Featured Video

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

20 March 2014

Homosexual Hijackers: The Hypersexualization of Cultural Hostages

When the celebration of a godly Catholic Saint becomes a flashpoint for the homosexual agenda, it’s just another sure sign that things have really spiraled out of control in America. How is it that the St. Patrick’s Day parades in Boston and New York have become the latest pawn in the homosexual hijacking of this country?

In the current cultural clash between morality and decadence, apparently nothing is considered sacred or beyond the tainting touch of the “gay lobby.”

As the militant homosexual activists aggressively sweep through our society in their hostage-taking enterprise, they trample on religious rights — and numerous other freedoms — leaving only debauchery in their wake. Through their shameless “gay” gangland style thuggery, they defile and hypersexualize everything that they come into contact with. And the “Big Beer” brouhaha is just their latest attempt to distort a holiday observance, which is supposed to be about commemorating a heroic, holy man, into more perversity on parade. The homosexual wrecking ball has “come out” in full vengeance mode with corporate sponsors, professional sports organizations, elected officials, mainstream media outlets, Hollywood celebrities, and universities all drooling and panting to be the first to ride the “gay” bandwagon on its path to perdition.  

Is it any wonder that the Catholic Church doesn’t want to sully their Saint with the raunchy displays that are typically seen in the annual “gay pride” parades held across America? Why would the organizers want to see homosexuals prancing around in drag, genitalia-revealing clothing, or nearly naked?

And what’s the likelihood that “gay pride” organizers would ever allow Christians to march in their parades and pass out biblical literature about the sinfulness of homosexuality? Or what’s the chance that they would welcome groups such as NOM (National Organization for Marriage), NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) or JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality) to march right alongside the transvestites? Or what about an ex-gay marching band or Mark Regnerus as the grand marshal? Not on your life! The simple fact is that homosexual events are not “open” to everyone. Certain individuals and organizations, that don’t conform to their ideology, are absolutely barred from participating in their parades. Of course, they wouldn’t want any religious or moral principles “raining on their parade.” Homosexual extremists march along a one-way street when it comes to so-called “tolerance.”

At “gay pride” events and parades in places such as San Francisco, Atlanta, Charlotte, and New Orleans, it is not uncommon to see drag queens, phalluses, public nudity, actual and simulated sex acts, offensive signs/music, pornographic images, NAMBLA (pedophilia) representatives, S&M paraphernalia, and public spankings to raise money for AIDS efforts. So, why would the Catholic Church – and any morally sane individual – want to associate St. Patrick with those kinds of debauched displays?

In some places, the homosexual hijackers’ reign of terror is basically complete. For instance, in San Francisco, public decency ordinances are consistently and systematically overlooked during their homosexual, perversity-promoting events. Nudity and public sex acts are the norm during the annual Folsom Street Fair and other “gay pride” parades and festivals held in the city. Police officers, on foot and bicycle, congregate nearby and observe, making no attempt to enforce the law for fear of being labeled homophobic or worse.

And where is the mainstream media while all of this crude and vulgar behavior is so blatantly on display? They’re engaged in a homosexual-friendly, collaborative cover-up via a media blackout because they know that these sex-crazed, pornified sin-fests don’t fit the nice, neat little narrative of the happy, “normal gay family” that’s just minding their own business in relative suburban obscurity. Although not all homosexuals are militantly involved in the hostile takeover of the American culture, we can’t ignore the intimidating and morally corrosive efforts of the aggressive “gay” activists.

In advance of the September 15, 2013 “gay pride” parade in Dallas, Texas, the city officials made it clear that they had had enough of this type of outrageous behavior. They pledged to crack down on the lewdness and nudity that had become widespread at their annual gay pride parade. While past marches had featured bare-breasted women and men in tight, wet underwear with visible genitalia, Dallas law enforcement said the city would no longer turn a blind eye to such violations of city and state law. The rules now state: “In accordance with the city of Dallas public nudity ordinance, parade participants must not expose genitalia, buttocks, or female breasts.” Additionally, the new parade restrictions prohibit other vile exhibitions: “In accordance with state of Texas obscenity law, sexual paraphernalia, real or simulated sex acts and genital or phallic representations are prohibited from the parade.” City officials, along with the event’s organizers, said they wanted the pride event to be more “family friendly.”

The reaction, however, from the “gay” community and activists to this policy change was quite eye-opening. It shockingly revealed the true darkness that lurks at the heart of America’s homosexual movement. They expressed great outraged at the newly-implemented common sense changes. On the social media website Twitter, incensed homosexuals vowed to wear  – or not wear – whatever they wanted to the pride parade. Activist Daniel Cates wrote on his Facebook page, “The ‘queer’ is effectively being erased from our Pride celebration in favor of the most polished, heteronormative representation of our community as possible. It should be noted that the rioters at the Stonewall Inn fought to break OUT of the d*mn closet! Our movement was built of sex positivity and our desire to BE WHO WE ARE! I urge you ALL to openly DEFY the Tavern Guild!” (Evidently, the word “restraint” is nowhere to be found in the homosexual dictionary.)

Based on Mr. Cates’ own words, here are a just a few thoughts:

If they “can’t be themselves” without being mostly naked, raunchy, and highly sexualized, doesn’t that contradict the whole “It’s not about sex, it’s about love” mantra? It sounds much more to me like a crotch-centric fixation than anything to do with love. 

If they’re so adamantly against “heteronormative” behavior, then why are homosexual activists also fighting so hard to get “married?” Marriage, after all, is the most heteronormative institution there is! There is obviously no method to their madness.

And homosexuals claim that they want equal treatment under the law, but as soon as they are told that they will be treated like any other citizen who breaks public decency laws, they throw a hissy fit. Apparently, they don’t really want equal treatment; what they demand is special treatment. They think that they are entitled to some sort of “protected class,” above-the-law status that allows them to brazenly break the law with impunity, and sadly, in most places and in many ways, that’s exactly what were witnessing as public officials cower in fear and cave to their every terrorist-like tactic!

Therefore, the “coexist” meme is a falsehood of epic proportions; it’s really “Leftist code” for the legal authorization of the anti-Christian forces – of which the virulent homosexual hijackers have become the worst offenders – to run roughshod over anyone with whom they disagree. In their twisted idea of coexistence, Christians and conservatives must live under the heel of the homofascists.

What the St. Patrick’s Day Parade organizers and every other religious group, cultural edifice or icon of morality need to do is implement a “we don’t negotiate with ‘queer’ terrorists” policy. Or else all will be lost to the homosexual hijackers.

18 March 2014

Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children

Proponents of same-sex marriage believe the only thing children really need is love. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as it is to be raised by loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is false. Because love isn’t enough!

All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. It’s within this environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they need in order to thrive.

Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father.

So here are five reasons why it’s in the best interest of children to be raised by both a mother and a father:

First, mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments. Specifically, it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development. Either of these forms of love without the other can be problematic. Because what a child needs is the complementary balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide.

Only heterosexual parents offer children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. For a girl, that means she’ll better understand and appropriately interact with the world of men and be more comfortable in the world of women. And for a boy, the converse will hold true. Having a relationship with “the other”—an opposite sexed parent—also increases the likelihood that a child will be more empathetic and less narcissistic.

Secondly, children progress through predictable and necessary developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while others require more from a father. For example, during infancy, babies of both sexes tend to do better in the care of their mother. Mothers are more attuned to the subtle needs of their infants and thus are more appropriately responsive. However, at some point, if a young boy is to become a competent man, he must detach from his mother and instead identify with his father. A fatherless boy doesn’t have a man with whom to identify and is more likely to have trouble forming a healthy masculine identity.

A father teaches a boy how to properly channel his aggressive and sexual drives. A mother can’t show a son how to control his impulses because she’s not a man and doesn’t have the same urges as one. A father also commands a form of respect from a boy that a mother doesn’t––a respect more likely to keep the boy in line. And those are the two primary reasons why boys without fathers are more likely to become delinquent and end up incarcerated.

Father-need is also built into the psyche of girls. There are times in a girl’s life when only a father will do. For instance, a father offers a daughter a safe, non-sexual place to experience her first male-female relationship and have her femininity affirmed. When a girl doesn’t have a father to fill that role she’s more likely to become promiscuous in a misguided attempt to satisfy her inborn hunger for male attention and validation.

Overall, fathers play a restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially, and daughters from acting out sexually. When there’s no father to perform this function, dire consequences often result both for the fatherless children and for the society in which these children act out their losses.

Third, boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. As example, boys generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion, while girls generally embrace the reverse. An opposite-sexed parent helps a child keep his or her own natural proclivities in check by teaching—verbally and nonverbally—the worth of the opposing tendencies. That teaching not only facilitates moderation, but it also expands the child’s world—helping the child see beyond his or her own limited vantage point.

Fourth, same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—impressionable young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously. And children from homosexual families, who are already more likely to experiment sexually, would do so to an even greater extent, because not only was non-traditional sexuality role-modeled by their parents, it was also approved by their society.

There is no question that human sexuality is pliant. Think of ancient Greece or Rome—among many other early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. This was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather it was because homosexuality was condoned by those societies. That which a society sanctions, it gets more of.

And fifth, if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping will also be deemed discriminatory. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous. And what happens to the children of these alternative marriages if the union dissolves and each parent then “remarries”? Those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers, or, you fill in the blank.

Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary natures of a male and female parent.

The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.

Same-sex marriage definitely isn’t in the best interest of children. And although we empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we can’t allow the children to lose.


©2009 Dr. Trayce Hansen. All rights reserved.

15 March 2014

Drag Queens in the Military

Since the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, U.S. military bases have hosted a gay marriage ceremonies and a potluck gatherings. But on Saturday, servicemembers here may have been the first to take to the stage and perform as drag queens on a military installation in support of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender troops.

Drag queens and drag kings, to be precise.

Six servicemembers — gay, lesbian and straight — donned heavy makeup to dance and lip sync songs such as “I Wanna Dance with Somebody” for a raucous capacity crowd at the Rocker NCO Club at Kadena Air Base. The event was a fundraiser for the recently formed Okinawa chapter of OutServe-SLDN, which is the largest nonprofit advocate for the military’s LGBT community.

“We didn’t think there was much of a desire for an event like this on the island but it has actually blown up,” said Navy Lt. Marissa Greene, co-chapter leader of OutServe Okinawa.

Greene said she had hoped to sell about 75 tickets to fund some future support activities for the group, which was formed last summer and still “starting from scratch.” The event was approved as a “variety show” by Kadena’s 18th Wing through the same process as other on-base fundraisers.

But an initial 200 tickets were plucked up almost immediately, so they issued another 200.

“We ended up selling 400 tickets in 10 days,” she said.

Amid the unexpected success, OutServe carefully avoided any mention of politics, but its variety show comes at a pivotal time for gay civil rights in the United States, with many states passing laws dealing with marriage or debating individual liberties.

It is also a sign of the times within the military; just a few years ago, gay and lesbian drag performances on a military base would have been unthinkable and potentially a cause for dismissal from the service.

The repeals of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, as well as the Defense of Marriage Act — the law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages — have allowed gays and lesbians in the military to be open with their sexuality for the first time.

The historic shift appears to be mostly accepted and embraced throughout the ranks despite warnings the DADT repeal could harm order and good discipline.

On Saturday night, the Rocker club was packed for performances by servicemembers using stage names such as Chocolate Sunrise – a crowd favorite — and Artemis Faux. The event’s sole lesbian performer took the drag king name Manny Nuff.

The advocacy group agreed to avoid using the term “drag show” as part of its on-base fundraiser effort.

Tech. Sgt. Kristen Baker, who was among the crowd, said the show got a warm reception and would leave a mark for civil rights.

“Everything is just accepted. It makes me really proud to watch it,” Baker said. In the military, “we are all brothers and sisters no matter what.”

06 March 2014

British Jewry Tried To Stop Zionism

When the British Cabinet issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917, it was over the strenuous objections of its only Jewish member, Edwin Montagu. But non-Jews, including many anti-Semites, tipped the scales. They saw Zionism as a way to advance British imperialism and the Masonic “New World Order.”Montagu, who was the Secretary of State for India, told Prime Minister Lloyd George. “All my life I have been trying to get out of the ghetto. You want to force me back there.”

An assimilated Jew, Montagu regarded Judaism as only a religion, and viewed Zionism as a “mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom.”

His story suggests that the New World Order is an elite conspiracy led by specific members of certain Jewish and non-Jewish dynastic families who often intermarried. It is not “Jewish” in terms of the Jewish people as a whole, who historically prefer assimilation.

In May 1917, a committee representing the leading Jewish organizations published a statement in the “London Times” saying: “Emancipated Jews… have no separate political aspirations…the establishment of a Jewish nationality in Palestine founded on [the] theory of a Jewish homelessness, must have the effect of stamping the Jews as strangers in their native lands.” (“Cousinhood”, p.260)

The Balfour Declaration promised Jews a “national home” in Palestine. Partly, it was payment to Zionists for getting the USA into WWI on Britain’s side. Zionist president Chaim Weismann fumed that Jewish opposition was the main stumbling block to consummating the deal.

The Jewish community was split. The Samuels and the Rothschilds favored the Balfour Declaration; Cohen, Magnus, Mountefiore and Montagu were against it.

“If it had been merely an issue between Zionist and non-Zionist factions within the community, there is little question that the latter would have won,” writes Chaim Bermant in “The Cousinhood.” “But there were the gentile Zionists to consider and they carried the day.” (262)

These gentiles included Arthur Balfour, Lord Milner, Lord Lothian (Phillip Kerr) and Lord Robert Cecil. Chaim Weismann recognized that Zionism is part of a much larger game: “To [Cecil], the re-establishment of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine and the organization of the world in a great federation were complementary features in the next step in the management of human affairs…” (Reed, “Controversy of Zion,” p. 249.)

Georgetown University professor Caroll Quigley lists about 100 participants in the world government conspiracy in the Appendix of “The Anglo American Establishment” (1981). They include the above names and Cecil Rhodes, Lionel Curtis, William T. Stead, Geoffrey Dawson and Earl Grey. I recognized only three Jews: Nathan Rothschild, Leopold Amery and Alfred Beit.

Quigley relates how a group of aristocratic families centered on the Cecils has dominated British politics for centuries. They spawned the secret society organized by Cecil Rhodes and Nathan Rothschild in 1891, which Rhodes called “a church for the extension of the British Empire.” (34) Known as “The Round Table” and the “Milner group,” its goal was world domination by the British elite and the re-colonization of the US.

The “church” was Freemasonry. The politicians that backed Zionism were all high-ranking Masons. Some were probably Illuminati. “World government” is dedicated to enthroning Lucifer as God of this world. Zionism and Communism are Masonic organizations dedicated to this agenda.


Edwin Montagu, the second son of the silver bullion dealer Samuel Montagu, was caught between his father’s Orthodox Judaism and desire to be an Englishman. He rejected Judaism but was not about to abandon his Jewish identity. “I will always be a good Jew according to my lights,” he wrote his father, “my definition differing from yours.”

As a youth he chafed at having to observe the rituals and marry a Jewish girl. As an adult, he embraced the lifestyle of a highborn Englishman. On his country estate, he hunted and was a naturalist and ornithologist. “There was something… alien in the very depth of his affection for England,” Bermant remarks. (259)

A tall nerdy-looking man who wore a monocle, Montagu suffered the gibes of friends and enemies in silence. His “ugliness was obliterated by his charms,” wrote his friend Duff Cooper.” He had a huge ungainly body, a deep soft voice and dark eyes that sparkled with kindliness.” (253)

An able debater at Cambridge, Montagu caught the attention of H.H. Asquith, the President of the rival Oxford Union. He followed Asquith into politics and after the Liberal landslide of 1906 became his private secretary. An intelligent and persuasive speaker, Montagu seemed destined for great things.

Asquith became Prime Minister in 1908. He and Montagu were both infatuated with Venetia Stanley a friend of Asquith’s daughter, and 35 years Asquith’s junior. When the Prime Minister’s attentions became too much, Venetia married Montagu, eight years her senior.

Like Montagu’s love for England, his love for Venetia was unrequited. She had many affairs and burned through his fortune. But he ignored this and, on the eve of his premature death at age 45, wrote to her, “I am miserable at going. You have made me very happy and I hope you will be happy always.” (267)


In 1917, Montagu fought the Balfour Declaration in cabinet and circulated a document accusing the government of anti-Semitism for making all British Jews “aliens and foreigners.” He said he would “willingly disenfranchise every Zionist [and was tempted to] proscribe the Zionist organization as illegal and against the national interest.”

(“document” http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/ article0005337.html)

Of course he was right. But despite being a banker’s son, he wasn’t aware of the Masonic/Zionist plan for world government. They dedicated 1.2 million troops to securing Palestine, almost losing the European War as a consequence. They had to replace Asquith and the Army Chief-of-Staff Gen. William Robertson to get it done.

Montagu was one of those rare Jews who tried to understand the reasons for anti- Semitism instead of blaming “irrational hate.”

“I have always recognized the unpopularity…of my community. We have obtained a far greater share of this country’s goods and opportunities than we are numerically entitled to. We reach on the whole maturity earlier, and therefore with people of our own age we compete unfairly. Many of us have been exclusive in our friendships and intolerant in our attitude, and I can easily understand that many a non-Jew in England wants to get rid of us.

But just as there is no community of thought and mode of life among Christian Englishmen, so there is not among Jewish Englishmen. More and more we are educated in public schools and at the Universities, and take our part in the politics, in the Army, in the Civil Service, of our country. And I am glad to think that the prejudices against inter-marriage are breaking down. But when the Jew has a national home, surely it follows that the impetus to deprive us of the rights of British citizenship must be enormously increased. Palestine will become the world’s Ghetto.”

Montagu was probably responsible for inserting the provision in the Balfour Declaration that said: “Nothing shall be done that may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”


Jews are taught that they are scapegoats but they don’t learn it is the world government cabal that is using them. Using Zionist, Communist, Liberal, Feminist or Neo Con fronts, it dupes many Jews into advancing policies and beliefs that undermine society which is based on race, religion, nation and family. This gives the appearance Jews in general are responsible for the New World Order.

It doesn’t help that many Jews ignorantly deny this conspiracy exists and cry “anti-Semitism” every time a banker is criticized. It doesn’t help that many have been conned into thinking they need Israel. In fact Israelis are being used to secure the Middle East for the Masonic British elite. The new Israeli Supreme Court building, funded and designed by Rothschilds, is replete with Masonic symbolism. (http://www.thegoldenreport.com/asp/jerrysnewsmanager/anmviewer.asp?a=817&z=2)

Some of the Rothschilds and their Jewish allies are part of this satanic conspiracy. But most Jews put their countries first, and would want no part of world government. Edwin Montagu, a gentle, sincere civilized man, is an example of such a Jew and an inspiration to us all.

04 March 2014

How Hitler defied the bankers

[NOTE: This is presented as a historical post, not as a defense of National Socialism) 

Many people take joy in saying Wall Street and Jewish bankers "financed Hitler." There is plenty of documented evidence that Wall Street and Jewish bankers did indeed help finance Hitler at first, partly because it allowed the bankers to get rich (as I will describe below) and partly in order to control Stalin. However, when Germany broke free from the bankers, the bankers declared a world war against Germany.

When we look at all the facts, the charge that "Jews financed Hitler" becomes irrelevant. Los Angeles Attorney Ellen Brown discusses this topic in her book Web Of Debt

When Hitler came to power, Germany was hopelessly broke. The Treaty of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations on the German people, demanding that Germans repay every nation’s costs of the war. These costs totaled three times the value of all the property in Germany.

Private currency speculators caused the German mark to plummet, precipitating one of the worst runaway inflations in modern times. A wheelbarrow full of 100 billion-mark banknotes could not buy a loaf of bread. The national treasury was empty. Countless homes and farms were lost to speculators and to private (Jewish controlled) banks. Germans lived in hovels. They were starving.

Nothing like this had ever happened before - the total destruction of the national currency, plus the wiping out of people's savings and businesses.  On top of this came a global depression. Germany had no choice but to succumb to debt slavery under international (mainly Jewish) bankers until 1933, when the National Socialists came to power. At that point the German government thwarted the international banking cartels by issuing its own money. World Jewry responded by declaring a global boycott against Germany.

Hitler began a national credit program by devising a plan of public works that included flood control, repair of public buildings and private residences, and construction of new roads, bridges, canals, and port facilities. All these were paid for with money that no longer came from the private international bankers.

The projected cost of these various programs was fixed at one billion units of the national currency. To pay for this, the German government (not the international bankers) issued bills of exchange, called Labor Treasury Certificates. In this way the National Socialists put millions of people to work, and paid them with Treasury Certificates.

Under the National Socialists, Germany’s money wasn't backed by gold (which was owned by the international bankers). It was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the government. Hitler said, "For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark's worth of work done, or goods produced." The government paid workers in Certificates. Workers spent those Certificates on other goods and services, thus creating more jobs for more people. In this way the German people climbed out of the crushing debt imposed on them by the international bankers.

Within two years, the unemployment problem had been solved, and Germany was back on its feet. It had a solid, stable currency, with no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the United States and other Western countries (controlled by international bankers) were still out of work.  Within five years, Germany went from the poorest nation in Europe to the richest.

Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, despite the international bankers’ denial of foreign credit to Germany, and despite the global boycott by Jewish-owned industries. Germany succeeded in this by exchanging equipment and commodities directly with other countries, using a barter system that cut the bankers out of the picture. Germany flourished, since barter eliminates national debt and trade deficits. (Venezuela does the same thing today when it trades oil for commodities, plus medical help, and so on. Hence the bankers are trying to squeeze Venezuela.)

Germany's economic freedom was short-lived; but it left several monuments, including the famous Autobahn, the world's first extensive superhighway.

Hjalmar Schacht, a Rothschild agent who was temporarily head of the German central bank, summed it up thus… An American banker had commented, "Dr. Schacht, you should come to America. We've lots of money and that's real banking." Schacht replied, "You should come to Berlin. We don't have money. That's real banking."

(Schact, the Rothschild agent, actually supported the private international bankers against Germany, and was rewarded by having all charges against him dropped at the Nuremberg trials.)

This economic freedom made Hitler extremely popular with the German people.  Germany was rescued from English economic theory, which says that all currency must be borrowed against the gold owned by a private and secretive banking cartel -- such as the Federal Reserve, or the Central Bank of Europe -- rather than issued by the government for the benefit of the people.

Canadian researcher Dr. Henry Makow (who is Jewish himself) says the main reason why the bankers arranged for a world war against Germany was that Hitler sidestepped the bankers by creating his own money, thereby freeing the German people. Worse, this freedom and prosperity threatened to spread to other nations. Hitler had to be stopped!

Makow quotes from the 1938 interrogation of C. G. Rakovsky, one of the founders of Soviet Bolsevism and a Trotsky intimate. Rakovsky was tried in show trials in the USSR under Stalin. According to Rakovsky, Hitler was at first funded by the international bankers, through the bankers’ agent Hjalmar Schacht. The bankers financed Hitler in order to control Stalin, who had usurped power from their agent Trotsky. Then Hitler became an even bigger threat than Stalin when Hitler started printing his own money.
(Stalin came to power in 1922, which was eleven years before Hitler came to power.)

Rakovsky said:
“Hitler took over the privilege of manufacturing money, and not only physical moneys, but also financial ones. He took over the machinery of falsification and put it to work for the benefit of the people. Can you possibly imagine what would have come if this had infected a number of other states?” (Henry Makow, "Hitler Did Not Want War," www.savethemales.com March 21, 2004).
Economist Henry C K Liu writes of Germany's remarkable transformation:

“The Nazis came to power in 1933 when the German economy was in total collapse, with ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Through anindependent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began.” (Henry C. K. Liu, "Nazism and the German Economic Miracle," Asia Times (May 24, 2005).

In Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People (1984), Sheldon Emry commented:

“Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 on, which accounts for Germany’s startling rise from the depression to a world power in five years. The German government financed its entire operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold, and without debt. It took the entire Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German revolution, and bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers.”
These facts do not appear in any textbooks today, since Jews own most publishing companies. What does appear is the disastrous runaway inflation suffered in 1923 by the Weimar Republic, which governed Germany from 1919 to 1933. Today’s textbooks use this inflation to twist truth into its opposite. They cite the radical devaluation of the German mark as an example of what goes wrong when governments print their own money, rather than borrow it from private cartels. 

In reality, the Weimar financial crisis began with the impossible reparations payments imposed at the Treaty of Versailles. Hjalmar Schacht – the Rothschild agent who was currency commissioner for the Republic -- opposed letting the German government print its own money…

“The Treaty of Versailles is a model of ingenious measures for the economic destruction of Germany.  Germany could not find any way of holding its head above the water, other than by the inflationary expedient of printing bank notes.”

Schact echoes the textbook lie  that Weimar inflation was caused when the German government printed its own money.  However, in his 1967 book The Magic of Money, Schact let the cat out of the bag by revealing that it was the PRIVATELY-OWNED Reichsbank, not the German government, that was pumping new currency into the economy. Thus, the PRIVATE BANK caused the Weimar hyper-inflation.

Like the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Reichsbank was overseen by appointed government officials, but was operated for private gain. What drove the wartime inflation into hyperinflation was speculation by foreign investors, who sold the mark short, betting on its decreasing value. In the manipulative device known as the short sale, speculators borrow something they don't own, sell it, and then "cover" by buying it back at the lower price.

Speculation in the German mark was made possible because the PRIVATELY OWNED Reichsbank (not yet under Nazi control) made massive amounts of currency available for borrowing. This currency, like U.S. currency today, was created with accounting entries on the bank's books. Then the funny-money was lent at compound interest. When the Reichsbank could not keep up with the voracious demand for marks, other private banks were allowed to create marks out of nothing, and to lend them at interest. The result was runaway debt and inflation.

Thus, according to Schacht himself, the German government did not cause the Weimar hyperinflation. On the contrary, the government (under the National Socialists) got hyperinflation under control. The National Socialists put the Reichsbank under strict government regulation, and took prompt corrective measures to eliminate foreign speculation. One of those measures was to eliminate easy access to funny-money loans from private banks. Then Hitler got Germany back on its feet by having the public government issue Treasury Certificates.

Schacht , the Rotchschild agent, disapproved of this government fiat money, and wound up getting fired as head of the Reichsbank when he refused to issue it. Nonetheless, he acknowledged in his later memoirs that allowing the government to issue the money it needed did not produce the price inflation predicted by classical economic theory, which says that currency must be borrowed from private cartels.

What causes hyper-inflation is uncontrolled speculation. When speculation is coupled with debt (owed to private banking cartels) the result is disaster. On the other hand, when a government issues currency in carefully measured ways, it causes supply and demand to increase together, leaving prices unaffected. Hence there is no inflation, no debt, no unemployment, and no need for income taxes.

Naturally this terrifies the bankers, since it eliminates their powers. It also terrifies Jews, since their control of banking allows them to buy the media, the government, and everything else.

Therefore, to those who delight in saying “Jews financed Hitler,” I ask that they please look at all the facts.


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More