Couldn't load picture

Nobody disputes the two seemingly remarkable facts contained in this short and simple paragraph. Seemingly remarkable fact number one is that on August 3, 1914, when Germany began to fight a war on two fronts as the aggressor, they and their allies were outnumbered by a ratio of 3:2.2 Fast forward about twenty-eight years. Seemingly remarkable fact number two is that on June 22, 1942, the Nazis had 3,000,000 men amassed at the Soviet border. Stalin knew they were there. Furthermore, many highly stationed people had told Stalin that the invasion was imminent. Even though they had 3,000,000 men massed at the Soviet border, even though Stalin knew they were there, and even though many highly stationed people warned Stalin that an invasion was imminent, the Nazis were still able to achieve total tactical surprise when they invaded. 3

According to political correctness, WWI happened because of "the shot heard around the world." In 1914, when a Serb assassinated Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary, Germany, ruled by Kaiser Wilhelm, chose to intervene on behalf of its allies. Germany "anticipated" that Russia would "aid" the Serbs, and sought assurances from France that it would not enter a war as Russia's ally in the event Germany invaded Russia for coming to the aid of the Serbs. France's refusal to grant such assurances was used by Germany to justify its invasion of France, in accord with the strategy outlined by the Schlieffen Plan developed in 1905. Notwithstanding the existence of at least several other routes, Germany chose to invade France through Belgium, the only country with which Britain was obligated by treaty to help defend in the event of war. Once again, and wholly unbelievably, at the time Germany commenced a war on two fronts, they and and their allies (Central Powers) were outnumbered by Britain and its allies (A llied Powers) by a ratio of 3:2. Excluding American forces, this ratio remained constant throughout the course of the war until Russia withdrew after the Bolshevik Revolution.4

According to political correctness, the progression of WWII was the result of three factors: 1) racism; 2) an expected ultimatum 5; and 3) geopolitics6. Again according to political correctness, all of the credit for masterminding WWII as well as the Holocaust belongs to an 8th grade dropout named Adolph Hitler. He wasn't born German, but rather Austrian, and did not even become a citizen of Germany until 1932, just in time to run for office. This non-Aryan Aryan supremacist who purportedly hated Jews not because of their religion but instead because of their Semitic race but who did not go after any of the other Semitic peoples of the world and then allied himself with non-Aryan allies is responsible for everything. (If your BS detector has not yet redlined, then you need a new one.) He was able to achieve total tactical surprise when he invaded the Soviet Union bec ause Stalin was confident that Hitler would give him an ultimatum (or was that "ultimato", Mr. Cosby?) And the Soviets were not targeted (somewhere between 18,000,000 and 26,000,000 KIA means they were targeted7) because they were Communists, but rather because of an already hopelessly outdated concept known as geopolitics. Hooey! This party line has lasted so long due solely to the existance of a battery of batteries of shrinks armed with electroshock therapy.

This site explains both why Germany commenced WWI on two fronts outnumbered by a ratio of 3:2 and how Hitler was able to achieve surprise notwithstanding the undisputed facts above. The explanation offered here is the only coherent explanation. Briefly, the reason that Germany commenced a war on two fronts outnumbered by a ratio of 3:2 was that it knew Russia wouild withdraw from the war and did not anticipate entry by the U.S. Again briefly, the four biggest reasons for Stalin's false sense of security were as follows: 1) the relationship between Russia and Germany in WWI; 2) Hitler's activites in Vienna; 3) certain passages from Hitler's Mein Kampf regarding both the destruction of a religion and the role of Japan in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904; and 4) the absence of any coherent explanation other than the one here.

So as not to keep the reader in suspense regarding the passages from Mein Kampf referenced above, here they are.

First:

... I consider the foundation or destruction of a religion far greater than the foundation or destruction of a state, let alone a party.8

Second:

Just suppose that an astute German foreign policy had taken over the role of Japan in 1904, and we can scarcely measure the consequences this would have had for Germany.
There would never have been any "World War."9
Third:
The mightiest counterpart to the Aryan is represented by the Jew. In hardly any people in the world is the instinct of self-preservation developed more strongly than in teh so-called "chosen." Of this, the mere fact of the survival of this reace may be considered the best proof. Where is the people which in the last two thousand years has been exposed to so slight changes of inner disposition, charcter, etc., as the Jewis h people? What people, finally, has gone through greater upheavals than this one - and nevertheless issued from the mightiest catastrophes of mankind unchanged? What an infinitely tough will to live and preserve the species speaks from these facts.10
Fourth:
... a great power actually hostile to Bismarck's Reich coiuld at any time easily succeed in mobilizing a whole series of states against Germany, since it was in a position to promise each of them enrichment at the expense of our Austrian ally.11

In the first part, the following propositions will be demonstrated: first, that because of the content of Acts 1: 6-7 and Acts 5:1-11, the establishment of an independent communistic Jewish theocracy in Palestine would gut the validity of Roman Catholic dogma, as well as that of any other Christian denomination; second, that WWI was begun by Germany with the objective of controlling Palestine and at least threatening to assist in the establishment of a communistic Jewish theocracy there; third, that Russia was Germany's silent partner in WWI, and that the Bolshevik Revolution was contrived and acquiesced in by the "overthrown" czar; fourth, that Hitler acted in cooperation with the Allies in virtually everything he did, including causing the Holocaust and causing the death of at least eighteen million Soviets; fifth, that Hitler informed Stalin of every element of the allied plan and agreed with Stalin to double-cross the Allies the better to enable Hitler to achieve his objectives against the Soviet Union; and sixth, that Hitler double-crossed Stalin instead of the Allies.

Be advised at this point that discussion of the fourth proposition listed above will largely be confined to the United States. In the second part, thirteen factors will be discussed. They are: 1) Allan Dulles' activity in Vienna in 1917 after Hitler, Trotsky, and Stalin were all there at the same time in 1913; 2) Arnold Rothstein, regardless of guilt or innocence with regard to the Chicago Black Sox scandal, being used to fan the flames of anti-Judaism in the US; 3) the truly disgusting activity of Henry Ford and his The International Jew (was it Stephen Wise that let him off the hook?); 4) predisposition toward genocide (the "go extinct" proviso in the Removal Act of 1830) ; 5) predisposition toward war to resolve the Jewish question (Roosevelt's threat toward Germany during the Russo-Japanese War); 6) anti-communist animus; 7) absolutely impeccable timing regarding the "I am" and "Branch Davidian" movements; 8) the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and US labor reaction both before and after Hit ler invaded the Soviet Union; 9) the United States government never revoked the Catholic church's tax exempt status even though the Catholic clergy in Germany exhorted its parishioners to fight for the Fuehrer. 10) US v. Ballard; 11) US participation in the politically correct explanation for Hiler's motive vis-a-vis the Jews (and it doesn't get any points for saying anti-Semitism means anti-Judaism some seventy-five years after the fact); 12) US academia's participation in the politically correct explanation for Hitler's invasion of Russia; and 13) US academia's participation in the origin of Holocaust Denial.

1. Because of the content of Acts 1: 6-7, the establishment of an independent Jewish theocracy would gut the validity of Roman Catholic dogma, as well as that of any other Christian denomination.

The Vatican has always been opposed to Zionism. It has always justified its concern by asserting a desire to protect the holy places - e.g., the Church of the Nativity and the Church of the Sepulcher. It's attitude toward an independent Jewish state anywhere demonstrates that protection of the holy places is not its primary concern. Two very clear examples of this attitude are a statement by Michael Cardinal Faulhaber and the Jesuit objection to a Jewish state in a location other than Palestine. Faulhaber said:

After the death of Christ Israel was dismissed from the service of the Revelation. She had not known the time of her visitation. She had repudiated and rejected the Lord's Anointed, had driven Him out of the city and nailed Him to the cross. Then the veil of the Temple was rent, and with it the covenant between the Lord and His people. The daughters of Sion received the bill of divorce, and from that time forth Assuerus wanders, forever restless, over the face of the earth. (Emphasis added.)12

The Jesuits said:

What sort of Zionism is this, that from the start renounces Jerusalem and the ancient kingdom of Palestine? Does this not prove that they are betraying themselves and confessing that their intentions were utopian? Why not then completely give up the name Zionism? A race of murderers of God, even if supported by all the anti-Catholic sects, feels itself beaten before the fight even begins, beaten by Jesus.13

Requiring that Israel wander (like Faulhaber would), and objecting to the formation of an independent Jewish sovereign anywhere obviously do not have anything to do with protecting the Holy Places. Still another tell-tale objection is found in the Vatican's response to assurances that the Holy Places would be excluded from a Jewish state and given extraterritorial status. The Vatican could only muster, "it won't do to imagine them in an enclave of that sort." 14 In sum, the purported Vatican justification for objecting to Zionism is rubbish.

The real reason for Catholic resistance to the establishment of an independent communal Jewish theocracy is that it would gut the validity of Roman Catholic dogma, as well as that of any other Christian denomination. There are many different versions of the Bible. This site will compare the translation of two verses - Acts 1:6-7 - by four versions of the Bible: 1) the New American Bible, Revised Edition; 2) the King James Version ; 3) the New English Bible; and 4) the Revised English Bible . The New American Bible, Revised Edition is a Catholic version. The King James Version is Protestant. The New English Bible is non-denominational. The Revised English Bible is a revision of the New English Bible.

Certainly a reason for the Catholic opposition to Zionism can be seen by analyzing the New English Bible version of Acts 1:6-7. In that passage, Jesus, after having purportedly been resurrected, is asked by his disciples, "Lord, is this the time when you are to establish once again the sovereignty of Israel?" Jesus is reported to have responded, "It is not for you to know about dates or times, which the Father has set within his own control." Jesus' response, if factual, would constitute a tacit acknowledgement that restoring the sovereignty of Israel was at least one aspect of his mission. "Sovereignty" means autonomy. If one thinks about it, one can see the element of "game" in this passage. Jesus' failure to restore the sovereignty of Israel seems to permit the conclusion that he wasn't the messiah. However, a ready response is, or at least was, that the apologist will agree that he failed to establish it if the critic agrees that Jesus said it. Such an admission on the part of the criti c entails both an admission that Jesus had a messianic mindset and an admission that he rose from the dead. Israel's existence as an autonomous country might change all that. Since the sovereignty of Israel has been restored and Jesus wasn't the one who restored it, one of two important implications would follow: first, he cannot be the messiah; or second, the reported conversation between the purportedly resurrected Jesus and his disciples never occurred. From this second implication can be inferred that the report of Jesus' appearance after his death are also erroneous. Note that this interpretation does explain both Faulhaber's version of a curse upon the Jews and the Jesuit objection to the establishment of a Jewish sovereign elsewhere from Palestine.

The reader should be advised that the New English Bible is the only version of the four that translates Acts 1:6-7 with the word "sovereignty." In fact, it is the only version of which the writer is aware out of all versions to do so. Other versions use the phrase "restore the kingdom to Israel" (New American Bible, Revised Edition) or "restore again the kingdom to Israel" (King James Version and the Revised English Bible). Furthermore, in addition to the fact that the New English Bible is outnumbered, it has been "overruled," so to speak. More precisely, a revision of the New English Bible has been published by the same publisher, and the revision does not translate the passage in question using the word "sovereignty." Note also that although the same publisher is responsible for both the New English Bible and the Revised English Bible, the people who did the actual translating were different. It might be argued that the committee that translated for the New English Bible was better qualified than was the committee for the Revised English Bible, especially since Charles Harold Dodd was on the former. However, it may safely be assumed that all members of each committee had impeccable qualifications, and any such argument would for any non-expert be entirely subjective. It is at least interesting to note that the no delegates from Roman Catholic churches of the United Kingdom and Ireland did any translating for the New English Bible, but that delegates from these entities did participate in actual translation for the Revised English Bible.

While the two considerations above may be relevant to the inquiry, the correct interpretation is found by considering the philosophy of the translators for the different versions, and then noting how the audience would have received the words "restore the kingdom to Israel." For the most part, the King James Version translators used a word-for-word substitution of English words for Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic words. All of the other three profess to take a different approach. To use the words of the Introduction to the New English Bible, the translators "sought to say in their own native idiom what they believed the author to be saying in his ...." All apologists (but not all critics) of which the writer is aware agree that the apostles had expected Jesus to be a political leader who would restore self-rule to Israel during his historical ministry, and that includes the Roman Catholic Church.15 If that was the expectation, then th e reader of Acts at anywhere near the time it was written could not possibly have thought that the words meant something other than the restoration of Israel's sovereignty. To say that the author of Acts intended a different meaning would be to say that he deliberately fostered confusion - and in some cases disbelief, by assigning a different and as yet unknown meaning to a phrase that had a very definite meaning at the time. No way!

The question thus becomes how can "restore the kingdom to Israel" nonetheless mean something other than "establish once again the sovereignty of Israel"? The answer is found by considering exactly what was meant by "the kingdom"? If the current Israel is different than first century Israel in some important respect, then it could be persuasively argued that the current existence of Israel as an independent sovereign is not the equivalent of restoration of the kingdom. A very significant difference is that the current nation of Israel is not a theocracy. The importance of this point will be seen in Part III of this site. For now it is sufficient to note that the current existence of Israel as an independent sovereign arguably demonstrates that Jesus was not the Messiah, and that the current existence of Israel as a theocracy would demonstrate it beyond peradventure.

In this regard, it is to say the very least interesting that the members of the "primitive church" lived communally. In Acts 2:44 it is reported that "[a]ll who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one's need. In Acts 4:32 it is reported that "The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common." That this communal arrangement had God's approval is clear from God's treatment of Ananias and Sapphira, who, when they chose to join the community, sold their private possessions but held back some of the proceeds from the community and retained them for themselves. Both died immediately. Construed broadly, the fact that the original "Christians" lived communally combined with God's punishment of two "Christians" who at worst stole from the community demonstrates God's desire that Christians live communally , holding no property privately. Were the average Christian citizen to be informed of the ramifications of the story of Annanias and Sapphira , he would likely expect to share more equally in the wealth of the kingdom.

It is extremely interesting to contemplate the theological effect of a Jewish theocracy in Palestine whose citizens lived communally. Given the contents of Acts 1:6-7, it is difficult to see how whoever founded such a state could not be considered to be the Messiah, since such a situation is exactly what the first Christians are supposed to have been expecting. Now reconsider one of the passages excerpted earlier:

... I consider the foundation or destruction of a religion far greater than the foundation or destruction of a state, let alone a party

Excluding Jesus as the Messiah would destroy Christianity, and recognizing whoever would have been responsible for founding a communal Jewish theocracy in Palestine as the Messiah (like maybe "Koba"?) would have the effect of creating a new religion. Interesting to say the least.

2. WWI was begun by Germany with the objective of controlling Palestine and at least threatening to assist in the establishment of a communal Jewish theocracy there.

History's explanation of WWI is absurd. Although two fronts and the numbers suffice to demonstrate the absurdity of history's explanation, there is more. It completely neglects to account for Germany's previous "uppitiness." This uppitiness was demonstrated by at least two chains of events. The first pertains to the Panama Canal. For a time prior to November 3, 1903, Panama was a part of Columbia. Germany had been negotiating with Columbia for the rights to build the canal, as had the United States. Germany's dealings contravened the U.S. version of the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine, even though not the letter. Tsk, tsk. Columbia rejected the U.S. offer. On November 3, 1903, (and wouldn't you just know it), Panama, backed by the U.S., declared its independence, and Columbia gave up without a fight. The U.S. got exclusive rights to the canal.

Couldn't load picture

The second event demonstrating German uppitiness was the fact that the Germans armed the Boers in the Second Boer War fought over British imperial interests in south Africa. The war began in 1899 and ended in (March 31) 1902. The arms supplied by the Germans wreaked havoc upon the British with respect to both casualties and morale. Although not involved in the war, the US was allied with Britain, but was in no position to object to Germany's role as supplier because the British had supplied the Confederacy with arms in the American Civil War. See the Alabama cases. How could the US justify condemnation of Germany when its ally had done the same thing against the US? In February of 1902, J.P. Morgan entered into an agreement with Germany's two biggest shipping companies (specify the K). This agreement was prelude to the formation of the International Mercantile Marine. The Germans then ceased arming Britain's opponents in the Boer War. Imagine how the Dutch must have felt, and (wouldn't you just know it), the IMM venture was a failure. 16 At that point, a serious naval buildup involving both Britain and Germany occurred. Germany was getting very uppity indeed.

The next absurdity of history's explanation is that it ignores the Russo-Japanese War, which shows beyond peradventure that the United States perceived an alliance between Germany and Russia in 1904. The Russo-Japanese War began when Japan surprise-attacked the Russian fleet at Port Arthur (modern day Lushun City) on February 8, 1904. Japan was the eventual victor, and the war ended with the Treaty of Portsmouth. During the course of the war, then-President Theodore Roosevelt notified Germany that "in the event of a combination against Japan" the United States would "promptly side with Japan and proceed to whatever length was necessary on her behalf." This warning would never have been given unless the United States perceived Germany as an ally of Russia. Thus, at least as of 1905, Germany and Russia were allies.

The Russo-Japanese War also provides a glimpse of the Zionism motive for the Holocaust. In 1904, Theodore Herzl headed the substantial Zionist movement. On January 22 of that year, Herzl received audience with the Vatican through then-Secretary of State Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val. During their conversation, Herzl broached the subject of Jewish repossession of the Holy Land. The Cardinal said, "Certainly , a Jew who has himself baptized out of conviction is for me ideal .... But in order for us to come out for the Jewish People in a way you desire, they would first have to be converted .... Still, I see no possibility of our assuming the initiative." Herzl responded, " No one is asking you, Your Eminence. The initiative will be taken by one of the great powers .... 17 Scarcely more than two weeks later, Japan attacked Russia at port Arthur. The timing between Herzl's conversation at the Vatican and the attack at Port Arthu r indicates that Japan was acting on behalf of the allies when it attacked. Theodore Roosevelt's threat militates strongly in favor of this conclusion.

Now consider the statement contained in Mein Kampf referenced above:

Just suppose that an astute German foreign policy had taken over the role of Japan in 1904, and we can scarcely measure the consequences this would have had for Germany.
There would never have been any "World War."

Thus, the question becomes what did Hitler think the role of Japan in the Russo-Japanese War was. If it was not to respond to Herzl, then what was Japan's role?

Consideration of some basic big-picture facts makes clear that World War I was fought over Zionism. These facts include the following. At the time Germany commenced the war, Palestine was controlled by Britain, which employed Turkey to accomplish its agenda. In 1908, the "Young Turks" rose to prominence within Turkey, and either aligned with Germany or feigned alliance with Germany. In 1914, when a Serb assassinated Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary, Germany, ruled by Kaiser Wilhelm, chose to intervene on behalf of its allies. Germany "anticipated" that Russia would "aid" the Serbs, and sought assurances from France that it would not enter a war as Russia's ally in the event Russia invaded Germany for coming to the aid of the Serbs. France's refusal to grant such assurances was used by Germany to justify its invasion of France, in accord with the strategy outlined by the Schlieffen Plan developed by Alfred, Graf von in 1905. (It should be noted that Czar Nicholas II's and Kaiser Wilhelm's w ives were cousins.) Under the Schlieffen Plan, which represented a one-hundred-eighty degree departure from the plan developed by the Germans in 1858, Germany would assume a defensive posture on its eastern front and concentrate most of its troops on its western front in the event it was required to fight a war on both fronts. Notwithstanding the existence of more than several other routes, Germany chose to invade France through Belgium, the only country with which Britain was obligated by treaty to help defend in the event of war. At the time the war was commenced, Germany and its allies (Central Powers) were outnumbered by Britain and its allies (Allied Powers) by a ratio of 3:2. This ratio remained constant throughout the course of the war until Russia withdrew after the Bolshevik Revolution. After Russia's withdrawal and excluding American forces, the ratio was very close to 1:1.18

The fact that the overall German strategy for fighting a war on two fronts changed from attacking east and defending west to attacking west and defending east demonstrates that Kaiser Wilhelm, for whatever reason, feared his cousin Nicholas less than his foes to the west. Unless Germany expected to lose the war it started, the fact that it commenced the war outnumbered 3:2 demonstrates that it knew that the Russian forces, for whatever reason, would not be a factor in the war. That the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia's withdrawal from the war was planned by both Nicholas and Wilhelm is thus at least a theoretical possibility. It will be recalled that Theodore Herzl informed the Vatican in 1904 that one of the great powers would establish Israel as an independent sovereign in Palestine and that Theodore Roosevelt threatened to side with Japan in the Russo-Japanese War if Germany entered the conflict. It would seem that Russia and Germany shared a common objective. The fact that Germany attacked Franc e, thereby forcing the conflict it ostensibly attempted to avoid by requesting assurances, indicates that Germany's attempt to avoid conflict with France was not a serious one. The fact that Germany chose to invade France through Belgium when it could have invaded either directly across its own border or through that of its non-combatant ally Italy demonstrates Germany's desire for a war with Britain. Germany's decision to involve Britain in the war indicates that Britain had something the Germans wanted. One thing the Brits had was control over Palestine through Turkey. Given the German belief that they had the allegiance of the Young Turks, a victory over the British by the Germans would have raised their stock amongst the Turkish population and resulted in an alliance with Germany lasting beyond the duration of the first world war.

Had the Germans been victorious, they and the Russians would have been in a position to control the Catholic church via the same strategy employed by the United States government beginning with the Christian Association of Washington. Germany would have controlled Palestine through Turkey and could thus have considerably influenced the Catholic Church by threatening it with the establishment of a sovereign communistic Jewish theocracy in Palestine if the church behaved negatively and preventing the establishment of a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine if it behaved positively. Moreover, Russia, having converted to communism, was in a uniquely superior position to emphasize the life style of the early Christians as depicted in the book of Acts.

3. Russia was Germany's silent partner in WWI, and the Bolshevik Revolution was contrived and acquiesced in by the "overthrown" czar.

Couldn't load picture

The following easily suffice to demonstrate that Russia was in fact allied with Germany before and during WWI. First is the threat by Roosevelt's mentioned above. Again, it is clear from the threat that Roosevelt perceived Germany and Russia as allied. Second is the Schlieffen Plan. There obviously was some reason that Germany measured Russia as the least of two evils as between Russia and the rest of Europe. How well the plan worked out is either a miracle or evidence of an alliance. The third fact indicating an alliance is the numbers: at the time the war was commenced, Germany and its allies (Central Powers) were outnumbered by Britain and its allies (Allied Powers) by a ratio of 3:2. This ratio remained constant throughout the course of the war until Russia withdrew after the Bolshevik Revolution. After Russia's withdrawal and excluding American forces, the ratio was very close to 1:1. The fourth fact is how Kaiser Wilhelm conducted the war after the assassination of Nicholas II. This is see n by the progression of the Second Battle of the Marne. Germany was kicking some serious butt until July 17- Ludendorff regarded their advance as "the very pinnacle of military victory."19 However, on July 17, 1918 (Nicholas II had been assassinated earlier that morning), Germany's advance stalled. The Second Battle of the Marne was the last major German offensive on the Western Front. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Kaiser Wilhelm took his bat and ball and went home.

Two facts seemingly militate against the above. One is that the numbers remained uneven due to American entry into the war. This is easily explained away by the assertion that Germany did not anticipate American involvement. There were some very good reasons for this. One is that William McKinley "war was not the answer." Going to war made it look more likely that this was the reason for his assassination, which had been explained as the work of a deranged anarchist. Another is that the United States seemed to be experiencing difficulty on its own border with Mexico. In early 1913, Victoriano Huerta seized power in Mexico, and seemed friendly toward Germany. During his reign, Woodrow Wilson deployed American troops to Veracruz, Mexico's most important sea port at the time. Huerta resigned the presidency two weeks before the war and went into exile, ultimately ending up in the United States. There, he plotted with the Germans to regain power and was arrested on charges of sedition. A third reaso n that Germany did not anticipate American entry into the war was that entry into the war lacked popular support. Indeed, one of the slogans used by Wilson's supporters in his re-election campaign was that "he kept us out of the war." The sentiment as an echo of the British notion of "splendid isolationism" that prevailed in the United Kingdom until they entered the war.

The second fact is that Russia initially did fight during WWI, and did so on the side of the allies against Germany. Resolution of this seeming difficulty lies in the fact that Nicholas II by all accounts hated the peasantry, the class which supplied most of Russia's military. It is interesting to note that the lower classes believe that Marie Antoinette was the only ruler who ever said something equivalent to "let them eat cake" just because she was the only one to get caught. In Nicholas II's case the general sentiment was even more pronounced - he said on several occasions that his grandfather had freed the serfs only to be assassinated by them. Actions, of course, speak much louder than words. That he would sacrifice the lives of those involved in Bloody Sunday and the Lena Goldfields Massacre just to create the desired backlash should tell the reader all he needs to know. His leadership during Russia's involvement in WWI was in fact so bad that it had to be deliberate.

So why, then, did Nicholas II remain in Russia after he abdicated after having angered the masses? England offered asylum, and Nicholas said no. The obvious answer is that he felt at least as safe in Russia than he would have had he been exiled elsewhere. His assassination was a game-changer, and was the real "shot heard round the world." The official version of his death is that the Bolsheviks killed him as well as his family at Dom Ipatiev in Yekaterinburg. There are several big picture facts that indicate the official version is incorrect. As has been noted, Nicholas II refused asylum. England then withdrew its offer, citing the potential political turmoil Nicholas II's presence in England might cause. No explanation was ever given for not granting the Romanovs asylum in one of its territories. The fact that the Romanovs were not offered asylum anywhere else militates against any assertion that the "Whites" had any interest in rescuing the abdicated tsar. Obviously the Bolsheviks would have known that there would be adverse publicity were they to massacre the entire Romanov family even had they been inclined to assassinate the tsar himself. Why does everybody insist on ignoring the obvious here? There was a group of Czech soldiers known as the Czechoslovak Legion (druzina) in Russia after Russia withdrew from WWI. The purportedly were trying to travel east through Russia and America to join the allies on the western front. For some reason, Trotsky became very concerned about them, and this concern resulted in the Penza Agreement, under which the druzina were at least supposed to surrender most of their weapons in exchange for safe passage to Vladivostok. So what was the source of Trotsky's concern? Remember that the complexion of the Second Battle of the Marne changed immediately upon Nicholas II's death, indicating that Nicholas II and Kaiser Wilhelm had indeed been in cahoots. It would seem that if Wilhelm and Nicholas were in cahoots, and if the druzina wanted to fight the Germans , then they had a motive to kill the Romanovs. 20

Now examine one of the excerpts from Mein Kampf noted above against the background of the foregoing:

... a great power actually hostile to Bismarck's Reich coiuld at any time easily succeed in mobilizing a whole series of states against Germany, since it was in a position to promise each of them enrichment at the expense of our Austrian ally.

In October 1918, shortly before the formalities officially ended the war, God said "Let there be Czechoslovakia where some of Austria used to be." What a coincidence!

Everything changed once Nicholas had been assassinated. As has been noted, the Second Battle of the Marne went from the pinnacle of German victory to the defeat of its last offensive. Vladimir Lenin remained the most popular man in the Soviet Union until his death. Leon Trotsky, a Jew, was the second most popular. Most pecuiarly, the second most popular man elected not to attend the most popular man's funeral. His popularity suffered accordingly. Trotsy was certainly way more than merely politically astute enough to know that his failure to attend would yield this result. It must be concluded that he deliberately chose not to be next in line. It says here that it's because he knew what was coming.

4. Hitler acted in cooperation with the Allies in virtually everything he did, including causing the Holocaust and causing the death of at least eighteen million Soviets.

Two big picture facts make this conclusion easy. One is that Hitler was not anti-Jewish during his stay in Vienna, whatever Mein Kampf may say to the contrary. The writer is far from the only one who thinks this. "[H]istorians now generally agree that his notorious, murderous anti-Semitism emerged well after Germany's defeat [in World War I], as a product of the paranoid "stab-in-the-back" explanation for the catastrophe."21 Regardless of how Hitler's anti-Jew animus evolved, the important point is that it did not do so in Vienna. There was a very good reason for Hilter's "I became anti-Zionistic Jew in Vienna" charade. Second is the combination of the uselessness of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact coupled with the anti-labor propaganda coup that it enabled in America. Wait until you see.

It's time to consider some very basic facts about Hitler and his rise to power. As was stated earlier, he was not born a German, and did not become one until 1932. Accordingly, his pan-Germanism never really did make much sense, and was obviously a pretext for something else. 22 He was a Catholic, and remained Catholic until his death. (He has never been excommunicated.) He had issues with authority when he was a youth, both with his father and schoolmasters. He relocated to Vienna when he was eighteen years old and applied twice to the Vienna School of Fine Arts. He was rejected both times. He was either too lazy or to politically incorrect to hold a job. One of these two must be accurate - a good worker with the politics he professed to acquire in Mein Kampf would have had no trouble remaining employed. After exhausting his inheritance, he fell upon hard times, and ended up in the equivalent of a modern day American mission for the homeless.

While he was down and out, Hitler received a lot of help from Jews. He was not the only one - Jewish charity was prominent for the destitute in Vienna during that era. The main sponsors of the Meidling Asylum where Hitler resided for two months were the Epstein family, 23 and many warming shelters with food were supported predominantly with Jewish funds. 24 He often did business with Jewish frame dealers. 25 His broker for the art he did create for the purpose of sale as art was also Jewish. 26 Moreover, everything said by one Reinhold Hanisch about Hitler's positive relationship with several Jews while in Vienna has been verified by historians. In sum, Hitler's stay in Vienna was made very much less unpleasant than it otherwise would have been by Viennese Jews. However, the following must be noted. After Hitler had taken advantage of charity offered by Jews and after having done business with them to his advantage and while continuing to do so, he refused to go to the Jewish quarter to buy a coat after his aunt sent him a goodly sum of money. A very good explanation for this refusal is that he did not want his Jewish acquaintances to know that he no longer was in need of their charity. This refusal will be revisited shortly.

The range of literature purchased by Hitler during his stay in Vienna runs the political gamut, from left to extreme right. During the early years of his stay in Vienna he feasted upon Social Democrat literature. He ultimately left Vienna with at least several issues of Ostara, a "salacious pseudo-journal." 27 in his suitcase. One must see these to appreciate their absurdity. The question of how to reconcile this range thus arises. Three general possibilities present themselves. One is that he purchased them all for the purpose of adherence, but that his attitude shifted over time. Another is that Hitler purchased the Social Democrat material for a purpose other than adherence, and the Ostara for the purpose of adherence. This is the position taken by Hitler in Mein Kampf and those who are politically correct. The third is that he purchased the Social Democrat material for the purpose of adherence, and the Ostara for a purp ose other than adherence. This is the position taken by this site.

With regard to the first possibility, it is difficult to see how his attitudes could have changed so much in favor of the wealthy when he was so impoverished and against those without whom his life would have been all the more miserable. Consider again the third quote from Mein Kampf excerpted at the outset:

The mightiest counterpart to the Aryan is represented by the Jew. In hardly any people in the world is the instinct of self-preservation developed more strongly than in teh so-called "chosen." Of this, the mere fact of the survival of this reace may be considered the best proof. Where is the people which in the last two thousand years has been exposed to so slight changes of inner disposition, , charcter, etc., as the Jewish people? What people, finally, has gone through greater upheavals than this one - and nevertheless issued from the mightiest catastrophes of mankind unchanged? What an infinitely tough will to live and preserve the species speaks from these facts.

This looks a lot more like admiration than hatred or contempt, and flies in the face of both of the first two possibilies listed above.

The third possibility is by very far the most likely, especially when read in the context of the totality of the circumstances. There are at least several passages in Mein Kampf that are easily seen as attempts to preempt accusations that Hitler's politics while he resided in Vienna were not what he said they were. For example, in one such passage, Hitler explains that he was not initially antagonistic toward the Social Democrats. 28 Another such passage concerns speeches he made to workers. He wrote that his side of these discussions were in opposition to Social Democrat positions. 29 Still another such passage concerns his "daily reading of the Social Democratic press." 30 His explanation for his daily reading is that it helped him understand the inner nature of his enemies. 31 Of course, another explanation presents itself. Hitler was obvioulsy seen purchasing and possessing these reading materials by the vendors and others, and he needed some explanation other than that he adhered to the Social Democratic platform. The sum of these passages is that any witness who claimed to have seen Hitler speak at some kind of rally or purchase Social Democratic literature could have been rebutted by explanation that he was opposing Social Democracy and not espousing it. Any witness who actually heard the content of a Hitler pro-Social Democrat speech could be explained away by Hitler's initial "non-antagonism" and confusion on the part of the witness as to exactly when he heard the commments in question - remember that Mein Kampf was written ten years after Hitler left Vienna.

Vienna's brand of Jewry was the Socialist-Zionist type. Moses Hess had re-ignited a socialist form of Zionism a little more than thirty years before in the wake of the Mortara saga with Rome and Jerusalem, and Theodore Herzl resumed with Der Judenstaat in 1896 and his weekly Viennese publication Die Welt in 1897 in the wake of the Dreyfuss affair. He helped form the Zionist Organization whcih later became the World Zionist Organization. The organization was and is headquartered in Vienna. The reader will recall his activity at the Vatican in 1904 mentioned previously. When he died a half a year later - apparently not suspiciously, believe it or not - he was buried in Vienna, and remained interred there until 1949 when his grave was relocated to Jerusalem.

Three Amigos

Couldn't load picture

Hitler, Trotsky, and Stalin were all in Vienna at the same time. There is no dispute regarding this fact. Hitler was in Vienna from 1907 to 1913. Leon Trotsky lived in Vienna from 1907 to 1914. From 1908 until 1912, he wrote for and was an editor for Pravda, a bi-weekly paper that circulated in Russia. 32 It is at least interesting that in all of Mein Kampf's railings against Social Democracy and its literature that he never mentioned Trotsky, even though Trotsky had become the number two man in the Soviet Union by the time Mein Kampf was published. Stalin was in Vienna for one month in January of 1913. 33 When Hitler left Vienna three months later, he carried with him some recent issues of Ostara. When all of the facts are considered in their totality, it is a virtual certainty that Hitler intended to use their absurdity for pro-Soc ial Democrat propaganda purposes in Munich. This is how the preemption strategy regarding Hitler's politics while in Vienna outlined earlier became feasible. It thus looks a lot like Hitler left Vienna on a mission. A reasonable conclusion (not a fact, as such) is that Hitler, Stalin, and Trotsky became well acquainted in Vienna, and in fact were doing figurative trust falls while they were all there together.

Couldn't load picture

When WWII broke out, Hitler enlisted in the German army, even though he was Austrian and not German, and even though he had been deemed unfit for military duty by Austria. This is the act of a believer. If the above about why Germany started WWI is correct, then it follows that Hitler believed in what Germany was then trying to do. It is also exactly one hundred percent consistent with the assertion that Hitler left Vienna on a mission in the preceding paragraph.

Allen Dulles was stationed in Vienna during 1917. Dulles began his duties in Vienna on July 7, 1916 as secretary of embassy class five, and was promoted to class four a month later. He remained in Vienna until April 7, 1917. While he was there, his duties brought him into constant contact with many Jews. He was apparently the only member of the foreign service who did not shun this aspect of consulate responsibility. 34 He was a big fan of the existance of Czechoslovakia as an independent sovereign. 35

The German army financed Hitler and the Nazi party in its early days. The Brunig administration granted him German citizenship so that he could hold office. Paul von Hindenburg, President of Germany, appointed him Chancellor. The German legislature granted him emergency powers. In sum, but for the German government, neither Hitler nor the Nazi party could ever have risen to power. 36

Now let's take stock. It has been accepted that Hitler was not anti-Jewish during his stay in Vienna. Indeed, it is a fact that at the very least elements of the Viennese Jewish population made his life much less worse than it might have been, and it is a fact that he at the very least did business with elements of the Viennese Jewish population. It is a fact that Stalin, Trotsky, and Hitler were in Vienna at the same time. Not many people these days are aware of it, but it is a fact that Trotsky - whose real name was Lev Bronstein - was a Jew. It is a fact that Hitler left Vienna for Munich shortly after Stalin left Vienna, and that Hitler took with him some issues of Ostara. It is a fact that Hitler enlisted in the German Army, even though he was Austrian, and had been deemed medically unfit for military duty. It is a fact that although Hitler had 3,000,000 men and supporting military hardware massed at the Soviet border, he nonetheless managed to achieve total tactical surprise when he invaded. It is a fact that Allen Dulles had the opportunity to meet many Jews in Vienna. And it is a fact that Hitler claimed to have become anti-Jewish before he left Vienna.

Couldn't load picture

Now let's draw some inferences. Not only was Hitler not anti-Jewish in Vienna, he was pro-Jewish, although not as pro-Jewish as he was pro-Adolf. He met Stalin and Trotsky, and left Vienna on a mission to denigrate anti-Jewishness by using the absurdity of Ostara to illustrate. He was, for whatever reason, so dedicated to this cause that he enlisted in the German army, even though he did not have to risk his life at all. Even though Hitler had 3,000,000 men and supporting military hardware massed at the Soviet border, Stalin still trusted him because he knew him from Vienna. And, last but certainly not least, Allen Dulles became aware of Hitler through his contact with a multitude of Jews, and selected him as someone who Stalin would trust. This last inference makes the United States the kingpin in the Holocaust conspiracy. Now we can see the reason for the "I was an anti-Zionistic Jew in Vienna" charade that Hitler maintained in Mein Kampf. If Hitler was indeed a foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Jew be fore he left Vienna, then Dulles could not have fingered him as someone who Stalin would trust.

4a. Arnold Rothstein, regardless of guilt or innocence with regard to the Chicago Black Sox scandal, was used to fan the flames of anti-Judaism in the US.

Most Americans, even those who are not baseball fans, are aware of the scandal surrounding the 1919 Chicago "Black Sox." Note that for the purpose of this site, it does not matter what exactly happened or why. A superior White Sox team lost to the underdog Cinciantti Reds and eight members of the White Sox were ultimately indicted by a grand jury for deliberately losing the series. All eight players were ultimatley acquitted when important heard by the grand jury evidence - including several confessions - disappeared before trial. Arnold Rothstein, a well known gambler and a Jew, was widely blamed for arranging the fix, but he was never charged. The scandal, already big enough in 1919, grew along with the popularity of baseball, which increased dramatically after one George Herman Ruth was traded from the Boston Red Sox to the New York Yankees in 1920. There are two possiblities here. One is that Rothstein was guilty and wasn't charged. In this case it is difficult to see how the average baseb all fan of the times could avoid feeling at least some resentment toward Rothstein for having "got away with" fixing the series. The other is that Rothstein was not guilty but was falsely implicated by the mainstream media. In this case the conclusion is that Rothstein was intentionally used as fodder to arouse anti-Jewish sentiment.

4b. Henry Ford and his The International Jew which was published in fifteen languages reduced the impact of the Holocaust for its millions of readers.

Also in 1919, Henry Ford, founder of Ford Motor Company, established the Dearborn Independent as a vehicle by which to publicize his political views. In 1920, the periodical began to attack Jews, blaming them for things such as the necessity for Prohibition, bootlegging during the Prohibition, the 1919 Chicago Black Sox, and filth in the entertainment industry. Most disturbingly, it ran a several articles on what have come to be known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Protocols), one of the most notable forgeries in history. The Protocols are comprised of a series of notes for lectures (protocols) outlining a plot by which a secret Jewish world government will attain world domination. The most common version contains twenty-four protocols with three main themes: 1) criticism of liberalism; 2) methodology for attaining world domination; and 3) description of the resulting world sovereignty. The Independent wrote about the Protocols as though they were real, yet included in a note (with small print a t that) plainly implying that they weren't. The articles published by the Dearborn Independent were compiled in book form and published under the title The International Jew. Publication of the series of articles in book form proceeded even though the fact that the Protocols had been demonstrated to be forgeries had been reported by both the London Times and the New York Times. The book was translated into fifteen other languages, including German, and read by millions. Hitler was certainly aware of the International Jew, and kept a photograph of "Heinrich" Ford on his desk for years.

The International Jew is easily seen as advanced conditioning designed to reduce the impact of the Holocaust for its millions of readers. Ford Motor Company was able to procure some lucrative defense contracts during WWII.

4c. The United States was predisposed toward genocide.

It is well known the United States embarked upon a program of expansionism almost from its inception. The Louisiana purchase added greatly to its territory. It soon became apparent that it wanted its borders to extend to the Pacific Ocean. The fact that the land was already occupied by Native Americans should have been a big problem. Nope! It was the United States "Manifest Destiny" to possess these lands. How far was the United States government willing to go? Consider the following. In 1830, the Indian Removal Act was passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and signed into law by President Andrew Jackson. Under the terms of the Indian Removal Act, the vast majority of Native Americans living east of the Mississippi were relocated to tracts of land granted them west of the Mississippi. The act contained a proviso which became operative in the event the Indians "became extinct." Under this proviso, the land granted to the Indians who "became extinct" reverted to the United States. Some years later in California, control of the land was obtained by means which one historian described as follows:

The savages were in the way; the miners and settlers were arrogant and impatient; there were no missionaries or others present with even the poor pretense of soul saving or civilizing. It was one of the last human hunts of civilization, and the basest and most brutal of them all.37

Nor were there any repercussions. How did those responsible know there wouldn't be.

4d. The United States was predisposed toward war to resolve the Jewish Question.

Reiteration of Theodore Roosevelt's threat against Germany during the course of the Russo-Japanese War should be sufficient to demonstrate this predisposition. Hoever, the following should also be considered. William McKinley was assassinated the day after he gave a speech in which he emphasized the importance of peace.

My fellow citizens, trade statistics indicate that this country is in a state of unexampled prosperity. The figures show that we are furnishing profitable employment to the millions of working men throughout the United States. Our capacity to produce has developed so enormously, and our products have so multiplied, that the problem of more markets requires our urgent and immediate attention. By sensible trade arrangements, which will not interrupt our home production, we shall extend the outlets for our ever increasing surplus. What we produce beyond our domestic consumption must have vent abroad. The expansion of our trade and commerce is the pressing problem. Next in ad vantage to having the thing to sell is to have the conveyance to carry it to the buyer. We must encourage our merchant marine. We must have more ships. They must be under the American flag: built, manned, and owned by Americans. These will not only be profitable in a commercial sense, they will also be messengers of peace wherever they go. Reciprocity treaties are in harmony with the spirit of the times. We must build the isthmian canal which will unite the two oceans and give a straight line of communications with the western coasts of Central and South America, and Mexico. The construction of a pacific cable cannot be longer postponed. In the furtherance of these objects of national interest and concern, you are performing and important part. The good work will go on - it cannot be stopped. These buildings will disappear. This creation of art and beauty and industry will perish from sight. But who can tell the new thoughts that have been awakened, the ambition fired, and the high achievement that will be wrought through this exposition. Gentleman, let us ever remember that our interest is in concord, not conflict. And that our real eminence rests in the victories of peace, not those of war.38

Given that this fact was one of the reasons Germany thought that America would not enter the war, the assassination should be examined in a little more detail. The next day, September 6, 1901, McKinley held a reception in the Temple of Music at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, N.Y. that was open to members of the general public. After the introductions, McKinley stood in a receiving line to greet individually those in attendance. Three members of the Secret Service stood at his side. The assassin held the 32-caliber revolver in his right hand. Over both the gun and the hand was wrapped a handkerchief. When it was the assassin's turn to be greeted, he stood in front of McKinley and fired through the handkerchief twice from a distance of about one foot. The assassin was immediately subdued and taken into custody. McKinley died as a result of his wounds eight days later. Assassinations of United States Presidents were far from unknown during McKinley's era. In 1865, John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln. In 1881, James Garfield was assassinated. Given this history, it is difficult to understand how a man with his right hand wrapped in a handkerchief would not draw more scrutiny than was given Czolgosz by the Secret Service agents assigned to guard McKinley, especially as he neared the President.

Thus, we have a threat to intervene on behalf of Japan in the event Germany entered the Russo-Japanese War on the side of Russia, as well as a president assassinated the day after he gave a speech urging the importance of peace. 39

4e. The United States had an anti-Communist animus.

Nobody disputes the assertion that America was anti-Communist in the 20th century. In the 1920s a pamphlet entitled Twelve Reasons Why a Christian Can't Be a Communist was disseminated to the American public. This pamphlet is difficult to explain in light of the account of Ananias and Sapphyra contained in the book of Acts. Any claim of ignorance of the account is easily dismissed, for as Harry Truman was to admonish his daughter Margaret in a letter some twenty years later, "[T]here was but one idealistic example of Communism. That is described in the Acts of the Apostles." There is, of course, a plethora of other evidence regarding U.S. anti-Communist animus. A lot of it is a matter of public record. The funniest is the Buford. In 1919, the Red Ark transported 249 radicals, most of whom were Communist, to the Soviet Union. Three other major highlights are: 1) FDR's "New Deal' was criticized for being commmunistic from it inception; 2) the activities of House Un-American Activities Committee ( HUAC), from the Hiss-Chambers affair to the demise of McCarthyism, amply illustrate it; and 3) JFK's victory over Nixon in the 1960 presidential election because he came off as tougher on Communism than the man who made his reputation ferreting out Communists in the government. Furthermore, as of 1986, those who wished to be admitted to the bar in Indiana were required to swear that they had never been affiliated with the Communist Party. I'm guessing that this was true of most states and maybe all states. 40

4f. The timing of the "I am" and "Branch Davidian" movements with respect to Hitler becoming chancellor was absolutely impeccable.

Hitler became Chancellor in 1933. Guy Ballard founded the "I am" movement in 1934 when he published a book entitled Unveiled Mysteries. More facts regarding the movement follow in the section after next. The name of the movement is easily seen as an allusion to a dogma problem in Christianity. A blatant contradiction contained within the Gospels is seen when Matthew 11:14 is compared with John 1:21. In Matthew, Jesus is reported to have expressly stated that John the Baptist was "Elijah, he who is to come." However, in Gospel of John, it is reported that the Baptist, after having been asked point-blank if he was Elijah, responded completely unambiguously, "I am not." Analysis of this contradiction reveals much about what really happened in first-century Palestine. If Jesus indeed said that the Baptist was "Elijah, the one who is to come," it becomes logically imperative to determine what event Elijah's coming was prophesied to precede. The relevant prophecy is found in the book of Malachi, the la st book in the Old Testament. In Malachi 3:23 is written: "Lo I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and terrible day...." It is next necessary to determine what is meant by "the day of the Lord, the great and terrible day." The coming of that day is prophesied in Malachi 3:1: "Lo, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me; And suddenly there will come to the temple the Lord whom you seek, And the messenger of the covenant whom you desire. (Emphasis added.) Yes, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts." Malachi 3:2 then begins a description of the greatness and terribleness of this prophesied event.

It is important to note that either the phrases "the Lord" and "the messenger of the covenant" are intended to refer to the same entity or Malachi 3:1 envisions the appearance of two entities at the temple - that of "the Lord" and that of "the messenger of the covenant." The former possibility is excluded by the language used at the beginning of the chapter, since the concept of the Lord "sending" himself to prepare the way for himself is untenable. It is thus safe to conclude that Malachi envisioned the appearance of two separate entities in the temple on the great and terrible day of the Lord - both the Lord and his messenger of the covenant.

If indeed Jesus claimed that John the Baptist was Elijah returned, then it is clear that Malachi formed the framework for his mindset. According to Malachi, the plight of Judah was due to two transgressions: 1) Judah had profaned the temple which the Lord loves; and 2) Judah has married an idolatrous woman. See Malachi 2:11. According to Malachi, the temple had been profaned due to erroneous religious instruction given by and partial decisions made by the temple priests and blemished sacrifices offered by the Jews. See Malachi 2:8-9, 1:7. Also in Malachi is found disapproval of divorce, notwithstanding the permissibility of divorce under Mosaic law, presumably due to the practice of Jewish men remarrying women who were not Jews. Jesus' stance on divorce bolsters the proposition that Malachi formed the framework for his mindset, and so do his activities in the temple.

Jesus' Malachian mindset provides valuable insight into what he sought to accomplish when he "cleansed" the temple. It indicates that he sought to precipitate the advent of the "great and terrible day" when the Lord will suddenly come to the temple. It also indicates that he perceived himself as the messenger of the covenant and not as the Lord. The fact that Malachi envisioned the presence of both the Lord and the messenger of the covenant in the temple and the absence of any personage other than Jesus in the temple during its "cleansing" eligible to be the messenger of the covenant combine to defeat any claim to the contrary.

In 1934, the Seven Day Adventists declared the teachings of Victor Houteff to be heresy. Those who adhered to Houteff's teachings formed a splinter group called Branch Davidian. As was the case with the "I am" movement, the name of this group is also easily seen to be an allusion to another instance of radical internal incoherence in Christian dogma. This one pertains to the virgin birth. There is convincing evidence contained within the Christian Bible itself that the myth of the Immaculate Conception was fabricated, presumably for the dual purpose of demonstrating fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 and of establishing the Christian claim of Jesus' divine status. Both Matthew (Matt. 1:1-16) and Luke (Luke 3:23-38) contain genealogies of Jesus. Both genealogies (note that they are inconsistent), by their express terms, purport to trace the lineage of Joseph. Biblical scholars, be they apologetics or critics, are unanimous in concluding that the reason for the inclusion of the genealogies was to demonstrat e that Jesus was from the line of David, and thus fulfilled the purported prophecy regarding the lineage of the messiah. This assertion presents a paradox for Christianity at a very basic level. If Jesus was immaculately conceived, then he was not the son of Joseph, and, consequently not of the line of David, and can therefore not be the messiah. If he is the son of Joseph, then Jesus cannot be the Son of God, and the Immaculate Conception must be a myth.

The timing of the formation of two religious cults which allude to Christian internal incoherence very shortly after Hitler became chancellor is more than merely an interesting coincidence. If somebody knows about some doctrinal problems with Christianity, it follows that he may know about the problem the wrong kind of Zionism presented. For the sake of appearances, it was far better to grant those who knew why the war was being fought non-combatant status than to have all of them refusing to go at all and telling everybody why. Thus, it should come as no surprise then that adherents of both movements acquired non-combatant status in WWII.

4g. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and US labor reaction both before and after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union exposed the pro-Soviet loyalties of many American workers.

On August 23, 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union entered into a non-aggression treaty known as The Molotov - Ribbentrop Pact. The utility of the pact was of dubious at best. Given that Germany had withdrawn from the League of Nations in 1933, it is difficult to see the purpose of the pact. The question, of course, is how - short of war - the pact was to be enforced.

However, the pact did have a major political impact in America. On September 1, 1939, Germany touched off WWII when it invaded Poland. France and England, both of which were allies of the United States, declared war on Germany two days later. Although the United States did not enter the war until over two years later, the American worker was asked not to strike because of the necessity of supplying England and France various commodities to assist in their war effort. The workers' response to this plea fell somewhat short of enthusiastic. Some strikes did occur and more were at least threatened. However, these same workers became very enthusiastic after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. Their loyalties were thus exposed, just in time for the anti-Communist hysteria in America that followed the conclusion of the war. See Dennis v. United States, the Hiss-Chambers affair in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee, Harry Dexter White's heart attack, the Waldorf Statement a nd the ensuing blacklisting of Hollywood persona purportedly entertaining Communist sympathies 41 , and then the McCarthy era. The Hitler-Ribbentrop Pact was a very fat pitch indeed (maybe even tee ball), and the American bourgeoise hit it out of the park. The conservative element of American society, especially the bourgeoisie (as opposed to the proletariat), thus had every reason to be grateful for the manner in which Hitler conducted the war.

4h. The United States government never revoked the Catholic church's tax exempt status even though the Catholic clergy in Germany exhorted its parishioners to fight for the Fuehrer.

On September 25, 1939, the New York Times published an article with the headline "German Soldiers Rallied by Churches." The article contained the following excerpt:

The Catholic bishops of Germany have written a pastoral letter stating: "In this decisive hour we admonish our Catholic soldiers to do their duty in obedience to the fuehrer and be ready to sacrifice their whole individuality.

On December 7, 1941 (the day Pearl Harbor was bombed), New York Times published an article with the headline "War Prayer for Reich." That article contained the following excerpt:

The Conference of German Catholic Bishops assembled in Fulda has recommended the introduction of a special "war prayer" which is to be read at the beginning and end of all divine services. The prayer implores Providence to bless German arms with victory and grant protection to the lives and health of all soldiers.
The German Catholic clergy, while strongly objecting to certain aspects of Nazi racial policy, has always taken care to emphasize the duty of every Catholic to his country as loyal Germans in the present war.

The bottom line is that the United States government economically aided those who were aiding the Nazis.

4i. America covered the Zionistic motive for the holocaust: United States v. Ballard

In 1944, the United States foreclosed all but two of the possible roads to judicial scrutiny of Christian dogma. Its occasion for doing so was the criminal case entitled United States v. Ballard. The defendants in that case were the Edna and Don Ballard, the wife and son of Guy Ballard, founder of the I Am movement. The indictment contained twelve counts. The charge was that certain designated corporations were formed, literature distributed and sold, funds solicited, and memberships in the I Am movement sought by means of false and fraudulent representations, pretenses and promises. The indictment cited eighteen false representations. They were all set forth in the first count, which charged the Ballards with conspiracy to defraud via the United States mail. The Supreme Court cited the following as representative:

that Guy W. Ballard, now deceased, alias Saint Germain, Jesus, George Washington, and Godfre Ray King, had been selected and thereby designated by the alleged ascert ained master Saint Germain, as a divine messenger; and that the words of ascended masters and the words of the alleged divine entity, Saint Germain, would be transmitted to mankind through the medium of the said Guy W. Ballard; that Guy W. Ballard, during his lifetime, and Edna W. Ballard, and Donald Ballard, by reason of their alleged high spiritual attainments and righteous conduct, had been selected as divine messengers through which the words of the alleged ascended masters, including the alleged Saint Germain, would be communicated to mankind under the teachings commonly known as the I Am movement; that Guy W. Ballard, during his lifetime, and Edna W. Ballard and Donald Ballard had, by reason of supernatural attainments, the power to heal persons of ailments and diseases and to make well persons afflicted with any diseases, injuries, or ailments, and did falsely represent to persons intended to be defrauded that the three designated persons had the ability and power to cure persons of those disea ses normally classified as curable and also of diseases which are ordinarily classified by the medical profession as being incurable diseases; and did further represent that the three designated persons had in fact cured either by the activity of one, either, or all of said persons, hundreds of persons afflicted with diseases and ailments; 42

Absent from the Supreme Courts opinion, but included in the opinion of the court of appeals, is a report of the allegation that the Ballards represented that Guy Ballard had attained a supernatural state of self-immortality, which enabled him to conquer disease, death, old age, poverty, and misery. Guy Ballard was never indicted because he died in December, 1939, before an indictment was returned. Each of the representations enumerated in the indictment was followed by the charge that respondents well knew it was false. After enumerating the eighteen misrepresentations the i ndictment also alleged:

At the time of making all of the afore-alleged representations by the defendants, and each of them, the defendants, and each of them, well knew that all of said aforementioned representations were false and untrue and were made with the intention on the part of the defendants, and each of them, to cheat, wrong, and defraud persons intended to be defrauded, and to obtain from persons intended to be defrauded by the defendants, money, property, and other things of value and to convert the same to the use and the benefit of the defendants, and each of them.43

The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that that the indictment attacked their religious beliefs and sought to restrict the free exercise of their religion in violation of the Constitution of the United States. The motion to dismiss was denied. During the trial, objections were raised as to the admissibility of evidence regarding the Ballards religious beliefs. The court conferred with counsel in outside the presence of the jury and with the consent of both counsel for the United States and for the defendants confined the issues on this phase of the case to the question of the good faith of respondents. At that point in the trial, and at the request of counsel for both sides the court advised the jury as follows:

Now, gentlemen, here is the issue in this case:
First, the defendants in this case made certain representations of belief in a divinity and in a supernatural power. Some of the teachings of the defendants, representations, might seem extremely improbable to a great many people. For instance, the appearance of Jesus to dictate som e of the works that we have had introduced in evidence, as testified to here at the opening transcription, or shaking hands with Jesus, to some people that might seem highly improbable. I point that out as one of the many statements. Whether that is true or not is not the concern of this Court and is not the concern of the jury-and they are going to be told so in their instructions. As far as this Court sees the issue, it is immaterial what these defendants preached or wrote or taught in their classes. They are not going to be permitted to speculate on the actuality of the happening of those incidents. Now, I think I have made that as clear as I can. Therefore, the religious beliefs of these defendants cannot be an issue in this court. The issue is: Did these defendants honestly and in good faith believe those things? If they did, they should be acquitted. I cannot make it any clearer than that. If these defendants did not believe those things, they did not believe that Jesus came down and dictated, or that Saint Germain came down and dictated, did not believe the things that they wrote, the things that they preached, but used the mail for the purpose of getting money, the jury should find them guilty. Therefore, gentlemen, religion cannot come into this case. 44(Emphasis added.)

This admonition was reiterated in the instructions to the jury at the close of the evidence. The Supreme Court regarded the following excerpt from the instructions as typical:

The question of the defendants' good faith is the cardinal question in this case. You are not to be concerned with the religious belief of the defendants, or any of them. The jury will be called upon to pass on the question of whether or not the defendants honestly and in good faith believed the representations which are set forth in the indictment, and honestly and in good faith believed that the benefits which they represented would flow from their belief to those who embraced and followed their teachings, or whether these representations were mere pretenses without honest belief on the part of the defendants or any of them, and, were the representations made for the purpose of procuring money, and were the mails used for this purpose. 45

The reader should note at this point that, regardless of whether the District Court's approach was mandated by the First Amendment, it placed a very substantial restriction on the ability of the prosecution to prove its case. As noted by Justice Jackson, future chief American prosecutor at the first Nuremberg Tribunal, prohibiting inquiry into the truth of the religious tenet greatly restricts the inquiry into the subjective sincerity with which a belief is held. Obviously, it is very much easier to prove the insincerity of belief in a demonstrably false religious tenet than it is to prove insincerity with regard to a tenet effectively assumed to be true.

As was noted above, the defendants were convicted at trial. They appealed on several grounds, one of which was a newly asserted contention that the District Courts dis-allowance of proof of the truth of their religious doctrines or beliefs was erroneous. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of conviction and granted a new trial. Of the several issues the Ballards raised on appeal, it considered only the newly asserted contention that the District Courts disallowance of proof of the truth of their religious doctrines or beliefs as erroneous. It held that the restriction of the issue in question to that of good faith was error. It reasoned that to prove that defendants devised the scheme described in the indictment, it was necessary to prove that they schemed to make some, at least, of the (eighteen) representations ... and that some, at least, of the representations which they schemed to make were false. The Supreme Court granted the governments petition for a Writ of Certiorari because o f the importance of the question presented.

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the Circuit Court of Appeals for further proceedings. In so doing, the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to examine a set of religious beliefs for veracity. The language used by the Supreme Court to arrive at this result is noteworthy:

We do not agree that the truth or verity of respondents' religious doctrines or beliefs should have been submitted to the jury. Whatever this particular indictment might require, the First Amendment precludes such a course, as the United States seems to concede. The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect. The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship but also safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts - freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolut e but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Freedom of thought, which includes freedom of religious belief, is basic in a society of free men. It embraces the right to maintain theories of life and of death and of the hereafter which are rank heresy to followers of the orthodox faiths. Heresy trials are foreign to our Constitution. Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs. Religious experiences which are as real as life to some may be incomprehensible to others. Yet the fact that they may be beyond the ken of mortals does not mean that they can be made suspect before the law. Many take their gospel from the New Testament. But it would hardly be supposed that they could be tried before a jury charged with the duty of determining whether those teachings contained false representations. The miracles of the New Testament, the Divinity of Christ, life after death, the power of prayer are deep in the religious convictions of ma ny. If one could be sent to jail because a jury in a hostile environment found those teachings false, little indeed would be left of religious freedom. The Fathers of the Constitution were not unaware of the varied and extreme views of religious sects, of the violence of disagreement among them, and of the lack of any one religious creed on which all men would agree. They fashioned a charter of government which envisaged the widest possible toleration of conflicting views. Man's relation to his God was made no concern of the state. He was granted the right to worship as he pleased and to answer to no man for the verity of his religious views. The religious views espoused by respondents might seem incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with finding their truth or falsity, then the same can be done with the religious beliefs of any sect. When the triers of fact undertake that task, they enter a forbidden domain. The First Amendm ent does not select any one group or any one type of religion for preferred treatment. It puts them all in that position. With man's relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with. So we conclude that the District Court ruled properly when it withheld from the jury all questions concerning the truth or falsity of the religious beliefs or doctrines of respondents.46

A number of observations regarding the Ballard decision should be made at this point. The first pertains to the significance of the holding. After Ballard, the actual truth or falsity of any religious beliefs in question became all but off limits. The second observation is that the Ballard court departed significantly from the Mormon cases in its analytical approach even as it cited them for support in its decision. The reader will recall that the attitude of the Supreme Courts treatment of polygamy as a tenet of faith. Again, in Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, the Supreme Court said [polygamy] is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the western world. Again, since it is impossible to determine the spirit of Christianity without an examination of its dogma, implicit in this statement is that the court evaluated Christianity as a religion. Furthermore, implicit in its condemnation of polygamy as contrary to Christianity is the Supreme Courts acceptance and approval of Christianity.

The third observation is that it is highly unusual that a ground for reversal asserted for the first time on appeal is even considered, since the rule at the time Ballard was decided, and the general rule even today, is that any objection not preserved at trial is waived. The fact that the court of appeals considered a ground for reversal raised for the first time on appeal is even more remarkable given the fact that the Ballards consented to the dis-allowance of proof that the truth of their religious doctrines or beliefs was erroneous. No discussion of the reason for the circuit court of appeals departure from the general rule appears in its decision. From this fact should be inferred that either the government failed to raise an objection to the issue being asserted for the first time on appeal or that the court of appeals couldn't articulate a reason for its departure from the general rule over the governments objection. (The writer is without the benefit of the appellate briefs.) As note d by Chief Stone in his dissent:

Obviously if the question whether the religious experiences in fact occurred could not constitutionally have been submitted to the jury the court rightly withdrew it. If it could have been submitted I know of no reason why the parties could not, with the advice of counsel, assent to its withdrawal from the jury.47

The fourth observation is that the Supreme Court was by no means required to hear the case. The decision of whether to grant a petition for certiorari is discretionary, and the court was free either to deny or to grant the governments petition.

The fifth observation is that the timing of the decision with respect to the holocaust is simply impeccable. With the holding in Ballard, it became at least somewhat difficult to have any reason for the holocaust based upon religion judicially examined.

These five observations at least permit and arguably compel the conclusion that the government and the judiciary contrived the appearance of the Ballard case before the Supreme Court so that the Supreme Court, in a significant departure from its approach in the Mormon cases, could all but insulate the judiciary from being required to examine the validity of Christianity as a religion. The timing of the contrived decision that represents a significant departure from the courts approach in the Mormon cases with respect to the holocaust and especially the imminent establishment of Israel as an independent Jewish sovereign, combined with the threat to the doctrinal integrity presented by Zionism, at least suggests the possibility that the reason the judiciary reached out to decide the issue in Ballard was that it wished to avoid any judicial examination of the threat presented to Christianity by Zionism.

4j. American academia participated in the politically correct explanation for Hitler's invasion of Russia in a very major way.

In 1948, Edmund Walsh, Catholic priest, professor, Regent of the School of Foreign Service, and Vice-President of at Georgetown University, published a book entitled Total Power: A Footnote to History. In his book, Walsh purports to explain Hitler's reason for invading Russia. The reason advanced by Walsh is that Hitler was on a quest for total power, and that he was convinced of validity of MacKinder's "Heartland Theory" propounded in 1904. Walsh demonstrated that professor and author Karl Haushofer resurrected MacKinder's theory in the mid-1920s and published material arguing for its legitimacy. Reduced to its essentials, the theory went as follows. Europe, Africa, and Asia comprise the biggest central land mass on earth, a mass to which MacKinder referred as the World Island. The key to controlling the World Island was controlling an inner area of it bounded by the Himalayas, the Arctic Ocean, the Volga, and the Yangtze. Because this area was inland it was invulnerable to hostile sea ve ssels, and, the theory went, if properly militarized could become the "seat and pivot" of world power.

Other German authors followed Haushofer's lead, and by 1935, three thousand works pertaining to geopolitics had been cataloged by the Nazi authorities. According to Walsh, although geopolitics may have been " 'the greatest hoax of the century,' it was serious business in the place where it counted the most - Nazi Germany." Walsh explained Hitler's acceptance of the theory resurrected by Haushofer as follows. One of Haushofer's pupils was Rudolph Hess. Through Hess, a "vengeful philosophy of power and a technique for achieving it were communicated to Hitler and other leading Nazis, who avidly seized upon the windfall and capitalized ruthlessly on the half-truths popularized by Haushofer in the name of objective science."

Walsh also uses Haushofer and his brand of geopolitics to explain the alliance between Japan and Germany. Walsh noted that Haushofer had testified under oath that he had been consulted by Von Ribbentrop regarding Japanese affairs and had been frequently summoned to the Foreign Office in Berlin for other consultations pertaining to the Japanese. He described Haushofer as having a "lifelong predilection" with the Japanese, who Haushofer termed "this noble race." Walsh reported that Haushofer admired the "deep-rooted geopolitical instinct of the Japanese." Because of his professed admiration for the Japanese, he was confidentially assigned to lay the foundation for the Triple Alliance.

After having been accused of responsibility for the importance allegedly attached to geopolitics by Hitler, Haushofer and his wife of forty-nine years are reported to have committed suicide. Walsh thus attributed the motive for Hitler's invasion of Russia to his misguided sense of the importance of geopolitics, and explained away the paradox of labeling Hitler as a racist notwithstanding his alliance with non-Aryan races. He studiously avoided any mention of the threat posed by Communism to the economic well-being of the bourgeoisie, and, as might be expected of a Catholic priest, made no mention of the theological significance of Communism as illustrated by the account of Ananias and Sapphyra contained in the book of Acts.

The success with which the image of Hitler as a racist was created and has been maintained serves to demonstrate why society's elite gleefully refer to commoners as "the mindless masses." This purported Aryan Supremacist's ostensible allies during WWII were Italians and Japanese. While the writer is unaware of the precise lineage of either ethnicity, the writer is quite certain that neither Italians nor Japanese are of Aryan descent. If indeed Hitler's motivation was to establish the Aryan as the superior race, it is difficult to see why he felt the need to enlist the aid of two "inferior" races to do so. It is still more difficult to see why the two "inferior" races would be willing to aid in the establishment of a world in which they would be at best second-class citizens.

Hitler's own statements indicate that he did not regard Jews as Darwinistically inferior. In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote:

In hardly any people in the world is the instinct of self-preservation developed more strongly than in the so-called 'chosen.' Of this, the mere fact of the survival of this race may be considered the best proof. Where is the people which in the last two thousand years has been exposed to so slight changes of inner disposition, character, etc., as the Jewish people? What people, finally, has gone through greater upheavals than this one - and nevertheless issued from the mightiest catastrophies of mankind unchanged? What an infinitely tough will to live and preserve the species speaks from these facts!

4k. US academia participated in the origin of Holocaust Denial.

During WWI, a rumor of the "German Corpse Factory" began to circulate. According to this rumor, the Germans were using the corpses of their soldiers who were killed in action for their fat. The rumor was widespread - it appeared in various newspapers including some in America - and false. Due to the already exposed falsity of this rumor and inherent incredulity, reports of the Holocaust met with some initial skepticism, and not only in America. The evidence presented at Nurmeburg dispelled the skepticism for most. However, two American historians - Harry Elmer Barnes and David Hoggan - continued to deny, attributing the Holocaust "myth" to anti-Nazi propaganda. The existence of deniers persists to this day, notwithstanding the religious motive denoted above, and notwithstanding the progression of Hitler's aggression. Before WWII, the largest concentration of Jewish populations were in Vienna, Eastern Galicia, and Ukraine. Hitler annexed Vienna, invaded Poland first, and surprise attacked Ukrai ne. The progression of Hilter's aggression is thus highly suggestive, even standing alone. Aside from the evidence presented at Nuremburg, there remains the question of where all the Jews went if they were not killed.

It must be noted, however, that the course of action of the United States has enabled the Holocaust deniers, at least to a certain extent. This is seen by examing the politically correct explanations for the war as well as the barrier erected to judicial examination of the religious motive for the Holocaust by Ballard and its progeny. To reiterate, it is incoherent to assert that a non-Aryan Aryan supremecist aligned himself with other non-Aryans to exterminate a race, and then only exterminated the Jewish segment of that race. The official motive is therefore obviously rubbish. If there is no motive to exterminate, and there is a motive to lie about the Holocaust, then it does seem to follow that there never was a Holocaust. Uncle Sam invited this situation when it precluded judicial inquiry into the religious motive.

4l. America was deliberately sloppy with regard to complicity in order to obscure the fact that it was the kingpin.

Two facts shown above, without more, demonstrate American complicity with Hitler. One is that The United States government knowingly aided an entity - to-wit, the Catholic Church - that knowingly aided Hitler. This, without more, makes America an accessory before the fact. The other is that America has helped obscure the motives for both the Soviet body count and the Holocaust. This makes America an accessory after the fact. Both of these facts are in black and white. That is to say, the fact that the Catholic Church aided Hitler and that the United States aided the Catholic Church after it aided and while it was aiding Hitler is a matter of record. So to is U.S. vs. Ballard, as well as Edmund Walsh's Total Power. So why was America so sloppy in this regard?

This was not an inadvertant error! For the purpose of this note, there are three types of people. First, there are those who know a lot but support the defeat by whatever means necessary of two "isms" - Communism and Zionism. Second, there are those that do not support the defeat of these two "isms", at least not by the means chosen, but are too afraid to say so. The systematic murder of 6,000,000 Jews and the detonation of two atomic bombs have a tendency to do this to people. Third, there are those who know, disagree, and remain unafraid. Of these last, it is obvioulsy better to have them scream accomplice instead of king pin, and the obviousness of the complicity has the effect of obscuring the fact that America was the kingpin.

Hitler informed Stalin of every element of the allied plan and agreed with Stalin to double-cross the Allies the better to enable Hitler to achieve his objectives against the Soviet Union

Now, finally, it is time to examine the mindset of Stalin when he was faced with the situation of having had 3,000,000 Nazis massed at the Soviet border and having been informed by everybody and their brother that they were going to invade. How could anybody be completely surprised by an invasion under these circumstances? There were two humongous reasons. One is that Stalin knew Hitler from Vienna, and was fairly certain he could trust him. Thus, when Hitler approached him and told him every single detail of the Allied plan and that Hitler was merely playing along so that he could double cross them in the end and invade England instead of the Soviet Union, Stalin would have believed him. Equally importantly, Stalin would have been well aware of the passages in Mein Kampf which were then and remain now difficult to explain in any manner other than that offered here. Stalin wouild have believed that the European Jews that Hitler had rounded up were Palestine bound in order to create a commun istic Jewish theocracy there.

There were several reasons why didn't Stalin and the Soviet Union scream bloody murder. One is that their hands weren't exactly clean. There is no getting around the fact that they once were aligned with Hitler, even though they obviously were unaware of what Hitler was up to. Another is that the Soviet Union lost somewhere between 18,000,000 and 26,000,000 KIA, depending upon which source one chooses to credit. Its military strength was thus considerably weakened. Finally, two atomic bombs had been detonated right on the doorstep of the Soviet Union. In short, the Soviet Union was justifiably afraid.

Hitler double-crossed Stalin instead of the Allies.

See Operation Barbarossa.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FOOTNOTES

1. Meir Michaelis, Mussolini and the Jews (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1978), 13.

2. This is straight out of Encyclopedia Britannica.

3. See generally Barton Whaley, Codeword Barbarossa; David E. Murphy, What Stalin Knew: The Enigma of Barbarossa.

4. This is straight out of Encyclopedia Americana.

5. See Whaley, supra.

6. See Edmund Walsh, Total Power: A Footnote to History.

7. Sources vary with regard to the numbers - Encyclopedia Britannica says 18,000,000.

8. Adolph Hitler, Translated by Ralph Manheim, Mein Kampf, Houghton Miflin Company1999, at p. 114.

9. Id. at p. 141.

10. Id. at p. 300.

11. Id. at p. 147-48.

12. Michael Cardinal Faulhaber, Judaism, Christianity and Germany, The Macmillan Company, 1934, p. 5.

13. Sergio I. Minerbi, The Vatican and Zionism - Conflict in the Holy Land, translated by Arnold Schwartz (Oxford University Press, 1990), at p. 97, citing Civilta Cattolica, September 1899, 749.

14. Minerbi, 98, citing The Diaries of Thedor Herzl, ed. M. Lowenthal, New York, 1956, 1601-05.

15. Commentary to Acts 1:6-7 by US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

16. See Ron Chernow, The House of Morgan (The sea was just too much for the old man.)

17. Minerbi, 98, citing The Diaries of Thedor Herzl, ed. M. Lowenthal, New York, 1956, 1601-05.

18. See any encyclopedia and do the math.

19. Marshal Ludendorff, The Two Battles of the Marne, Thornton Butterworth (1927) at p. 225.

20. See generally Nikolai Sokolov, The Sokolov Investigation of the Alleged Murder of the Russian imperial Family, Tranlsated by John F. Conner, Robert Speller and Sons, Publishers, Inc., New York, 1971.

21. See the Richard J. Evans citations all over the internet.

22. Many think that his grandfather was Jewish. Why would Viennese authorities list Hitler as a deviate if not to invite reliance. This preempts accusations that the same authorities covered up Hitler's Jewish ancestry. This is not considered a fact here, and is not essential in any way to the conclusion here.

23. J. Sydney Jones, Hitler in Vienna,1907-1913: Clues to the Future, Cooper Square Press, 2002, at p. 133

24. Id. at p. 135, 139

25. He would draw or paint the picture inserted in the frame in order to sell the frame. Id. at p. 147-48

26. Id. at p. 149, cf. Hitler, at p. 61.

27. Id. at p. 116.

28. Hitler, at p 38.

29. Id. at p. 40.

30. Id. at p. 41.

31. Id.

32. Leon Trotsky, My Life: An Attempt at an Autobigrophy, Dover Publications, 2007, at p. 205, 209.

33. Jones, at p. 247-48.

34. Peter Grose, Gentleman Spy: The Life of Allen Dulles, Houghton Miflin Company, 1994, p. 24.

35. Id. at p. 60.

36. See William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, 1990), 3-117 for background.

37. See Hubert Howe Bancroft, History of California, writing about the 49ers.

38. McKinley said, "My fellow citizens, trade statistics indicate that this country is in a state of unexampled prosperity. The figures show that we are furnishing profitable employment to the millions of working men throughout the United States. Our capacity to produce has developed so enormously, and our products have so multiplied, that the problem of more markets requires our urgent and immediate attention. By sensible trade arrangements, which will not interrupt our home production, we shall extend the outlets for our ever increasing surplus. What we produce beyond our domestic consumption must have vent abroad. The expansion of our trade and commerce is the pressing problem. Next in advantage to having the thing to sell is to have the conveyance to carry it to the buyer. We must encourage our merchant marine. We must have more ships. They must be under the American flag: built, manned, and owned by Americans. These will not only be profitabl e in a commercial sense, they will also be messengers of peace wherever they go. Reciprocity treaties are in harmony with the spirit of the times. We must build the isthmian canal which will unite the two oceans and give a straight line of communications with the western coasts of Central and South America, and Mexico. The construction of a pacific cable cannot be longer postponed. In the furtherance of these objects of national interest and concern, you are performing and important part. The good work will go on - it cannot be stopped. These buildings will disappear. This creation of art and beauty and industry will perish from sight. But who can tell the new thoughts that have been awakened, the ambition fired, and the high achievement that will be wrought through this exposition. Gentleman, let us ever remember that our interest is in concord, not conflict. And that our real eminence rests in the victories of peace, not those of war."

39. The authorities worked hard to destroy the obvious timing between McKinley's speech and his assassination. They obtained the following signed statement from Czolgosz:

I was born in Detroit nearly twenty-nine years ago. My parents were Russian Poles. They came here forty-two years ago. I got my education in the public schools of Detroit and then went to Cleveland, where I got work. In Cleveland I read books on socialism and met a great many Socialists. I was pretty well known as a Socialist in the West. After being in Cleveland for several years I went to Chicago, where I remained seven months, after which I went to Newburg, on the outskirt of Cleveland, and went to work in the Newburg wire mills. During the last five years I have had as friends Anarchists in Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and other Western cities, and I suppose I became more or less bitter. I never had much luck at anything and this preyed upon me. It made me morose and envious, but what started the craze to kill was a lecture I heard some time ago by Emma Goldman. She was in Cleveland and I and other Anarchists went to hear her. She set me on fire. Her doctrine that all rulers should be exterminated was what set me to thinking so that my head nearly split with pain. Miss Goldman's words went right through me and when I left the lecture I made up my mind that I would do something heroic for the cause I loved. Eight days ago, while I was in Chicago, I read in a Chicago newspaper of President McKinley's visit to the Pan-American Exposition at Buffalo. That day I bought a ticket for Buffalo and got there with the determination to do something, but I did not know just what. I thought of shooting the President, but I had not formed a plan. I went to live at 1078 Broadway, which is a saloon and hotel. John Nowak, a Pole, a sort of politician who has led his people here for years, owns it. I told Nowak that I came to see the fair. He knew nothing about what was setting me crazy. I went to the exposition grounds a couple of times a day. Not until Tuesday morning did the resolution to shoot the President take a hold of me. It was in my heart; there was no escape for me. I could not have conquered it had my life been at stake. There were thousands of people in town on Tuesday. I heard it was President's day. All these people seemed bowing to the great ruler. I made up my mind to kill that ruler. I bought a 32-caliber revolver and loaded it. On Tuesday night I went to the Fair grounds and was near the railroad gate when the Presidential party arrived. I tried to get near him, but the police forced me back. They forced everybody back so that the great ruler could pass. I was close to the President when he got into the grounds, but was afraid to attempt the assassination because there were so many men in the bodyguard that watched him. I was not afraid of them or that I should get hurt, but afraid I might be seized and that my chance would be gone forever. Well, he went away that time and I went home. On Wednesday I went to the grounds and stood right near the President, right under him near the stand from which he spoke. I thought half a dozen times of shooting while he was speaking, but I could not get close enough. I was afraid I might miss, and then the great crowd was always jostling, and I was afraid lest my aim fail. I waited on Wednesday, and the President got into his carriage again, and a lot of men were about him and formed a cordon that I could not get through. I was tossed about by the crowd, and my spirits were getting pretty low. I was almost hopeless that night as I went home. Yesterday morning I went again to the Exposition grounds. Emma Goldman's speech was still burning me up. I waited near the central entrance for the President, who was to board his special train from that gate, but the police allowed nobody but the President's party to pass where the train waited, so I stayed on the grounds all day waiting. During yesterday I first thought of hiding my pistol underneath my handkerchief. I was afraid if I had to draw it from my pocket I would be seen and seized by the guards. I got to the Temple of Music the first one and waited at the spot where the reception was to be held. Then he came, the President - the ruler - and I got in line and trembled and trembled until I got right up to him, and then I shot him twice, through my white handkerchief. I would have fired more, but I was stunned by a blow in the face - a frightful blow that knocked me down - and then everybody jumped on me. I thought I would be killed and was surprised the way they treated me. At this point Czolgosz was asked, '"Did you really mean to kill the President?", and Czolgosz responded, '"I did." When asked what his motive was, Csolgosz responded, '" I am a disciple of Emma Goldman. Her words set me on fire."
The reader will note that the officers were careful to establish that Czolgosz formed the intent to kill before McKinley's speech in which he reversed his stance on protectionist tariffs. If Czolgosz's statement is taken at face value with regard to when the intent to kill was first formed, and if it assumed that Czolgosz didn't have knowledge that McKinley was about to make his reversal public from some other source, then the reversal could not have been the motive behind the assassination. The question thus becomes whether the officers intended to eliminate McKinley's reversal as a motive or to obscure that McKinley's reversal was the motive. From this perspective, the interrogator's second-to-last question is interesting. Aside from the fact that the law presumes that an actor intends the ordinary consequences of his actions, Czolgosz had been quite specific in his statement regarding the formation of his intent to kill. The officer's question and Czolgosz's answer were thus redundantly redundant. It looks a lot like the officer was masking the emphasis given to the timing of the formation of the intent to kill by pretending there had been some doubt about whether it existed. Finally, it should be noted that it is unlikely that the content of McKinley's speech was a surprise to everybody. If the content was "leaked" beforehand, the timing is reinstated accordingly.

40. See generally Richard Gid Powers, Not Without Honor: The History of American Anticommunism.

41. It looks like Dashiel Hammet lived better in "exile" than he ever did as a writer of the "hard-boiled" detective novel. But cf. Johnny Hyde, Marilyn Monroe's lover and openly "pink," who was not blacklisted - when he died of a heart attack, Marilyn Monroe got a contract with Twentieth Century Fox.

42. 322 U.S.78, 79-80.

43. Id. at 81.

44. Id. at 82.

45. Id.

46. Id. at 86-87.

47. Id. at 90.