Continuing to restore the real WW2 history because we’re now entering the Netflix adaptation of the same script.
So here’s why, someone hurry to tell Lavrov too:

SHARE

JEWISH-OWNED WIKIPEDIA:

The Bavarian Soviet Republic

The roots of the republic lay in the German Empire‘s defeat in the First World War and the social tensions that came to a head shortly thereafter. From this chaos erupted the German Revolution of 1918. At the end of October 1918, German sailors began a series of revolts in Kiel and other naval ports. In early November, these disturbances spread civil unrest across Germany. On 7 November 1918, the first anniversary of the Russian revolutionKing Ludwig III of Bavaria fled from the Residenz Palace in Munich with his family, and Kurt Eisner, a politician[4] of the Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany (USPD), became minister-president[7] of a newly proclaimed People’s State of Bavaria.

Though he advocated a socialist republic, Eisner distanced himself from the Russian Bolsheviks, declaring that his government would protect property rights. As the new government was unable to provide basic services, Eisner’s USPD was defeated in the January 1919 election, coming in sixth place. On 21 February 1919, as he was on his way to parliament to announce his resignation, he was shot dead by the right-wing nationalist Anton Graf von Arco auf Valley, also known as Arco-Valley.

After Eisner’s assassination, the Landtag convened, and Erhard Auer – the leader of the Social Democrats and the Minister of the Interior in Eisner’s government – began to eulogize Eisner, but rumours had already begun to spread that Auer was behind the assassination. Acting on these false allegations, Alois Linder, a saloon waiter who was a fervent supporter of Eisner, shot Auer twice with a rifle, seriously wounding him. This prompted other armed supporters of Eisner to open fire, causing a melee, killing one delegate and provoking nervous breakdowns in at least two ministers. There was effectively no government in Bavaria thereafter.[8]

Unrest and lawlessness followed. The assassination of Eisner created a martyr for the leftist cause and prompted demonstrations, the closing of the University of Munich, the kidnapping of aristocrats, and the forced pealing of church bells. The support for the Left was greater than Eisner himself had been able to command.[8]

On 7 March 1919, the Socialists’ new leader, Johannes Hoffmann, an anti-militarist and former schoolteacher, patched together a parliamentary coalition government, but a month later, on the night of 6–7 April, Communists and anarchists, energized by the news of a communist revolution in Hungary, declared a Soviet Republic, with Ernst Toller as chief of state. Toller called on the nonexistent “Bavarian Red Army” to support the new dictatorship of the proletariat and ruthlessly deal with any counter-revolutionary behavior.[9][10]

The Hoffmann government fled to Bamberg in Northern Bavaria, which it declared the new seat of government.

Notable people

Active participants in the Freikorps units – those of Oven, Franz Ritter von Epp, and Hermann Erhardt – that suppressed the Bavarian Soviet Republic included future powerful members of the Nazi Party, including Rudolf Hess, a member of the Freikorps Epp.[28][29][30]

One notable supporter of the Soviet Republic was the artist Georg Schrimpf, then aged 30, who was arrested when the movement was crushed.[31] His friend, the writer Oskar Maria Graf, who was also arrested, wrote about the events in his autobiographical novel, Wir sind Gefangene (1927). The famed anarchist novelist Ret Marut (later known as B.Traven) was an active participant in the establishment of Soviet power and worked as head of the Press Department of the Soviet Republic.[32] During the early days of the Soviet Republic, representatives of cultural life also played an important role in the revolution. Some intellectuals such as the economist Lujo Brentano, the conductor Bruno Walter and the writers Heinrich Mann and Rainer Maria Rilke formed the Rat der geistigen Arbeit (Council of Intellectual Work) with Mann as its chairman.[33][34]

Adolf Hitler‘s longstanding chauffeur and first leader of the Schutzstaffel (SS) Julius Schreck signed up and served as a member of the Red Army in late April 1919.[35] Balthasar Brandmayer, one of Hitler’s closest wartime friends, remarked “how he at first welcomed the end of the monarchies” and the establishment of the republic in Bavaria.[35]

Adolf Hitler himself acted as a liaison between his army battalion – he had been elected “deputy battalion representative” – and the Soviet’s Department of Propaganda. Both film footage and a still photograph appear to show Hitler marching in Eisner’s funeral procession.

He wears both a black mourning band and a red band showing support for the Far-Left Government. It is uncertain whether this indicated that Hitler was a true supporter of the soviet, or that he was simply taking an available opportunity not to return to his impoverished pre-war civilian life. His choice may therefore have been a tactical one, rather than one of political belief. It is also known that once the government had fallen, Hitler aligned himself with the Weimar Republic and – as part of a three-person committee assigned to investigate the behavior of his regiment’s soldiers – informed on those who had shown sympathy for the Far-Left Governments.

V. I. Lenin: Message Of Greetings To The Bavarian Soviet Republic


Delivered: 27 April, 1919
First Published: Pravda No. 111, April 22, 1930; Published according to the manuscript
Source: Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 Volume 29, pages 325-326
Translated: George Hanna
Transcription/HTML Markup: David Walters & Robert Cymbala
Copyleft: V. I. Lenin Internet Archive (www.marx.org) 2002. Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License


We thank you for your message of greetings, and on our part whole heartedly greet the Soviet Republic of Bavaria. We ask you insistently to give us more frequent, definite information on the following. What measures have you taken to fight the bourgeois executioners, the Scheidernanns and Co.; have councils of workers and servants been formed in the different sections of the city; have the workers been armed; have the bourgeoisie been disarmed; has use been made of the stocks of clothing and other items for immediate and extensive aid to the workers, and especially to the farm labourers and small peasants; have the capitalist factories and wealth in Munich and the capitalist farms in its environs been confiscated; have mortgage and rent payments by small peasants been cancelled; have the wages of farm labourers and unskilled workers been doubled or trebled; have all paper stocks and all printing-presses been confis-cated so as to enable popular leaflets and newspapers to be printed for the masses; has the six-hour working day with two or three-hour instruction in state administration been introduced; have the bourgeoisie in Munich been made to give up surplus housing so that workers may be immediately moved into comfortable flats; have you taken over all the banks; have you taken hostages from the ranks of the bourgeoisie; have you introduced higher rations for the workers than for the bourgeoisie; have all the workers been mobilised for defence and for ideological propaganda in the neighbouring villages? The most urgent and most extensive implementation of these and similar measures, coupled with the initiative of workers’, farm labourers’ and— ;acting apart from them— ;small peasants’ councils, should strengthen your position. An emergency tax must be levied on the bourgeoisie, and an actual improvement effected in the condition of the workers, farm labourers and small peasants at once and at all costs.

With sincere greetings and wishes of success.

Lenin

ADOLF HITLER ON THE NAZI FORM OF ‘SOCIALISM’ (1932)

from Alpha History

The relationship between Nazism and socialism has provoked considerable debate. The majority of historians contend that Nazism sits alongside Italian fascism on the right-wing of the political spectrum. The Nazis, they argue, were hyper-nationalists obsessed with military and state power and social control. Unlike those of Marxists, Nazi policies did not seek economic levelling, the eradication of class or private property or the redistribution of wealth.

Despite this, some conservative historians argue that Nazism is a factional offshoot or bastardised form of socialism. They point to nomenclature (“National Socialism”), Nazi control and regulation of the German economy and their vast public spending programs. This line of argument has, in recent times, been repeated by many conservative and far-right political pundits.

The following document contains Adolf Hitler‘s explanation of the Nazi form of socialism. It comes from an interview with Hitler conducted by German-American writer and Nazi sympathiser George Sylvester Viereck. The interview appeared in Liberty magazine on July 9th 1932:

“‘When I take charge of Germany, I shall end tribute abroad and Bolshevism at home.’

Adolf Hitler drained his cup as if it contained not tea but the lifeblood of Bolshevism.

‘Bolshevism’, the chief of the Brown Shirts, the Fascists of Germany continued, ‘is our greatest menace. Kill Bolshevism in Germany and you restore 70 million people to power. France owes her strength not to her armies but to the forces of Bolshevism and dissension in our midst’…

I met Hitler not in his headquarters, the Brown House in Munich, but in a private home, the dwelling of a former admiral of the German Navy. We discussed the fate of Germany over the teacups.

‘Why’, I asked Hitler, ‘do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party program is the very anthesis of that commonly accredited to Socialism?’

‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

‘We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the State on the basis of race solidarity. To us, State and race are one…

‘What’, I continued my cross-examination, ‘are the fundamental planks of your platform?’

‘We believe in a healthy mind, in a healthy body. The body politic must be sound if the soul is to be healthy. Moral and physical health are synonymous.’

‘Mussolini’, I interjected, ‘said the same to me’. Hitler beamed.

‘The slums’, he added, ‘are responsible for nine-tenths, alcohol for one-tenth of all human depravity. No healthy man is a Marxian. Healthy men recognise the value of personality. We contend against the forces of disaster and degeneration. Bavaria is comparatively healthy because it is not completely industrialised… If we wish to save Germany, we must see to it that our farmers remain faithful to the land. To do so, they must have room to breathe and room to work.’

‘Where will you find the room to work?’

‘We must retain our colonies and expand eastward. There was a time when we could have shared world domination with England. Now we must stretch our cramped limbs only toward the east. The Baltic is necessarily a German lake.’”

Hitler the Communist

Andrew Roberts reviews Thomas Weber’s “Hitler’s First War.”

by Andrew Roberts, 2010

Hitler’s First War:
Adolf Hitler,
the Men of the List Regiment,
and the First World War
By Thomas Weber
Oxford, 416 pages

It might seem impossible for the moral character of Adolf Hitler to be revealed as more cynical and opportunistic than we already suppose, yet that is precisely the revelation arising from the painstaking archival work of Thomas Weber in his superb new work of history, Hitler’s First War. An investigation into young Hitler’s service with an infantry regiment in the First World War, Hitler’s First War also tells the story of the future Fuehrer’s ideological journey in the year following Germany’s surrender in 1918. This is where the book’s true importance lies. Weber—who was educated at Oxford, Harvard, and Princeton and is now a fellow at Aberdeen University—proves beyond doubt that Hitler’s own account in Mein Kampf of how and when he formed his National Socialist theories and policies, hitherto accepted as accurate by his many biographers, was at best tendentious and full of gaps, and at worst completely invented.

Those biographers have generally accepted Hitler’s own contention that his National Socialist views were fully formed by November 1918, when, in an army hospital during his recovery from a temporary gas blinding, he heard of Germany’s surrender. In the year that followed, those views were, we have been told, merely cemented by the revolutionary ferment inside Germany following the defeat; by September 1919, he had joined the National Socialist Party. Weber demonstrates that, far from being a convinced radical proto-fascist in this vital period of political maelstrom, Hitler was in fact politically “confused and disoriented.” At one point, Hitler was an active supporter of the peculiar experiment in revolutionary governance called the Bavarian Soviet Republic and demonstrated public support for its founding father, Kurt Eisner, a Jew and a Communist. “Hitler made sure figuratively and quite possibly literally to burn any traces of his activities during this period,” writes Weber, and small wonder.

But that comes later in the book. The early sections feature eye-opening material on the medals Hitler was awarded during the war—the Iron Cross 2nd Class in 1914 and 1st Class in 1918. Weber has investigated tales of Hitler’s heroism minutely and shows in each case that they were wildly exaggerated by Nazi propagandists or by former comrades keen to curry favor. Far from exhibiting notable courage, Hitler was in fact no braver than the next man, and those decorations were handed out almost “with the rations” to people the officers in his regiment knew and liked. Hitler’s Iron Cross 1st Class, he writes, “was less a sign of bravery than of his position and long service within regimental headquarters.” Indeed, Hitler and others who ran ­dispatches from commander to commander were dubbed “rear area pigs” by the front-line soldiers whom they almost never saw.

“An incorrigible embellisher of his own war service,” Weber calls Hitler, especially once he had the power of Josef Goebbels’s state propaganda apparatus behind him. The stories of his single-handedly capturing a dozen enemy combatants—some accounts claim a score—are proved here to be ludicrous. (In one letter, Hitler said his regiment had even captured the Belgian village of Messines, when it had been miles away and uninvolved.) Far from spending three months fighting in the Battle of the Somme, as John Toland stated in his self-proclaimed “definitive biography” published in 1976, Hitler was there for only four days.

Weber subjects the gullibility of Toland and other prominent biographers, including the eminent Alan Bullock and Joachim Fest, to coruscating ire. Their willingness to take Hitler at face value is even more apparent when it comes to Hitler’s postwar political awakening. “It is impossible convincingly to arrange the existing evidence from Hitler’s time after the war,” Weber writes, “in any way consistent with either a portrayal of Hitler as a Socialist or as the hyper-nationalist Pan-German anti-Semite that he was to become for one simple reason: he was neither.”

In fact, like so many other Germans at the time, Hitler was politically disoriented, with no clear Weltanshauung (worldview). Weber shows how at this vital but politically fluid moment, Hitler’s “future was undetermined and he could have moved in the direction of diametrically different political movements, as long as they combined the promise of a classless society with some kind of nationalism.”

The author of Mein Kampf skates very quickly and superficially over the first five months after the end of the war, which is unsurprising, since in the spring of 1919 in Munich, he, in Weber’s words, “served a government that he was later to deride as treacherous, criminal and Jewish. And he did not keep his head down.”

The story is complicated. Eisner, then the head of state in Bavaria, was assassinated on February 21 by a would-be member of the proto-fascist Thule Society. At Eisner’s funeral in Munich, Hitler actually walked behind the coffin in his role as head of a military unit, the Ersatz Battalion of the 2nd Infantry Regiment. Surviving film footage shows Hitler wearing two armbands at Eisner’s funeral: one the black band of mourning, the other a red armband of the socialist revolution. There are also still photographs of Hitler so attired (taken, ironically enough, by the man who was to become his court photographer, Heinrich Hoffmann). Hitler chose publicly to side with the fallen Jewish Communist leader rather than with the Thule Society, among whose members were several future Nazi leaders, and continued to serve as deputy battalion representative after the Bavarian Soviet Republic was declared in the wake of the riots following Eisner’s death. It came to an end three months later, in May.

Weber goes to pains to show how all the traditional explanations for Hitler’s tergiversations of this period—that he was a socialist, or an agent provocateur, or a secret nationalist counter-revolutionary, and so on—simply do not stand up to the kind of rigorous analysis steeped in the realities of the contemporary political scene to which historians and biographers ought to have subjected them. “If he really had been a committed dyed-in-the-wool Pan-German anti-Socialist, anti-Semite and hyper-nationalist and had only overtly cooperated with the new regime to steer the men around him away from Communism and Social Democracy,” Weber points out, he would have done what many right-wing youths in Germany were doing at the time and joined, even in secret, a Freikorps, a paramilitary gang.

Weber shows that Hitler could easily have resigned his post, as other comrades did, if he had wished. Nor did he do anything to overthrow the regime, unlike genuine fascists of the day, such as Otto Strasser, who later taunted Hitler with his absence. Equally, asks Weber, “If Hitler really had been hiding his true colors and had been the champion of all the other anti-revolutionary men in the unit who were also keeping their heads down, why did none of those men make a statement to the effect once Hitler had become famous, and…why did he not brag about it in Mein Kampf instead of keeping silent about this time?” The answer was that Hitler had not determined which way he was going to move; he had not even yet decided that anti-Semitism was likely to be a useful political tool.

On March 13, 1920, Hitler was formally discharged from the army after 2,050 days of service. He was now free to concentrate on the Nazi Party full-time and to create its policies and philosophies from the maelstrom of often contradictory impulses that had hitherto made up his political thinking. Hitler may have adopted an anti-Semitism that had not previously been evident in his psychological makeup from an opportunistic power-lust rather than a set of racist principles to which he had long adhered.

Hitler’s cynicism about politics and human nature, and his growing faith in his own leadership abilities once he had secured control of the National Socialist Party, were such that he took Germany down the path to unprecedented horror. Yet that specific path had been far from predetermined at the end of the Great War, despite what Hitler himself subsequently claimed. He was always going to be a vicious totalitarian dictator, but whether it was of the fascist or the Communist type would be determined, on the evidence presented in this highly important revisionist work, by the prevailing winds of his calamitous time.

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak… we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions”.

Adolf Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

The Truth about Private Hitler—Historian Thomas Weber on His New Book “Hitler’s First War”

History News Network

A long-hidden treasure trove of new evidence discovered by historian Thomas Weber, PhD, presents the clearest picture yet of Hitler’s war years and debunks the Nazi myths.  Dr. Weber’s new book, Hitler’s First War: Adolf Hitler, the Men of the List Regiment, and the First World War (Oxford University Press, 2010), includes new revelations based on documents from Hitler’s comrades and army records, including:

  • Hitler served a few miles behind the lines as a runner for regimental headquarters in relative comfort, and was considered a mere “tea boy” messenger or “rear-area pig” (Etappenschwein) by frontline soldiers.
  • Hitler was a loner and occasional object of ridicule who never displayed leadership qualities, never rose above the rank equivalent to a U.S. Army private first class, and never had authority over any other men in his four years of service.
  • There is no evidence that Hitler shared anti-Semitic or anti-Bolshevist views with comrades, and indeed, he served with the leftist Soviet Republic of Munich after the war ended before he embraced fascism.
  • There is virtually no evidence of anti-Semitism in Hitler’s regiment during the war.
  • Few of Hitler’s fellow soldiers in his regiment joined the Nazi Party, and many indeed cold-shouldered him at a 1922 veterans’ reunion.
  • The Nazi Party suppressed records from the war that cast Hitler as anything other than a gallant soldier.
  • The First World War did not radicalize Hitler contrary to Nazi propaganda.

           
Dr. Weber studied the archives of Hitler’s regiment, the List Regiment (the 16th Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment—RIR 16) and personal documents of soldiers from the regiment, and also conducted interviews with family members.   Much of the material on Hitler’s regiment in the Bavarian War Archive was uncataloged and not considered in previous biographies, and many documents pertaining to Hitler’s unit had been untouched.  Dr. Weber and his researchers compiled a database with a sample of more than seven hundred soldiers and followed the lives of fifty-nine Jewish veterans from the regiment.  According to Dr. Weber, over 70 percent of his book is based on new material.

Hitler’s First War has been acclaimed for its groundbreaking findings based on original research of previously unknown material.  Norman Stone wrote in The Wall Street Journal:  “With some luck and a lot of diligence, Mr. Weber has discovered the missing documents of Hitler’s war service, and it is fair to say that very little of Hitler’s own account survives the discovery.”

Dr. Weber teaches history and is also the Director of the Research Centre on Global Uncertainties at the University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom.  He earned a doctorate at Oxford University, and after that taught or held fellowships at Harvard University, the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Chicago, and the University of Glasgow.  Dr. Weber’s first book, Lodz Ghetto Album, won a 2004 Golden Light Award and a 2005 Infinity Award.  His second book, Our Friend “The Enemy” received the 2008 Duc d’Arenberg History Prize for the best book of a general nature, intended for a wide public, on the history and culture of the European continent.

Dr. Weber spoke at length about his new book from his office at Harvard University during a speaking tour in the United States.


Lindley:  Hitler must be the most scrutinized historical figure in recent memory.  What sparked your biography focusing on World War I?

Weber:  I also thought everything had been written about Hitler, but when I was looking for a new topic to write about, a historian at Oxford, Adrian Gregory, said it was really surprising that no one had ever written about Hitler and his regiment in the First World War.  We concluded that everything we think we know about Hitler and the First World War is based on Mein Kampf and propagandistic claims, but that by looking at the regimental papers of Hitler’s First World War unit I would be able to look beyond the tales told by Nazi propaganda and thus be able to tell if the war really “made” Hitler.  We quickly came to the conclusion that it would be a great idea to do a book using this approach, and the rest is history, I suppose.

Lindley:  When you set out, did you know that documents were in archives in Germany that had not been reviewed or found by other historians?

Weber:  I kind of knew they existed.  While doing my graduate work at Oxford in the second half of the 1990s, I once briefly discussed the issue with one of my professors, Hartmut Pogge von Strandmann.  And that’s how I generally knew there had to be papers, but at that point nobody knew how extensive they would be. 

Obviously, Hitler biographers had visited the Bavarian War Archive in Munich and had looked for facts specific to Adolf Hitler, but they did not find many files, of course, as they looked for documents that specifically mentioned Hitler—and Hitler was just a dispatch runner.  There was also some suggestion that Hitler had files removed from these papers after 1933. And the second and more significant reason is that researchers didn’t realize that most of the files relating to Hitler’s regiment were not housed with the papers of the regiment, but with the division and the brigade to which the regiment belonged.  And the extensive Military Justice files were not cataloged at all.  So, if you went to the archives and asked for materials on Hitler’s regiment, you wouldn’t easily know these files existed.

The Military Justice files were an extraordinary set of sources.  There were about 190 cases of files on Hitler’s regiment, and each case included [information] on the soldiers and officers, and often also confiscated letters and diary fragments.  They were really wonderful in shedding light on what really happened in Hitler’s regiment.

It was this material in the Bavarian War Archive that was the starting point of my research on Hitler’s regiment.  But I then quickly realized that there was more material to be found in other archives.  I decided early on to compile a database of a random selection of approximately seven hundred soldiers.  I checked the names of these soldiers against Nazi Party membership files and de-Nazification files to tell how typical Hitler was compared in his political development to other men of the regiment.  I also compiled a database of the fifty-nine Jewish soldiers and then systematically looked for material on them and on the communities from which they came.  This allowed me to identify where some of those Jewish soldiers had emigrated after 1933, and it allowed me to find some sources on them in other archives and even to find the families of two of the Jewish soldiers.  I also went to northern France to look for sources on the communities in which Hitler’s regiment had stayed during the war.

What also greatly helped was a newspaper in Upper Bavaria, which published a story on my research and encouraged people to come forward if any of their family members had served in Hitler’s regiment in the First World War.  A surprising number of people got in touch with me and offered the letters or papers of their [forebears].

But some finds also resulted from serendipity.  For instance, one day I talked to someone whom I encountered in the Bavarian War Archives who turned out to be an archivist in a small Bavarian town and I told him I was working on Hitler in the war.  He replied that the great-granddaughter of a soldier from Hitler’s regiment had come to him for a high school project the previous year and she had asked him to help her with some records.  He put me in touch with her, which allowed me to see the papers of a soldier who knew Hitler well.

So there was a lot of detective work involved.  And without the computer and Internet revolution of the past few years, I could not have written the book.  For instance, Google Books allowed me to search millions of books for the names of the Jewish soldiers, which led me to often obscure books, which sometimes would refer to files in archives relating to the Jewish soldiers that I otherwise would not have found.  For example, this is how I found the personal papers of a daughter of Jewish soldier from Hitler’s regiment in an archive in New York City.

“Let it be recalled that both Nazism and Communism both portrayed themselves to be champions of “peace and equal rights” but as the Gospel says you can only judge something or someone by the fruits of its actions.” – Times of Malta, “Utopias and Natural Law”, September 20, 2006

Lindley:  How long did the book project take?

Weber:  The actual writing and research for the book took about four years.

Lindley:  You dispel many of the previous views of Hitler’s First World War service in your book, and you come up with a wealth of information that was missed by noted Hitler biographers and probably thousands of researchers.  Can you talk about your new findings and how earlier historians missed the story you tell?

Weber:  My view is that we as scholars constantly have to deal with new evidence, and to use new tools, and constantly to go back to old questions and revise those interpretations in light of new evidence. 

I would be the last person to criticize historians [and Hitler biographers] such as Joachim Fest, Ian Kershaw and Alan Bullock.  I can only be in awe about the productivity and the intelligence of these historians.  But they also had to base their books on evidence available at the time.  And if you write a biography of Hitler’s entire life from 1889 to 1945, you inevitably have to base your book on what specialized studies of evidence exists, and those specialized studies on Hitler in the First World War had either not been done or were not particularly good studies. 

I’m not criticizing at all the magisterial Hitler biographies by people like Kershaw or Bullock or Fest, but they could only be as good as the material and research that existed on these questions.  Ian Kershaw’s book necessarily had to rely on publications about Hitler in the First World War that existed when he wrote his Hitler biography.  I spent about four years researching Hitler in the First World War.  If Ian Kershaw had spent a similar amount of time on each of Hitler’s years of his life, he would never have been able to write his biography.  And also, a majority of Hitler biographers—including Ian Kershaw—are experts on the Third Reich itself.  Therefore, and this is no criticism, they knew the archives for the years 1933 to 1945 much better than for the earlier years.

Lindley:  You debunk popular notions about Hitler’s First World War service such as the idea that Hitler served with gallantry in the war with comrades who were mostly just as hyper-nationalistic and anti-Semitic as he became.  What was Hitler’s role in the war?

Weber:  With the exception of the first few days of the war when he was a combat soldier, he was a dispatch runner for regimental headquarters.  Of course, people knew all along that he was a dispatch runner.  But the conventional view, which was facilitated by Nazi propaganda, was that as a dispatch runner his job was more dangerous than that of a combat soldier in the trenches because, unlike soldiers who were somewhat protected in the trenches, he had to run on a day-to-day basis from trench to trench through machine gun fire and therefore risk his life every day. 

In reality, his job was very different.  He was a dispatch runner for regimental headquarters and he operated a few miles behind the front and took messages from regimental headquarters, for example, to division headquarters or to the command of a battalion.  I’m not saying that this was a pleasant job or that it was not dangerous and I’m not saying it’s something I would want to do myself.  The point here is twofold.  The first one is, even objectively speaking, Hitler grossly exaggerated the dangers and realities of his work during the war.  The second, and more important, is what the soldiers in the front line thought of Hitler’s tasks rather than what dangers of his job objectively were.  Hitler was seen by front-line soldiers as an Etappenschwein, or a “rear-area pig,” or the term in American forces would be “rear echelon motherfucker.” 

I found this in a letter from one of Hitler’s peers at regimental headquarters, written in 1932, when Hitler was waging a legal campaign against some of his critics who were questioning his war record when he ran for the German presidency.  The letter basically said—and I’m paraphrasing, “Look Hitler, you know as well as I do that we both served honorably, but you also know as well as I do that everyone in the trenches thought otherwise.  They thought that we were Etappenschweine.  They thought our job wasn’t as dangerous.  They thought we could sleep in a warm bed at night while they slept in trenches and were exposed to the cold and the rain and enemy fire.” 

The letter confirmed the claims made in accounts critical of Hitler’s war record which had been published by newspapers in the twenties and thirties but which have been dismissed as not trustworthy by Hitler biographers.  I managed to demonstrate that the most important and most scathing of these articles—which was anonymous and against which Hitler took legal action on in 1932—was, in fact,
written by an officer in Hitler’s regiment.  He himself had served as a dispatch runner earlier in the war and later became the commander of the company to which Hitler at least nominally belonged. 

The more I looked, the more I found ample evidence that ordinary soldiers thought Hitler’s job was a much lesser, cushy job.  This is so important because of the gulf that emerged during the war between soldiers in the trenches and the support staff of regimental headquarters.  This gulf existed during and after the war, and explains why a majority of the veterans of Hitler’s regiment cold-shouldered him later. 

To be sure, a number of people, particularly from regimental headquarters, joined Hitler’s Nazi Party early on, but the majority of the veterans did not join the Nazi Party.  And Hitler ever attended only one veterans’ reunion of his regiment in 1922, in high hopes of recruiting people for his movement, but he was cold-shouldered there.  In fact, the veterans at the 1922 reunion were celebrating the main speaker at the event, an officer who later became a member of a resistance group to Hitler and was married to someone who, according to Nazi criteria, was Jewish. 

After that, Hitler never again attended a reunion of the veterans’ association.  Even in 1934 when Nazi propagandists staged a huge reunion amidst much pageantry in Munich, Hitler did not attend the meeting.  Among the materials I received from the great-granddaughter of one of Hitler’s wartime peers—the one the local archivist I met in the War Archive had told me about—I found a postcard written the day after the 1934 reunion by the wife of another of Hitler’s wartime peers. She wrote:  “I hope that the day will come soon when Hitler can stay with his loyal comrades.  My heart is bleeding that there are still comrades who lack the holiness and inner conviction that the future lies with Hitler.  This is why Hitler cannot attend [reunions of the List Regiment].  I understand this all even though I am just a woman.”

The fact that ordinary soldiers of the List Regiment did not think of Hitler as one of them meant a great deal later on when Hitler tried to recruit people for his party.  It also shows that the Nazi myth about Hitler’s war years that became the conventional view of Hitler’s First World War to the present day—according to which he was “made” by the war and a typical product of the regiment politically and in every other sense—is just not true.

Lindley:  A fellow member of the support staff of regimental headquarters of Hitler described his job as being a “postmistress.”

Weber:  Exactly.

Lindley:  Hitler was awarded two Iron Crosses, including the somewhat rare Iron Cross, First Class.  Did you see the citations and the reasons noted for awarding these medals to Hitler?

Weber:  There’s a copy of the official citation in Munich in the Bavarian Archives.  The citations were written in very general terms, basically saying that Hitler had been courageous and served honorably, but not singling out any specific action or event for which he was honored.

Lindley:  Wouldn’t a specific event be noted with particulars in most cases?

Weber:  I think it would be especially true for the Iron Cross, First Class, except maybe for high-ranking officers.  For ordinary soldiers, they would be more specific, and especially for infantrymen, they would mention what specifically was done because it was a rare award.  It’s curious that the one [awarded to] Hitler was so non-specific.

Lindley:  And ironically, the Iron Cross was awarded to Hitler by Hugo Gutmann, a Jewish officer.

Weber:  It was proposed by Gutmann.

Lindley:  Did Hitler then get the award for longevity, since he served through the entire war, and because he was submissive to his superiors?

Weber:  It’s difficult to tell for certain.  It’s probably a combination of two things.  In a traditional sense, he was a very good soldier.  He did what he was asked to do without complaining.  It seems likely that there was a specific incident, which triggered the proposal by Gutmann.  There’s a suggestion that the proposal was triggered, in the summer of 1918, when Hitler and someone else offered to take a message forward through difficult terrain.  Apparently Gutmann said, “If you make it through there, you will get an Iron Cross.”  There is a suggestion that Gutmann had difficulty in delivering on his promise as Hitler’s action was insufficient for an Iron Cross, First Class, which if true might explain why the citation is so general.  That suggests that Gutmann and the other officers of regimental headquarters felt they had to deliver on the promise and probably also considered Hitler’s longevity and the fact that Hitler was well liked by his superiors.  There seems to have been a sense that, if we put down in the citation what he actually did, we might not get it through higher ranks, and therefore we have to come up with something general to get the proposal through.

Lindley:  And Hitler was wounded twice.  Once by shrapnel in the leg, and later supposedly blinded by gas.  With his wounds and hospitalizations, he missed some of the most brutal fighting of the war.

Weber:  That is correct.

Lindley:  And some writers suggest the blindness was psychosomatic rather than resulting from exposure to gas.

Weber:  As far as the blindness is concerned, part of the Nazi Party or Hitler myth was that he had been blinded by mustard gas to show how dangerous his job was, how brave he was.  There also was a claim that he had been recovering, and as he understood Germany had lost the war, he temporarily lost his eyesight again.

A few publications from recent years, however, have presented evidence that Hitler’s blindness indeed was not caused by mustard gas, but rather was psychosomatic or triggered by war hysteria.  In September of this year, following the British release of my book, I found more evidence.  In San Francisco, a radio listener who had listened to my interview with the BBC World Service at the time, came forward and gave letters to me from his father that provide further evidence that Hitler’s blindness was indeed psychosomatic.  

It’s possible he suffered from post-combat stress.  There has been some suggestion that he was released from hospital early, and his treatment was at a stage where he was left uncured.  This may explain some personality traits he developed.  Whether that is raw speculation or plausible, I find difficult to determine.  However, I think we can safely say that, in 1919, Hitler is not just radicalized but also suddenly moves from being an unremarkable soldier without any leadership qualities to becoming a leader.  No one around him saw leadership qualities in Hitler in the First World War.

Lindley:  Yes.  His lack of any leadership qualities in the war is stunning.

Weber:  Suddenly this follower, within months, turns into this charismatic leader who found his voice and preached with a high degree of certitude.  To understand not only his radicalization but also this change in personality, we really have to look at the psychological development of Hitler.  I can’t really say what happened, but it’s plausible that Hitler’s mental makeup changed, and that he developed some kind of personality disorder that helped him become a charismatic leader able to exercise leadership functions.

Lindley:  He seemed to display an authoritarian personality disorder.

Weber:  When you compare Hitler and Stalin, it’s complicated.  Hitler is this absolute tyrant, responsible arguably for the largest number of people ever killed.  On the other hand, people who personally interacted with him in the 1920s and 1930s generally found him quite charming.  That could explain why people who met Hitler underestimated him, or said what was happening was horrible but was probably not Hitler’s fault because they tried to divorce Hitler from the violent reality of the Third Reich.

Stalin, by contrast, was on every level of the word a thug.   He tyrannized and killed people in his immediate entourage.  He enjoyed having the people who surrounded him drink themselves senseless and then watch their behavior.  Hitler treated his immediate entourage very differently, which also raises questions about Hitler’s mental development and personality traits.

Lindley:  Unlike Stalin, he didn’t usually execute his officers.

Weber:  Except for the Night of the Long Knives. But that‘s the exception rather than the rule.  For Stalin, the rule was that he had no qualms about executing people with whom he had had personal interaction.

Lindley:  You note that Hitler had little social contact with other soldiers and didn’t join in carousing but preferred to paint or read political books.  Can you say more about his rather atypical behavior?

Weber:  We cannot know for sure what he did beyond these activities but it seems that he did not do much elseas he did not indulge in the favorite pastime of many soldiers:  drinking. Unlike many of his peers, all evidence suggests that he also did not frequent brothels.  It’s important to remember that soldiers often suffered from extreme boredom during the war.  So there is really a limit as to what Hitler could do during the war to keep himself occupied when he was not on duty.  While on leave, he once visited Brussels and probably also took part in a day trip to the Belgian coast while not on duty.  Hitler had a real thirst for knowledge, particularly as far as it related either to architecture or to history, and would have thus been excited to visit Brusselsless for the temptations of drink and sex that a city behind the front offered (as would have been the case for many other soldiers) than for the architectural wonders of Brussels.

Lindley:  Some of Hitler’s List Regiment comrades joked that he was so inept that he couldn’t even feed himself in a canned food factory because he couldn’t open a can with a bayonet.

Weber:  Yes, but almost all of his immediate comrades seem to have gotten on with him.  There seems to have been no people who really hated him amongst those who had frequent interaction with him.  But it also seems that almost everyone, irrespective of whether they later sided with Hitler or not, saw him as a bit of a loner, an awkward person, as someone they accepted in their midst, but not someone who they really saw as one of them.  His immediate comrades showed no sign that they were rallying around Hitler or even that Hitler was formulating political ideas in the trenches (with which they either agreed or disagreed).  Even people who later joined him and who genuinely liked him seemed not to have taken Hitler particularly seriously during the war.

Lindley:  You put to rest in your book the idea that Hitler was openly anti-Semitic and anti-Bolshevik during the First World War.

Weber:  Yes.

Lindley:  It will be stunning for most readers that Hitler displayed no leadership qualities during the war.

Weber:  It was stunning to me.  Of course, once Hitler becomes a charismatic leader, his experience in the First World War, particularly his experience in his unit at regimental headquarters, became very important.  The regimental headquarters provided for him a model of a functioning organization and of how to set up an organization and how leadership might work.  While he had not shown leadership qualities himself during the war, and there was not a single soldier who had to answer to Hitler, it was still those experiences that mattered retrospectively when Hitler was trying to find a way of how to build an organization and deal with people. 

And of course, when he built the Nazi Party, he turned to Max Amann, the staff sergeant of regimental headquarters, and asked him to join as managing director of the Nazi Party because Hitler could trust him in building an organization.  And, during the peacetime years of the Third Reich, Hitler turns to Fritz Wiedemann, the regimental adjutant, and asks him to become one of his personal adjutants in the Reich Chancellery in Berlin.  Hitler indeed tries to reproduce the organization model of regimental headquarters in the First World War.

Lindley:  Was Hitler ever at a rank equivalent to a U.S. Army corporal during the First World War? 

Weber:  No, he wasn’t.  It’s basically a mistranslation of the German term Gefreiter. To be fair, it’s also a reflection of the difficulty of translating military ranks. But the correct translation for Gefreiter would be private first class.  Hitler had no line of command over anyone else.  It’s quite wrong to describe Hitler as Corporal Hitler.        

Lindley:  Among his lies, Hitler falsely claimed that he was a sole survivor of one battle with Scotland’s Gordon Highlanders and the Black Watch. What did Nazi Party do to spread such stories and suppress the truth?

Weber:  They disseminated stories like this one through textbooks for primary and high school students, through newspaper and magazine articles, photo books, textbooks for members of the Hitler Youth, etc.  They suppressed the truth mainly through intimidation, by putting people temporarily into concentration camps.  They also liquidated people who had knowledge of Hitler’s medical record from 1918, which showed that his blindness resulted from war hysteria and not from mustard gas.  And they of course also suppressed the truth by cleverly discrediting critics of Hitler.  They also cleverly made use of the code of honor of the military which made it very difficult openly to attack a former wartime peer without the risk of being ostracized themselves for such an attack.

Lindley:  You indicate that Hitler’s war experience dictated the way he fought World War II.

Weber:  I wouldn’t say fully dictated.  The First World War provided lessons to Hitler on how to fight and not fight a war.  Particularly, in the second part of the Second World War, he no longer trusted the generals and very often overrode their decisions, saying—I’m paraphrasing, “Look, you generals may have been officers in the First World War, but you were behind the front,” leveling the same criticism at them as his comrades leveled against him.   “I know what the realities of the First World War were, and this is what we did, for instance, in the Spring Offensive of 1918, and this is what we are going to do in Russia.”  He’d use those retroactively reconfigured experiences to advance nonsensical propositions of how to fight the Second World War.

Lindley:  I think readers will also be surprised that, just after the First World War ended, Hitler served with the left-wing Soviet Republic of Munich, rather than with the right-wing Freikorps.

Weber:  Yes, it’s amazing.  At the very least we can say is that Hitler’s path toward fascism was very unusual for fascists.  The standard route was to be radical right wing at the end of the First World War, then through the Freikorps, to becoming a fascist.  Hitler’s political socialization is very different.  While his future fellow fascists are fighting the Soviet Republic, he is in the center of Munich serving the Soviet Republic.  He even serves as one of the elected representatives of his postwar unit.

Hitler biographers have tried to make sense of his actions by arguing that maybe they were a smokescreen for what he really wanted to do, or that he was a secret spokesperson for hyper-nationalists, or that he was a full-fledged communist.  I find none of these explanations persuasive.  The problem is that scholars thought that they had to resolve Hitler’s contradictory actions during this time by showing that one action was a smokescreen for another.

My argument is that the whole point is that Hitler’s actions should not be resolved.  His actions were contradictory and he had flexible political ideas.  The least we can say, whatever ideas Hitler might have secretly harbored, that was not why his fellow soldiers voted for him as a representative of his post-war battalion in 1919.

The idea that all of these soldiers [who served with Hitler] were German nationalists and Hitler had stayed in the army like other German hyper-nationalists doesn’t work.  The overwhelming majority [of his fellow soldiers] in the Bavarian Elections of 1919—and we know this because special election districts had been set up in military barracks and military hospitals—voted for the Social Democrats or for other democratic parties.  As up to 80 percent of soldiers in Munich still in the military in early 1919 voted for democratic parties, it is inconceivable that the soldiers from Hitler’s postwar unit would have voted for Hitler if they saw him as some sort of anti-socialist and anti-democratic radical.

After all, that’s exactly why we call ourselves National Socialists! We want to start by implementing socialism in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are socialist that they can address themselves to international socialism.

Adolf Hitler, As quoted by Otto Wagener in Hitler—Memoirs of a Confidant, editor, Henry Ashby Turner, Jr., Yale University Press (1985) p. 288

Lindley: What do you think sparked Hitler’s radical anti-Bolshevist and anti-Semitic views?

Weber:  It’s a difficult question on what is cause and what is effect here:  whether his morbid anti-Semitism and anti-Bolshevism were the cause of his fascism or the effect.  It’s remarkable that this person with no leadership qualities suddenly became a charismatic leader, but also that his ideology goes far further than that of most other fascists in Germany during this time.  To be sure, other fascists shared his ideas and his eliminationist anti-Semitism, but not all of them.  Indeed, some did not take his extreme form of anti-Semitism seriously.  But, as it later turned out, this extreme anti-Bolshevism and anti-Semitism was the core of his ideology and very much drove his actions from 1933, and particularly after 1941.

We can only answer that question [about the genesis of Hitler’s extreme views] once we know more about what happened to Hitler between March of 1919 and the fall of 1919.  I find it convincing that Hitler was not immediately radicalized in a fascist way by the experiences of the Soviet Republic.  He even had fluctuating political ideas in the summer of 1919, and he was intermingling with people with similarly fluctuating ideas.  His political mentor during this time, Karl Mayr, who was also his commanding officer, ends up as a defender of the Weimar Republic and a Social Democrat.  In 1933, he fled Germany for France but after the German invasion of France, he was put in a concentration camp.  And Ernst Schmidt, Hitler’s fellow dispatch runner during the war with whom Hitler spent almost all the time during the revolutionary period, becomes a Nazi in the 1920s, but, like Mayr, shows democratic leanings until the mid-1920s. 

This is all to say that it’s difficult to know what exactly triggered Hitler’s move to fascism in 1919.  It might have been the result of a politicization, or other contingent factors, including an attempt to find a new ersatz family now that his ersatz family from regimental headquarters from the war had disintegrated.  And maybe there was an element of him trying to distance himself from his actions during the Soviet Republic of Munich, but that’s speculation.

Lindley:  It seems Hitler was disappointed that List Regiment veterans did not rally to his fascist cause, and that most indeed rejected his political views.

Weber:  I’m just speculating, but I think he was genuinely hurt by this rejection because I think he sought acceptance by the members of his regiment.  And he respected even those veterans who were critical of him. 

Interestingly—and this goes back to the Hitler-Stalin comparison—despite the fact that a significant number of veterans openly challenged Hitler, he did not have any of them liquidated.  He put some of them temporarily in concentration camps or prison, but he did not order any of them liquidated, not even Jewish veterans.  Gutmann was put into a Gestapo prison in 1937, but was not eliminated, and crucially, he came out of prison again.  The same is true of another Jewish veteran, Siegfried Heumann, who is tried in 1936, and gets away with it.  Of course, a significant number of Jewish veterans, including Heumann, ultimately died in the death camps of the East in the Holocaust.  But the important point here is that they die as Jews and not as members of his regiment.  Hitler did not order any of his fellow Jewish or non-Jewish fellow soldiers liquidated.  So, despite being hurt and cold-shouldered, there’s a sense that Hitler seeks approval from his regiment, and in a way he respects them more than they respect him.         

Lindley:  You grew up in Germany, and your grandfather served with the Luftwaffe during the Second World War.  Did your background prompt your research on Hitler?

Weber:  I find it difficult to answer.  I prefer other people answer, rather than analyze myself.  It’s true that if you grow up in a country that’s a Western democratic modern state, but you realize that not long before, your state was very different, and it was your country that committed unspeakable crimes, you ask why.  The people that you know and you experience as friendly neighbors or loving grandparents were involved with this regime.  I’m not saying they all fully supported it, but they were all some way or another involved in this regime.  I suppose that raises the question of how do we make sense of this.  Why is it that a country that was arguably the most educated in the world and a country of nice neighbors and loving grandparents managed to unleash war and genocide at an unprecedented level?  I’m sure that triggered at least in part my questions.

Lindley:  In the United States some fear a similarly repressive regime here.  We trust our system of checks and balances to prevent such an extremist nightmare. Yet Germany had a democratic government with the Weimar Republic in the 1920s when Hitler and his thugs were marginalized, but with a bad economy and a tragic series of events, Hitler came to power in 1933.

Weber:  I think it’s unlikely that anything like Nazi Germany could happen in the United States, which after all is one of the great success stories of the modern world.  However, I don’t want to sound like a doomsayer, but even seemingly strong democratic states can rapidly de-democratize and radicalize in certain periods of time.  Periods of extreme economic volatility may go hand in hand with war or other extreme crises.   Any kind of war creates an atmosphere of you’re with us or against us.  I’m the last person who would want to equate the United States with fascist regimes. Nevertheless, I am still with Fritz Stern—the eminent historian and public intellectual—who in a series of articles and talks since 9/11 has warned the American public about the danger of how even democratic societies can radicalize. In extreme periods of crisis, even stable democratic states quickly can become prone to radicalization and to an undermining of democracy.

Lindley:  How do you think your book adds to our understanding of Hitler?

Weber:  It changes our understanding in two ways.  First, on seeing how Hitler was “made” or radicalized.  If you can show that the most extreme political leader of the twentieth century was politicized and radicalized in a very different manner than was previously believed, then that in itself is a very significant finding.

In addition, it changes our understanding of how Hitler came to power, and how he was inventing and re-inventing himself in a way that made him attractive to a German electorate.  And it sheds new light on how Hitler rose to power.

It also changes our understanding of many other issues.  For instance, we now know that, when Hitler based decisions in the Second World War on experiences from the First World War, he was not governed by immediate experience, but rather by reconfigured or reinvented experience.  It changes our understanding of how Hitler’s anti-Semitism came about.  

Beyond Hitler, it changes our understanding of Jewish-Gentile relations and it raises the question of whether the First World War was the “seminal catastrophe” of the twentieth century that George F. Kennan famously thought it was.   I’m convinced it was a catastrophe for Eastern Europe, but I’m not sure it was the “seminal catastrophe” of the twentieth century for Germany or for Hitler.

Lindley:  What does it mean that the First World War was not the “seminal catastrophe” in twentieth-century German history?  Didn’t Hitler derail democracy by stressing the war myth?

Weber:  The idea of World War I being the “seminal catastrophe” in twentieth century German history really is that the First World War planted the seeds of all subsequent problems and disasters in German (and European) history.  My argument is that that is not really true but that despite First World War, the future of a democratic (or at least semi-democratic) Germany still looks fairly bright as soldiers return from the war.  The argument is that subsequent events (and not the war itself) functioned as the root problems of Germany’s subsequent descent into darkness.

Yes, Hitler did derail democracy by stressing the war myth but my point is that there is no direct line from Hitler’s war experience to the failure of democracy in Germany.  I think your question implicitly already answers why the war not the seminal catastrophe of Germany’s twentieth century:  You refer to “the war myth” rather than “Hitler’s war experience.” In other words, not the war itself but what was made of the war after the event was the problem.  This is to say that only because of things that happened after the war was it possible for the war to be “reinvented” in a way that derailed democracy.

Hitler on Marxism

“National Socialism derives from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it, national resolution from bourgeois tradition; vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism.” – January 27, 1934, interview with Hanns Johst in Frankforter Volksblatt

Hitler on Teaching Socialism

“There is a difference between the theoretical knowledge of socialism and the practical life of socialism. People are not born socialists, but must first be taught how to become them.” – October 5, 1937, speech in Berlin

Hitler on Capitalism

“In those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and, as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are more or less independent and free. They say: ‘Here we have liberty.’ By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of the ‘freedom of the press.’ In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it.” – December 10, 1940, speech in Berlin

Hitler on Socialism

“Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism.” – August 15, 1920, speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus.

Hitler on Social Justice

“Because it seems inseparable from the social idea and we do not believe that there could ever exist a state with lasting inner health if it is not built on internal social justice, and so we have joined forces with this knowledge.” – August 15, 1920, speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus

Hitler on Class Abolition

“We must on principle free ourselves from any class standpoint.” – April 12, 1922, speech in Munich

“There are no such things as classes: they cannot be. … here there can be no class, here there can be only a single people and beyond that nothing else.” – April 12, 1922, speech in Munich

Hitler on Marxism and Socialism

(Editor’s Note: StoppingSocialism.com does not agree with Hitler’s description of socialism, communism, and Marxism below. He deliberately misled people about the meaning of these terms for political reasons.)

“Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national.” – 1923, Interview with George Sylvester Viereck

Hitler on State Property Control

“To put it quite clearly: we have an economic program. Point 13 in that program demands the nationalization of all public companies, in other words socialization, or what is known here as socialism. … the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me? Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals anymore; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil.” – May 4, 1931, interview with Richard Breiting

Hitler on the Bourgeoisie

“Over the last 40 years, the German bourgeoisie has been a lamentable failure; it has not given the German people a single leader; it will have to bow without gainsaying to the totality of my ideology.” – May 4, 1931, interview with Richard Breiting

Hitler on German Socialism

“What they hate is the Germany which sets a dangerous example for them, this social Germany. It is the Germany of a social labor legislation which they already hated before the World War and which they still hate today. It is the Germany of social welfare, of social equality, of the elimination of class differences—this is what they hate! They hate this Germany which in the course of seven years has labored to afford its Volksgenossen a decent life. They hate this Germany which has eliminated unemployment, which, in spite of all their wealth, they have not been able to eliminate. This Germany which grants its laborers decent housing—this is what they hate because they have a feeling their own peoples could be ‘infected’ thereby. They hate this Germany of social legislation, this Germany which celebrates the first of May as the day of honest labor.” – May 8, 1939, speech “Party Comrades! My German Volksgenossen!” at the Bürgerbräukeller in Munich

Hitler on the Hammer and Sickle

“The hammer will once more become the symbol of the German worker and the sickle the sign of the German peasant.” – May 1, 1934, May Day speech in Berlin

Hitler on German Socialism

“Is there a nobler or more excellent kind of Socialism and is there a truer form of Democracy than this National Socialism which is so organized that through it each one among the millions of German boys is given the possibility of finding his way to the highest office in the nation, should it please Providence to come to his aid?” – January 30, 1937, On National Socialism and World Relations speech in the German Reichstag

Hitler on Profits

“And justice is on the side of those nations that fight for their threatened existence. And this struggle for existence will spur these nations on to the most tremendous accomplishments in world history. If profit is the driving force for production in the democracies—a profit that industrialists, bankers, and corrupt politicians pocket—then the driving force in National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy is the realization by millions of laborers that, in this war, it is they who are being fought against. They realize that the democracies, if they should ever win, would rage with the full capitalist cruelty, that cruelty of which only those are capable whose only god is gold, who know no human sentiments other than their obsession with profit, and who are ready to sacrifice all noble thought to this profit instinct without hesitation. This struggle is not an attack on the rights of other nations, but on the arrogance and avarice of a narrow capitalist upper class, one which refuses to acknowledge that the days are over when gold ruled the world, and that, by contrast, a future is dawning when the people will be the determining force in the life of a nation.” – January 1, 1941, speech in Berlin

Hitler on His Own Fanatical Socialism

“Germany’s economic policy is conducted exclusively in accordance with the interests of the German people. In this respect I am a fanatical socialist, one who has ever in mind the interests of all his people.” – February 24, 1941, speech on the 21st anniversary of the Nazi Party

Hitler on the Triumph of Socialism

“All the more so after the war, the German National Socialist state, which pursued this goal from the beginning, will tirelessly work for the realization of a program that will ultimately lead to a complete elimination of class differences and to the creation of a true socialist community.” – March 21, 1943, speech for Heroes’ Memorial Day

The following quotes are attributed by Otto Wagener in Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant

“In the past—that is, for most people it is still the present-the individual is everything, everything is directed at maintaining his life and improving his existence, everything focuses on him. … In socialism of the future, on the other hand, what counts is the whole, the community of the Volk. The individual and his life play only a subsidiary role. He can be sacrificed—he is prepared to sacrifice himself should the whole demand it.”

“Aren’t these liberals, those reprobate defenders of individualism, ashamed to see the tears of the mothers and wives, or don’t these cold-blooded accountants even notice? Have they already grown so inhuman that they are no longer capable of feeling? It is understandable why bolshevism simply removed such creatures. They were worthless to humanity, nothing but an encumbrance to their Volk. Even the bees get rid of the drones when they can no longer be of service to the hive. The Bolshevik procedures are thus quite natural.”

“What Marxism, Leninism, and Stalinism failed to accomplish, we shall be in a position to achieve.”

“But first, there will have to be national socialism. Otherwise the people and their governments are not ready for the socialism of nations. It is not possible to be liberal to one’s own country and demand socialism among nations.”

“After all, that’s exactly why we call ourselves National Socialists! We want to start by implementing socialism in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are socialist that they can address themselves to international socialism.”

“But we National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.”

Quotes selected by Chris Talgo (ctalgo@heartland.org), editor at The Heartland Institute.

Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in Munich, Germany, ca. June 1940. Photo provided by Marion Doss. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0) 

Mussolini: The Young Socialist Radical

Roots of Fascism: Part 3

Samuel Griswold. Fighting Fascism, Apr 15

Mussolini’s 1903 Mugshot in Bern, Switzerland

Benito Mussolini emigrated to Switzerland in 1902, where he became active in the Italian socialist movement.  He worked for the L’Avvenire del Lavoratore newspaper, served as secretary of the Italian workers union in Lausanne, gave speeches and organized meetings for socialist activists and sympathizers.  He continued to study socialist philosophers including Friedrich Nietzche, Vilfredo Pareto of the Lausanne School, and the syndicalist Georges Sorel.  It was Sorel’s ideas about the need for a violent overthrow of liberal democracy and capitalism through violence, general strikes and direct action that highly influenced Mussolini’s own political views and were later incorporated into his Fascist movement.   He also credited Christian socialist Charles Peguy and the syndicalist Hubert Lagardelle as being some of his mentors.

Mussolini denounced Italy’s “imperialist war” in Libya

Mussolini spent two weeks in jail in 1903, after having been arrested for advocating for a general strike.  The Swiss government deported him back to Italy, but he returned after falsifying his papers.  He studied at the University of Lausanne and was arrested, a year later, in Geneva, Switzerland. Subscribe

 

In February of 1909, he moved to the Italian-speaking city of Trento which was then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  There, he worked in the office of the local socialist party.  

Mussolini returned to his hometown in Italy, in 1910, to edit the weekly newspaper, Lotta di Classe (The Class Struggle).  He also published “Il Trentino veduto da un Socialista (Trentino as seen by a Socialist), in the Left-Wing periodical La Voce.

Mussolini described Marx as the “greatest of all theorists of socialism”

In September of 1911, he denounced Italy’s “imperialist war” in Libya, as a participant in a socialist-led riot.  This protest caused him to be arrested and to spend five months in jail.  But, it also built his credibility and led to his becoming editor of the Socialist Party newspaper, Avanti.



Describing Marx as the “greatest of all theorists of socialism,” Mussolini fully considered himself a follower of the Communist founder.  Vladimir Lenin would later criticize Italian socialists for expelling him from their ranks.  So, why did he separate from the Italian Socialist Party?  Did his political philosophy really change? 

In Roots of Fascism: Part 4, we shall see that his passion for socialism remained strong and true.  It was his philosophy about Italian involvement in World War I that evolved.

Hitler’s “Brownshirts” were a bunch of commies led by a gay guy, very akin to Biden’s Antifa:
SHARE

IF YOU MADE IT SO FAR, YOU DESERVE A BONUS

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

This is not really about Hitler.

Sources: Jewish-owned Wikipedia, 23andme.com. Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, Jewish Press, Times of Israel and more.

Lavrov: So what if Zelensky is Jewish, even Hitler ‘had Jewish blood’

Attempting to defend claims of need to ‘denazify’ Ukraine, Russian FM says ‘some of the worst antisemites are Jews’; Yad Vashem slams comments as ‘false, delusional and dangerous’

“Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Sunday said that the fact that Ukraine’s president is Jewish does not contradict Moscow’s claims that it launched the invasion to “denazify” the country, claiming that even Hitler “had Jewish blood.”

In an interview with Italian news channel Zona Bianca, Lavrov was asked how Russian President Vladimir Putin could claim he was trying to “denazify” Ukraine when Volodymyr  Zelensky, the country’s democratically elected president, was Jewish.

“So what if Zelensky is Jewish. The fact does not negate the Nazi elements in Ukraine. I believe that Hitler also had Jewish blood,” Lavrov said, adding that “some of the worst antisemites are Jews.”

Persistent conspiracy theories that Nazi leader Adolf Hitler had some Jewish ancestry that may have motivated his antisemitism and the murder of six million Jews have been repeatedly debunked by historians.”

Times of Israel

We can’t really know who impregnated Hitler’s grandmother, apparently. I will keep digging into that. Anything is possible, at this point.
What we know is that the debunks of the theory are authored by Jews for the most part and they have been, in turn, debunked, but you can’t expect the establishment to take that in consideration.

But that is just a pixel in the grand image. here’s why:

SHARE VIDEO

Look what I’ve just found!

Study suggests Adolf Hitler’s paternal grandfather was Jewish

Hitler’s right hand Hans Frank claimed to have discovered that the Fuhrer’s grandfather was indeed Jewish.

JERUSALEM POST,  AUGUST 8, 2019

German Fuhrer Adolph Hitler doing a Nazi salute (photo credit: Wikimedia Commons)

Was Adolf Hitler’s paternal grandfather Jewish?

The controversial theory has been debated for decades by historians, with many agreeing that he was not a part of “the tribe,” as there was no evidence to substantiate this claim.

However, a study by psychologist and physician Leonard Sax has shed new light supporting the claim that Hitler’s father’s father had Jewish roots.

The study, titled “Aus den Gemeinden von Burgenland: Revisiting the question of Adolf Hitler’s paternal grandfather,” which was published in the current issue of the Journal of European Studies, examines claims by Hitler’s lawyer Hans Frank, who allegedly discovered the truth.

Hitler asked Frank to look into the claim in 1930, after his nephew William Patrick Hitler threatened to expose that the leader’s grandfather was Jewish.

In his 1946 memoir, which was published seven years after he was executed during the Nuremberg trials, “Frank claimed to have uncovered evidence in 1930 that Hitler’s paternal grandfather was a Jewish man living in Graz, Austria, in the household where Hitler’s grandmother was employed,” and it was in 1836 that Hitler’s grandmother Maria Anna Schicklgruber became pregnant, Sax explained.

“Frank wrote in his memoir that he conducted an investigation as Hitler had requested, and that he discovered the existence of correspondence between Maria Anna Schicklgruber – Hitler’s grandmother – and a Jew named Frankenberger living in Graz. According to Frank, the letters hinted that Frankenberger’s 19-year-old son had impregnated Maria Anna while she worked in the Frankenberger household: …that the illegitimate child of the Schickelgruber [sic] had been conceived under conditions which required Frankenberger to pay alimony.”

Sax writes in the study that according to the letters in Frank’s memoir, “Frankenberger Sr. sent money for the support of the child from infancy until its 14th birthday.”

“The motivation for the payment, according to Frank, was not charity but primarily a concern about the authorities becoming involved: ‘The Jew paid without a court order, because he was concerned about the result of a court hearing and the connected publicity,’” the letters state.

However, Sax noted that the accuracy of Frank’s claims and his memoir “have been questioned.”

He added that “contemporary scholarship has largely discounted Frank’s allegations regarding a possible Jewish grandfather for Adolf Hitler.”

In the ’50s, German author Nikolaus von Preradovich said he had proved that “there were no Jews in Graz before 1856,” rejecting Frank’s account.

However, Sax explained in the study that he found evidence to the contrary in Austrian archives that there was a Jewish community in the Austrian town before 1850 and highlighted that Preradovich was a Nazi sympathizer, “who was offended by the suggestion that Adolf Hitler was a “Vierteljude (a one-quarter Jew).”

According to Sax’s paper, “Evidence is presented that there was in fact eine kleine, nun angesiedelte Gemeinde – ‘a small, now settled community’ – of Jews living in Graz before 1850.”

Sax also refers to Emanuel Mendel Baumgarten, who was elected to the Vienna municipal council in 1861, “one of the first Jews to hold that honor.

“In 1884, he wrote a book titled… The Jews in Styria: a historical sketch,” in which he states that “in September 1856, he and several Jewish colleagues met with Michael Graf von Strassoldo, who at that time held the post of governor for the province of Styria.

“Baumgarten and his colleagues petitioned Strassoldo to lift the restrictions on Jews residing in Styria,” Sax explained. Baumgarten cited a letter to local mayors in Styria which noted “that Jews are staying in local districts for a long time and are taking up residence for a long time.”

Sax goes on to say that the official register of Jews in Graz “appears to have been launched following this meeting.

Thus, the establishment in 1856 of a community register of Jews in Graz seems not to have been a first step in the foundation of the Jewish community in 16 Graz, as Nikolaus von Preradovich assumed, but rather the recognition of a community already in existence,” he pointed out.

According to a statement accompanying the study, “Sax [also] presents overwhelming evidence that Preradovich was a Nazi sympathizer.

“Sax’s paper shows that the current consensus is based on a lie,” it states. “Frank, not Preradovich, was telling the truth. Adolf Hitler’s grandfather was Jewish.

He added that “no independent scholarship has confirmed Preradovich’s conjecture.”

As ADL, EU and the rest of the Jewish Supremacism avatars are cranking up their propaganda and brainwashing with continental fascist diktates, I felt it’s only adequate to operate a Great Reset on the records.

ALSO SEE:

Hitler’s grandfather was JEWISH, claims historian who says Nazi sympathisers scrubbed his real ancestry from public records

MAILONLINE, 5 August 2019

  • Dr. Leonard Sax claims that Hitler’s grandfather was a Jewish living in Austria  
  • He claims evidence suggests there was a Jewish settlement before 1850
  • Historian claims German author tried to rewrite history and favoured the Nazis

Putin sorry for Lavrov’s claim Hitler was part Jewish – Israel PM / BBC. May 6, 2022

Russia doubles down on foreign minister’s Hitler remarks, accuses Israel of supporting “neo-Nazis” in Ukraine

MAY 3, 2022 / 11:52 AM / CBS NEWS

Russia took a step further Tuesday in its escalating row with Israel by claiming that the country’s leadership supported the “neo-Nazi regime” in Ukraine.

In an 800-word essay, the Russian Foreign Ministry doubled down on controversial remarks made earlier by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and said that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Jewish origins are “not a guarantee against rampant neo-Nazism in the country.”

It provided isolated examples of cooperation between Jewish collaborators and Nazis during the Holocaust years.

The verbal spat between Russia and Israel began Sunday when Lavrov was asked how Russia could claim it is “de-Nazifying” Ukraine through its invasion when Zelenskyy is himself Jewish.

“I may be mistaken, but Adolf Hitler had Jewish blood, too. [The fact that Zelenskyy is Jewish] means absolutely nothing. The wise Jewish people say that the most ardent anti-Semites are usually Jews,” Lavrov said in an interview on Italian TV.

Israel chastised Lavrov for these remarks, saying this is an “unforgivable” falsehood that undermines the horrors of the Holocaust. German officials also decried Lavrov’s comments as “absurd” propaganda.

The Israeli foreign ministry summoned the Russian ambassador and demanded an apology on Monday.

“Jews did not murder themselves in the Holocaust,” said Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid. “The lowest level of racism against Jews is to accuse Jews themselves of anti-semitism.”

But on Tuesday, the Russian Foreign Ministry reiterated Lavrov’s point that Zelenskyy’s origins do not contradict Moscow’s claims that Ukraine is run by neo-Nazis.

“The argument is not only untenable but also wily. History, unfortunately, knows tragic examples of cooperation between Jews and the Nazis,” the statement read.

“The historical tragedy lies in the fact that if during the Second World War some Jews were forced to participate in crimes, while Zelenskyy, speculates on his roots consciously and voluntarily,” the ministry said, further claiming that the Ukrainian leader uses his origins as “cover” for himself and “natural neo-Nazis.”

Zelenskyy weighed in on Lavrov’s comments in a video address published late Monday.

“These words mean that Russia’s top diplomat is transferring blame for the crimes of the Nazis to the Jewish people. [I’m] speechless,” Zelenskyy said.

“Such an anti-Semitic attack by [a Russian] minister means that they have forgotten all the lessons of the Second World War. Or maybe they never learned those lessons,” Zelenskyy said. “Therefore, the question is — will the Israeli ambassador remain in Moscow, knowing their position, and will relations with Russia remain as usual?”

Israel has voiced support for Ukraine after Russia launched an invasion on Feb. 24 but refrained from directly criticizing the Kremlin and joined the Western effort to sanction Russian oligarchs, some of whom based themselves in the country after fleeing Moscow.

Russia is also an essential powerbroker in Israel’s neighbor Syria. Russian speakers also amount to roughly 15% of the Israeli population. Most emigrated from the former Soviet Union and claimed citizenship through their heritage. Israel’s response to the attack on Ukraine has prompted calls to scrutinize the role wealthy Israeli-Russians play in the country’s political scene.

AND THEN, IN YET ANOTHER PLOT TWIST…

SOURCE

Moshe Reuven Asman has called for the evacuation of the defenders of Mariupol to Israel or third countries.

Chief Rabbi of Ukraine Moshe Reuven Asman has called on the Israeli authorities to facilitate the evacuation of the defenders of Mariupol from the Azovstal iron and steelworks, surrounded by Russian troops. Asman spoke out to the Israeli leadership via Michael Malkiel, co-chairman of the Israel-Ukraine parliamentary group.

He made the letter public on Facebook:

“Dear Michael Malkiel, I am asking for your urgent help in saving the defenders of the Ukrainian city of Mariupol. They are located on the territory of the Azovstal iron and steelworks and are completely surrounded by enemy forces. Among them, over 500 people are seriously wounded, this is a humanitarian mission. Our Torah says, “he who saves one life saves the whole world. We ask for the immediate assistance of the Israeli government in diplomatic negotiations on the evacuation of defenders to Israel or third countries.”

As reported by the Segodnya media outlet, the Russian invaders are storming Azovstal using the forces exceeding the defenders of Mariupol by 10-15 times. This was stated by the mayor of Mariupol Vadym Boychenko.

“There is an assault – they deploy tank artillery, smoothbore artillery, multiple launch rocket systems, use planes with heavy bombs and surface ships. Assault brigades are also joining them. That is, they constantly live by storming, storming and storming our outpost – Azovstal – today,” Boychenko said.

On behalf of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, complex negotiations are underway to evacuate seriously wounded soldiers from Azovstal in exchange for captured Russians.

– Religious Information Service of Ukraine RISU

“Complex negotiation” as in capitulation in exchange for NATO generals and Azov leaders?

MORE INFO AND RESOURCES HERE

OPERATION PAPERCLIP HAD A JEW AT ITS HELMS: KISSINGER
HE SAVED NAZIS FROM HANGING AT NUREMEBERG AND GAVE THEM TOP POSITION IN US AND NATO

ALSO SEE:

KARL MARX AND THE ROTHSCHILDS DO HAVE CLOSE FAMILY TIES

CHINESE COMMUNISM IS AS JEWISH AS ITS RUSSIAN COUSIN (YOUTUBE BAN WINNER)

NATO, NAZIS & AL-QAEDA IN THE SAME BOAT – WE’RE THERE

THE CORPORATIONS WHO GASSED JEWS AND THOSE WHO JAB THEM TEAM UP TO BUILD BACK BETTER CAMPS FOR EVERYONE

WHEN PHARMAFIA PLAYS THE “NAZI” CARD TO GASLIGHT SKEPTICAL CONSUMERS, SHOW THEM JEWISH MEDIA

COVID, HITLER, BLM, THE GREAT RESET – MANY BRANDS, ONE CARTEL. AUSCHWITZ PERFECTED AND GLOBALIZED


all Arabs are Semites, Jews hardly are anymore.
Blonde atheistic Ashkenazis confiscating the identity of brown religious semites is anti-semitism

Racism refers to biology and genetics.

Semitism refers to language.
A large group of languages, Arabic, Aramaic and Assyrian being among the most numerically-prominent.

Arabs are all Semitic, Jews hardly are anymore.

“Arabic, which first emerged in the northwest of the Arabian Peninsula, is a member of the Semitic family of languages which also includes Hebrew and Aramaic”

UNESCO

There is no Semitic genetic identity, many peoples adopted Semitic languages same way they adhered to Judaism.

All Hebrews are Semitic, but not all Hebrews are Jews and not all Jews are Hebrew. That’s just a tiny subset for Jewishness, not a criteria.

Jewishness refers to religion and there are Jews of all races and many languages.
In factual reality you can’t transmit religion genetically, as some Jewish traditions claim, if you have Jewish ancestry but you practice Christianity or Baha’i, they don’t take you aboard, a Catholic Jew is an oxymoron like Build Back Better. Pick one and run with it.
You could be a crypto-Jew, perhaps, but then you’re still required to secretly practice Judaism.
On the other hand, there should be many millions of people who have an ancestor who practiced Judaism, but no one would fathom calling them a Jew.
Having Jewish ancestry is just that. Some take it to another level in their minds, but outside their heads, a devout Catholic with a Jewish grandfather is not a Jew. The difference is made by the faith in their hearts and heads, and we can’t read those, we can only read their actions and words. This allows a lot of deceptions and crypto-Jewishness, but doesn’t alter the principle that faith is decisive, not ancestry.

Absurd concepts like hereditary religions lead to absurd situations like:
JEWISH BLOOD IN THE VEINS OF NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN ROYAL, DOCUMENTS REVEAL

And even more absurd: some reactions to the afore-mentioned article, comments claiming everyone does have some Jewish blood. I don’t mind, I just want ADL to recognize us all as “chosen people” and represent everyone as they represent Jewish Supremacy now.
But who do we reign supreme over then? If there’s no one to discriminate against, ADL remains without scope…


The many criteria for Jewishness varies from Jew to Jew, eventually, but one thing is set in stone:
The only necessary and sufficient condition for Jewishness is adherence to the religion.
However, this didn’t prevent Jews from developing a genetic test for faith. Totally not another scam.

Race, language religion are shuffled and interchanged as necessary to deal a place aboard the Jewish cruiser, which comes with the notorious SUN (“Shut Up, Nazi!”) shield against inquiry and criticism.

Neither Jewishness or Semitism are a racial identity. Ashkenazi is. Regardless of religion. Most Ashkenazis in Israel are atheists anyway.

The cross section between Semitic speakers and Judaism followers is therefore a niche cultural selection of populace, not a race.

This group is on the verge of extinction, somewhere between 1-2 million in Israel, even less outside.

There might be more Arab Semites than Jewish Semites in Israel.

There are about half a billion Semitic Arabs and Bedouins out there.

And yet, anti-Semitic = anti-Jewish, simpletons believe.

About 3/4 of Israelis self-identify as Jewish = members of Judaic religion.
Coincidentally, of course, about just as many identify as non-religious or secular. Surely, Arabs are not among any of these categories.

To these six quarters add one more comprised of all other religions present there. Jewish math is always fantastic.

In conclusion:

The self-identified Semitic Jewish race is an entirely fictitious and nonsensical concept, just like their narrative on “anti-Semitism” and racism.

This race-but-also-religion-wanna-be is nowadays a group largely comprised of atheists of Ashkenazi and Sephardic genetic origin, and little to no Semitic cultural heritage. They’re often blue-eyed blonds posing in brown-face as white-supremacism victims, not perpetrators.

Ashkenazi or Sephardim, on the other hand, are two distinct actual races.
Ashkenazi is a race that forbid interbreeding on supremacist basis, and, after centuries of inbreeding, its genes are now associated by Ashkenazi scientists with higher incidence of neurodegenerative diseases and mental illness, especially schizophrenia. There is an actual Ashkenazi Schizophrenia gene.

So it might not be a historical accident that they are provably the most anti-Semitic, racist, supremacist and Nazi peoples on the face of the Earth, with Chinese as only competition.

If anything at all, anti-Semitism is that anti-Arabic feeling that’s more common than love among white supremacist Jews, in my experience, and in their statements.
A feeling that lead to the death of more Arab Semites than Jews killed by Hitler, not only at the hands of the Israeli Army, but also with support from their proxies, most notably the US.
The US of I?

Imagine, if you will, millions of atheist Askenazis exterminating millions of Semitic Arabs while posing as victims of antisemitism.

“Cultural appropriation”.

UPDATE MAY 11, 2022:

In an unprecedented and surprising move, given their collaboration so far, China has just told Israel it’s getting too bold. And Israel doubled down.

The anti-semitism card is only backed by guns and sheer force now. Russia is leading the unofficial Chabad Defense Army, ahead of ADL in severity. But Lavrov may have blown a massive hole in it.

If this article got your blood boiling, here’s some relief:

If you can’t sleep because of the Ukraine conflict, Lavrov has a list of methods to calm you down
SHARE IT

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHICH GOVERNMENT OR OTHER SOCIOPATHIC CRIME SYNDICATE HATES YOUR GUTS FOR READING OUR TYPE OF STUFF, THEY’RE PROBABLY IN SOME EPSTEIN OR MAXWELL BOOKS AND PICS.
SEE DETAILS / ORDER

Not everything is a theory or a matter of opinion.
You don’t have to trust us or historians, you can verify it yourself, I’m just showing you some shortcuts.

We’ll use Geni.com

The connection is not apparent because it’s made through another family, the Cohens from The Netherlands.

SOURCE

One of Shlomo’s grand-daughters married in the Marx family, becoming Karl’s mother, while one niece married into the Rothschild family and became the wife of Nathan Mayer Rothschild. Basically, the Marx and the Rothschilds became cousin families

I hope this little demonstration helps ending the claims that these historical facts actually belong in the realm of theory, of any sort.

Schwab loves Lenin. Lenin loves Marx. Marx is a Rothschild. Rothschilds love Schwab

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER


UPDATE: OUR MAIN CHANNEL JUST GOT DELETED FROM YOUTUBE FOR EXPOSING THESE HISTORICAL FACTS

DANG! FOUND THE RARE VIDEO OF THIS HISTORIC QUOTE!

Chinese communism has one main thing in common with the Bolshevik one: both were installed and supervised by Jews for the most part, with some historical intermittences that were promptly fixed.
In fact, most wars, revolutions, health crisis, climate crisis, lead to bigger debts to the Jewish banking oligarchy centered around The Rothschilds / IMF / WB.

Watch our censored videos on Odysee and Brighteon
SOURCE
asdfIsrael Epstein, second from right in front, standing in front of Mao. He later became the minister of appropriations, an extremely powerful position in a practically cashless era. To the right of him is another Jew, also under cover as a journalist

asdf
Epstein‘s cover was journalism. His parents were Russian Jews who were imprisoned in Siberia for espionage.

asdfThis is Israel Epstein chatting with Chairman Hu, just before his death.

asdf
Mao in a high-level meeting with several Jews [Frank CoeIsrael Epstein,
Elsie Fairfax-Cholmely, and Solomon Adler]

asdf
Mao with Sidney Rittenberg. Wikipedia claims he “observed” the upper levels of Chinese leadership:
Sidney Rittenberg (August 14, 1921; Chinese name: Lǐ Dūnbái 李敦白) is an American interpreter and scholar who lived in China from 1944 to 1979. He worked closely with People’s Republic of China (PRC) founder Mao Zedong, military leader Zhu De, statesman Zhou Enlai, and other leaders of the Communist party during the war, and was with these central Communist leaders at Yan’an. He witnessed first-hand much of what occurred at upper levels of the CCP and knew many of its leaders personally. He was the first American citizen to join the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

asdf
Sidney Rittenberg WPP group and Martin Sorrell
Rittenberg’s connections and experience have enabled him to run a successful consultancy business representing some of the world’s biggest brands, such as Intel, Levi Strauss, Microsoft, Hughes Aircraft and Teledesic.

1. Foreign nationals are not allowed to be naturalized as Chinese citizens. How did these Jews magically do it?
2. Rittenberg’s “consultancy business” is in fact one of the largest, or largest, advertising agencies in the world. Was he the actual Chinese minister of propaganda?
A note about Mao: He was picked up to play puppet leader with resourced funneled through Yale University (whose symbol has Hebrew on it), in a Skull and Bones type scheme. The location was Yali Highschool in Changsha, Hunan Province – a branch of Yale. Mao was a disturbed young man – a completely controllable, blackmailable puppet for their purposes.


asdf
“Rewi Alley,” the man who organized communes in China before Chinese even knew they were to be ruled by Jewish communists (in the 1920’s, well before 1949)

asdf
A closer look at Rewi Alley

asdf
Rewi schmoozing with the supposedly ultra-powerful Zhou Enlai

Robert Lawrence Kuhn
Robert Lawrence Kuhn [1], another Jewish investment banker “consultant” to the CCP















Robert Lawrence Kuhn
Robert Lawrence Kuhn seen talking about who the new Chinese president will be, while Chinese have no clue about it















asdf
Sidney ShapiroIsrael Epstein and Chen Bidi getting a birthday party thrown by the politburo

From a Chinese article on the Jewish birthday party:
Three CPPCC [politburo] members with foreign origins celebrated their 90th birthday together at Jingfeng Hotel, one of the hotels in Beijing appointed for the NPC and CPPCC sessions, on March 8. Israel Epstein, Sidney Shapiro (Sha Boli) and Chen Bidi were born in Poland, the United States and Canada respectively, and they obtained Chinese nationality in 1957 and 1963. As experts who have long been working in the field of foreign publicity, they witnessed China’s revolution and socialist modernization drive.
asdf
After retirement, they didn’t stay idle but continued to participate actively in the discussion and management of state affairs. Many NPC deputies and CPPCC members attending the ongoing annual sessions went to their birthday party to express their best wishes.asdf

Sidney Shapiro
Sidney Shapiro, politburo member (!). Chinese are allowed to call them foreigners (laowai), but they dare not mention that all of them are Jews

asdf
Virginius Frank Coe, Jewish operative in China. From Wikipedia: Blacklisted…Coe sought work abroad, eventually finding…the People’s Republic of China, where he joined a circle of expatriates working with the government. In 1962, he was joined by Solomon Adler in the circle. Coe participated in Mao’s Great Leap Forward, a plan for the rapid industrialization and modernization of China. His works include articles justifying the Rectification campaign.

Henry Kissinger: “I used to assign Mao’s writings to my classes at Harvard”

Sidney Rittenberg at Ted Talks 2012

Israel Epstein, Prominent Chinese Communist, Dies at 90

By NEW YORK TIMES JUNE 2, 2005

SOURCE

Israel Epstein, a journalist, author and propagandist for China whose passion for Communism was fueled in long interviews with Mao in the 1940’s and was not dimmed by imprisonment during the Cultural Revolution, died last Thursday at a hospital in Beijing. He was 90.

His death was announced by the official New China News Agency.

Mr. Epstein edited China Today, an English-language Chinese newsmagazine, translated the sayings and writings of Mao and Deng Xiaoping and advised the Chinese government on how to polish its overseas image. He became a Chinese citizen, joined the Communist Party and served on official government and party committees.

He and perhaps a dozen other aging foreign-born residents of Beijing were sometimes seen as the last true believers in a revolution that has sometimes seemed blurred by time’s passage and China’s embrace of free markets and consumerism.

In 1996, The Observer, the London newspaper, said, “Perhaps the most loyal Communists in the country today are foreigners, veteran fellow travelers from a vanished era of idealism.”

Mr. Epstein hung Mao’s portrait on his bedroom wall; knew the American journalist Edgar Snow well enough to help edit his books; was a protégé of the widow of Sun Yat-sen, the founder of China’s first republic; and was able to say the five years he spent in prison on false charges during the Cultural Revolution had helped improve him by shrinking his ego. For decades China’s top leaders visited him on his birthdays.

“My basic ideas have not changed,” he told The Observer. “I see no reason to change them.”

Israel Epstein was born on April 20, 1915, in Warsaw, then under Russian control. His father was imprisoned by the czarist authorities for leading a labor uprising, and his mother was once exiled to Siberia.

“The earliest influence on me came from my socialist parents,” Mr. Epstein said in an interview with China Daily in 2003.

After the outbreak of World War I, his father was sent by his company to Japan to develop business in the Pacific region. As the German Army approached Warsaw, his mother, with him in her arms, fled the city and traveled east to be reunited with her husband. After experiencing anti-Jewish sentiment in several places, they settled in Tianjin in north China. He was then 2.

Mr. Epstein began his career as a journalist at 15, working for the Tianjin-based Peking and Tientsin Times, an English-language newspaper. He covered China’s struggle against Japanese invaders for United Press and other Western news organizations.

In 1941, a short item in The New York Times reported that he had been killed, but it later turned out that he had faked his death to divert the Japanese who were hunting him. He anonymously submerged into a Japanese internment camp for a while.

Mr. Epstein became acquainted with Mr. Snow after his editor assigned him to review one of Mr. Snow’s books, and Mr. Snow showed him his classic “Red Star Over China” before it was published. Mr. Snow reciprocated by reading Mr. Epstein’s unpublished works.

In Hong Kong, Mr. Epstein worked with Soong Ching Ling, Sun Yat-sen’s widow, whom he had met in left-wing political activities in the 1930’s. She arranged for him to visit Mao, Zhou Enlai and their revolutionary comrades at their base in China’s northwest in 1944, and Mr. Epstein said his conversations in a cave with Mao had changed his life.

In 1944, Mr. Epstein visited Britain, then spent the next five years in the United States, where he published “The Unfinished Revolution in China” to good reviews. Other books he wrote were first published in Chinese and included “From Opium War to Liberation” in 1954, “Tibet Transformed” in 1983 and “Woman in World History: Soong Ching Ling” in 1993.

In 1951, Ms. Soong invited him to return to China to edit China Reconstructs, later renamed China Today. He was editor in chief until his retirement at 70, and then editor emeritus.

His five years in prison during the Cultural Revolution, on charges of plotting against Zhou, ended in 1973 with a personal apology from Zhou and a restoration of his exalted position.

His prominence in China was suggested by the annual talks Mao had with him. Deng attended Mr. Epstein’s retirement reception in 1985. On April 17, the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, visited him and praised his “special contributions” to China.

Mr. Epstein first wife, Elsie Fairfax-Cholmeley, died in 1984. He is survived by his wife, Wan Bi, two children and two stepchildren.

Correction: June 18, 2005, Saturday An obituary on June 2 about Israel Epstein, a Warsaw-born journalist who became a prominent Chinese Communist, referred incorrectly to his marriage to Elsie Fairfax-Cholmeley. She was his second wife; his first was Edith Bihovsky Epstein, later Ballin, from whom he was divorced in the early 1940’s.

SOROS A ROTHSCHILD FRONTMAN, FORGED IMF-CHINA ALLIANCE. WE’RE LIVING THE CONSEQUENCES

source

Sidney Rittenberg: The Jew Behind Communist China

CULTURE WARS

the official narrative

Sidney Rittenberg died on August 24 of this year, ten days after his 98th birthday. He was probably the most famous American collaborator with the Chinese Communist regime of Mao Zedong (We are not counting Chinese government official, Israel Epstein, as American, although he had his book, The Unfinished Revolution in China, published during the crucial five years in which he lived in the United States). Like Epstein, Rittenberg got long obituaries in The New York Times and The Washington Post. They might not have been as glowing as Epstein’s, but they were far from being as negative as they might have been for this long-term leading turncoat and propagandist for the murderous Mao regime.

He will be buried at the Babaoshan Cemetery for Revolutionaries.

Although the Times seemed to treat him with some approval by headlining its obituary, “Sidney Rittenberg, Idealistic American Aide to Mao Who Evolved to Counsel Capitalists, Dies at 98,” from the perspective of any right-thinking anti-Communist, The Post’s article is much the worse of the two. One sentence in The Post’s obit says it all, “After Mao’s seizure of power in 1949 over the corrupt U.S.-backed Nationalist Party, which enjoyed little support among the population, Mr. Rittenberg was rewarded with appointments at Chinese news and propaganda agencies.”

John F. Kennedy would certainly have taken issue with The Post’s extremely simplistic, pro-Mao, if not to say, pro-Communist view of the loss of China. Alfred Kohlberg, an American businessman with many years of experience with China, would no doubt have said that The Post is just continuing to perpetuate the pro-Communist propaganda with which the American mainstream press was packed in the 1940s.

Soul Mate Rittenberg?

As surprising as it might seem in light of all the anti-Communist writing that I have done, I can easily identify with Rittenberg, although I make no excuses for his actions. We are both Carolinians and we both received some education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. My time was spent there getting a Ph.D. in economics after service as an Army lieutenant. Rittenberg entered as a freshman and either attended only briefly before dropping out to become a labor organizer or graduated with a degree in philosophy, depending on whether you believe the Post or the Times obituary. The Times assertion seems to be more plausible, because Rittenberg got the sort of U.S. Army assignment, though a private and not a lieutenant, that would more likely go to a college graduate, as a language specialist, becoming fluent in Chinese and being sent by the Army to China at the close of World War II.

sidney-rittenberg-studying-chinese-_personal-collection-of-sidney-rittenberg_.jpg

Oh, but Rittenberg was Jewish, you say, and a former member of the American Communist Party. On the latter point, I have certainly never been a Communist Party member, but I can attest to the truth of the old saying that if you’re not a socialist when you’re under thirty you have no heart, and if you are a socialist when you’re over thirty, you have no brain. Chapel Hill was certainly a place to feel right at home as a Leftist when I was there, and it was probably more so when Rittenberg was there at the tail end of the Great Depression. Consider the fact that when I was there the most powerful voices against the Vietnam War, which most of us despised, including virtually every fellow veteran that I encountered, were from the Jewish Left. We looked forward every two weeks to reading I.F. Stone’s newsletter, and Noam Chomsky’s anti-war treatises in the New York Review of Books seemed to be the most persuasive. The first verse of my poem, “A Chomsky Dissenter,” captures my attitude toward the man at the time, and well into the years that I taught economics in college:

In 1970, the very pro-Mao article, “Maoist Economic Development: The New Man in the New China,” by respected mainstream economist, John W. Gurley, was all the rage among us graduate students, even though it was weak in analysis and practically devoid of facts, an ideological screed dressed up in economic jargon which has aged very poorly. About the same time, I also read Jack Belden’s China Shakes the World, and was very favorably impressed, as I see many more recent readers are, too, even years after the horrors inflicted by Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution—admittedly well after the period that Belden reported on—have become known. It’s not at all hard for me to put myself in the young Rittenberg’s shoes and being won over by Mao and his fellow revolutionaries. It’s not like Rittenberg deserted from the Army and went over to the enemy like my very misguided fellow rural Eastern North Carolinian, Charles Robert Jenkins, did in Korea in 1965. Rittenberg stayed in China after his Army tour was over, worked for a time in United Nations famine relief, and then joined up with Mao, becoming a propagandist for him.

But, again, there’s the matter of Rittenberg’s Jewishness. Wouldn’t that have set him apart from me? To the contrary, for a number of reasons; when I was of the same age as he was when he went over to the Reds, it would have probably made me identify with him even more closely. In the first place, the stereotype of white Southerners generally as prejudiced against Jews and non-whites is simply not true. There are lots of relatively broad-minded liberals in the South, and my family liked to count themselves among them. If there is any group of fellow whites that the average Southerner is likely to have some prejudice against, it is Roman Catholics, for doctrinal reasons. That’s because most Southerners are Protestants—Southern Baptists more than any other group, as my family was—and many of them descend directly from religious sects in Europe who were on the Protestant side of the Reformation, when people took those religious differences very seriously. Sunday school instruction in Southern Baptist churches is steeped in Old Testament stories. So was the child’s story Bible from which our second-grade public school teacher read to us regularly, and I imagine that she was hardly unusual as a small-town Southern elementary school teacher.

Although the fundamentalist evangelist Oliver B. Greene was ubiquitous on the radio in the South when I was growing up, I can’t say that he had any influence on me or anyone I knew, but his influence in the region had to have been substantial. Many times, I heard him offer as a “gift” to anyone sending him money a copy of the Scofield Bible. I have never seen a Scofield Bible, and I was well into middle age before I was to learn that it is an annotated work with a very strong Zionist slant.

Harry Golden’s 1955 book is entitled, Jewish Roots in the Carolinas: A Pattern of American Philo-Semitism. I have not read it, but from my own education and experience I can say that the average rural to small-town Southerner, at least at the time that I was growing up, was much more likely to have a positive rather than a negative attitude toward Jews. Most are unlikely to have known any Jews; I know I didn’t. When I thought of Jews, I thought mainly of those Old Testament characters. I didn’t even think of the numerous comedians I saw on television like Sid Caesar, Jack Benny, or Phil Silvers as Jews or of my beloved Mad magazine as a Jewish publication or the popular Tin Pan Alley music composers as Jews. If I had, it would have only made me more philo-Semitic. I think the only person that I ever laid eyes on in person whom I knew to be a Jew was that self-same Harry Golden from Charlotte, who wore his Jewishness on his sleeve. He actually came and gave a talk at our church one Sunday evening. I recall that he was an entertaining and likable-seeming fellow, although I don’t recall what he had to say. Only in researching this article did I learn that Golden was actually originally a New Yorker who ended up making his career in Charlotte, settling in the Southeast probably because he had been sent to the Federal Penitentiary down the road in Atlanta for five years for mail fraud when he was living in New York City. He was a popular celebrity, though, by the time that he was invited to speak at our church.

[…]

This is just an excerpt from Culture Wars Magazine, not the full article. To continue reading, purchase the November, 2019 edition of Culture Wars Magazine.

Asia’s Jews

by Moishe Hassem

Extended list, including Asian people of known Jewish ancestry

Ambiguous, unknown, or closely affiliated

  • Rewi Alley (2 December 1897 – 27 December 1987)
  • Hilaire du Berrier (1905 – October 12, 2002) (Married to Rosa Kadoorie)
  • Norman Bethune (March 4, 1890 – November 12, 1939)
  • Chiune Sugihara (1 January 1900 – 31 July 1986)
  • Roderick Mackenzie Gray
  • Ho Feng-Shan (September 10, 1901 – September 28, 1997)
  • Seishirō Itagaki (21 January 1885 – 23 December 1948)
  • Bruce Lee (possibly, see  the “Hotung family” section of this article for details.)
  • Tadeusz Romer (December 6, 1894 – March 23, 1978)
  • Edgar Parks Snow  (17 July 1905 – 15 February 1972)
  • Richard Sorge (October 4, 1895 – November 7, 1944)
  • Lothar von Trotha (3 July 1848 – 31 March 1920)  (According to my extensive research this person was more Jewish than not. For now refer to the Wikipedia talk page [before the part where they try to confuse people and make people stop asking hard questions they don’t want people asking.] He will be discussed in more detail in a later article on Africa, along with Robert Rothschild, and many others not listed on this page. For now, please refer to all the other articles on this site for surrounding evidence.)
  • Zhao Benshan (born 2 October 1957)

See Also:


Radhanite

Radhanites2.png
Map of Eurasia showing the trade network of the Radhanites (in blue), c. 870, as reported in the account of ibn Khordadbeh in the Book of Roads and Kingdoms. Other trade routes of the period shown in purple

The Radhanites (also Radanites, Arabic الرذنية ar-Raðaniyya; Hebrew sing. רדהני Radhani, pl. רדהנים Radhanim) were medieval Jewish merchants. [ . . .] Jewish merchants operated in trade between the Christian and Islamic worlds during the early Middle Ages(approximately 500–1000). Many trade routes previously established under the Roman Empire continued to function during that period – largely through their efforts. Their trade network covered much of Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia and parts of India and China.

The activities of the Radhanites are documented by ibn Khordadbeh – the postmaster, chief of police (and spymaster) for the province of Jibal, under the Abbasid Caliph al-Mu’tamid – when he wrote Kitab al-Masalik wal-Mamalik (Book of Roads and Kingdoms), in about 870. Ibn Khordadbeh described the Radhanites as sophisticated and multilingual. He outlined four main trade routes utilized by the Radhanites in their journeys; all four began in the Rhone Valley in southern France and terminated on the east coast of China. Radhanites primarily carried commodities that combined small bulk and high demand, including spices, perfumes, jewelry, and silk. They are also described as transporting oils, incense, steel weapons, furs, and slaves.

These merchants speak Arabic, Persian, Roman, the Frank, Spanish, and Slav languages. They journey from West to East, from East to West, partly on land, partly by sea. They transport from the West eunuchs, female slaves, boys, brocade, castormarten and other furs, and swords. They take ship from Firanja (France), on the Western Sea, and make for Farama (Pelusium). There they load their goods on camel-back and go by land to al-Kolzum (Suez), a distance of twenty-five farsakhs. They embark in the East Sea and sail from al-Kolzum to al-Jar and al-Jeddah, then they go to Sind, India, and China. On their return from China they carry back musk, aloes, camphor, cinnamon, and other products of the Eastern countries to al-Kolzum and bring them back to Farama, where they again embark on the Western Sea. [ . . . ]

[ . . . ] During the Early Middle Ages the Islamic polities of the Middle East and North Africa and the Christian kingdoms of Europe often banned each other’s merchants from entering their ports. Corsairs of both sides raided the shipping of their adversaries at will. The Radhanites functioned as neutral go-betweens, keeping open the lines of communication and trade between the lands of the old Roman Empire and the Far EastAs a result of the revenue they brought, Jewish merchants enjoyed significant privileges under the early Carolingians in France and throughout the Muslim world, a fact that sometimes vexed local Church authorities.

While most trade between Europe and East Asia had historically been conducted via Persian and Central Asian intermediaries, the Radhanites were among the first to establish a trade network that stretched from Western Europe to Eastern Asia. More remarkable still, they engaged in this trade regularly and over an extended period of time, centuries before Marco Polo and ibn Battuta brought their tales of travel in the Orient to the Christians and the Muslims, respectively. Indeed, ibn Battuta is believed to have traveled with the Muslim traders who traveled to the Orient on routes similar to those used by the Radhanites.

[ . . .] Historically, Jewish communities used letters of credit to transport large quantities of money without the risk of theft from at least classical times. This system was developed and put into force on an unprecedented scale by medieval Jewish merchants such as the Radhanites; if so, they may be counted among the precursors to the banks that arose during the late Middle Ages and early modern period.

Some scholars believe that the Radhanites may have played a role in the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism. In addition, they may have helped establish Jewish communities at various points along their trade routes, and were probably involved in the early Jewish settlement of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, China and India. Much of the Radhanites’ Indian Ocean trade was via coastal cargo ships such as this dhow.

Besides ibn Khordadbeh, the Radhanites are mentioned by name only by a handful of sources. Ibn al-Faqih‘s early 10th century Kitab al-Buldan (“Book of the Countries”) mentions them, but much of ibn al-Faqih’s information was derived from ibn Khordadbeh’s work. Sefer ha-Dinim, a Hebrew account of the travels of Yehuda ben Meir of Mainz, named Przemyśl and Kiev as trading sites along the Radhanite route. In the early 12th century, a French-Jewish trader named Yitzhak Dorbelo wrote that he traveled with Radhanite merchants to Poland.

The fall of the Tang Dynasty of China in 908 and the destruction of the Khazar Khaganate some sixty years later (circa 968–969 AD) led to widespread chaos in Inner Eurasia, the Caucasus and China. Trade routes became unstable and unsafe, a situation exacerbated by Turkic invasions of Persia and the Middle East, and the Silk Road largely collapsed for centuries. This period saw the rise of the mercantile Italian city-states, especially GenoaVenicePisa, and Amalfi, who viewed the Radhanites as unwanted competitors.

The economy of Europe was profoundly affected by the disappearance of the Radhanites. For example, documentary evidence indicates that many spices in regular use during the early Middle Ages completely disappeared from European tables in the 10th century. Jews had previously, in large parts of Western Europe, enjoyed a virtual monopoly on the spice trade.[17]

Some have speculated that a collection of 11th century Jewish scrolls discovered in a cave in Afghanistan’s Samangan province in 2011 may be a “leftover” of the Rhadanites, who had mostly disappeared by the 11th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radhanite

The Tang dynasty purchased Western slaves from the Radanite Jews. Tang Chinese soldiers and pirates enslaved Koreans, Turks, Persians, Indonesians, and people from Inner Mongolia, central Asia, and northern India.The greatest source of slaves came from southern tribes, including Thais and aboriginals from the southern provinces of Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, and Guizhou. Malays, Khmers, Indians, and black Africans were also purchased as slaves in the Tang dynasty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Asia


Chinese Jews

Jews of Kaifeng, late 19th or early 20th century

Many Jewish communities were established in China in the Middle Ages. However, not all left evidence of their existence. The following are those known today: KaifengHangzhouNingboYangzhou, and Ningxia.

Encyclopedia of Diasporas. Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World. Vol. I, Jewish Diaspora in China by Xu Xin, pp.153-154, Ember, Melvin; Ember, Carol R.; Skoggard, Ian (Eds.), Springer 2004

During the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644), a Ming emperor conferred seven surnames upon the Jews, by which they are identifiable today: Ai (艾), Shi (石), Gao (高), Jin (金), Li (李), Zhang (張), and Zhao (趙); sinofications of the original seven Jewish clan’s family names: Ezra, Shimon, Cohen, Gilbert, Levy, Joshua, and Jonathan, respectively.[18][19] Interestingly, two of these: Jin and Shi are the equivalent of common Jewish names in the west: Gold and Stone.

https://kehilalinks.jewishgen.org/shanghai/Chinas_Jews.html


 Hotung family

Robert Hotung (seated, middle, his brother Ho Fook (left, standing) and his maternal half-brother Ho Kum-tong (seated, right)

Bruce’s father, Lee Hoi-chuen, (李海泉) was Han Chinese, and his mother, Grace Ho (何愛瑜), was of Eurasian ancestry. Grace Ho was the adopted daughter of Ho Kom-tong (Ho Gumtong, 何甘棠) and the half-niece of Sir Robert Ho-tung, both notable Hong Kong businessmen and philanthropists.Bruce was the fourth child of five children: Phoebe Lee (李秋源), Agnes Lee (李秋鳳), Peter Lee (李忠琛), and Robert Lee (李振輝).

Grace’s parentage remains unclear. Linda Lee in her 1989 biography The Bruce Lee Story suggests that Grace had a German father and was a Catholic. Bruce Thomas in his influential 1994 biography Bruce Lee: Fighting Spirit suggests that Grace had a Chinese mother and a German father. Lee’s relative Eric Peter Ho in his 2010 book Tracing My Children’s Lineage suggests that Grace was born in Shanghai to a Eurasian woman named Cheung King-sin.

Bruce Lee

Ho Kom-tong (1866–1950) was a younger maternal half-brother of Robert Hotung’s. The son of a Chinese father, he was a prominent businessman and philanthropist who succeeded Ho Fook as Head Compradore at Jardines. He had 12 wives and reportedly more than 30 children, one of whom was Grace Ho Oi-yu (何爱瑜) (b. 1907 d.1996), a Eurasian and an adopted daughter, who went on to become the mother of the famous martial artist and actor Bruce Lee. Ho Kom-Tong’s last mistress was a Eurasian woman by the name of Cheung King-sin (張瓊仙) (b. 1866 d. 1960). Kom Tong Hall, the former Hong Kong residence of Ho Kom-tong, now houses the Dr. Sun Yat-sen Museum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hotung


Solomon Adler

Solomon Adler (August 6, 1909 — August 4, 1994) was an economist in the U.S. Treasury Department who served as Treasury representative in China during World War II. He was identified by Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley as a Sovietintelligence source and resigned from the Treasury Department in 1950. After several years teaching at Cambridge University in England, he returned to China, where he resided from the 1960s until his death, working as a translator and economic advisor. Beginning in the early 1960s, Adler was also affiliated with the International Liaison Department, an important Chinese Communist Party organ whose functions include foreign intelligence. [. . .] He came to the United States in 1935 to do “research”. In 1936 he was hired at the Works Progress Administration‘s National Research Project, but soon moved to the Treasury Department’s Division of Monetary Research and Statistics, where he worked with Harry Dexter White for the next several years.[. . .] His reports from China to Treasury secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. during the war years were widely circulated and played an important role in shaping American wartime economic policy toward China. [. . .] Adler moved to China in the early 1960s, working in the lead group of the team translating Mao Zedong‘s works into English.

In 1939, Whittaker Chambers identified Adler to then-Assistant Secretary of State Adolf Berle as a member of an underground Communist group in Washington, D.C., the Ware group. Chambers correctly identified Adler as serving in the General Counsel’s Office at the Treasury Department, from which, Chambers said, Adler supplied weekly reports to the American Communist party. In 1945, Elizabeth Bentley identified Adler as a member of the Silvermaster group. A 1948 memo written by Anatoly Gorsky, a former NKVD rezident in Washington D.C., identified Adler as a Soviet agent designated “Sax.” This agent, transliterated “Sachs (Saks)” appears in the Venona decrypts supplying information about the Chinese Communists through both Gorsky and American Communist Party head Earl Browder.

In addition to his contacts with U.S. espionage groups, while serving as Treasury attache in China in 1944, Adler shared a house with Chinese Communist secret agent Chi Ch’ao-ting and State Department officer John Stewart Service, who was arrested the following year in the Amerasia case.

Together with Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, and V. Frank Coe, Director of the Treasury’s Division of Monetary Research, Adler strongly opposed a gold loan program of $200 million to help the Nationalist Chinese Government control the inflation that took hold in unoccupied China during World War II. Inflation in China between 1943 and 1945 was more than 1,000% per year, weakening the Nationalist government in China. This inflation helped the Communists eventually come to power in China, and in later years White, Coe, and Adler were accused of having deliberately fostered the Chinese inflation by obstructing the stabilization loan.

A Chinese work published in 1983 stated that from 1963 on Adler worked for China’s International Liaison Department, an organ of the Chinese Communist Party whose functions include foreign intelligence. According to historian R. Bruce Craig, Adler’s apartment in Beijing was provided by the Liaison Department, indicating that the Department was Adler’s work unit.

Solomon Adler – Wikipedia


Israel Epstein

Israel Epstein, second from right in front, standing in front of Mao. He later became the minister of appropriations, an extremely powerful position in a practically cashless era. To the right of him is another Jew, also under cover as a journalist
This is Israel Epstein chatting with Chairman Hu, just before his death.

Israel Epstein (20 April 1915 – 26 May 2005) was a ‘naturalized’ Chinese journalist and author. He was one of the few foreign-born Chinese citizens of non-Chinese origin to become a member of the Communist Party of China.

Israel Epstein was born on 20 April 1915 in Warsaw to Jewish parents; at the time, Warsaw was under Imperial Russian control (now the capital of Poland). His father had been imprisoned by the authorities of czarist Russia for leading a labor uprising and his mother had been exiled to Siberia. Epstein’s father was sent by his company to Japan after the outbreak of the World War I; when the German Army approached Warsaw, his mother and Epstein fled and joined him in Asia. With his family experiencing ‘anti-Jewish’ sentiment in several places, in 1917, Epstein came to China with his parents at the age of two and they settled in Tianjin (formerly Tientsin) in 1920.

Israel Epstein began to work in journalism at age 15, when he wrote for the Peking and Tientsin Times, an English-language newspaper based in Tianjin. He also covered the Japanese Invasion of China for the United Press and other Western news agencies. In the autumn of 1938, he joined the China Defense League, which had been established by Soong Ching-lingSun Yat-sen‘s widow, for the purpose of publicizing and enlisting international support for the Chinese cause. In 1941, he faked news about his own death as a decoy for the Japanese who were trying to arrest him. The misinformation even found its way into a short item printed in the New York Times.

After being assigned to review one of the books of Edgar Snow, Epstein and Snow came to know each other personally and Snow showed him his classic work Red Star Over China before it was published.

In 1934, Epstein married Edith Bihovsky Epstein, later Ballin, from whom he was divorced in the early 1940s. In 1944, Epstein first visited Britain and afterwards went to live in the United States with his second wife Elsie Fairfax-Cholmeley for five years. (Elsie Fairfax-Cholmeley may possibly be related to Sybil Cholmondeley, the Rothschild, and / or Sassoon families.)

He worked for Allied Labor News and published his book The Unfinished Revolution in China in 1947. His book was enthusiastically reviewed in The New York Times by Owen Lattimore of Johns Hopkins University. In 1951 Communist defector Elizabeth Bentley testified to the U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, “Israel Epstein had been a member of the Russian secret police for many years in China.”

Many years later, his wife, Ms. Cholmeley, would become known to a generation of Chinese-language students in China and around the world as a contributor to one of the most widely used Chinese-English dictionaries published in the PRC. After Ms. Cholmeley’s death in 1984, Epstein married his third wife, Wan Bi.

In 1951, Soong Ching-ling invited him to return to China to edit the magazine China Reconstructs, which was later renamed China Today. He remained editor-in-chief of China Today until his retirement at age 70, and then editor emeritus. During his tenure at China Today, he became a Chinese citizen in 1957 and a member of the Communist Party of China in 1964. In 1955, 1965 and 1976 Epstein visited Tibet, and based on these three visits in 1983 published the book Tibet Transformed.

During the Cultural Revolution, on charges of plotting against Zhou Enlai, he was imprisoned in 1968 in the north of Beijing in Qincheng Prison, where he was subjected to solitary confinement. In 1973, he was released, and Zhou apologized. His privileges were restored. Despite his 5 years imprisonment, he remained loyal to the ideals of Communism until his death. Israel Epstein was elected as a member of the Standing Committee of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, an advisory body, in 1983.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Epstein

(According so some sources, Israel Epstein, became the Minister of Appropriations in China, an very powerful position.)


Robert Lawrence Kuhn

Jewish investment banker “consultant” to the CCP
robert_lawrence_kuhn_02
Robert Lawrence Kuhn seen talking about who the new Chinese president will be

Robert Lawrence Kuhn (born 1944) is a “public intellectual”, international corporate strategist and investment banker. He has a doctorate in brain research and is the author and editor of over 25 books. He is a long-time adviser to China’s leaders and the Chinese government, to multinational corporations on China strategies and transactions, and is a frequent commentator on China politics, economics, business, finance, philosophy and science. He is a columnist for China Daily and South China Morning Post and appears on the BBCCNNChina Central TelevisionBloomberg and other major media. Kuhn is the creator and host of the CCTV News show Closer to China with R.L.Kuhn. Kuhn is the creator, writer and host of the public television series Closer to Truth, which presents scientists and philosophers discussing fundamental issues (cosmos, consciousness, philosophy/religion). His essays are featured on LiveScience.com and Space.com.

CAREER

[ . . . ] During the 1980s, Kuhn represented American and Japanese companies in mergers and acquisitions.

CHINA

Kuhn provided the live commentary on CNN during President Xi Jinping’s policy address in Seattle on September 2, 2015 during Xi’s state visit to the US. Kuhn spoke at the launch ceremony of Xi’s book, entitled Xi Jinping: The Governance of China at the Frankfurt Book Fair on October 8, 2014.

Kuhn writes on Xi’s Four Comprehensives political theory of governance, and on understanding the Communist Party of China (CPC).

For the 18th CPC National Congress in Nov. 2012, Kuhn provided commentary for the BBCCNNNew York TimesWashington Post, Bloomberg, CNBC, AP, ReutersEuronews, etc. He was the featured foreign commentator daily on China Central Television (CCTV News). His essays introduced China’s new leaders and China’s new government and offered personal insights into China’s new leaders, the seven members of the new Standing Committee of the Politburo and “New challenges for new leaders”. It also presents the multiple problems that China’s new government must address. Since 1989, when he was invited to China by the State Science and Technology Commission (under Song Jian), Kuhn has worked with China’s senior leaders and advised the Chinese government on international, policy and business matters.

Kuhn is the author of How China’s Leaders Think: The Inside Story of China’s Past, Current and Future Leaders, featuring exclusive discussions with more than 100 Chinese leaders and officials and introducing China’s next generation of senior leaders.

He wrote The Man Who Changed China: The Life and Legacy of Jiang ZeminIt was the first biography of a living Chinese leader and was a best-seller in China in 2005. Kuhn is co-editor-in-chief of China’s Banking & Financial Markets: The Internal Research Report of the Chinese Government.

Kuhn advises and works with China leaders on special projects. When then-Vice President Xi visited the US in February, 2012, Kuhn advised and gave commentaries and interviews. He advised Zhejiang Province for Zhejiang Party Secretary Xi’s 2006 U.S. visit as well.

He is the host and co-producer of “Closer To China with R.L.Kuhn”, a weekly series on CCTV News that tells the story of China through discussions with China’s thought leaders and decision makers in all sectors.

Kuhn is creator, writer and host of the five-part public television TV series China’s Challenges, co-produced with Shanghai Media Group, which won first prize in China News Award and is presented by PBS SoCaL (2013). The series focuses on critical issues confronting China’s leaders and government (social problems like healthcare, economic transformation and pollution, political reform and transparency, science and innovation, beliefs and values). China’s Challenges II, focusing on the Chinese Dream, was broadcast on PBS stations in 2015 and won an Emmy (Los Angeles, 2016).

BUSINESS AND FINANCE

Kuhn advises multinational companies and executives on China strategies in a variety of sectors, including science and technology, information technology, energy and resources, industrial, media and entertainment, healthcare / medical / pharmaceuticals, consumer products, financial services. He works with major Chinese companies on capital markets and mergers and acquisitions. Kuhn is Senior Adviser to Ernst & Young (Office of the chairman).

He was president and co-owner of The Geneva Companies, the largest mergers and acquisitions firm in the U.S., representing middle-market companies (sold to Citigroup in 2000).

MEDIA AND PUBLICATIONS

Kuhn is the author or editor of 25 books on business strategy/finance and science/philosophy, including Dow-Jones Irwin’s seven-volume Library of Investment Banking. He is a frequent commentator on the BBC (BBC World News / BBC World Service), CNNBloomberg, others. Kuhn is a senior international commentator for political, economic, social and business matters on CCTV News.[13][15] He has written for Bloomberg BusinessWeekForbes and Chief Executive. Kuhn is a regular columnist for China Daily and South China Morning Post on China politics/economics and international affairs.

He was profiled in Barron’sHe is one of the China Visionaries in the TV series produced for China’s 60th anniversary by Shanghai Media Group (one of two Americans, along with Henry Kissinger) and he was featured on CCTV Channel 1’s Focus Talk. Kuhn created, wrote and presented a six-episode series on Expo 2010 Shanghai, broadcast on CCTV. For the 18th CPC National Congress in 2012, Kuhn co-produced (with Shanghai Media Group), wrote and presented a five-episode TV series, China’s Challenges, on China’s key domestic issues and problems that China’s new leaders face. Kuhn was selected by Oriental Outlook magazine (published by Xinhua News Agency) as one of the all-time top-ten influential supporters of China’s ruling party/CPC (the only one living).

Kuhn has written many articles. “Science as Democratizer”, featured in American Scientist magazine, argued how the scientific way of thinking can influence global society. His scientific / philosophical article “Why This Universe? Toward a Taxonomy of Possible Explanations” is published in Skeptic Magazine and “Levels of Nothing” in the Vol. 18.2 2013 issue.

Kuhn’s multimedia essays are on Space.com and LiveScience.com: “Forget Space-Time: Information May Create the Cosmos”, “The Illusion of Time: What’s Real?”, “Is Our Universe a Fake?”, “The Singularity, Virtual Immortality and the Trouble with Consciousness”.

Kuhn’s latest book, edited with John Leslie, is The Mystery of Existence: Why is there Anything At All?

OTHER AFFILIATIONS

The Kuhn Foundation

Kuhn is chairman of the Kuhn Foundation, which disseminates understanding in science and philosophy, supports cultural endeavors and promotes good relations between America and China. The Foundation produces the Closer to TruthTV series. It also produced the documentary of his wife Dora Serviarian-Kuhn, Khachaturian, which won the Best Documentary award at the 2003 Hollywood Film Festival and (with China Central Television) In Search of China for PBS.

The Geneva Companies

From 1991 to 2001, Kuhn was president and co-owner of the Geneva Companies, a mergers and acquisitions (M&A) firm representing privately owned, middle-market companies. In 2000 Kuhn sold the Geneva Companies to Citigroup.

CRITICISM

Several reviewers argue that Kuhn has obtained privileged access to China’s leaders by refraining from critical comments, producing propaganda instead of serious works of non-fiction. A review in Foreign Affairs said it was actually better understood as an autobiography, presenting an image that China’s leaders want the world to see. Additionally, it said the writing of the book was, beginning in 2001, overseen by a secret state propaganda team.The Asian Review of Books said that the first part of Kuhn’s biography of Jiang was “close to hagiography“. A review on the website of Forbes said his later book, How China’s Leaders Think: The Inside Story of China’s Past, Current and Future Leaders, was equally reluctant to criticize Hu Jintao, the leader who followed Jiang. The reviewer writes: “Kuhn merely repeats what the Communist Party says about itself and accepts its words at face value, taking obsequiousness to new heights.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lawrence_Kuhn


israel_epstein_bidi_02
Sidney Shapiro, politburo member

Mao Zedong with Sydney Rittenberg

Sidney Rittenberg

Sidney Rittenberg (born August 14, 1921) [ . . . ] lived in China from 1944 to 1980. He worked closely with Mao ZedongZhu DeZhou Enlai, and other leaders of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) during the war, and was with these central Communist leaders at Yan’an. He witnessed first-hand much of what occurred at upper levels of the CCP and knew many of its leaders personally. Later, he was imprisoned in solitary confinement, twice, for a total of 16 years. He was the first American citizen to join the CCP.

Rittenberg’s connections and experience have enabled him to run a successful consultancy business representing some of the world’s biggest brands, such as IntelLevi StraussMicrosoftHughes Aircraft and Teledesic.

Rittenberg was born into a Jewish family in Charleston, South Carolina, and lived there until his college studies. After attending Porter Military Academy, he turned down a full scholarship to Princeton University and instead attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he majored in philosophy. While attending Chapel Hill, he became a member of the Dialectic Society and the US Communist Party. In 1942, following the entry of the US into World War II—and after his leaving the Communist Party—Rittenberg joined the Army and was sent to Stanford’s Army Far Eastern Language and Area School to learn Japanese. Rittenberg did not wish to be assigned to study Japanese, and was able to be assigned to learn Chinese instead. This led to his being sent to China in 1944. Rittenberg said that one of the turning points in his life came shortly after he arrived in China. He was sent to bring a $26 check to the family of a girl who was killed by a drunken US soldier. Despite the family’s devastation, they gave Rittenberg $6 for his help. It was at that point that “something inside Sidney Rittenberg shifted.” After the end of the war, he decided to stay in China as part of the United Nations famine relief program. This led to his meeting the leaders of the Communist movement at Yan’an in 1946.

INTERPRETING FOR MAO

Twice, Rittenberg interpreted a message for the United States from Mao Zedong. The message was the same both times. Mao said that after the war was over in China, and after Mao became the leader of the country, he wanted to still have a good relationship with the United States. This was for two reasons: first, because the United States was the only country that could supply him with the money he needed to rebuild the country; second, because Mao did not wish to depend on the Soviets. Both times this message was delivered it was rejected by President Truman. Rittenberg believes that had Truman decided to talk to Mao, both the Korean War and the Vietnam War could possibly have been averted.

The Communist Party leadership sought Rittenberg’s assistance in translating their messages into English, including the writings of Mao. Rittenberg also worked for the Xinhua News Agency and Radio Peking.

“CULTURAL REVOLUTION”

During the Cultural Revolution, Rittenberg was radicalized and in the summer of 1967 headed the “Norman Bethune – Yan’an rebel group”, which had about seventy members. He led political struggles at China Radio InternationalHan Suyin at that time said that Rittenberg was in complete control of the radio station. On April 8, 1967, the People’s Daily published a long article written by him. On April 10, he represented a faction of foreigners in struggle session against Wang Guangmei at Tsinghua University. He also attacked other foreigners who were living in Beijing at that time, including Ma Haide (George Hatem). Ma Haide had advised Rittenberg not to interfere in Chinese political affairs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Rittenberg

Rittenberg-WPP-Group-MartinSorrell
Sidney Rittenberg WPP group and Martin Sorrell

Robert Rothschild

Baron Robert Rothschild (16 December 1911, in Brussels – 3 December 1998, in London) was a Belgian diplomat. He helped to draft the Treaty of Rome of 1957, the foundation of the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1958.

His father, a businessman of German-Jewish descent, descended from Moses Amschel Bauer, of Frankfurt am Main, whose son Mayer Amschel Rothschild, together with his five sons, founded the Rothschild banking dynasty. Robert decided to become a diplomat. Luckily his father was a friend of Paul Spaak, whose son Paul-Henri Spaak became foreign minister of Belgium in 1936. Robert passed the diplomatic service examination in 1936 and joined the private office of Paul-Henri Spaak in April 1937. [ . . . ]

Robert remained in Lisbon until 1944, when he was sent, at his request to China. He became first secretary at the Belgian embassy in Chungking, the headquarters of Chiang Kai-shek‘s government. During the Japanese occupation, there was a lull in the Chinese civil war. The Communists of Mao Zedong even had an envoy in Chungking in the person of Zhou Enlai, whom he grew to like. After the Japanese surrender, he flew to Shanghai, where, in 1946, he was appointed consul general. The Chinese civil war revived and in 1949 the Communists entered Shanghai. Under pressure from the French, who hoped to protect their interests in Indochina, Belgium declined to recognise the People’s Republic of China for the next 20 years. He considered this a political mistake and regretted the failure to comprehend the rivalry between Soviet and Chinese Communism.

In early 1950, he left Shanghai for Washington, D.C. as second counsellor at the Belgian embassy. It was the time of the Korean War and the build-up of NATO and after two years in Washington, Robert went to Paris as a Belgian representative on the council of NATO.

Robert Rothschild – Wikipedia


David Sassoon

Indian merchant and banker; born at Bagdad Oct., 1792; died at Bombay Nov. 7, 1864. He had a fair knowledge of Hebrew, Arabic, Persian, Turkish, and Hindustani, but not of English. His father, who was a wealthy Mesopotamian merchant, and who was for many years state treasurer to the Turkish governor of Bagdad, was known as “Nasi [= “Prince”] of the Captivity.” David Sassoon was employed in a banking-house at Bagdad till 1822. After the plague he left Bagdad for Bassora, proceeding thence to Bushire. In 1832 an important commercial engagement caused him to visit Bombay, to which city he subsequently removed with his family. Here he established the house of David Sassoon & Co., with branches at Calcutta, Shanghai, Canton, and Hongkong; and his business, which included a monopoly of the opium-trade, extended as far as Yokohama, Nagasaki, and other cities in Japan. Sassoon attributed his great success to the employment of his sons as his agents and to his strict observance of the law of tithe.

Jewish Encyclopedia – Sassoon


Jacob Henry Schiff

Jacob Henry Schiff (born Jakob Heinrich Schiff; January 10, 1847 – September 25, 1920) was a Jewish-American banker, businessman, and philanthropist. Among many other things, he helped finance the expansion of American railroads and the Japanese military efforts against Tsarist Russia in the Russo-Japanese War.

Born in Frankfurt, Germany, Schiff migrated to the United States after the American Civil War and joined the firm Kuhn, Loeb & Co. From his base on Wall Streethe was the foremost Jewish leader from 1880 to 1920 in what later became known as the “Schiff era”, grappling with all major Jewish issues and problems of the day, including the plight of Russian Jews under the Tsar, American and international anti-semitism, care of needy Jewish immigrants, and the rise of Zionism. He also became a director of many important corporations, including the National City Bank of New YorkEquitable Life Assurance SocietyWells Fargo & Company, and the Union Pacific Railroad. In many of his interests he was associated with E. H. Harriman. [ . . .]

What was perhaps Schiff’s most famous financial action was during the Russo-Japanese War, in 1904 and 1905. Schiff met Takahashi Korekiyo, deputy governor of the Bank of Japan, in Paris in April 1904. He subsequently extended loans to the Empire of Japan in the amount of $200 million (equivalent to $33.1 billion in 2016), through Kuhn, Loeb & Co. These loans were the first major flotation of Japanese bonds on Wall Street, and provided approximately half the funds needed for Japan’s war effort. [ . . . ]

This loan attracted worldwide attention, and had major consequences. Japan won the war, thanks in large part to the purchase of munitions made possible by Schiff’s loan. Some of the Japanese leadership saw this as evidence of the power of Jews all around the world, raised the issue of Jewish loyalties in the Diaspora and as proof of the truth of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In 1905, Japan awarded Schiff the Order of the Sacred Treasure; and in 1907, the Order of the Rising Sun, Gold and Silver Star, the second highest of the eight classes of that Order. Schiff was the first foreigner to receive the Order in person from Emperor Meiji in the Imperial Palace.Schiff also had a private audience with King Edward VII of the United Kingdom in 1904.

In addition to his famous loan to Japan, Schiff financed loans to many other nations, including those that would come to comprise the Central Powers. [ . . . ]

Jacob Schiff – Wikipedia


Sidney Shapiro

Sidney Shapiro (Chinese: 沙博理; pinyin: Shā Bólǐ) (December 23, 1915 – October 18, 2014) was an American-born Chinese translator and author who lived in China from 1947 to 2014. He lived in Beijing for over a half century and was a member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative CouncilHe was one of very few naturalized citizens of the PRC.

Shapiro held citizenship of the People’s Republic of China from 1963, before the Cultural Revolution, to the end of his life. He was a member of the People’s Political Consultative Conference, a governmental assembly of the PRC which ostensibly provides a forum for input from non-Communist political organizations.[ . . . ]

Shapiro’s connections with China began during World War II, when he was serving in the United States armed forces. He was chosen to learn Chinese by the United States Army in preparation for a possible American landing in Japaneseoccupied China. After attaining a law degree in the US, he went to China, arriving in Shanghai in 1947. There, he met his future wife, an actress named Fengzi (Phoenix), who was a supporter of the Communist Party of China prior to its ascent to power. Beginning in the Cultural Revolution, she spent 10 years under house arrest for her opposition to Mao’s wife, Jiang Qing. She later became one of the most prominent drama critics in the People’s Republic. [ . . . ]

For nearly 50 years, he was employed by the state-run Foreign Languages Press (FLP) as a translator of works of Chinese literature. He is best known for his highly regarded English version of Outlaws of the Marsh, one of the most important classics of Chinese literature. FLP recently reissued Shapiro’s translation as part of a bilingual collection called Library of Chinese Classics.

Shapiro was also an actor in many Chinese movies, typecast as the American villain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Shapiro


Allan Zeman

Allan Zeman GBMGBSJP (Chinese name: 盛智文; born 1949) is a Hong Kong business magnate. He is known in Hong Kong as the “Father of Lan Kwai Fong” (蘭桂坊之父).

Zeman is prominent in government circles, sitting on various committees, boards and advisory bodies. He is a long-standing member of the Board of Governors of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce. He is a member of the Economic and Employment Council in Hong Kong. He is a board member of the Tourism Strategy Group for the Hong Kong Tourism Commission, the Cultural and Heritage Commission and the Urban Renewal Authority.[11] He is a member of the International Events Fund Steering Committee for the Hong Kong Tourism Board. He was appointed as a member of the Services Promotion Strategy Group, chaired by the Financial Secretary. He is on the Board of the Hong Kong Arts Festival and Hong Kong Community Chest.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Zeman


‘Fulfillment’ of the Jewish ‘ingathering’ ‘prophecy’

“Jewish history in the making”

The Gathering of Israel (Hebrew: קיבוץ גלויות‎, Kibbutz Galuyot (Biblical: Qibbuṣ Galuyoth), lit. Ingathering of the Exiles, also known as Ingathering of the Jewish diaspora) is the biblical promise of Deuteronomy 30:1-5 given by Moses to the people of Israel prior to their entrance into the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael).

During the days of the Babylonian exile, writings of the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel encouraged the people of Israel with a promise of a future gathering of the exiles to the land of Israel. The continual hope for a return of the Israelite exiles to the land has been in the hearts of Jews ever since the destruction of the Second Temple. 

MAIMONIDES CONNECTED ITS MATERIALIZATION WITH THE COMING OF THE MESSIAH.

The gathering of the exiles in the land of Israel, became the core idea of the Zionist Movement and the core idea of Israel’s Scroll of Independence (Megilat Ha’atzmaut), embodied by the idea of going up, Aliyah, since the Holy Land is considered to be spiritually higher than all other land. The immigration of Jews to the land and the State of Israel, the “mass” wave of Aliyot (plural form), has been likened to the Exodus from Egypt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gathering_of_Israel

Isaiah 49:12

‘Behold, these shall come from afar, and behold these from the north and from the west, and these from the land of Sinim.’

הִנֵּ֣ה אֵ֕לֶּה מֵֽרָח֖וֹק יָבֹ֑אוּ וְהִנֵּה־אֵ֙לֶּה֙ מִצָּפ֣וֹן

וּמִיָּ֔ם וְאֵ֖לֶּה מֵאֶ֥רֶץ סִינִֽים:

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15980

The Jewish population in Israel comprises all Jewish diaspora communities, including Ashkenazi JewsSephardi JewsMizrahi JewsBeta IsraelCochin JewsBene IsraelKaraite Jews, and many other groups. The Israeli Jewish community manifests a wide range of Jewish cultural traditions, as well as encompassing the full spectrum of religious observance, from the haredi communities to the hilonim Jewish communities who live a secular lifestyle. Among the Jewish population, over 25% of the schoolchildren and over 35% of all newborns are of mixed ancestry of both Ashkenazi and Sephardi/Mizrahi descent and increases by 0.5% each year. Over 50% of the Jewish population is of at least a partial Sephardi/Mizrahi descent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Jews


David Rockefeller

Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.– David Rockefeller


To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

Political correctness and the war on privilege are like blue hair, in Eastern Europe: something crazy that teenagers and music performers do while searching for their personality. The rest of us have been sick and tired of virtue-signaling defenders of the oppressed since the communist era.

I was born in Romania, and for the past 10 years I’ve been signaling to Murica that communism is coming there, so have people from the former USSR and Yugoslavia. Muricans have been busy chasing the debate agenda set by CNN. They still are. Doom is impending there.
I saw my family robbed and persecuted because some of my grandparents were land-owners, not even big ones, just average. I saw my family folding to survive. My father has been pushed down in his professional career because his wife’s parents were normal in their world. They paid for the labor and did the agriculture that saved the country from starvation on occasions.
Then I witnessed NATO’s coup against the communist regimes in Eastern Europe, as they’ve had previously installed a friend in Moscow, a dude named Gorbatchev, with an interesting past and origin. And right after that I’ve witnessed the Overton Window sliding in US from total vilification of communism to active flirting. I saw who pushed it, openly, the same people who made up over three quarters of the early Communist or Bolshevik parties’ highest echelons.

“80-85% of the first Soviet government were Jews” – Putin speaking to Jews


The privileged who led the propaganda there are the same ones leading the mainstream media and the communist propaganda in US now.
The most privileged people in the world, always at the controls of both sides, sponsoring the war against privilege.

Because that’s the privilege-maintenance 101.

They can’t fool us, they can only exterminate us.

“There are no Allied Armies to rescue us from the Covid camps” – WW2 nazi camps survivor Vera Sharav. She’s born in Romania.

These thoughts above were re-ignited by the positive news that part of America is starting to find out about it and I want to salute and support that. I publish them as a way to confirm from the witness stand this really good new piece
from The Revolver:

These Key Similarities Between Lenin’s Red Terror and America’s Woke Culture Reveal Left’s Blueprint For Complete Takeover


April 24, 2021

Thursday marked the 151st birthday of the most successful revolutionary of all time, Vladimir Lenin. With only a tiny cabal of diehard followers, Lenin seized control of the world’s largest country and inaugurated a reign of darkness and terror that lasted seventy years.

There are many lessons to draw from the blood-soaked life of Lenin. But one of the most important is this takeaway for the terrifying “woke” moment America is living through right now. Things are not going to naturally get better. Things will not organically “calm down.” Until there is a fundamental reset of America’s treasonous leadership class, today’s unthinkable witch hunt is merely a prelude of an even darker globalist terror to come.

The Bolsheviks were indisputably more murderous than today’s left (if only because they lived in a more violent age), but even they had to ramp up how much terror they engaged in.

At the beginning of their rule, in fact, the Bolsheviks were even willing to run a fair election. Just days after the October Revolution, they held the preplanned elections for Russia’s Constituent Assembly, anticipating an easy win. To their surprise, they were easily defeated by the Socialist Revolutionaries. And so, like any good leftists, they simply nullified the election and dissolved the Constituent Assembly. Since it was 100 years ago and the Bolsheviks were well-armed, it was enough to simply announce that the Constituent Assembly was closed. Today, they might concoct a more elaborate narrative, perhaps that the Socialist Revolutionaries engaged in “collusion” with a foreign power.

Once they had taken power, the Bolsheviks didn’t immediately launch Stalin-style mass purges. Instead, the Bolsheviks started off in a way modern Americans would find disturbingly familiar: By legitimizing criminal anarchy and co-opting the justice system.

In their earliest days, the Bolsheviks framed their political abuses as a “war on privilege.” In a tactic eerily reminiscent of 2020’s riots, the Bolsheviks of 1918 encouraged a decentralized campaign by the masses to plunder and crush class enemies.

In January 1918, at a meeting of party agitators on their way to the provinces, Lenin explained that the plunder of bourgeois property was to be encouraged as a form of social justice by revenge. It was a question of ‘looting the looters’. Under this slogan, which the Bolsheviks soon made their own, there was an orgy of robbery and violence in the next few months. Gorky described it as a mass pogrom. Armed gangs robbed the propertied — and then robbed each other. Swindlers, thieves and bandits grew rich, as law and order finally vanished. [Figes, A People’s Tragedy, p. 525-526]

This class-based economic warfare was coupled with a revolution in criminal justice. First, the mob replaced the old system of law and order, and then the Bolsheviks came in to lend it a gloss of structure. Crime became a class issue, where mundane criminals went free while class enemies were targeted for the most brutal repression on the flimsiest grounds:

Since the police and the old criminal courts had virtually disappeared, there was a common feeling that the only way to deal with the problem of crime was by mob trials in the street.

As the socioeconomic crisis deepened, and the popular belief developed that the burzhoois were responsible for it, so these mob trials began to assume an overtly class nature. They became a weapon in the war against privilege, focusing less on petty thieves from the urban poor and much more on merchants and shopkeepers, factory owners and employers, army officers, former tsarist officials and other figures of superordinate authority.

The Bolsheviks gave institutional form to the mob trials through the new People’s Courts, where ‘revolutionary justice’ was summarily administered in all criminal cases. The old criminal justice system, with its formal rules of law, was abolished as a relic of the ‘bourgeois order’.

The sessions of the People’s Courts were little more than formalized mob trials.

[R]obbers — and sometimes even murderers — of the rich were often given only a very light sentence, or even acquitted altogether, if they pleaded poverty as the cause of their crime. The looting of the looters had been legalized and, in the process, law as such abolished: there was only lawlessness.

Lenin had always been insistent that the legal system should be used as a weapon of mass terror against the bourgeoisie. The system of mob law which evolved through the Peoples Courts gave him that weapon of terror. [Figes, A People’s Tragedy, p. 533-4]

Reading about the Bolshevik system, it becomes much easier to understand events in our own time. In South Carolina, Army sergeant Jonathan Pentland has been charged with assault for shoving a black man on the sidewalk. The facts of the case overwhelmingly favor Pentland. The man he shoved had a history of harassing the women of the neighborhood, and Pentland was stepping in to stop just such a case of harassment.

But the facts of the case are nothing compared to the facts of the participants. Pentland is white, and he therefore represents a figure of authority in the minds of the underclass. This makes him a second-class citizen in 2021. His every action is presumptively racist and to be punished with maximum viciousness. Not only is he facing criminal charges, but he’s under investigation by the Army and DoJ, he was condemned by his superiors, and police let a mob surround and vandalize his home. Meanwhile, in San Francisco, a far worse assault on an elderly Asian man ended in no charges at all, because the attacker was from one of the left’s more privileged races.

It’s a strategy Cheka officer Martin Latsis would understand well:

[Do not] look for evidence as proof that the accused has acted or spoken against the Soviets. First you must ask him to what class he belongs, what his social origin is, his education and profession. These are the questions that must determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning of the Red Terror. [Alpha History]

Crucially, from their oppressive beginnings, the Bolsheviks only grew more fanatical and more violent over time. The decentralized wave of mob justice and plunder gave way to a more centralized and ruthless campaign to exterminate enemies of the regime.

“We must put an end once and for all to the papist-Quaker babble about the sanctity of human life,” said Trotsky, one of the chief apostles of the so-called “Red Terror.”

The chief catalyst of the Terror was Fanny Kaplan’s attempted assassination of Lenin in August 1918. The Bolsheviks, always prone to paranoia, reacted to that attack with the rage of a berserker. They immediately announced the revival of the death penalty, which had been abolished after the overthrow of the tsar. Hundreds of political opponents were shot immediately, and orders went out across the country for the Cheka to round up hostages and shoot them in response to the slightest opposition.

As the Terror spread, the torments grew more creative:

Each local Cheka had its own speciality. In Kharkov they went in for the ‘glove trick’ — burning the victim’s hands in boiling water until the blistered skin could be peeled off: this left the victims with raw and bleeding hands and their torturers with ‘human gloves’. The Tsaritsyn Cheka sawed its victims’ bones in half. In Voronezh they rolled their naked victims in nail-studded barrels. In Armavir they crushed their skulls by tightening a leather strap with an iron bolt around their head. In Kiev they affixed a cage with rats to the victim’s torso and heated it so that the enraged rats ate their way through the victim’s guts in an effort to escape. In Odessa they chained their victims to planks and pushed them slowly into a furnace or a tank of boiling water. A favourite winter torture was to pour water on the naked victims until they became living ice statues. Many Chekas preferred psychological forms of torture. One had the victims led off to what they thought was their execution, only to find that a blank was fired at them. Another had the victims buried alive, or kept in a coffin with a corpse. [Figes, A People’s Tragedy, p. 646]

The press played in integral role in radicalizing the masses and justifying the Terror. “Only rivers of blood can atone for the blood of Lenin,” cried one paper. Pravda announced that “the time has come for us to crush the bourgeoisie or be crushed by it.” It sounds ghoulish to us, but then again, our own papers run headlines like this:

The Reds were initially radicalized by the sense of being under threat. But once their full depravity was unleashed, it crucially did not start to moderate simply because they were winning. At the end of the Russian Civil War, thousands of soldiers and officers in the White Army surrendered after receiving a promise of amnesty. Once they were rounded up, all of them were shot. The next three decades of the Soviet regime brought one round after another of purges, famines, de-kulakization, and terror.

Lenin’s Red Terror carries important lessons for America in 2021. 

Every time the terror in America seems to have peaked, it gets worse.

In 2017, people lost their jobs for attending the Charlottesville march. It didn’t matter if they engaged in any violence or broke any laws. Merely being there was enough.

Many normal Americans shrugged.

“It was some racist march anyway,” thought most conservatives. “They should have known better than to go.”

But of course, it didn’t stop there. Throughout the Trump administration, it became acceptable to target people for pettier and pettier offenses: Anonymous posts online, leaked emails, decade-old articles (or decade-old tweets), attending conferences with the wrong people.

April 2021 has brought us to a new low. In Minnesota, Derek Chauvin is going to prison, likely for decades, for using a routine policing method to subdue a man twice his size who was resisting arrest. In Virginia, a police officer’s twenty-year career has ended in termination after he sent a $25 anonymous donation to the defense fund of Kyle Rittenhouse.

Lt. William Kelly was placed on administrative duty Friday, April 16, after reports were made that he donated and expressed support for the actions of Rittenhouse, who is accused of killing two people and injuring another during a Wisconsin protest in August 2020.

Norfolk Police Chief Larry Boone said Lt. Kelly violated city and department policies by donating money to Rittenhouse’s defense fund.

“I have reviewed the results of the internal investigation involving Lt. William Kelly. Chief Larry Boone and I have concluded Lt. Kelly’s actions are in violation of city and departmental policies. His egregious comments erode the trust between the Norfolk Police Department and those they are sworn to serve. The City of Norfolk has a standard of behavior for all employees, and we will hold staff accountable,” City Manager Chip Filer said. [NBC12]

Before Joe Biden took office, one of the lies told to get Middle America to accept him was that Biden would allow America to “calm down.” One piece in Slate was typical:

Joe Biden will make a difference. Things will be better. And sooner than you may think.

I am sure of this. I am sure of this the way that I am sure that kindness matters, that violence causes pain, that American democracy will prevail, regardless of the hurdles that it must repeatedly surmount. I am sure of this the way that I am sure an object in motion remains in motion, until something interferes to still it. Biden will be that stilling force. … The violence and unrest, the hatred and division that have bloodied this country since Donald Trump took office in January 2017, are an inevitable consequence of this man and the infectiousness of his beliefs, which he spread in roars across stadiums and in capital letters on social media. It spread person to person, mouth to mouth, hovering in the air, invisible and deadly. [Slate]

After Derek Chauvin conviction, Fox’s Greg Gutfeld sarcastically invoked the cowardly stance of many who welcomed Chauvin going to prison even if he was innocent because this would magically calm down the left and spare the country further riots.

Such thinking is not just morally repugnant, it is stupid. Mere hours after the Derek Chauvin verdict came down, the left began fomenting a new outrage. This time, the target was the Columbus police officer who shot and killed Ma’Khia Bryant to stop her from stabbing another girl.

The Biden Administration eagerly racialized the matter, with press secretary Jen Psaki suggesting the officer, motivated by racism, had executed a “child.”

Basketball star Lebron James ogreishly tweeted “YOU’RE NEXT #ACCOUNTABILITY” with a photo of the hero cop.

The left will not be placated by handing it victories. They are on a crusade, and as long as they are not stopped they will only become more extreme, more vengeful, and more dangerous.

Cancel culture is only the prelude to the rape, torture, and murder of the American people by a resentful underclass goaded on by a parasitic globalist ruling class.

Why are there so many similarities between the Bolsheviks of old and the radical left of today? If there’s one constant in the 230 years since the French Revolution, it’s that extreme left-wing movements can’t deliver on their promises. There’s a reason online leftists have to retreat to the embarrassing anthem that “real Communism has never been tried.

When left-wing movements start to fail, they become paranoid. Unable to accept the shortcomings of their ideology, they hunt for wreckers, saboteurs, spies, and traitors, any scapegoat that can be used to avoid admitting that their policies are the root of failure.

That’s just as true of today’s left as it is of their intellectual forebears. Despite uprooting every part of American life and spending trillions of dollars, liberalism has totally failed to abolish inequality in America. Instead of bringing universal prosperity, liberalism has produced homeless hellscapes, catastrophic public schools, gutted neighborhoods, and fragmented families. Finding the causes within liberalism is unthinkable. Again and again, big-city governments, private colleges, elite newspapers, and left-wing non-profits have been convulsed by witch hunts to root out “sexism” and “systemic racism.” Decades-old statements and stray words are sufficient proof to end a career, and sometimes not even that is needed. Rather than accept the reality that black Americans are more likely to commit crimes than other groups, liberals have declared war on the police. They would rather send good police to prison and subject millions of Americans to criminal terror than admit to a truth that is right in front of them.

But the second reason why the left constantly escalates its terrorism is more basic: Keeping power. Marx’s colleague Friedrich Engels wrote that “Terror is the needless cruelties perpetrated by terrified men.” The left is already inclined toward cruelty by disposition, but once frightened at the prospect of actual defeat, they go into a frenzy. For the Bolsheviks, it was the attempted murder of Lenin and the Russian Civil War. For the Globalist American Empire, it was the election of Donald Trump. Rather than accept an outcome that might bring about their demise, the empire struck back.

What will the future of America look like? Hopefully, it will never get as horrific as it did under past failing liberal states. But this regime is already one that will denounce a police officer for saving someone’s life. This is a regime that tries to imprison a teenager for life for defending himself while trying to protect his community from a rioting mob. This is a regime that foments war in Ukraine to avoid admitting it lost an election. This is a regime that takes children from their parents so they can be put on hormone pills and have their genitals mutilated.

This regime will never show mercy of its own free will. It will grow more and more tyrannical, and more and more extreme, until it stops or until it collapses. The worst of the terror is yet to come.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Now THESE are words I never imagined I would ever write.
And these are the times…

So I am here to praise rapper Pitbull.
Not only for wokeness and having the balls to drop truth bombs, not only for being informed…

But mainly because he struck a major chord, with his plead for freedom.
You see, I am too born and raised in the communist gulag, my Romania and his Cuba were very much alike back then, 30+ years ago…
So after seeing this, I REALLY REALLY WANT TO GIVE A HUG TO THIS MAN, you know, make it physical.
I also feel bad, I lumped him with the Cardi B’s of this world, and that’s his fault for making money with all these sell outs. But then again, if he keeps dropping truth from that height, it’s all better than good.
So watch this and please please spread it around, it has the potential to drive more awareness in the masses! Let’s end this shit!

PS: The part where he says Fidel Castro must be dead jealous on Klaus Schwab… 💥💥💥

Watch the whole show and tell them Silview sent you over, for the woke part (it’s over 2h long) 😉

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Let me help with the larger context…

BONUS

HSBC is a Chinese bank and…
…HSBC is also involved with Dominion voting, among others…

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

If 2020 was an IQ test, flunking it means repeating it

Due to a little editing error, this important piece of the puzzle is missing from the video. Source.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

This is an 100% genuine official quote we dug up from the man that was at the helms of Operation Paperclip, has been Nixon’s Assistant for National Security Affairs and it is said to be Trump’s shadow adviser. This is not even the juiciest detail in the document we obtained from University of Southern California.

Chinese leader Mao Zedong met republican US president Richard Nixon on February 21, 1972, that is no secret to anybody. However, the meeting took place in Chairman Mao’s living quarters and the precise details of the conversation have not been known until more recently, when they have been declassified and published by USC US-China Institute of the Southern California University. They didn’t draw any public attention, and I think they should.

Below we publish the integral declassified transcript of the Beijing meeting between China’s leader and America’s, as made public by SCU. Emphasis added by us on some paragraphs.

2/21/1972-Peking, China- President Richard M. Nixon (2nd from R) confers with Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mao Tse-tung (C). Others at the historic meeting included (L-R): Premier Chou En-lai; interpreter Tang Wen-sheng; and Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, Nixon’s national security adviser. Photo: Getty Images

February 21, 1972

MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION

PARTICIPANTS: Chairman Mao Tsetung
Prime Minister Chou En-lai
Wang Hai-jung, Deputy Chief of Protocol
of the Foreign Ministry
Tang Wen-sheng, Interpreter

President Nixon
Henry A. Kissinger, Assistant to the President
for National Security Affairs
Winston Lord, National Security Council Staff (Notetaker)

DATE AND TIME: Monday, February 21, 1972- 2:50-3:55 p.m.

PLACE: Chairman Mao’s Residence, Peking

(There were opening greetings during which the Chairman welcomed President Nixon, and the President expressed his great pleasure at meeting the Chairman.)

President Nixon: You read a great deal. The Prime Minister said that you read more than he does.

Chairman Mao: Yesterday in the airplane you put forward a very difficult problem for us. You said that what it is required to talk about are philosophic problems.

President Nixon: I said that because I have read the Chairman’s poems and speeches, and I know he was a professional philosopher. (Chinese laugh.)

Chairman Mao: (looking at Dr. Kissinger) He is a doctor of philosophy?

President Nixon: He is a doctor of brains.

Chairman Mao: What about asking him to be the main speaker today?

President Nixon: He is an expert in philosophy.

Dr. Kissinger: I used to assign the Chairman’s collective writings to my classes at Harvard.

Chairman Mao: Those writings of mine aren’t anything. There is nothing instructive in what I wrote.

(Looking toward the photographers) Now they are trying to interrupt our meeting, our order here.

President Nixon: The Chairman’s writings moved a nation and have changed the world.

Chairman Mao: I haven’t been able to change it. I’ve only been able to change a few places in the vicinity of Peking.

Our common old friend, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, doesn’t approve of this. He calls us communist bandits. He recently issued a speech. Have you seen it?

President Nixon: Chiang Kai-shek calls the Chairman a bandit. What does the Chairman call Chiang Kai-shek?

Prime Minister Chou: Generally speaking we call them Chiang Kai-shek’s clique. In the newspapers sometimes we call him a bandit; we are also called bandits in turn. Anyway, we abuse each other.

Chairman Mao: Actually, the history of our friendship with him is much longer than the history of your friendship with him.

President Nixon: Yes, I know.

Chairman Mao: We two must not monopolize the whole show. It won’t do if we don’t let Dr. Kissinger have a say.

Chairman Mao to Dr. Kissinger: You have been famous about your trips to China.

Dr. Kissinger: It was the President who set the direction and worked out the plan.

President Nixon: He is a very wise assistant to say it that way. (Mao and Chou laugh.)

Chairman Mao: He is praising you, saying you are clever in doing so.

President Nixon: He [Kissinger] doesn’t look like a secret agent. He is the only man in captivity who could go to Paris 12 times and Peking once and no one knew it, except possibly a couple of pretty girls.

(Chou laughs.)

Dr. Kissinger: They didn’t know it; I used it as a cover.

Chairman Mao: In Paris?

President Nixon: Anyone who uses pretty girls as a cover must be the greatest diplomat of all time.

Chairman Mao: So your girls are very often made use of?

President Nixon: His girls, not mine. It would get me into great trouble if I used girls as a cover.

Prime Minister Chou: (laughs) Especially during elections. (Kissinger laughs.) Dr. Kissinger doesn’t run for President because he wasn’t born a citizen of the United States.

Dr. Kissinger: Miss Tang is eligible to be President of the United States.

President Nixon: She would be the first woman President. There’s our candidate.

Chairman Mao: It would be very dangerous if you have such a candidate. But let us speak the truth. As for the Democratic Party, if they come into office again, we cannot avoid contacting them.

President Nixon: We understand. We will hope that we don’t give you that problem.

Chairman Mao: Those questions are not questions to be discussed in my place. They should be discussed with the Premier. I discuss the philosophical questions. That is to say, I voted for you during your election. There is an American here called Mr. Frank Coe, and he wrote an article precisely at the time when your country was in havoc, during your last electoral campaign. He said you were going to be elected President. I appreciated that article very much. But now he is against the visit.

President Nixon: When the President says he voted for me, he voted for the lesser of two evils.

Chairman Mao: I like rightists. People say you are rightists, that the Republican Party is to the right, that Prime Minister Heath is also to the right.
President Nixon: And General DeGaulle.
Chairman Mao: DeGaulle is a different question. They also say the Christian Democratic Party of West Germany is also to the right. I am comparatively happy when these people on the right come into power.

Find the shill

President Nixon: I think the important thing to note is that in America, at least at this time, those on the right can do what those on the left talk about.

Dr. Kissinger: There is another point, Mr. President. Those on the left are pro-Soviet and would not encourage a move toward the People’s Republic, and in fact criticize you on those grounds.

Chairman Mao: Exactly that. Some are opposing you. In our country also there is a reactionary group which is opposed to our contact with you. The result was that they got on an airplane and fled abroad.

Prime Minister Chou: Maybe you know this.

Chairman Mao: Throughout the whole world, the U.S. intelligence reports are comparatively accurate. The next was Japan. As for the Soviet Union, they finally went to dig out the corpses, but they didn’t say anything about it.

Prime Minister Chou: In Outer Mongolia.

President Nixon: We had similar problems recently in the crisis on India-Pakistan. The American left criticized me very heavily for failing to side with India. This was for two reasons: they were pro-Indian and they were pro-Soviet.

I thought it was important to look at the bigger issue. We could not let a country, no matter how big, gobble up its neighbor. It cost – I don’t say this with sorrow because it was right – it cost me politically, but I think history will record that it was the right thing to do.

Chairman Mao: As a suggestion, may I suggest that you do a little less briefing? (The President points at Dr. Kissinger and Chou laughs.) Do you think it is good if you brief others on what we talk about, our philosophic discussions here?

President Nixon: The Chairman can be sure that whatever we discuss, or whatever I and the Prime Minister discuss, nothing goes beyond the room. That is the only way to have conversations at the highest level.

Chairman Mao: That’s good.

President Nixon: For example, I hope to talk with the Prime Minister and later with the Chairman about issues like Taiwan, Vietnam and Korea. I also want to talk about—and this is very sensitive—the future of Japan, the future of the subcontinent, and what India’s role with be; and on the broader world scene, the future of US-Soviet relations. Because only if we see the whole picture of the world and the great forces that move the world will we be able to make the right decisions about the immediate and urgent problems that always completely dominate our vision.

Chairman Mao: All those troublesome problems I don’t want to get into very much. I think your topic is better—philosophic questions.

President Nixon: For example, Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note that most nations would approve of this meeting, but the Soviets disapprove, the Japanese have doubts which they express, and the Indians disapprove. So we must examine why, and determine how our policies should develop to deal with the whole world, as well as the immediate problems such as Korea, Vietnam, and of course, Taiwan.

Chairman Mao: Yes, I agree.

President Nixon: We, for example, must ask ourselves—again in the confines of this room—why the Soviets have more forces on the border facing you than on the border facing Western Europe. We must ask ourselves, what is the future of Japan? Is it better—here I know we have disagreements—is it better for Japan to be neutral, totally defenseless, or it is [sic] better for a time for Japan to have some relations with the United States? The point being—I am talking now in the realm of philosophy—in international relations there are no good choices. One thing is sure—we can leave no vacuums, because they can be filled. The Prime Minister, for example, has pointed out that the United States reaches out its hands and that the Soviet Union reaches out its hands. The question is which danger the People’s Republic faces, whether it is the danger of American aggression or Soviet aggression. There are hard questions, but we have to discuss them.

Chairman Mao: At the present time, the question of aggression from the United States or aggression from China is relatively small; that is, it could be said that this is not a major issue, because the present situation is one in which a state of war does not exist between our two countries. You want to withdraw some of your troops back on your soil; ours do not go abroad.

Therefore, the situation between our two countries is strange because during the past 22 years our ideas have never met in talks. Now the time is less than 10 months since we began playing table tennis; if one counts the time since you put forward your suggestion at Warsaw it is less than two years. Our side also is bureaucratic in dealing with matters. For example, you wanted some exchange of persons of a personal level, things like that; also trade. But rather than deciding that we stuck with our stand that without settling major issues there is nothing to do with smaller issues. I myself persisted in that position. Later on I saw you were right, and we played table tennis. The Prime Minister said this was also after President Nixon came to office.

The former President of Pakistan introduced President Nixon to us. At that time, our Ambassador to Pakistan refused to agree on our having a contact with you. He said it should be compared whether President Johnson or President Nixon would be better. But President Yahya said the two men cannot be compared, that these two men are incomparable. He said that one was like a gangster—he meant President Johnson. I don’t know how he got that impression. We on our side were not very happy with that President either. We were not very happy with your former Presidents, beginning from Truman through Johnson. We were not very happy with these Presidents, Truman and Johnson.
In between there were eight years of a Republican President. During that period probably you hadn’t thought things out either.

Prime Minister Chou: The main thing was John Foster Dulles’ policy.

Chairman Mao: He (Chou) also discussed this with Dr. Kissinger before.

President Nixon: But they (gesturing towards Prime Minister Chou and Dr. Kissinger) shook hands. (Chou laughs.)

Chairman Mao: Do you have anything to say, Doctor?

Dr. Kissinger: Mr. Chairman, the world situation has also changed dramatically during that period. We’ve had to learn a great deal. We thought all socialist/communist states were the same phenomenon. We didn’t understand until the President came into office the different nature of revolution in China and the way revolution had developed in other socialist states.

President Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the fact that over a period of years my position with regard to the People’s Republic was one that the Chairman and Prime Minister totally disagreed with. What brings us together is a recognition of a new situation in the world and a recognition on our part that what is important is not a nation’s internal political philosophy. What is important is its policy toward the rest of the world and toward us. That is why—this point I think can be said to be honest—we have differences. The Prime Minister and Dr. Kissinger discussed these differences.

It also should be said—looking at the two great powers, the United States and China—we know China doesn’t threaten the territory of the United States; I think you know the United States has no territorial designs on China. We know China doesn’t want to dominate the United States. We believe you too realize the United States doesn’t want to dominate the world. Also—maybe you don’t believe this, but I do—neither China nor the United States, both great nations, want to dominate the world. Because our attitudes are the same on these two issues, we don’t threaten each others’ territories.

President Nixon: Therefore, we can find common ground, despite our differences, to build a world structure in which both can be safe to develop in our own way on our own roads. That cannot be said about some other nations in the world.

Chairman Mao: Neither do we threaten Japan or South Korea.

President Nixon: Nor any country. Nor do we.

Chairman Mao: (Checking the time with Chou) Do you think we have covered enough today?

President Nixon: Yes. I would like to say as we finish, Mr. Chairman, we know you and the Prime Minister have taken great risks in inviting us here. For us also it was a difficult decision. But having read some of the Chairman’s statements, I know he is one who sees when an opportunity comes, that you must seize the hour and seize the day.

I would also like to say in a personal sense –and this to you Mr. Prime Minister—you do not know me. Since you do not know me, you shouldn’t trust me. You will find I never say something I cannot do. And I always will do more than I can say. On this basis I want to have frank talks with the Chairman and, of course, with the Prime Minister.

Chairman Mao: (Pointing to Dr. Kissinger) “Seize the hour and seize the day.” I think that, generally speaking, people like me sound a lot of big cannons. (Chou laughs) That is, things like “the whole world should unite and defeat imperialism, revisionism, and all reactionaries, and establish socialism.”

President Nixon: Like me. And bandits.

Chairman Mao: But perhaps you as an individual may not be among those to be overthrown. They say that he (Dr. Kissinger) is also among those not to be overthrown personally. And if all of you are overthrown we wouldn’t have any more friends left.

President Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the Chairman’s life is well-known to all of us. He came from a very poor family to the top of the most populous nation in the world, a great nation.
My background is not so well known. I also came from a very poor family, and to the top of a very great nation. History has brought us together. The question is whether we, with different philosophies, but both with feet on the ground, and having come from the people, can make a breakthrough that will serve not just China and America, but the whole world in the years ahead. And that is why we are here.

Chairman Mao: Your book, “The Six Crises,” is not a bad book.

President Nixon: He (Mao) reads too much.

Chairman Mao: Too little. I don’t know much about the United States. I must ask you to send some teachers here, mainly teachers of history and geography.

President Nixon: That’s good, the best.

Chairman Mao: That’s what I said to Mr. Edgar Snow, the correspondent who passed away a few days ago.

President Nixon: That was very sad.

Chairman Mao: Yes, indeed.

It is alright to talk well and also alright if there are no agreements, because what use is there if we stand in deadlock? Why is it that we must be able to reach results? People will say… if we fail the first time, then people will talk why are we not able to succeed the first time? The only reason would be that we have taken the wrong road. What will they say if we succeed the second time?

(There were then some closing pleasantries. The Chairman said he was not well. President Nixon responded that he looked good. The Chairman said that appearances were deceiving. After handshakes and more pictures, Prime Minister Chou then escorted the President out of the residence.)

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER