. He adopted a lofty tone. He professed to be unable to judge the causes and justice of the Great War. It was largely his high pacific attitude that secured his re-election as President for a second term.
      But the world is not to be mended by merely regarding evil-doers with an expression of rather undiscriminating disapproval. By the end of 1916 the Germans had been encouraged to believe that under no circumstances whatever would the United States fight, and in 1917 they began their unrestricted submarine warfare and the sinking of American ships without notice. President Wilson and the American people were dragged into the war by this supreme folly. And, also, they were dragged into a reluctant attempt to define their relation to Old-World politics in some other terms than those of mere aloofness. Their thoughts and temper changed very rapidly. They came into the war side by side with the Allies, but not in any pact with the Allies. They came into the war, in the name of their own modern civilization, to punish and end an intolerable political and military situation.
      Slow and belated judgments are sometimes the best judgments. In a series of "notes," too long and various for detailed treatment in this Outline, thinking aloud, as it were, in the hearing of all mankind, President Wilson sought to state the essential differences of the American State from the Great Powers of the Old World. He unfolded a conception of international relationships that came like a gospel, like the hope of a better world, to the whole eastern hemisphere.
      Secret agreements were to cease, "nations" were determine {1099} their own destinies, militarist aggression was to cease, the sea-ways were to be free to all mankind. These commonplaces of American thought, these secret desires of every sane man, came like a great light upon the darkness of anger and conflict in Europe. At last, men felt, the ranks of diplomacy were broken, the veils of Great Power "policy" were rent in twain. Here, with authority, with the strength of a powerful new nation behind it, was the desire of the common man throughout the world, plainly said.
      Manifestly there was needed some overriding Instrument of government to establish world law and maintain these broad and liberal generalizations upon human intercourse. A number of schemes had floated in men's minds for the attainment of that end. In particular, there was a movement for some sort of world league, a "League of Nations." The American President adopted this phrase and sought to realize it. An essential condition of the peace he sought was he declared to be this federal organ. This League of Nations was to be the final court of appeal in international affairs. It was to be the substantial realization of the peace. Here, again, he awakened a tremendous echo.
      President Wilson was for a time the spokesman of a new age. Throughout the war, and for some little time after it had ended, he held, so far as the Old World was concerned, that exalted position. But in America where they knew him better there were doubts. And, writing as we do now, with the wisdom of subsequent events, we can understand these doubts. America, throughout a century and more of detachment and security had developed new ideals and formul&ligea; of political thought, without realizing with any intensity that, under conditions of stress and danger, these ideals and formulas might have to be passionately sustained. To her community many things were platitudes that had to the Old-World communities, entangled still in ancient political complications, the quality of a saving gospel. President Wilson was responding to the thought and; conditions of his own people and his own country, based on a liberal tradition that had first found its full expression {1100} in English speech; but to Europe and Asia he seemed to be thinking and saying, for the first time in history, things hitherto undeveloped and altogether secret. And that misconception he may have shared.
      We are dealing here with an able and successful professor of political science, who did not fully realize what he owed to his contemporaries and the literary and political atmosphere he had breathed throughout his life; and who passed very rapidly, after his re-election as President, from the mental attitudes of a political leader to those of a Messiah. His "notes" are a series of explorations of the elements of the world situation. When at last, in his address to Congress of January 8th, 1918, he produced his Fourteen Points as a definite statement of the American peace intentions, they were, as a statement, far better in their spirit than in their arrangement and matter.
      This document demanded open agreements between nations and an end to secret diplomacy, free navigation of the high seas, free commerce, disarmament, and a number of political readjustments upon the lines of national independence. Finally, in the Fourteenth Point, it required "a general association of nations" to guarantee the peace of the world. He sought "peace without victory."
      These Fourteen Points had an immense reception throughout the world. Here at last seemed a peace for reasonable men everywhere, as good and acceptable to honest and decent Germans and Russians as to honest and decent Frenchmen and Englishmen and Belgians; and for some months the whole world was lit by faith in Wilson. Could they have been made the basis of a world settlement in 1919, they would forthwith have opened a new and more hopeful era in human affairs.
      But, as we must tell, they did not do that. There was about President Wilson a certain narrow egotism; there was in the generation of people in the United States to whom this great occasion came—a generation born in security, reared in plenty and, so far as history goes, in ignorance—a generation remote from the tragic issues that had made Europe grave—a certain superficiality and lightness of mind. [Wells doesn't know the USA, far from being innocent and independent, was under the thumb of Jew money-RW] It was not that the American people were superficial by nature and necessity, but that they had never been deeply stirred by the idea of a human community larger than their own. It was an intellectual, but not a moral, conviction with them. One had on the one hand these new people of the New World, with their new ideas, their finer and better ideas, of peace and world righteousness, and on the other the old, bitter, deeply entangled peoples of the Great {1101} Power system; and the former were crude and rather childish in their immense inexperience, and the latter were seasoned and bitter and intricate.
      The theme of this clash of the raw idealist youthfulness of a new age with the experienced ripeness of the old was treated years ago by that great novelist, Henry James, in a very typical story called Daisy Miller. It is the pathetic story of a frank, trustful, high-minded, but rather simple-minded American girl, with a real disposition towards righteousness and a great desire for a "good time," and how she came to Europe and was swiftly entangled and put in the wrong, and at last driven to welcome death by the complex tortuousness and obstinate limitations of the older world. There have been a thousand variants of that theme in real life, a thousand such transatlantic tragedies, and the story of President Wilson is one of them. But it is not to be supposed, because the new thing succumbs to the old infections, that is the final condemnation of the new thing. Probably no fallible human being manifestly trying to do his best amidst overwhelming circumstances has been subjected to such minute, searching, and pitiless criticism as President Wilson. He is blamed for conducting the war and the ensuing peace negotiations on strictly party lines. He remained, it is charged against him, the President representing the American Democratic Party, when circumstances conspired to make him the representative of the general interests of mankind. He made no attempt to incorporate with himself such great American leaders as ex-President Roosevelt, ex-President Taft, and the like. He did not draw fully upon the moral and intellectual resources of the States; he made the whole issue too personal, and he surrounded himself with merely personal adherents. And a grave error was his decision to come to the Peace Conference himself. Nearly every experienced critic seems to be of opinion that he should have remained in America, in the role of America, speaking occasionally as if a nation spoke. Throughout the concluding years of the war he had, by that method, achieved an unexampled position in the world.
      Says Doctor Dillon: [The Peace Conference.] "Europe, when the President touched its shores, was as clay ready for the creative potter. Never before were the nations so eager to follow a Moses who would take them to the long-promised land where wars are prohibited and blockades unknown. And to their thinking he was that great leader. In France men bowed down before him with awe and affection. Labour leaders in Paris told me that they {1102} shed tears of joy in his presence, and that their comrades would go through fire and water to help him to realize his noble schemes. To the working classes in Italy his name was a heavenly clarion at the sound of which the earth would be renewed. The Germans regarded him and his humane doctrine as their sheet-anchor of safety. The fearless Herr Muehlon said: 'If President Wilson were to address the Germans, and pronounce a severe sentence upon them, they would accept it with resignation and without a murmur and set to work at once.' In German-Austria his fame was that of a saviour, and the mere mention of his name brought balm to the suffering and surcease of sorrow to the afflicted. ..."
      Such was the overpowering expectation of the audience to which President Wilson prepared to show himself. He reached France on board the George Washington in December, 1918. He brought his wife with him. That seemed, no doubt, a perfectly natural and proper thing to an American mind. Quite a number of the American representatives brought their wives. Unhappily, a social quality, nay, almost a tourist quality, was introduced into the world settlement by these ladies. Transport facilities were limited, and most of them arrived in Europe with a radiant air of privilege. They came as if they came to a treat. They were, it was intimated, seeing Europe under exceptionally interesting circumstances. They would visit Chester, or Warwick, or Windsor, en route—for they might not have a chance of seeing these celebrated places again. Important interviews would be broken off to get in a visit to some "old historical mansion." This may seem a trivial matter to note in a History of Mankind, but it was such small human things as this that threw a miasma of futility over the Peace Conference of 1919. In a little while one discovered that Wilson, the Hope of Mankind, had vanished, and that all the illustrated fashion papers contained pictures of a delighted tourist and his wife, grouped smilingly with crowned heads and such-like enviable company. ... It is so easy to be wise after the event, and to perceive that be should not have come over. {1103}
      The men he bad chiefly to deal with, for example M. Clemenceau (France), Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Balfour (Britain), Baron Sonnino and Signor Orlando (Italy), were men of widely dissimilar historical traditions. But in one respect they resembled him and appealed to his sympathies. They, too, were party politicians, who had led their country through the war. Like himself they had failed to grasp the necessity of entrusting the work of settlement to more specially qualified men.
      "They were the merest novices in international affairs. Geography, ethnology, psychology, and political history were sealed books to them. Like the Rector of Louvain University, who told Oliver Goldsmith that, as he had become the head of that institution without knowing Greek, he failed to see why it should be taught there, the chiefs of State, having obtained the highest position in their respective countries without more than an inkling of international affairs, were unable to realize the importance of mastering them or the impossibility of repairing the omission as they went along. . . [Dillon, The Peace Conference.]
      "What they lacked, however, might in some perceptible degree have been supplied by enlisting as their helpers men more happily endowed than themselves. But they deliberately chose mediocrities. It is a mark of genial spirits that they are well served, but the plenipotentiaries of the Conference were not characterized by it. Away in the background some of them had families or casual prompters to whose counsels they were wont to listen, but many of the adjoints who moved in the limelight of the world-stage were gritless and pithless.
      "As the heads of the principal Governments implicitly claimed to be the authorized spokesmen of the human race, and endowed with unlimited powers, it is worth noting that this claim was boldly challenged by the people's organs in the Press. Nearly all the Journals read by the masses objected from the first to the dictatorship of the group of Premiers, Mr Wilson being excepted. . . ."
      The restriction upon our space in this Outline will not allow {1104} us to tell here how the Peace Conference shrank from a Council of Ten to a Council of Four (Wilson, Clemenceau, Lloyd George and Orlando), and how it became a Conference less and less like a frank and open discussion of the future of mankind, and more and more like some old-fashioned diplomatic conspiracy. Great and wonderful had been the hopes that had gathered to Paris. "The Paris of the Conference," says Dr. Dillon, "ceased to be the capital of France. It became a vast cosmopolitan caravanserai teeming with unwonted aspects of life and turmoil, filled with curious samples of the races, tribes, and tongues of four continents who came to watch and wait for the mysterious to-morrow.
      "An Arabian Nights' touch was imparted to the dissolving panorama by strange visitants from Tartary and Kurdistan, Corea and Azerbeijan, Armenia, Persia, and the Hedjaz—men with partriarchal beards and scimitar-shaped noses, and others from desert and oasis, from Samarkand and Bokhara. Turbans and fezes, sugar-loaf hats and head-gear resembling episcopal mitres, old military uniforms devised for the embryonic armies of new states on the eve of perpetual peace, snowy-white burnouses, flowing mantles, and graceful garments like the Roman toga, contributed to create an atmosphere of dreamy unreality in the city where the grimmest of realities were being faced and coped with.
      "Then came the men of wealth, of intellect, of industrial enterprise, [Note: Wells does not notice Jews in his international throngs-RW] and the seed-bearers of the ethical new ordering, members of economic committees from the United States, Britain, Italy, Poland, Russia, India, and Japan, representatives of naphtha industries and far-off coal mines, pilgrims, fanatics and charlatans from all climes, priests of all religions, preachers of every doctrine, who mingled with princes, field-marshals, statesmen, anarchists, builders-up and pullers-down. All of them burned with desire to be near to the crucible in which the political and social systems of the world were to be melted and recast.
      "Every day, in my walks, in my apartment, or at restaunts, I met emissaries from lands and peoples whose very names had seldom been heard of before in the West. A delegation from the Pont-Euxine Greeks called on me, and discoursed of the ancient cities of Trebizond, Samsoun, Tripoli, Kerassund, in which I resided many years ago, and informed me that they, too, desired to become welded into an independent Greek Republic, and had come to have their claims allowed. The Albanians were represented by my old friend Turkhan Pasha {1105} on the one hand, and by my friend Essad Pasha on the other—the former desirous of Italy's protection, the latter demanding complete independence. Chinamen, Japanese, Coreans, Hindus, Kirghizes, Lesghiens, Circassians, Mingrelians, Buryats, Malays, and Negroes and Negroids from Africa and America were among the tribes and tongues forgathered in Paris to watch the rebuilding of the political world system and to see where they 'came in.' . . ."
      To this thronging, amazing Paris, agape for a new world, came President Wilson, and found its gathering forces dominated by a personality narrower, in every way more limited and beyond comparison more forcible than himself: the French Premier, M. Clemenceau. At the instance of President Wilson, M. Clemenceau was elected President of the Conference. "It was," said President Wilson, "a special tribute to the sufferings and sacrifices of France." And that, unhappily, sounded the keynote of the Conference, whose sole business should have been with the future of mankind.
      Georges Benjamin Clemenceau was an old journalist politician, a great denouncer of abuses, a great upsetter of governments, a doctor who had, while a municipal councillor, kept a free clinic, and a fierce, experienced duellist. None of his duels ended fatally, but he faced them with great intrepidity. He had passed from the medical school to republican journalism in the days of the Empire. In those days he was an extremist of the Left. He was for a time a teacher in America, and he married, and was afterwards divorced from, an American wife. He was thirty in the eventful year 1871. He returned to France after Sedan, and flung himself into the stormy politics of the defeated nation with great fire and vigour. Thereafter, France was his world, the France of vigorous journalism, high-spirited personal quarrels, challenges, confrontations, scenes, dramatic effects, and witticisms at any cost. He was what people call "fierce stuff," he was nicknamed the "Tiger," and he seems to have been rather proud of his nickname. Professional patriot rather than statesman and thinker, this was the man whom the war had flung up to misrepresent the fine mind and the generous spirit of France.
      His limitations had a profound effect upon the Conference, which was further coloured by the dramatic resort, for the purpose of signature, to the very Hall of Mirrors at Versailles in which Germany had triumphed and proclaimed her unity. There the Germans were to sign.
      To M. Clemenceau and to France, in that atmosphere, the {1106} war ceased to seem a world war; it was merely the sequel of the previous conflict of the Terrible Year, the downfall and punishment of offending Germany. "The world had to be made safe for democracy," said President Wilson. That from M. Clemenceau's expressed point of view was "talking like Jesus Christ." The world had to be made safe for Paris. "Talking like Jesus Christ" seemed a very ridiculous thing to many of those brilliant rather than sound diplomatists and politicians who made the year 1919 supreme in the history of human insufficiency.
      (Another flash of the "Tiger's" wit, it may be noted, was that President Wilson with his Fourteen Points was "worse" than God Almighty. "Le bon Dieu" only had ten. . . .)
      M. Clemenceau sat with Signor Orlando in the more central chairs of a semicircle of four in front of the fire, says Keynes. He wore a black frockcoat and grey suede gloves, which he never removed during these sessions. He was, it is to be noted, the only one of these four reconstructors of the world who could understand and speak both French and English.
      The aims of M. Clemenceau were simple and in a manner attainable. He wanted all the settlement of 1871 undone. He wanted Germany punished as though she was a uniquely sinful nation and France a sinless martyr land. He wanted Germany so crippled and devasted [sic] as never more to be able to stand up to France. He wanted to hurt and humiliated Germany more than France had been hurt and humiliated in 1871. He did not care if in breaking Germany Europe was broken; his mind did not go far enough beyond the Rhine to understand that possibility. He accepted President Wilson's League of Nations as an excellent proposal if it would guarantee the security of France whatever she did, but he preferred a binding alliance of the United States and England to maintain, uphold, and glorify France under practically any circumstances. He wanted wider opportunities for the exploitation of Syria, North Africa, and so forth by Parisian financial groups.
      He wanted indemnities to recuperate France, loans, gifts, and tributes to France, glory and homage to France. France had suffered, and France had to be rewarded. Belgium, Russia, Serbia, Poland, Armenia, Britain, Germany, and Austria had all suffered, too; all mankind had suffered, but what would you? That was not his affair. These were the supers of a drama in which France was for him the star. ... In much the same spirit Signor Orlando seems to have sought the welfare of Italy.
      Mr. Lloyd George brought to the Council of Four the subtlety of a Welshman, the intricacy of a European, and an urgent {1107} necessity for respecting the nationalist egotism of the British imperialists and capitalists who had returned him to power. Into the secrecy of that council went President Wilson with the very noblest aims for his newly discovered American world-policy, his rather hastily compiled Fourteen Points, and a project rather than a scheme for a League of Nations.
      "There can seldom have been a statesman of the first rank more incompetent than the President in the agilities of the Council Chamber." [Keynes.] From the whispering darknesses and fireside disputes of that council, and after various comings and goings we cannot here describe, he emerged at last with his Fourteen Points pitifully torn and dishevelled, but with a little puling infant of a League of Nations, which could die or which might live and grow—no one could tell. But that much, at least, he had saved. . . .

Constitution of the League of Nations.
      This homunculus in a bottle which it was hoped might become at last Man ruling the Earth, this League of Nations as it was embodied in the Covenant of April 28th, 1919, was not a League of Peoples at all; it was, the world discovered, a league of "states, dominions, or colonies." It was stipulated that these should be "fully self-governing," but there was no definition whatever of this phrase. There was no bar to a limited franchise and no provision for any direct control by the people of any state. India figured—presumably as a "fully self-governing state"! An autocracy would no doubt have been admissible as a "fully self-governing" democracy with a franchise limited to one person. The League of the Covenant of 1919 was, in fact, a league of "representatives" of foreign Offices, and it did not even supersede embassies at every capital.
      The British Empire appeared once as a whole, and then India (!) and the four dominions of Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand appeared as separate sovereign states. Later, Ireland attained a separate status. The Indian representative was, of course, sure to be merely a British nominee; the dominion representatives would be colonial politicians. But if the British Empire was to be thus dissected, a representative of Great Britain should have been substituted for the imperial representative, and Egypt should also have been given representation. Moreover, either New York State or {1108} Virginia was historically and legally as much a sovereign state as New Zealand or Canada. The inclusion of India raised logical claims for French Africa and French Asia. One French representative did propose a separate vote for the little principality of Monaco.
      There was to be an assembly of the League in which every member state was to be represented and to have equal voice, but the working directorate of the League was to vest in the Council, which was to consist of the representatives of the United States, Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, with four other members elected by the Assembly. The Council was to meet once a year; the gatherings of the Assembly were to be at "stated intervals," not stated.
      Except in certain specified instances the league of this Covenant could make only unanimous decisions. One dissentient on the council could bar any proposal—on the lines of the old Polish liberum veto. This was a quite disastrous provision. To many minds it made the Covenant League rather less desirable than no league at all. It was a complete recognition of the unalienable sovereignty of states, and a repudiation of the idea of an overriding commonweal of mankind. This provision practically barred the way to all amendments to the league constitution in future except by the clumsy expedient of a simultaneous withdrawal of the majority of member states desiring a change, to form the league again on new lines. The Covenant made inevitable such a final winding-up of the league it created, and that was perhaps the best thing about it.
      The following powers, it was proposed, should be excluded from the original league: Germany, Austria, Russia, and whatever remains there were of the Turkish Empire. But any of these might subsequently be included with the assent of two-thirds of the Assembly. The original membership of the league as specified in the projected Covenant was: the United States of America, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, the British Empire (Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and India), China, Cuba, Ecuador, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, the Hedjas, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, Siam, Czecho-Slovakia and Uruguay. To which were to be added by invitation the following powers which had been neutral in the war: the Argentine Republic, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Holland, Norway, Paraguay, Persia, Salvador, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Venezuela.
      Such being the constitution of the league, it is scarcely to {1109} be wondered at that its powers were special and limited. It was given a seat at Geneva and a secretariat. It had no powers even to inspect the military preparations of its constituent states, or to instruct a military and naval staff to plan out the armed co-operation needed to keep the peace of the world.
      The French representative in the League of Nations Commission, M. Leon Bourgeois, insisted lucidly and repeatedly on the logical necessity of such powers. As a Speaker he was rather copious and lacking in "spice" of the Clemenceau quality. The final scene in the plenary Session of April 28th, before the adoption of the Covenant, is described compactly by Mr. Wilson Harris: the crowded Banqueting Hall at the Quai d'Orsay, with its "E" of tables for the delegates, with secretaries and officials lining the walls, and a solid mass of journalists at the lower end of the room. "At the head of the room the 'Big Three' diverted themselves in undertones at the expense of the worthy M. Bourgeois, now launched, with the help of what must have been an entirely superfluous sheaf of notes, on the fifth rendering of his speech in support of his famous amendments."
      They were so often "diverting themselves in undertones," those three men whom God had mocked with the most tremendous opportunity in history. Keynes gives other instances of the levities, vulgarities, disregards, inattentions and inadequacies of these meetings.
      This poor Covenant, arrived at in this fashion, returned with President Wilson to America, and there it met all the resentful Opposition of the republican party and all the antagonism of the men who had been left out of the European excursion. The Senate refused to ratify the Covenant, and the first meeting of the League Council was held, therefore, without American representatives.
      The close of 1919 and the opening months of 1920 saw a very curious change come over American feeling after the pro-French and pro-British enthusiasms of the war period. The peace negotiations reminded the Americans, in a confused and very irritating way, of their profound differences in international outlook from any European power, that the war had for a time helped them to forget. They felt they had been "rushed" into many things without due consideration. They experienced a violent revulsion towards that policy of isolation that had broken down in 1917. The close of 1919 saw a phase, a very understandable phase, of passionate and even violent "Americanism," in which European imperialism and European socialism ... etc


How Most People Still See the Second World War   [ Top of page ]
    [ Poles | Catholics | Internet comments | Hilaire Belloc | Montgomery | David Irving | Russians | Dennis Wise | 'Peter' & 'Angelicus' on stupid Americans | Bertrand Russell | Jan Lamprecht | Several online sources | R C Sherriff | Miles Mathis ]

Typical online comment, still quite a common Jewish-influenced type. ...
“The English knew that Hitler's word meant nothing. And the Nazi's [sic] were monsters. The Nazis used force and terror to take everything they wanted. Than they rounded up free innocent people not just in Germany but everywhere they invaded. The only reason Germany would've asked to peace was time, to build their armed forces stronger. And one day conquer England.”
... Online comment, which recognizes that one side of WW2 was Jews in clumps around the world power. But assumes Hitler was not part of that side. ...
“WW2 ... We were on the Jewish side, instead of the correct side”—Jan Lamprecht, on psychological warfare, with Alfred Schaeffer. (NB Jan Lamprecht invented the phrase 'Jew shock')
... ‘Massa' Tobias’, 13 April 2018, Youtube comment All in all, nazism was the most perfect ZOG in all of history.:
... You know a good way of knowing who's a jewish agent? See who's behind their finances, who funds them.
Both Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht and Walther Funk, Hitler's financial ministers credited to Germany's "economic miracle" during Hitler's years, were Jews. "Cohencidentally", neither of them were executed or even jailed during the Nuremberg trials and got away free.

Just as with the soviet union, a disproportionately large number of high-ranking nazis were jewish or half jewish. Couple that with several strategic blunders, almost too convenient to be true, who decided the outcome of the war and it's a pretty clear case of an orchestrated war.

The ultimate goal, just like in ww1 was to kill whites and take over their homelands. And what better way than to prop up controlled opposition so you can draft all the jew-aware people and have them die in war?

And never mind the so called persecution of jews, these few were all low rank patsies that the zionist elite was more than happy to sacrifice if it meant solidifying their narrative. All in all, nazism was the most perfect ZOG in all of history. When jew aware people were clever enough to avoid deception, the jews just created another attractive net to catch them, and that was nazism-fascism.

Changes are needed to mental habits about wars. Most people have been trained to assume war is all about Group A vs Group B, perhaps with a bit of umpiring, fought if possible economically, and fast, so as to spare needless suffering. Jewish ambitions are different.
Hitler, rather obviously, reigns in Jewish-swayed countries, as the supreme enemy and hate figure. As far as I can tell, the main Internet-era revisionist was Dr Paul Reznowski, described as of Polish-Ukrainian descent; an online reference gives 1999 as the date of his claim that almost all the top 'Nazis' were part-Jews. Reznowksi seems to have been boosted by Roman Catholics, who seem unwilling to face the Jewish origins of Roman Catholics.

Below are a few samples of traditional views of WW2, including Montgomery 'of Alamein', David Irving, various Russians, and The Greatest Story Never Told, which adhere unthinkingly to this model of the Second World War, personalised as nations:–
      Hilaire Belloc: Who wrote 100 years ago on The Jews. He was a nationalist, opposing the Jew attitude that Jews ought to be able to select any host. All his life he was pro-war, on the Roman Catholic side. He hated the Germans for the 'Great War' on France. But he had no real feeling for the idea that Jews, behind the scenes, were a huge influence on starting wars, although he noted the wealth of these few and very wealthy Jews has been scandalously increased through the [First World] war.
      Montgomery: ... in Dec 1941 ... Hitler declared war on the USA. ... His motive in thus pitting Germany against the two most powerful states in the world simultaneously is unfathomable.—Montgomery can't understand there's another party; it simply doesn't occur to him there are not just two sides. Probably the declaration of war was to permit the USA or at least (((USA))) to invade Europe. Later, the USA would invade much as it chose, but at that time this may not have been the case.
      David Irving: Some people argue that Hitler, against the advice of his chiefs of staff, let the British get away, out of magnanimity. David Irving doesn't consider that, at Dunkirk, there was another party. He advertised, for a time, a book by John Wear, on Germany's War vs USSR. Again, it presumably does not mention the real enemy.
      David Irving 20 April 2018 [on 'Barbarossa' in 'Hitler's War':] Today is the 129th anniversary of the birth of the man who thwarted the gigantic military offensive against Western Europe planned by Josef Stalin and the “Jewish-Bolshevik” Moscow leadership, with seven new armies raised in secret, which was scheduled to begin on July 15, 1941. Raised in secret? Obviously the Jews running the USSR, and Jews in the USA and UK and Germany, elsewhere, must have known the figures for equipment. The likeliest guess is that ordinary Russians and Germans, plus assorted allies, were intended to kill each other and destroy Germany with rape, murder, pillage, and occupation.
      Russian veterans: The Germans fought better, much better than our [i.e. Russian and others] soldiers. Moreover—we've managed to win that war only by human flesh! quoted (German writer, under Jewish censorship) as though war was Germans vs Russians, with no other input. It strikes me that Jews must have been needed as censors, since non-Jews would not have been aware of collusion between Jews across normal nations.
      The Greatest Story Never Told has of course much detail on war between Germany and the USSR, so far as it's known—but the whole presentation omits the fact that the enemy of both was Jews, not Russians.
      'Peter' online in 2015 In two world wars the United States twice invaded Germany, a country thousands of miles away from it that had never done anything to the United States. In two World Wars Britain and France declared war on Germany precipitating a world war. After the war they chopped Germany and Austria up, taking lands with millions of Germans living there and awarding it to new countries they created, all in an effort to weaken Germany, a country they were jealous of and hated. After the war and before WW II, Germany was continuously invaded, had territory taken from it by Poland, Lithuania and other countries as the allies looked on and did nothing. ... Peter doesn't mention—in this passage— that (((America))), (((Britain))), (((France))), and (((Poland))) were heavily influenced by Jews and their local collaborators.
    'Angelicus' online in December 1, 2020 gives the German view (but accepts Hitler at face value) I wonder, what the Hell are you doing here? "A seriously flawed man and movement"? Really? What have you Americans done? I mean, apart of creating a disgusting and vulgar "culture" based on making money and rabid consumerism; the so-called "American Dream".
    Let me spell it out for you, my brainless "friend". We (and by that, I mean ALL white men in the world) are in this horrendous mess because of you self-righteous American morons, who went wholeheartedly to war to destroy Germany and Western civilization in your pathetic "crusade" as that German-hating bastard and murderer Eisenhower called it. Without your colossal industrial might, the bloody Soviet Union would have been destroyed. But, of course, what else could you have done? You gave away the control of your country to the Jews well over a hundred years ago; after all, spiritually you are cousins if not brothers. Your disgusting ancestors, the so-called "Pilgrim Fathers" were the product of the most pro-Jewish of all Protestant sects, the Puritans. Their greed and materialism, together with the idea of belonging to "a chosen people" made them sympathize with their mentors and future associates.
    That is why the Jews conquered so quickly such a considerable position within the American "high society". Your degenerate WASP upper class never saw anything wrong in associating herself with the Jews, that is why by the end of the XIX century together with the Vanderbilts, the Rockefellers, the Morgans, and the Carnegies, were the Belmonts, the Kahns, the Lehmanns, the Schiffs, etc., etc., etc. The only thing that mattered to the average American was (and is) "the almighty dollar".
    You and the like of you have the colossal cheek, sorry, "chutzpah" to criticize and even insult Adolf Hitler, the man who unmasked the enemy of Mankind, gave him battle and defeated him on the political arena in 1933, carrying out the greatest political and social revolution in European history without firing a shot! His legacy was a new, fair order for the German people and, eventually for the White race, While you Americans were drowning in the Great Depression and being screwed by the big banks, Hitler turned Germany upside down and within 4 years he made her one of the wealthiest, most prosperous countries on Earth, and let's not even began to talk about the cultural and spiritual regeneration of the German people under his leadership, while you, ignorant and gullible Americans were welcoming with open arms all those hateful Marxist Jews from the "School of Frankfurt" who filled your universities and perverted your children and grandchildren.
    You had a great man who warned you, his name was Henry Ford, but you ignored him. The same happened with an intellectual giant as Revilo Oliver. You talk about your "historical exemplars of virtue. courage, defiance and piety". Where are they? What did they do for you? Nothing! You have always been a greedy and evil WASP-Jewish corporation, poisoning the world with your "culture" via Hollywood (sorry, Holy-Jew). Your so-called popular culture is Jewish to the core. Let's take for example "God Bless America" and "White Christmas", written by the Jew Irving Berlin (real name Israel Beilin). Who is the quintessential "American" composer? George Gershwin! You don’t have a leg to stand on. I am sorry for the thousands of decent White Americans who are fully aware of the disgusting role their country has played as the bodyguard of international Jewry since the 1930s. They are the ones who are not afraid or ashamed of praising Adolf Hitler. Regarding the likes of you, and that means the majority of White Americans, you fully deserve what is coming to you via Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. You reap what you sowed.

Moscow May 2018, under Putin. What about the tens of millions killed by Jews in and outside the USSR? No great patriotic victory celebration for them!      Bertrand Russell (aged nearly 90): .. the lives of movements ... form part of personal experience .. to facilitate estimates of probable success or failure. Communism, in spite of a very difficult beginning, [hugely funded by Jewish money taken from goyim—RW] has hitherto continued to increase in power and influence. Nazism, on the contrary, by snatching too early and too ruthlessly at dominion, came to grief... Russell reminds me of people unable to work out the reasons for unvoted mass immigration and for neocon wars, now.
      Jan Lamprecht's site History Reviewed has online channels, and has for years. There are recent accounts of blacks collecting in mobs and looting, throwing stones, threatening to burn houses. The author laboriously describes this and calls it a 'race war', meaning presumably whites vs blacks. In fact he's aware that African blacks are used by Jews as thugs and thieves and murderers as deliberate policy. It's similar to Chicago, where parts have no franchise shops. It's therefore whites vs blacks vs Jews, but History Reviewed after years of investigation, seems unable to notice.
      “There were two great winners of the Second World War—the USA, and Russia” said Jan Lamprecht in an online talk. In fact of course the Jews were the great winner. How could anyone could think Russians, ruined by the war and GULags, poverty-stricken after thirty years of Jew exploitation, were 'great victors'?
      Online website If Hitler's accomplishments were all Deep State approved and staged, that means WW II was totally unnecessary! It was unnecessary, between USSR and Germany. BUT Jews thought it was necessary, to kill off European whites whites and get more control.
      West Point video on mistakes Hitler made (Germany vs Russia) ... There are many youtubes by third-rate academic types, treating wars as though only the apparent principals were involved. It's amusing to see them trying to be great generals, oblivious of the big picture. Or at least amusing in a way, until the full realisation of damage being done to whites—and others—by the ignorant censorship of these 'teachers'.
      Online comment on supplies December 2016: America has, for over a century, been a treacherous anti European country controlled by the jews. In WW1 the USA supplied the Central Powers with vast quantities of essential supplies so that the USA could bleed GB, France and Russia to death with War Loans. Austria was supplied through Spain. ... [800K deaths acc Bowden]
      An online Jewish source says World War 2 was fought by three hard men, Germans, Russians, and Anglo-Americans, as though it's an unquestionable fact. Note that the crucial roles of Jews are not mentioned.
      Films I found a website (US Jewish, of course) which actually assessed Saving Private Ryan, The Great Escape and Patton as the three best US films on WW2.
      Journey's End by R C Sherriff was a popular, or at least heavily-advertised, stage play and film about the Great War, of infinite vulgarity and silliness, dating from 1928, by a writer of farces. It showed Germans vs Britons, and nobody else. Nothing on equipment, war aims, loans, etc.

      Miles W Mathis (added 20 May 2021).
      Miles Mathis' piece entitled Stockholm.pdf nominally on the COVID fraud and Stockholm Syndrome is here (on this site for https reasons).
      I was quite shocked by it, because it omits an important possibility about 'Stockholm Syndrome', and because of his astonishing misreading of Americans in the Second World War.
      (1. Upper pane.)   On 'Stockholm Syndrome', the whole episode was a media fraud, as Mathis himself demonstrated for example here. But the idea of the fraud was to promote the idea of submission to captors. There have been many Jewish 'psychology' experiments to claim goy unreasonableness.
      But Mathis fails to recognise that captives may be convinced that their captors have a good case. A good example is US troops captured in Korea and Vietnam, having first-hand experience of war crimes against the local people. They were described as 'brainwashed' by Jewish 'journalists'.

      (2. Lower pane.)   On COVID, the psychological pressure was nowhere near that of the Second World War, which involved a long period of propaganda preparation, false flags, money control, economic depression, followed by years of war, including significant deaths, living in tents, boredom, conditioning to violence, damage to families, and committing of war crimes. Mathis says 'people's trust in the media went UP'—but all that shows is that they were fools without knowing it.


The modern view, given new information on Rothschilds and other Jews funding all sides of wars, with secret agreements on repayments, and their near-monopoly of international intelligence (about equipment, assets, populations, and raw materials of countries), and secret organisations with locals in every country, makes the old view, typically as shown in rather infantile Jewish movies, dangerously incomplete and outdated.
      • This piece shifts the entire focus of the wars making up the Second World War to Jews vs the rest.

'Judaism'. Roman, Orthodox, & Protestant Christianity: And Islam   [ Top of page ]
Poverty as Moslem Policy; ultimately this is Jewish:
‘The usual policy of the Sultans was clearly sketched by Alau?d?din, who required his advisers to draw up "rules and regulations for grinding down the Hindus, and for depriving them of that wealth and property which fosters disaffection and rebellion." Half of the gross produce of the soil was collected by the government; native rulers had taken one-sixth. "No Hindu," says a Moslem historian, "could hold up his head, and in their houses no sign of gold or silver ... or of any superfluity was to be seen. .. Blows, confinement in the stocks, imprisonment and chains, were all employed to enforce payment." When one of his own advisers protested against this policy, Alau?d?din answered: "Oh, Doctor, thou art a learned man, but thou hast no experience; I am an unlettered man, but I have a great deal. Be assured, then, that the Hindus will never become submissive and obedient till they are reduced to poverty. I have therefore given orders that just sufficient shall be left to them from year to year of corn, milk and curds, but that they shall not be allowed to accumulate hoards and property.’ (From SMITH, V. A.: Oxford History of India. Oxford, 1923).'Judaism' seems to be unique in its pathology—most so-called 'Jews' seem to be serious in their self-deception, and effortless straight-faced lying to non-Jews. Religions were remoulded by 'Jews' for their own purposes, making up scripts foisted on non-Jews. Important examples are Christians, Moslems, Jesuits and Quakers.

During the 19th century, religions seemed to be on the defensive; most Victorians were unimpressed by Catholicism and Protestantism and viewed them as something for the simpler classes, or something ignored by the simpler classes, or as a career, or as social control. But informed criticism of Jews was almost non-existent. By 2000, Jewish money-printing had wiped out all pretence of moral standing to churches: Roman Catholics supported atrocities in Vietnam, Protestant churches supported mass murder in Europe, Russian Orthodoxy had been deleted by Jews.

The relevance here is the persistent idea that the Second World War was Christian vs Communist, or more accurately Christian vs Jew (since 'Communism' was and is Jewish). The Greatest Story Never Told presents this view. Michael A Hoffman II emphasises usury as a sin, and I think regards WW2 as partly caused by interest on money being nominally removed. H G Wells wrote a whole 'Penguin Special' during WW2 on Roman Catholicism.

All I'm saying here is
The Catholic Church was far more scrappy, unlawful, uncreative, greedy, and disconnected, than modern propagandists say; and
must have had alliances with Jews; and
Jews changed allies or invented new allies (according to their own "moral" standards), for example supporting Islam, and in modern times backing both sides in wars—notably WW1 and WW2.


© 2018 All Rights Reserved. All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. We are not responsible for content written by and hosted on third-party websites. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. We assume no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners. .......Tags: "israel nuked wtc" 9-11 Truth jfk assassination "cultural marxism" "holocaust hoax" "fake news" "fake history" fed censorship "mind control" tavistock holohoax auschwitz deep state kabbalah talmud bush obama clinton trump russiagate spygate israel britain saudi arabia middle east rothschild cold war comey brennan clapper yellow vests populism nuclear demolition communism marxism socialism pedophiliacontact:

9-11 9-11 vimeo