The BEER HALL PUTSCH

by Miles Mathis

First published February 8, 2016

As usual, this is just my opinion, based on personal research.

The Beer Hall Putsch was the failed coup in Munich in 1923, led by Hitler. I will show that—like most everything else in the 20th century—it was faked.

We can tell it was faked without much effort, since the story makes no sense. If we go to Wikipedia for the mainstream gloss, the first clue we get is with the early mention of Marxism. We are told that Hitler and other revolutionaries were angry about the outcome of WW1, believing the German army to have been betrayed by its leaders. We will leave the question of whether they were betrayed open for now, since it has nothing to do with the clue. The clue is that we are told the revolutionaries believed they had been betrayed by Marxists—the so-called November Criminals. See the Wikipedia page for the Stab-in-the-Back Myth for more on this. This will lead you to the German Revolution of 1918, which is indeed a curious event.

This November revolution came at the end of the Great War, and although they tell you it happened because Germany had been defeated, historians admit that isn't really true. In reality, nothing had been decided in the War, and in October there was supposed to have been a decisive naval battle between Germany and England—a battle most (in the lower ranks) in England expected to occur. The fact that it didn't occur is one of the great mysteries of the War. Instead of fighting this great battle, Germany decided instead to collapse into a heap. We are told that sailors and then workers revolted, and that almost immediately Emperor [Kaiser] Wilhelm II abdicated and fled the country.

Of course none of that makes any sense, either. It is claimed that Hindenburg and Ludendorff were running the country at the time. Hindenburg was a Field Marshall and Ludendorff a General of the Army, so if what we have been told about them is true, it is unlikely they would lead or allow a revolution right on the cusp of a decisive battle.

Obviously, something happened in November 1918 we aren't being told about.

Notice that we are never told who these November Criminals were. I encourage you to study all the interlinked pages at Wikipedia on this subject. Study the textbooks and the history books. They are all misdirection. Such major revolutions require leaders, but we are never told who the leaders were or how the revolution proceeded so quickly. For instance, go to the page for the Weimar Republic. We get nothing on the question until Philipp Scheidemann declares the Weimar Republic on November 9. Normally a successful revolution requires more than a declaration.

I can tell the truth is being hidden just by the form the mainstream story takes. It reads like a lie because you aren't told the things you expect to be told in a sensible story. You are told the leaders after the revolution, but not before, for instance. The entire revolution is sold to you as taking place in less than one week, with no leaders. It is just glossed over as a fait accompli, although of course an important revolution like this is never a fait accompli, much less something that can happen in a week.

We are told that the revolution was achieved simply by a few discontented sailors revolting around Halloween, and a week later the Kaiser fled the country. And you believe that? For a start, notice the date. Halloween. This curious event allegedly took place on Halloween. We are told the German naval fleet planned to attack the English fleet on the morning of Halloween. Instead, some sailors mutinied. That by itself is a sign this story is a fake. See my previous papers, where we see Military Intelligence running many fake events on Halloween. Another sign is that they admit only a few sailors mutinied and that “the mutineers gave up and were led away without resistance”. If the small mutinies were immediately quashed, how could they end up leading to nationwide revolt and the fall of the monarchy? It makes no sense. Only successful mutinies could lead to a nationwide revolt.

Here is your next clue:

The squadron commander Vice-Admiral Kraft carried out a maneuver with his battleships in Heligoland Bight. The maneuver was successful, and he believed that he had regained control of his crews. While moving through the Kiel Canal, he had 47 of the crew of the SMS Markgraf, who were seen as the ringleaders, imprisoned.

Why did I quote that? Do you see it? The number 47. That is one of the signals of Intelligence, as I have shown you again and again. You will tell me, “This was before 1947 and the start of the CIA, so they could not have been referring to that later event”. No, they could not have been referring to that later event, if this story had been written at the time. But it wasn't. It was written later to retell and hide all those events in 1918. All this fake history has massive signs of later pawing, as I am showing you. We will see the number 47 several more times below.

And more nonsense:

The sailors were now looking for closer ties to the unions, the USPD and the SPD. Thereupon the Union House was closed by police, leading to an even larger joint open air meeting on 2 November.

If the police had closed the Union House, then why would the police or navy allow an open air meeting of sailors and Socialists? It is impossible. In such conditions, the sailors would have been confined to quarters, and any sailors wandering from their posts would have been shot on sight as deserters or mutineers.

And it continues:

Sub-Lieutenant Steinhäuser, in order to stop the demonstrators, ordered his patrol to fire warning shots and then to shoot directly into the demonstration. Seven people were killed and 29 severely injured. Some demonstrators also opened fire. Steinhäuser himself was seriously injured by rifle-butt blows and shots, but contrary to later statements, he was not killed. [12] After this eruption, the demonstrators as well as the patrol dispersed. Nevertheless, the mass protest turned into a general revolt.

Again, any person with any knowledge of the military or of history or of anything else can see that is not believable. The patrol would not disperse unless it was utterly defeated, and we have no indication of that. Military patrols trying to quash an uprising do not just disperse just because “some demonstrators opened fire”. If this event happened at all, we should assume most or all of those killed or injured were demonstrators, not members of the military. In which case there would be no reason for the patrol to disperse. And if an officer like Steinhauser had really been injured, reinforcements would have immediately been sent in. This was during war time, and the entire German military was already mobilized. There is no way a few fake Socialists were going to defeat the German military during the war. The very idea is so asinine it passes belief. As usual, the fake historians are piecing together completely irrational histories—and peppering them with spook numerology—and expecting you to swallow them.

Also notice you are expected to swallow this alliance between sailors and Marxists. Then as now, military men would have no interest in allying with Marxists, which they would see as a group of pompous Intellectuals and armchair philosophers. Soldiers are by and large patriots—albeit naïve ones

—and they would have no truck with these transparent fake revolutionaries, many of whom weren't even German. These young men in the navy would have been brought up under the monarchy and been taught all the proper salutes to that. Once in the navy, the same applies, and they would have had the current patriotism drilled into them, including a violent distaste for any foreign revolutionaries or leftist academics. Nonetheless, we are expected to believe this:

SPD deputy Gustav Noske arrived in Kiel and was welcomed enthusiastically, although he had orders from the new government and the SPD leadership to bring the uprising under control. He had himself elected chairman of the soldiers' council and reinstated peace and order. Some days later he took over the governor's post, while Lothar Popp of the USPD became chairman of the overall soldiers' council. During the following weeks Noske succeeded in reducing the influence of the councils in Kiel, but he could not prevent the spread of the revolution throughout Germany. The events had already spread far beyond the city limits of Kiel.

Wait, this is just November 4, so where did the “new government” come from? Aren't they getting a little ahead of themselves? Shouldn't you have a revolution before a new government? But here, the new government has already installed itself somewhere before the revolution. And what does it mean, “He had himself elected”? How do you have yourself elected? And why would he wish to reinstate peace and order? If what we are told is true, he would need to quickly accelerate the revolution, which could not be achieved through peace. And more misdirection: “He could not prevent the spread of revolution.” As a Marxist, why would he want to? His only hope was to spread it, right? Nonetheless, “the events had already spread far beyond the limits of Kiel”. OK, but how? If everything was peaceful in Kiel, how could the revolution spread? We are told that some sailors dispersed to other locations, and that in the following days all the royal rulers of the German states abdicated. What? Because some sailors showed up? These German states didn't have any military or police? I encourage you to read closely the section on “spread of the revolution”. It is a joke.

We find more evidence of a lie when we begin to question any of this. Since the mainstream story wasn't adding up, I began googling on certain terms to try to force more information to arise. I immediately saw several red flags on Philipp Scheidemann, for instance. To start with, “scheide” means to divide or set apart in German. So it seemed to me a bit pat that this leader of the revolution should be named “dividing man”. The other red flag was that this name may be Jewish. So I googled on Philipp Scheidemann Jewish. The first two things that came up were misdirections in opposite directions, the second being a pro-Hitler site promoting copies of Mein Kampf. The first was a “scholarly” work by Stephen Bonner at Rutgers, where he tells us Scheidemann, Ebert and Noske were part of the “pro-war majority faction” of the German Social Democratic Party. Sure they were. If the majority faction of the SDF was pro-war, why would the “socialist” revolution cause the end of the war?

[Addendum, May 2016: In a later paper on Napoleon, I discovered one of Napoleon's early teachers at the Ecole Militiare was Pierre-Simon Laplace. Laplace's mother's maiden name was Sochon, so I was searching on the possibility she was Jewish. Not only did I find she probably was, I found something that linked back to this paper. Turns out the governor of Kiel Naval Base was an Admiral Wilhelm Souchon. In the history I studied for this Putsch paper, his name had been scrubbed. We now see why. He is a huge red flag, and not only because his name may be Jewish. He was assigned to the base on October 30, the day before the mutiny. What are the odds an admiral would be assigned to a base one day, and the next day the mutiny that started the German Revolution that ended WW1 would break out? But there is more. His nephew Hermann Souchon just happened to be one of the soldiers who allegedly murdered Rosa Luxemburg and threw her body in the river. See below.]

As usual, nothing makes any sense. We are sold a mainstream history and then a corrected or alternative history, but both read like propaganda.

But the biggest problem—the one that takes us back to the Beer Hall Putsch and Hitler—is that we are told by both sides that this 1918 revolution was a Socialist or Marxist revolution. It couldn't have been a Socialist or Marxist revolution, since—as I have shown in great detail in several previous papers— Marxism was itself a fake. Marx was the son of a rabbi and a billionaire heiress, and he was just a mole himself. Marxism was created around 1848 to divert attention away from the worldwide Republican revolutions of that year. It was a very successful project to divide and conquer, redirecting the revolutionary energy and spirit into manufactured guaranteed-to-fail events. In the US, we saw this later spin out into the various fake Communist parties here, led by convincing frauds like Eugene Debs. Well, at the same time Debs was working his magic here, these frauds in Germany were doing the same thing there. In other words, Marxism was—and is—just a front. With Debs, we saw Marxism was the Industrialists in disguise, and we may assume in Germany it was the same. Not all these Industrialists are Jews or bankers, but some or many of them are. Marxism itself was a Jewish project back to the beginning, but not only a Jewish project. Since the project benefited all merchants, bankers, and Industrialists, they joined it, Jewish or not.

In support of that, I have shown in many previous papers that the Industrialists weren't just targeting Christianity. They were also targeting Judaism. Yes, the top “Jewish” financiers have wanted to destroy Judaism as much as Christianity or Islam. Why? Because all religions stand in the way of free trade. For this reason, even the Jewish question is misdirection. In previous papers, I have confirmed that the wealthiest Jews are indeed involved up to their necks in this and every other conspiracy. But I have shown and will continue to show they are not involved as Jews. They are involved as Industrialists. In other words, they would act the same even if they weren't Jewish. They do what they do not because Judaism recommends it. In most ways, their Bible is the Christian Bible, and the Old Testament does not recommend their way of life. They do what they do because they are greedy bastards who have decided to ignore all the warnings of their own scripture. A lot of Gentiles are ignoring scripture in precisely the same way, which is why I say this is not at root a Jewish question.

I will be told that those of Jewish descent are—to put it nicely—over-represented in the ranks of top scheming Industrialists, and I am afraid I am finding that to be true. However, even that doesn't make this a Jewish problem. Why? Because if we removed all the Jews from these ranks, their positions wouldn't remain empty, would they? No, greedy Gentiles would be happy to take their places, and within seconds they would. We all know that. That's why I can't take the step many want me to take, blaming everything on the Jews. Neither Jews nor Judaism invented greed. I honestly don't look around myself and see a lot of virtuous Gentiles being corrupted by evil Jews. What I see is a very few semi-virtuous Gentiles, Jews, and Others being swamped by vast hordes of blobs and climbers. In my personal opinion, these blobs and climbers have no one but themselves to blame for who they are. None of the climbers are “chosen”, no matter how high they climb—as they will find out when they die if not before. And it is doubtful even the semi-virtuous are much pitied by the gods or Muses, since they are always free to become more virtuous no matter how they are surrounded or outnumbered. Virtue is not a statistical matter.

But back to the matter at hand. Another thing that doesn't make any sense is that we are told Chancellor Max von Baden proclaimed the abdication of the Emperor. That is simply a contradiction in terms. Only the Emperor can abdicate, by definition. Look it up. It is a resignation, and no one else can resign a position for you. Only you can resign your position. For instance, your boss can fire you, but he cannot unilaterally announce that you have quit. Only you can quit, by the definition of “quit”. An Emperor can be deposed, but his Chancellor cannot abdicate him. Von Baden was appointed by the Emperor, so he had no authority to abdicate the Emperor and certainly no authority to depose him. So the whole use of the word “abdicate” is a red flag in itself. Real revolutions do not proceed like this. No revolution ever did. No King or Emperor has ever abdicated in such a situation.

We get more smoke-blowing with this strange assertion:

In a legally questionable act, Reichskanzler Prince Max of Baden transferred his powers to Friedrich Ebert, who, shattered by the monarchy's fall, reluctantly accepted.

It isn't that that is legally questionable, it is that it is logically questionable. It makes no sense. Why would a Chancellor and Prince peacefully transfer his power to a Socialist leader, with no revolutionary force outside the Palace to force him to do so? He would have to be a traitor to the aristocracy, his own family, the Emperor, and to his own people. And the form of the story betrays it as a lie, as we see with that “reluctantly accepted” spin. We see the same sort of transparent spin with Ebert being “shattered by the monarchy's fall”. Sure he was. And we see it again two sentences earlier, when we are told,

On 9 November 1918, the "German Republic" was proclaimed by MSPD member Philipp Scheidemann at the Reichstag building in Berlin, to the fury of Friedrich Ebert, the leader of the MSPD, who thought that the question of monarchy or republic should be answered by a national assembly.

If Ebert was so virtuous and self-effacing, why didn't he just use his new authority to call a national assembly, and put the question up to a vote? And if Ebert was the leader of the MSPD, why was Scheidemann proclaiming anything? Wouldn't you expect the leader to making any proclamations?

We see a similar problem with this idiotic story:

In 1917, Hindenburg and Ludendorff decided that Bethman-Hollweg was no longer acceptable to them as Chancellor and called upon the Kaiser to appoint somebody else. When asked whom they would accept, Ludendorff recommended Georg Michaelis, a nonentity he barely knew. The Kaiser did not know Michaelis, but accepted the suggestion.

Why would Ludendorff recommend someone he barely knew, and the Kaiser appoint this person he did not know at all? Obviously we are being spun, but to what effect? Probably because we are having our attention drawn away from Michaelis. By being told he was a non-entity, we are encouraged not to look closely at him or suspect him of anything. We are supposed to believe he was just a mistake of all involved. Since that is unlikely, I suggest you do the opposite. I suggest Michaelis was neither a non- entity, a functionary, nor a bureaucrat. If he was appointed Chancellor, he was likely appointed on purpose by someone, and since that someone is apparently not Ludendorff or the Kaiser, it must be someone else. Michaelis was installed by some invisible party for some real reason. Since Michaelis was the first non-aristocrat to hold the office, we must assume he was a test case for the upcoming Weimar Republic, and a front for the same people hiding behind the Republic. This tells us that by summer of 1917, the aristocracy had already lost control of Germany. They had likely lost control of it long before, but those really controlling the country had kept the nobles on as useful fronts. By 1917, the nobles were no longer seen as useful, and Michaelis was inserted to test that idea on the populace.

You also have to remember that this Kaiser Wilhelm was the cousin of King George V of England, so WW1 was actually all in the family. Queen Victoria was Wilhelm's grandmother. What were they even fighting for? It is difficult to get an answer to that question. We are told it is because some Serbian killed an Archduke in Austria, but was that any reason to send millions of men to their deaths? I don't see it. Archduke Ferdinand was just another “German” aristocrat, of the Habsburgs instead of the Saxes or Hohenzollerns. These Wars are obviously being sold to us under false pretexts, but what are they covering? You already know that, too. Remember Smedley Butler's book War is a Racket? Butler was a major general in the US, head of the Marines. The book came out in 1935, so what war was he talking about? WW1, of course. What did he mean by a racket? From the book:

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

So if you don't wish to follow my line of reasoning here, you can go read Butler's book, which says pretty much the same thing. These wars weren't completely faked, but they were manufactured. Butler doesn't tell you specifically how they are manufactured, but I will try to do that here. We will try to see through the veils into the real events.

Here is the next veil: two hours after Scheidemann declared the Republic, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg allegedly declared the Socialist Republic themselves. They wanted to claim the revolution for the further-left Spartacus League. It is admitted that Luxemburg was a Polish Jew, and Liebknecht was also probably Jewish, although that isn't admitted. His grandmother was Katharina Hirsch. Since it is admitted that Liebknecht's parents were cousins, if he was Jewish on one side, he was probably Jewish on both. Since the Spartacus League was allied to the Russian revolutionaries, we know without further research that they were a front for the Industrialists. All the top Marxists of the times were, since Marxism was a front itself. Another founding member of the Spartacus League was Paul Levi, admitted to be Jewish. Julian Marchlewski was another Polish Jew, like Luxemburg. And so on. We may assume all the top members were Jews or crypto-Jews.

So what were they up to? Well, basically the same thing the other fake Socialists were up to, except that the script called for a special role for the far-left Spartacus actors. Their jobs at first were to create turmoil, so that those hidden behind the curtains could actually prevent any effective workers' unions from forming. As in Russia, they wanted everyone to think that either a Republic or a workers' takeover of industry and government was happening, when it wasn't. It was only a smokescreen for the Industrialists to take more profitable control of everything, while making the populace think things were being nationalized. They did the same thing in the US at about the same time, though in a different way. They created the Federal Reserve, which is sold as federal but which is of course private

—owned by the bankers. They did the same thing in England a few years later, pretending to nationalize the banks but not really do so.

Anyway, Liebknecht and Luxemburg and all the rest were instructed to create havoc in the early weeks, to get everyone properly confused. They were instructed to play the leftist role while Ebert played the centrist role, both doing all they could to take your eyes off the Workers' Councils and their leaders like Richard Muller and Emil Barth. We see evidence of that here:

On the evening of 10 November, there was a phone call between Ebert and General Wilhelm Groener, the new First General Quartermaster in Spa, Belgium. Assuring Ebert of the support of the army, the general was given Ebert's promise to reinstate the military hierarchy and, with the help of the army, to take action against the councils.

As you see, the Workers' Councils were the real danger to the Industrialists. The workers mistakenly thought this was a real revolution, and so they stepped in and started drafting documents. This couldn't be allowed.

On 15 December, Ebert and General Groener had troops ordered to Berlin to prevent this convention and to regain control of the capital. On 16 December, one of the regiments intended for this plan advanced too early. In an attempt to arrest the Executive Council, the soldiers opened fire on a demonstration of unarmed "Red Guards", representatives of Soldiers' Councils affiliated with the Spartacists; 16 people were killed.

You see how the workers are being suppressed early on, to prevent any real participation by the people in this fake revolution. In that last quote, the Spartacus League people are being inserted into the story as confusion. Obviously, it is the real workers that are being attacked by these troops, not the fake leftists. The troops were ordered in by the Industrialists to be sure no true representative government formed. But rather than have you realize that, they insert these Red Guards. First of all, why would the Red Guards be unarmed? Not much use as guards, are they? Second, why would leftist Spartacus Guards be guarding the Workers Councils? The Workers weren't even allied to the Spartacus League. The Workers were trying to drive around both the Spartacists and the “centrist” Social-Democratic Party, since they could see both groups were plants. Both Ebert's group and Luxemburg's groups were fronts for the Industrialists, and most workers and soldiers probably understood that.

So why were the leftists eventually jettisoned in this story? We are told that these Spartacists like Luxemburg and Liebknecht were eventually murdered by the mercenary Freikorps troops without trial. Before we get to the why, let us look at the how. To right to it, these murders were faked. Any close reading of the history makes that clear, since it makes not a lick of sense. To start with, they admit that the Spartacists had already failed in their uprising of January 7, 1919. The strike, though allegedly large, had fizzled, and the strikers had failed to gain the support of the local military. Without that alliance to the military in Berlin, they should have known the uprising could not succeed, but for some reason we are supposed to believe they called for armed combat. They didn't have any arms, or any military connections, and they knew the hostile Freikorps was at large, so why would they call for armed combat? They just had a death wish, I guess.

We are told Ebert ordered the Freikorps to attack the workers. One, why would he do that? The strike had already failed and there was no need to attack the workers. The workers weren't attacking, so all Ebert needed to do is move forward. Two, if Ebert felt he needed more protection, he could have called in real troops. He didn't need to use mercenaries. Three, if Ebert wished to get rid of the Spartacus leaders, there were many ways to do that short of murder. Why not arrest them, jail them, and try them for treason? Ebert was allegedly trying to restore order, and you don't restore order by murdering prominent people without trial.

Well, I will tell you why Ebert didn't order their arrest: it wasn't in the script. We can tell this is a script in so many ways. We are told Luxemburg's body was thrown into the Landwehr Canal, where it was found on July 1. But wait, she was killed January 15. Who identified her body six months later, and how? It would be nothing but a skeleton by then. They didn't always have dental records back then or fingerprints, and even if they had records they would have been back in Poland. Besides, if Ebert and the Freikorps are going to go to the trouble of murdering these people, why not present the bodies as evidence of it? Wouldn't that have been the point of the murders: to deter other revolutionaries from rising up? I don't see any logical reason for murdering her or for throwing her in a canal. The same can be said for Liebknecht. Why deliver his body anonymously to a morgue? If you were going to hide one murder, why not hide them both in the same way? Why would you try to hide one in a canal, while sending the other to a morgue where it was sure to be identified?

[Addendum May 2106: One of the Freikorps officers who allegedly murdered Luxemburg was Hermann Souchon, nephew of Admiral Souchon, governor of the Kiel Naval Base during the 1918 Revolution that ended WW1. Amazing coincidence, right?]

Even more clues: how old were both Liebknecht and Luxemburg said to be? If you guessed 47, you win the prize. Liebknecht's birth is said to be 8/13/71, and Luxemburg's is said to be 3/5/71. So much in-your-face numerology there.

Like Emma Goldman and Helena Blavatsky, Rosa Luxemburg's entire life is a bold and magnificent fake. All were prominent agents in international Intelligence, working for the Industrialists. In fact, we must assume Luxemburg's faked life continued after her faked death, and we can be sure she continued her work under another name. It would be interesting to discover who she became, and it is not beyond imagining that I may someday trip over the answer. I am open to suggestions, as long as you don't try to tell me she became Alex Jones or David Bowie.

You may be interested to know the misdirection on Luxemburg's death continues to this day. In 2009, Der Spiegel reported that Berlin's Charity Hospital had claimed to have found her body in its forensics lab. Although the body had no head, hands, or feet, they claimed to identify it from leg asymmetry. Curiously, they say nothing about it being just a skeleton, and imply it isn't. So what did they do back in 1919, embalm her and wrap her in plastic before they threw her in the canal? But the article is useful for other information:

[Head of forensic medicine] Tsokos’ predecessors examined a corpse that was buried as Rosa Luxemburg on June 13, 1919 in Berlin’s Freidrichsfelde cemetery, but he said records show this corpse did not bear her significant anatomical characteristics.

Interesting that Wikipedia fails to mention that the body found in the canal in 1919 actually didn't match Luxemburg's “significant anatomical characteristics”, including osteoarthritis and a damaged hip. This means that we have no proof or even indication that Luxemburg's body was ever found. Which of course tends to corroborate my theory of a faked death. A faked death then corroborates my theory that much of the German revolution was faked or manufactured.

So we have looked at the how, now let us look at the why. Why would the Industrialists wish to split the revolutionaries into these sects and then destroy the left-most sect? Obviously, to give the impression that what was left over was the most “centrist” and therefore the most stable, workable, and presentable. That was the primary goal, but there was a secondary goal. That would be to confirm the existence and importance of this leftist sect. There would be no reason for Ebert to order the deaths of these people if they weren't real and formidable—or that is what you are meant to think. Making martyrs out of Luxemburg and the rest just cements in the minds of most that they were as they have been sold: real Marxists trying to overthrow Capitalism by any means possible. This acts to glorify Marxism and Socialism, attracting any real revolutionaries away from viable Republican movements an toward ineffectual and fake Marxist movements.

Since this paper is supposed to be about the Beer Hall Putsch, I don't want to spend much more time back at WW1, but I know some will feel like they are left hanging. If the 1918 revolution was manufactured and parts of it were even faked, they will ask what that means for the War as a whole. It means that the outcome of the War was pre-determined. Rigged, just like the Super Bowl, the stock markets, the election results, the lottery, and everything else. The Industrialists had been eviscerating Germany since the 1600s, and the 20th century was just a mop-up. See my paper on the Occult in the Renaissance, where we saw the manufactured Thirty Years' War being used as payback by the bankers against the royals for centuries of oppression. Amazingly, this war 300 years earlier was also precipitated by an Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, and it appears the Industrialists borrowed some points of their WW1 script from the Thirty Years' War. But this time some of the top Industrialists eviscerating Germany were from the US.

To really understand WW1, you have to go back to the revolutions of 1848, and I will not do that here. I need to go forward, not backward. I will cover it in a future paper. But just so you can go forward with some sense of the ground beneath your feet, those revolutions are not as they have been sold, either. We are told the revolutions were crushed by the aristocracy, but that is only partially true. They were crushed by an alliance between the aristocrats and industrialists, an alliance the aristocrats quickly came to regret. We have already seen in my paper on Marx how this alliance used Marxism to infiltrate and subvert the revolutions, but at the same time the industrialists were using their new alliance to also infiltrate and subvert the aristocracy. The industrialists weren't just splintering the middle class from the lower class, they were also splintering the aristocrats from society at large. They were working in both directions, up and down, attacking everyone simultaneously. Marxism was also cleverly used to do this, although the aristocrats didn't originally catch on the reverse cut. Marx explicitly made the Bourgeoisie the enemy, so the aristocrats figured they were being left out of the equation. Aristocrats aren't bourgeois, they are royal. But hidden within Marxism was the idea that before the proletariat could rise, the aristocrats had to be pulled down. The Marxists usually labelled it as a pre-condition, rather a major talking point, and the aristocrats weren't reading that literature anyway.

The long and short of it is that the aristocracy was already dead in the water before WW1 even started. Although pre-war Germany is sold to us as a monarchy, the monarchy was long since just a figurehead, as it is now. They sort of admit this when they tell you the generals Ludendorff and Hindenburg were running the country during the War. That is to admit that the Kaiser and all the Princes were just ornaments. But of course Ludendorff and Hindenburg weren't running the country. How could they when they had a World War to run? It would be like being told Eisenhower was running the US government in 1945, when he was still General of the Army. No, someone else was running Germany at the time, but you are never given any names. This is not so singular, since we could say the same about the US now. Who is running it? Not the President, not Congress, not the military, and not the CIA. So who is running it? Same people that were running Germany and the US and England in 1914. Well, same families, anyway. See my previous paper on James Bond films for the Octopus. Not Matt Taibbi's “vampire squid”, but the Octopus. In other words, the eight wealthiest families in the West.

So, finally, back to Hitler in 1923. Beyond all the Marxism bullshit, how do I know the Putsch was a fake? One, it happened November 8. That is 11/8, which is more numerology. Hitler was arrested on November 11. That is 11/11. The spooks love these numbers, as we have seen over and over. What else happened on November 8? Well, in 1605, the Gunpowder Plot was quashed at Holbeche House, with most of the major plotters being shot. One who wasn't shot in that ambush was Guy Fawkes, the inspiration for this now-famous mask:

The spooks are still spinning that tale, as we know. See the 2006 spook movie V for Vendetta, supposedly written by the Wachowski Brothers. Note the date of that movie, which is also not an accident. Add up the numbers: 2 + 0 + 0 + 6 = 8.

I will also have to cut to the chase on this one: the Gunpowder plot was an early fake. It never happened. I will have to do the full monte on it later, but just compare it to similar plots in the early 20th century which I recently exposed in my paper on Eugene Debs—especially the multiple fakes perpetrated by the Pinkerton Agency, including the Haymarket Affair, the attempted assassination of Frick, and the faked assassinations of Governor Steunenberg and President McKinley.

To get you into the fake Gunpowder Plot, I recommend you study Robert Catesby, the alleged leader of it. There are red flags all over this guy, the biggest probably being his involvement in the earlier Essex Plot of 1601, just four years earlier. Although the others involved were allegedly executed, including the Earl of Essex himself, Catesby somehow skated, being only given a fine by Queen Elizabeth. Although this fine was supposed to be the current equivalent of ten million dollars, somehow he paid it and was released from prison. To explain this unexplainable turn of events, we are told Thomas Tresham paid most of his fine for him. This is another red flag, since although Tresham is sold as a naughty Catholic, he was actually knighted by the Anglican Queen herself, and was a close friend of both the Lord Chancellor Hatton and Secretary of State Cecil. He was also extremely wealthy, so he looks to me like the bankroller of these fake plots being run by the Secret Service. The point of the plots was the same as it is now: to generate public sympathy for the unsympathetic rulers constantly hoaxing them and taxing them into oblivion.

What else are the International spooks referencing with this November 8 date? Well, they reused the date with Hitler in 1939, when Georg Elser allegedly tried to assassinate him. This was also faked. Eight people were allegedly killed and 62 were wounded. Just in case you missed that, the numbers were 8 and 6 + 2 = 8. Elser was born 1/04/03. Let's see, that's 1 + 4 + 3 = 8. Hitler's speech was at 8pm.

OK, but do I have anything beyond numerology? Yep, lot's more. I never rely on numerology, I just point it out as a sidebar. After the failed Putsch, Hitler was arrested and charged with treason.

His arrest was followed by a 24-day trial, which was widely publicized and gave Hitler a platform to publicize his nationalist sentiment to the nation. Hitler was found guilty of treason and sentenced to five years in Landsberg Prison.[3] The second benefit to Hitler was that he used his time in prison to produce Mein Kampf, which was dictated to his fellow prisoner, Rudolf Hess. On 20 December 1924, having served only nine months, Hitler was released.

Not one sentence in that paragraph makes any sense. Why would the government allow Hitler an extended platform to publicize his side of the story? Is that what a government trying someone for treason would do? Would they sentence him to just five years? Petty robbers are now given mandatory life sentences in the ridiculous three-strikes programs in this country, but we are expected to believe a man convicted of plotting to overthrow the government is given only five years, despite the fact that many people were allegedly killed in the coup attempt? Four policemen were allegedly killed, so Hitler should have been tried for murder as well. How could he get off with five years? Even worse is that he was released after only 8 months!* You have to be kidding me.

I should remind you that according to the US Code, someone convicted of high treason “shall be imprisoned not less than five years”. Notice that it say imprisoned, not sentenced. So if this had happened in the US, Hitler could not have been released early. He would have had to remain in jail for at least five years. Since treason has always been a high and special crime, I suspect Germany also had laws on the books in 1923 indicating a minimum sentence for treason, though I couldn't find the clause online. Maybe one of my German readers can look it up for me.

[A German reader looked it up for me. This is what he found:

no pdf of genuine book but http://lexetius.com/StGB/81,8

... lebenslänglichem Zuchthaus oder lebenslänglicher Festungshaft bestraft. lifetime prison

(2) Sind mildernde Umstände vorhanden, so tritt Festungshaft nicht unter fünf Jahren ein.

mitigating circumstances minimum 5 years prison

This confirms what I said above. According to the laws of Germany, which match the laws of the US in this regard, Hitler should have served a minimum of five years. Not been sentenced, but served. According to statute, he should not have served a partial sentence, especially not one as slight as 8 months.]

This reminds us of my recent paper on Castro, where we saw Castro arrested several times for major crimes—including a failed coup—and being let off after a few months in mysterious and frankly preposterous circumstances.

For this reason, I believe Hitler didn't spend one day in jail. Like many other jail terms we have looked at recently, including those of Castro, Debs, Manson, and Emma Goldman, this one looks faked.

Do I have more? Do I! On the Wikipedia page for the Beer Hall Putsch, they admit Hitler was an agent.

Hitler remained in the army, in Munich, after World War I. He participated in various "national thinking" courses. These had been organized by the Education and Propaganda Department of the Bavarian Reichswehr, under Captain Karl Mayr,[8] of which Hitler became an agent. Captain Mayr ordered Hitler, then an army lance corporal, to infiltrate the tiny Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, abbreviated DAP (German Workers' Party).[9] Hitler joined the DAP on 12 September 1919.

I couldn't make you a bigger red flag if I had all the cloth and dye in the world. Hitler was an agent of Army Intelligence, and in 1920 he was infiltrating workers parties! So why are we supposed to believe he wasn't still a cloaked agent in 1923? Simply because we are told he sympathized with those he had been ordered to infiltrate, and joined them. But do we have any evidence for that, beyond the word of German Intelligence? No.

Well, we have this:

By agreement, Hitler assumed the political leadership of a number of Bavarian "patriotic associations" (revanchist), called the Kampfbund.[12] This political base extended to include about 15,000 brawlers, most of whom were ex-soldiers.

So Hitler assumed the leadership of a bunch of ex-soldiers. Hmmm. Were these “ex-soldiers” also in Intelligence? Not according to the mainstream story.

Something else to think about: If Hitler really switched over in 1920, leaving the army and earnestly joining the German Workers Party, why was one of the first things he did in 1933 upon taking power the dissolving of all unions? Yes, this early workers' party was anti-Jew, but it was supposed to be pro- worker. How could a workers' party be anti-worker? In fact, the reason they were allegedly anti-Jew is because they were pro-worker. The workers didn't like the poor Jews coming in from the east and taking jobs. In the early Hitler story, he is supposed to be a man of the people, electrifying crowds using populist themes. One of these themes was of course the worker. Despite that, he immediately dissolved the trade unions upon coming into power. And yet we are supposed to believe the workers still loved him. It doesn't add up, to say the least.

One thing we don't get at Wikipedia is an early link to Dietrich Eckart and the Thule Society. We have to go to History com for that. Eckart was the head of the Workers' Society that Hitler had infiltrated. He was also heavily involved in the occult Thule Society. But once again, this guy has red flags all over him. He was from a very wealthy family, his father being a Royal Notary. Just to be sure you got that, his dad worked for the Kaiser. That is what “royal” signifies there. Eckart dropped out of university in Munich and became a protégé of Count Georg von Hulsen-Haeseler, the artistic director of the Prussian Royal Theater. Just to be sure you are reading closely, you should translate that as “gay lover” of Count Georg. When you see “protégé” and “artistic director of a theater” in the same sentence, you can almost always assume “gay lover”.

This is not just idle speculation on my part. See the Harden-Eulenberg Affair, in which not one but two von Hulsen-Haeselers were mentioned. In that affair, everyone in The Prussian Court was suspected of being gay, including the Kaiser himself.

We need to pause on this, because it spins out into some interesting stories.

In the early years of the 20th century, contemporaries called the climate at the Kaiser's court "Byzantinism", as the atmosphere at the court was rife with factionalism, intrigue and obsequiousness towards the Emperor.[21] Perhaps, the most infamous case of "Byzantinism" occurred in 1908 when General Dietrich von Hülsen-Haeseler, the Chief of the Emperor's Secret Military Cabinet danced before Wilhelm and his court dressed in a pink ballerina's dress while blowing kisses to the Kaiser, and then felt so humiliated by what he had been forced to do that he promptly dropped dead of a heart attack.

Don't be diverted by the pink ballerina's dress. Notice the “Secret Military Cabinet”. Von Hulsen- Haeseler was head of the Royal Secret Service. You can think of him as the J. Edgar Hoover of his time and place. This von Hulsen-Haeseler, a four-star general, was uncle to the Count Georg von Hulsen Haeseler of the Prussian Theater, and both were accused of “perversity”.

So that is the circle Dietrich Eckart ran with. Strange, then, isn't it, to find him a few years later the head of a Workers' Party and handler of Hitler? Eckart was a millionaire playwright with connections to the Kaiser and to Intelligence, and yet we are supposed to believe he became the head of a Workers' Party? The things they expect you to buy!

I suggest you read all this as “controlling the opposition”. Eckart, like Hitler, was a mole. Others doing the same thing were Alfred Rosenberg and Gottfried Feder, with whom Eckart edited the allegedly antisemitic periodical Auf gut Deutsch. Do those names look strange to you? Rosenberg is often a Jewish name, and they admit Alfred Rosenberg's father was a wealthy merchant. Feder's mother was née Luz, which is also a Jewish name. It means almond tree in Hebrew. So it looks to me like these Jewish guys are just pretending to be anti-Semites, in order to control the opposition. We saw David Irving doing the same thing recently, in my paper on him. He is supposed to be one of the biggest Holocaust deniers in the world right now, but we found out that he was Jewish through his mother.

However, even if some of these moles after WW1 aren't Jews, it is still admitted they are from rich merchant families, which—for our purposes here—leads to the same conclusions. We see them joining and even heading workers' parties, but why would the sons of rich merchants be involved in that? You now know why: this was all another project. As with the fake Socialist Parties in the US in the same period, these Parties and Unions in Germany were either infiltrated by the Industrialists, or built from the ground up as misdirection. In other words, we may assume that many of these Parties weren't started by workers at all. They were started by moles like Eckart, to draw in naïve revolutionaries.

Since the Thule Society was pushed by these same people, we may assume it was also misdirection. Since it was founded at the very same time Captain Mayr was ordering a young agent Hitler to infiltrate the Workers' Party, we may assume Thule was another Intelligence Project. It looks exactly like many other Intel projects I have exposed in the past few years, so this should not surprise you. Intelligence loves to hide behind the fake occult, and they make up these ridiculous stories like we see in Thule as a smokescreen. We have seen Aleister Crowley doing this, and Gerald Gardner, and the Process Church, and Anton Lavey, and many others. Again, it goes all the way back to the 16th century and before, as I showed in my paper on the Kabbalah. There were saw the occult acting as a smokescreen in many projects of the Jews against the Royals and the Vatican. We also saw it in my recent paper on the Salem Witch Trials, from the 17th century, where the local merchants—many of them Jewish—ran a major project against the Puritans, running it under the cover of the occult. Therefore, as usual, you can dismiss the whole occult angle of the Thule Society, instead substituting “Intelligence” everywhere you read “Occult”.

In 1923, in the lead-up to the Putsch, Hitler enlisted the help of General Ludendorff to try to convince the Bavarian leaders to join him in moving against Berlin. Do you recognize that name? Ludendorff was supposed to have been running Germany in early 1918, remember? He is the one who after WW1 popularized the Stab-in-the-Back theory that Hitler's is supposed to have co-opted. This was the idea that Marxists had caused the fall of Germany in that year, which we now know was all misdirection away from the Industrialists. But that begs this question: why would General Ludendorff ally himself a few years later to Hitler, a 33-year-old ex-lance corporal who was now the head of a Workers' Party? After their failure to drive around the Marxists in 1919, these Workers' Parties had suffered defeat and been forced to join the fake Marxists. That's right: the real Workers' Parties or Unions in the early years of the Weimar Republic were not rightist pre-Nazi organizations, they were center-left organizations that had to ally themselves to the Socialist structure of the new government in order to prosper at all. So why would Ludendorff ally himself to those who had stabbed him in the back? The last person Ludendorff should have been consulting with was Hitler, unless. . . .

Unless both Ludendorff and Hitler were still agents, and this whole story is another cover. I would say it is pretty obvious Hitler never switched sides. He was an agent in 1919, successfully infiltrated the Workers' Parties, led them astray and reported on them, and was still an agent in 1923. The Beer Hall Putsch was a manufactured event, created to publicize Hitler and the manufactured Nazi movement. Which means Hitler was just a tool from 1919 on.

This would explain what historian David Irving said about Hitler being created by Hollywood and Madison Avenue. It seemed strange that Irving the historian wouldn't say that Hitler had been created by historians. It is strange enough to say he was created, but created by Hollywood and Madison Avenue? Why would Irving say that? Because, like film and advertising, Hitler's career was fiction from start to finish.

We see this again in the ridiculous minutes of the Beer Hall Putsch, where Hitler at first took over the Hall and kidnapped the Bavarian leaders, but then,

In a tactical mistake, Hitler decided to leave the Bürgerbräukeller shortly thereafter to deal with a crisis elsewhere. Around 10:30p.m., Ludendorff released Kahr and his associates.

Right. As usual, that makes no sense. What “crisis elsewhere” would have been more important than this coup in progress? As if leaving the Hall and releasing the prisoners was not stupid enough, Ludendorff suggested they march to the Bavarian Defense Ministry. This looks like a terrible idea, seeing that they must have been poorly armed. When the 2,000 marchers from the Beer Hall met only

130 soldiers and gunfire was exchanged, Hitler lost 16 men and the soldiers lost only four. Were the marchers all drunk? Why couldn't these 2,000 men defeat 130? Also curious is that the losses by the soldiers were not soldiers, but state police officers. Odd that 130 soldiers were allegedly present but none of them were hit. We are never told why the 2,000 marchers, some of them top military men like Ludendorff, were immediately routed by 130 soldiers. We are expected to believe they marched on the Defense Ministry, were bested by a force they outnumbered 15 to 1, and ran.

The trial was also a farce. We are told the jury trial was dissolved by emergency degree, and replaced by selected judges. That's convenient. Ludendorff claimed to have been present by accident and was acquitted. That's also convenient. As is this:

One of Hitler's greatest worries at the trial was that he was at risk of being deported back to his native Austria by the Bavarian government. However, Judge Neithardt was very sympathetic towards Hitler and held that the relevant laws of the Weimar Republic could not be applied to a man "who thinks and feels like a German, as Hitler does." The result was that the Nazi leader remained in Germany.

Right. Hitler kidnaps the leaders of the Bavarian government and yet is assigned in emergency degree a lead judge that argues that relevant laws do not apply to Hitler, because “he thinks and feels like a German”. Despite being Austrian. Now they will deport you for overstaying a 3-month visa, but we are expected to believe they wouldn't deport you back then for kidnapping the leaders of the state and plotting the overthrow of the country. And what are we supposed to believe the leaders in Berlin were doing while this trial was being publicized in all the newspapers? Were they all wintering in Brazil? It wasn't up to this one addled judge whether Hitler would be deported at the end of his 8-month detention. The leaders in Berlin who he had wanted to overthrow might have had something to say about it, right? Why would they not have him deported? They also thought he was good German? Really? Those in Berlin who Hitler had called “Marxist Jews” thought Hitler was a good German who didn't need to be deported?

I wonder if there are any faked photos of the Putsch. Of course there are:

Strange selective lighting there, with bright light on Hitler and the little girl, but the guy between them looking like he just climbed out of a chimney. How does that work? And of course we get several variations of the same photo:

Someone obviously realized the mistake I just pointed out in the original faked photo and took it back into photoshop. They were told to lighten the dark guy a few steps. But it still doesn't work because now his shadows don't match those around him. His shadows are grey, while Hitler's shadows are black. So we have evidence of a paste-up either way.

They have published that one tiny and with no resolution, but I can still tell you it is a fake. Hitler is lit from the left, but the guy on the right is lit straight on. So one or both of those heads were pasted in. Hitler's head is obviously pasted in, because his head size doesn't match his body size. It looks like the guy to the right was pasted in completely, including his body, since all the blacks in his figure are two shades lighter than the rest of the blacks in the photo. Compare his eye sockets to Hitler's eye sockets, and you will see what I mean.

That's another terrible fake. I don't understand why they would even post something that awful. I hope I don't have to explain this one to you, but just notice how about twice as much light is falling on Hitler. His face is blown out (white) while everyone else in the photo is many steps darker. He is also about twice as blurry as everything else. His hand is a big white blob. And he is out of step. Those behind him should be matching their steps to his, but although they are matched to one another, they are not matched to Hitler. That is because he was pasted in there later. They don't look like they are trying very hard to fool you there.

That's the most famous picture of the Putsch leaders. But once again, Hitler has been pasted in there. How do I know? Well, I compare it to this one, taken moments earlier or later.

See if you can spot the problem.

Everyone else has shifted all over the place, but Hitler has hardly moved a muscle. Look at his tie and collar and shoulders. Then look at his hat and hand position. Identical. They have tried to cover this

problem by making a few minor changes in the sleeve and the foot positions, but it doesn't look convincing. Also notice that although his body hasn't been stretched, his face has. His face is mysterious longer just a few moments later in the second photo. How did that happen? The angle of the camera hasn't changed.

Here's a strange variant of the first image, again proving it was a fake. Although all the other people in the front row haven't moved a muscle, Hitler and Frick are different. Hitler is now listing dangerously to the starboard. He looks like he is falling to the right, doesn't he? That is because he was pasted in very poorly. Frick was also pasted in. His facial shadows don't match everyone else's, in either photo.

That photo is being used to place Hitler in Munich in 1914, at the declaration of war on Russia. Unfortunately, it looks nothing like Hitler. The face shape is all wrong, and the mustache is painted in. The shadow under his nose is too dark, which means they painted in the mustache too dark. It doesn't match anything else in the face.

That is also a paste-up. The light doesn't match, the focus doesn't match, and the shadows don't match. To get you in, study the hair of the two guys to Hitler's right. See how they are brightly lit from above, with everything going to white. Even the darks in their hair are blown out, turning kind of bluish. Now study the two guys to Hitler's left. They are lit differently than the other guys, aren't they? Their hair hasn't been blown out to white and blue. And their foreheads aren't as white as the other guys. OK, now compare the uniforms. It is not only that the guys to the right have redder uniforms, since this photo might have been colorized. Maybe they just colorized it poorly, I will be told. But the problem goes beyond color, since the redder uniforms are also blurrier. See how crisp and in-focus Hitler's uniform is? But the guys to his left noticeably un-crisp. Finally, if you were a low-ranking Nazi standing on the street next to Adolph Hitler, don't you think you would be looking at him? But those two guys to his right don't even seem to know he is there. Because he is not. He was pasted in.

That is supposed to be Hitler in WW1. No, really. Can you tell me which one is supposed to be Hitler? The one on the right, with the mustache. Again, no, really. That is what they are trying to sell us as Hitler. I guess they think we are all legally blind. That guy doesn't even remotely resemble Hitler. You will tell me that if Hitler lost fifty pounds, had his neck stretched, had his ears replaced, had chin augmentation, had his eyelids inflated, and had his eyebrows lofted. . . no, he would still look nothing like that guy. Hitler would have to have his entire head remolded with heavy hammers.

That's another fake, supposed to be a young Hitler. The head was pasted on another body. The head is too small for that body, so it wasn't done well. The hair is also too dark for all the other darks in the image. Why would his hair be darker than his black shoes, for instance.

OK, I have made my point with that. Many photos, including many famous ones, are faked. Now let us move on the period after the Putsch. In that period, we are sold two contradictory histories. On the Weimar Republic page at Wikipedia, for instance, we are told the period from 1923 to 1929 was the Goldene Zwanziger, or Golden Twenties. Civil stability was restored, inflation was got under control, and all the new laws passed by the Republic should have calmed the workers. The workers had more rights, shorter hours, more breaks and vacations, universal suffrage, and dominated the health insurance boards. There was also a cultural renaissance, which they admit proceeded even during the worst period of hyperinflation. As with the Roaring Twenties in the US, the bars and clubs were packed. Newly emancipated women joined the men there, smoking, drinking, bobbing their hair, and dancing. Jazz and cabaret were popular. The art scene also expanded and quickly Modernized, the Germans sometimes leading the way, as with Bauhaus. Expressionism also bloomed.

But on the Hitler pages, we are sold a different story. There we are taught that the seething undercurrent of Germany in the early 1920s was not Modernism, Socialism, or Liberalism, it was a taste for Nazism. We are taught that if not for some unexplainable tactical blunders, Hitler might have taken over Bavaria in 1923—the rank and file swooning over his speeches even then because he spoke to them in their own language.

I hope you can see that these two stories don't mesh very well. This is the “mood of the country” they are talking about, and it should be one or the other, but not both. Another thing that doesn't mesh well with sense or rationality is the continued story of Hitler after the Putsch. On Hitler's page, we find this:

As a result of the failed Beer Hall Putsch, the NSDAP and its affiliated organisations were banned in Bavaria. In a meeting with Prime Minister of Bavaria Heinrich Held on 4 January 1925, Hitler agreed to respect the authority of the state and promised that he would seek political power only through the democratic process. The meeting paved the way for the ban on the NSDAP to be lifted on 16 February.

NSDAP was the precursor of the Nazi Party, remember. So we are expected to believe Hitler got out of jail on December 20, 1924, after serving only 8 months, and less than two months later Bavaria lifted the ban on the Nazi Party? All because Hitler “agreed to respect the authority of the state”? Yes, a verbal contract is always binding in such cases. Who wouldn't take the word of a man convicted the year before of high treason?

You should also ask the question no one ever asks: why and how did Hitler become a German citizen? According the mainstream story, he didn't become a citizen until 1932, but that begs the question why Germany would grant citizenship to a man convicted of leading a coup against her. If you went to Canada tomorrow and applied for citizenship, they would do a background check on you, pulling up all your records. If they found you were previously convicted of High Treason against Canada, it is very doubtful they would give you citizenship, right? But we are told,

On 25 February 1932, the interior minister of Brunswick, Dietrich Klagges, who was a member of the NSDAP, appointed Hitler as administrator for the state's delegation to the Reichsrat in Berlin, making Hitler a citizen of Brunswick,[130] and thus of Germany.

Does that make any sense to you? We are told the appointment automatically made Hitler a citizen, but shouldn't a candidate to the Reichsrat already be required to be a German citizen? Doesn't it seem backward that the appointment would confer citizenship? Let's transfer that story to the US. Say a Mexican national is living in Texas, and the Governor of Texas appoints him to fill a vacancy in the US Congress. Would he then become a US citizen? No, because the story is impossible from the first word. He couldn't be appointed to that position or any other by a state official, since the position is a federal or national position. Beyond that, the position has requirements that cannot be waived by a state official, a federal official, or any other official. To be a Congressperson requires many years of previous US citizenship, and it does not confer US citizenship.

The same thing would have been true in Germany. Foreign nationals, even from Austria, would not be eligible for the Reichsrat. Plus, what is “an administrator for the state's delegation”? The state would have a delegation, but the delegation does not require an administrator. Think of Texas, again. Texas has a delegation to the US Congress, composed of 2 Senators and 36 Representatives. But they have no administrator, as far as I know. They don't require one. They can administrate themselves. But if they did have an administrator, I doubt you would find that he was a Mexican or Canadian national.

The farce continues, because we are told that upon allegedly gaining citizenship in 1932, Hitler immediately ran for President against Hindenburg. Let's again transfer that story to the US. You are a Mexican national who has just passed his citizenship test. To celebrate, you decide to run for President. Brilliant, right? No, impossible. To run for President, you have to be a Natural Born Citizen: a citizen from birth. See the Obama birther brouhaha. I don't know what the rules in Germany were at the time, but I would guess to run for President of Germany, you would have had to have been a citizen for more than the one month Hitler had been a citizen. But it doesn't really matter, because Hitler should have been ineligible to run for any office for at least two other reasons. One, as a convicted felon having been sentenced to five years in prison, he would be ineligible to vote and thereby to stand for office. In Germany, standing for office is determined by your eligibility to vote. If you can't vote, you can't run. Two, as a convicted traitor, he would be permanently ineligible to vote or stand for any office. Remember, they admit that Hitler was tried and convicted of High Treason. Conviction for that offense has always been special and still is. See the section on suffrage here, where it states that those convicted of treason in Germany are excluded from suffrage and thereby running for office. That is also true in the US, where section 18 of the US Code states that those guilty of treason “shall be incapable of holding any office”.

We saw the same problem with Eugene Debs, when we were told he ran for President from jail in 1918, despite being convicted of sedition and having his right to vote stripped for life. As you see again, that is logically impossible, since according the definitions in the US Code, sedition is a subset of treason:

whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason.

Debs was convicted of ten counts of sedition, and several of his acts fell under the “giving aid to the enemy” clause above. Beyond that, President Wilson called Debs “a traitor”. Debs was not charged with levying war against the US and so was not given the death penalty, but the fact that Debs was disenfranchised for life indicates this was not considered by the judge to be a normal felony conviction.**

But back to Hitler. We have even more problems with his 1932 run for President, since we are told he gave a speech to the Industry Club in Dusseldorf to start his run for President, which won him the support of many of Germany's most powerful industrialists. The problem? We were just told that Hitler gained citizenship February 25, 1932. The speech was January 27, 1932. So at the time of this famous speech, Hitler was not a German citizen and was ineligible to run. I guess the industrialists in the audience overlooked that little glitch in the story.

Just to be sure you are following me, I have just proven that not only was Hitler ineligible to run for President in 1932, he was ineligible to be appointed Chancellor in 1933. We are told,

The absence of an effective government prompted two influential politicians, Franz von Papen and Alfred Hugenberg, along with several other industrialists and businessmen, to write a letter to Hindenburg. The signers urged Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as leader of a government "independent from parliamentary parties", which could turn into a movement that would "enrapture millions of people".

I really hope you can see through that now. Why would an elected President need to appoint a Chancellor to lead the government? The President at the time was already the “leader of the government”, so Hindenburg didn't need to appoint anyone to do that. It would be like Obama appointing a Prime Minister. The position makes no sense and has no historical precedent. It is like we are being told President Hindenburg is appointing a dictator, just so they can have a non-parliamentary government (“independent from parliamentary rules”). In fact, all this history we are sold in 1933-4 is a total fabrication, since that was the only time in the history of Germany when an elected President appointed a Chancellor with the powers of Hitler. Before that, in the Weimar Republic, the Chancellor was a weak figure, and was mainly just a chairman for the President in Parliament. In that capacity, it would be ridiculous to appoint a Chancellor that was “independent from Parliamentary parties”. And after Hitler, the Presidency became more of a figurehead, with the Chancellor acting as head of the government. So 1933 was the only year in the history of Germany when both positions were positions of power. Clearly, this was just a way to get Hitler in a position of power in the story without him being elected. Conveniently, President Hindenburg “died” just a year later, allegedly allowing Hitler to take over both offices.

But Hitler should have never been appointed to anything by anyone, since he had been convicted of High Treason just nine years earlier, and everyone would have known that. Therefore his citizenship should have been invalid, and he shouldn't have been eligible to vote, much less run for office or be appointed.

The whole appointment of Hitler by Hindenburg in 1933 should therefore look incredibly suspicious. Hitler was just 43 and had done nothing important. He had held no offices, had never been elected to anything, had quit the army as a lowly corporal, and hadn't even graduated from high school. He had zero qualifications for anything in government. He was not legally a citizen of Germany, since his citizenship had been faked the year before. And he was ineligible for any office due to his treason conviction. So basically, this is the stupidest story anyone has ever told another person.

Unwinding it is easy, since we can tell both Hindenburg and Hitler were part of some major Intelligence operation at the highest level. Hindenburg had been instructed to appoint Hitler and then fake his own death, at which point Hitler could just declare himself dictator. Since he was a pawn of the Industrialists, he could not lose. They owned the army and the press, so if they wanted it done it was done.

Notice they even admit that the Industrialists were behind Hindenburg and Hitler in the quote above. That's pretty singular, seeing that it is about the only true thing we have been told in this whole history. However, in this case even that is misdirection. One of these alleged Industrialists was von Papen, as you see, and von Papen wasn't really the kind of Industrialist I have been talking about. He was actually an aristocratic frontman for the superwealthy, like others we have seen. In other words, he was an aristocrat that had been bought out by the billionaire families, and was another agent himself. He had been in German Intelligence since before WW1, and they admit that in his mainstream bio. We are told he was expelled from the US in 1914 for being a spy. The strange thing there is that he was accused of planning acts of sabotage, and yet simply expelled. Why wasn't he tried and hung? I assume it is because he was a noble, and also because the espionage he was allegedly involved in was just more spy-versus-spy fakery, created to convince Congress to do something or convince the American people they were being attacked by Germany.

Von Papen was a lieutenant colonel, which we have seen is a common rank for Intelligence officers in big projects. In 1932, Hindenburg mysteriously appointed von Papen as Chancellor under strange circumstances, since this required the resignation of Chancellor Heinrich Bruning. It was even more strange in that von Papen had no qualifications, was not popular or well known, and was in the Centre Party—which considered him a turncoat for accepting the appointment. Since von Papen was only Chancellor for five months, it now looks like he was just paving the way for Hitler. The same can be said for Kurt von Schleicher, who then held the Chancellorship for less than two months while they brought in Hitler.

The stories told to explain Hitler's rise during this time are some of the most fantastic in the history of storytelling. For instance, we get this stunner on Schleicher's Wiki page:

The ousted Papen now had Hindenburg's ear, and used his position to advise the president to sack Schleicher at the first chance. Papen was urging the aged president to appoint Hitler as chancellor in a coalition with the Nationalist Deutschenationale Volkspartei (German National People's Party; DNVP) who, together with Papen, would supposedly be in a position to moderate Nazi excesses.

Yes, nothing like appointing the leader of the Nazis as Chancellor to “moderate Nazi excesses”. I wonder how that brilliant plan failed?

The stupidity continues when we are told that Schleicher also supported Hitler's Chancellorship, to prevent von Papen from returning as Chancellor.

That same day, Schleicher, learning that his government was about to fall, and fearing that his rival Papen would get the chancellorship, began to favor a Hitler chancellorship.[128] Knowing of Papen's by now boundless hatred for him, Schleicher knew he had no chance of becoming Defense Minister in a new Papen government, but he felt his chances of becoming the Defense Minister in a Hitler government were very good.

You see what they are doing? They are playing Papen and Schleicher off one another, to make it look like they were both supporting Hitler. They are in the desperate situation of having to explain the rise of Hitler, which is unexplainable by any rational or true story, so they have to come up with something. But notice that if Papen is supporting a Hitler Chancellorship, and if Schleicher hates Papen, Schleicher should logically be opposed to Hitler. Not only because Hitler is Papen's man, but because Schleicher has to step aside to make room for Hitler. Schleicher's support for Hitler makes no sense on any level, and the Papen/Schleicher rivalry does nothing to explain it. It just makes the mystery deeper and the con more obvious.

As for Alfred Hugenberg, he was a media mogul who had long been the moneybags for the Nazis. But this just means he was in on the project from the ground floor, working hand-in-hand with German Intelligence to install their actor/puppet Hitler and his cinematic goonsquad. Hugenberg was useful not only for his money, but even more for his control of the press, which they needed to insert their daily stories of ever-increasing gore and trauma. In is actually in this regard that the US right now is most like Nazi Germany. Some have claimed that Nazis or fascists have taken over here, and while that is true in some ways, it is important to understand how it is true and how it is not true. It is most true in that we are now in a cycle of accelerating fake events, many of them extremely gory and traumatic, and most them in service of confusing the populace and keeping their eyes off real events. We see this daily in the newspapers and on TV, where we are being sold a completely manufactured reality of fake events. It is also true in that our current Nazis are ruled by the same people that ran everything in WW2, on both sides. However, it is not true that either the old Nazis or the new Nazis are anti-Semitic, Socialist, or doing anything you are told they are. Then as now, everything is a smokescreen. It is curtain fronting a curtain fronting another curtain. To understand how that is true now, it helps to understand how it was true in the past, which is why I am here writing this. It is often easier to look closely at the past than at the present, since at least the past will stand still.

We see this smokescreen again with the Enabling Act of 1933. Here is what we are taught:

The Enabling Act (German: Ermächtigungsgesetz) was a 1933 Weimar Constitution amendment that gave the German Cabinet – in effect, Chancellor Adolf Hitler – the power to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag. It passed in both the Reichstag and Reichsrat on 24 March 1933, and was signed by President Paul von Hindenburg later that day. The act stated that it was to last four years unless renewed by the Reichstag, which occurred twice.

Does that make any sense to you? If so, you have been plugged into the machine too long. That entire paragraph is completely illogical. Would a Congress pass an act to make itself obsolete? And if it would do that, why would it need to? If Hitler is going to ignore the Reichstag, why would he need their permission to do it? Why not just ignore them without the vote? Wouldn't it amount to the same thing? And why would the Reichstag need to renew their own bypass? Once they are bypassed, they don't need to renew the bypass. If they are bypassed, they are bypassed, and a renewal is just a joke. The whole event reads like one of those circular games, like they played in the movie The Labyrinth. Remember the two guys in the gate that Jennifer Connelly needs to get through? One of them always lies and one never lies, but they won't tell her which is which. She has to solve the riddle. This Enabling Act is sort of like that, because it contradicts itself. The German Parliament is passing a law that says it is no longer needed to pass laws. So logically, if the German Parliament is no longer needed to pass laws, then any laws it passes are null and void. Any laws that Hitler wishes to pass he can create without them, therefore the Parliament is just a floater. But if the Parliament is just a floater, then any acts it passes are meaningless, which means the Enabling Act is meaningless. Clearly, Hitler wasn't enabled by the act itself, since a body with no power cannot enable a body with power. If Parliament had any power, they would not have passed the Enabling Act. Hence they have no power, in which case the Enabling Act is a misnomer. The Enabling Act is not an Enabling Act for Hitler, but a dis-Enabling Act for Parliament, which is just admitting it is already defunct.

You will say, “Yes, but this was because the Reichstag was afraid of the Nazis. They had been scared by the Reichstag Fire, which they knew had been set by the Nazis”. No, the Reichstag wasn't afraid of the Nazis, because the Nazis were just a bunch of actors. Most in the Reichstag probably knew that. The Reichstag was no more afraid of the Nazis than they were afraid of the Keystone Cops. The Reichstag was and always had been under the thumb of the Industrialists, and if the Industrialists ordered them to pass the Enabling Act they did it. If the Industrialists had ordered them to pass a Bite- Their-Own-Ass Act they would have done that, too.

So that you see better what I mean, bring the play forward to the present time. Is the current US Congress afraid of Nazis or dictators now? Not as far as we are told. Has the Capitol building recently been burned or attacked? Not as far as we are told. And yet they daily pass enabling acts for big business and the military and Intel. All of US Government is one big enabling act for the Industrialists and one big disabling act for you.

Which all goes to say the the Enabling Act of 1933 was another smokescreen. It didn't allow Hitler to do anything that wasn't already in the script. What enabled Hitler was not the Reichstag vote or the brownshirts or the SA or the secret police or anything else we are taught. What enabled Hitler was German Intelligence, and what enabled German Intelligence was the wealthiest families. These wealthiest families were not aristocrats, they were Industrialists. The Nazis were just a very complex and extensive curtain—a brilliantly painted veil—in front of the Industrialists. The Marxists were an earlier and larger curtain in front of the same people, but the Nazis were far more cinematic and theatrical. It is no coincidence that we have seen Eckart involved above, and Count von Hulsen- Haeseler of the Prussian Royal Theatre. This was all German Theatre at its finest.

Wikipedia even gives you the hint, publishing that photo with the subtext, “Hitler posing for the camera”. He is clearly practicing his role as Hitler, just like an actor. And no one ever found that suspicious? Actually, I assume a lot of people in Germany knew what I am telling you. But those people on the ground weren't interviewed or quoted. Their testimony has been lost, and almost all are now dead. Any witness would now be at least 95, which may explain why the historians have gotten ever sloppier and more brazen. They think that 75 years on, no one will be clever or determined enough to see through this.

You will say, “No, it can't be. You can't just create someone like that!” Really? What about your current President? Obama was manufactured by Intelligence from the ground up, just like Hitler. Obama's birth certificate is an obvious fake, as everyone who has seriously studied it knows. There is no documentation for his having attended either Columbia or Harvard, since he has never released his records and the universities won't, either. His alleged mother worked for known CIA fronts. He is a total figment of your imagination, planted there by storytellers. For more indication of that, you can go to Intelius.com, which tells us Obama has lived in Knoxville, TN, Calhoun, GA, Antigo, WI, and Scottsdale, AZ. None of those places appear in his official bio or come up in a websearch.

I can't cover Hitler's whole life in this one paper and never planned to. I just wanted to unwind the Beer Hall Putsch and surrounding events, which I think you can see I have done pretty thoroughly. However, there is one last thing I want to cover here, and that is Mein Kampf. This Hitler biography was supposedly written by Hitler while he was serving time for treason. Or, it was dictated to his cellmate Hess. Again, we see red flags all over the place here. To start with, Hitler was just 34. Who writes an autobiography at age 34? Why would any one care about this young man's views of Jews or anything else? Two, since both he and Hess were convicted of High Treason, they would not have been put in the same cell or adjoining cells. So when was all this dictation supposed to have taken place? At lunch? In the showers? Three, since I have shown you the entire Beer Hall Putsch was faked, and that Hitler was an agent all along, that means his prison term was also faked. Which of course blows a hole in the creation of Mein Kampf. Clearly, Mein Kampf, like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is another not-so-clever production of Military Intelligence. We could go line-by-line through the book, showing the inconsistencies, but I don't really think it is worth it. It is enough to show that it later provided the seed for the Holocaust, which was one of its main points. Hitler said that 12 to 15 thousand Jews should be subjected to poison gas, which provides early documentation of that project.

But if Mein Kampf is a fake, what was its purpose? Well, in it Hitler was first propped up as an Anti. If you have been following my major papers of the past three years, you will remember I first used that term to describe the Ezra Pound project during WW2. Pound was sent to Italy during the war to do radio broadcasts. In these broadcasts, he did much like Hitler, blaming the Jews for everything, attacking the banks, and so on. However, after the war Pound was brought back to the US, where he was tried for treason. Although the court case strangely never ended in a verdict, and seems to have just evaporated as it progressed, nonetheless Pound was “declared insane” and sent to a mental institution.† So the message in the press from this event was that those who blamed Jews or bankers for anything were crazy. That is what I meant by Anti. Pound was propped up to espouse a lot of ideas that the governors wished to blackwash. He was instructed to attack all the people they wished to cleanse. His being declared insane would serve to make the Jews and the bankers look innocent.

Well, Hitler's pose, including Mein Kampf, was just another larger instance of the same thing. It was a longer and more prominent project to whitewash the Jews and the Industrialists, and to give credibility to the Marxists. Like Pound, Hitler was set up to fail. He attacked the Jews, was later shown to be a very bad man, and through him the Jews and other Industrialists were cleansed.

This is why Mein Kampf is so clever, and why it worked so well. Like the Protocols, although fake it contains a lot of truth. It therefore fools a lot of people, not all of them Jew haters. As we have seen, the Industrialists were behind the Weimar Republic. Many of these Industrialists were Jewish. And these people did stab the German Army in the back, since the outcome of WW1 was predetermined. The Industrialists knew Germany would lose from the first shot in 1914. That was the script. The idea, as usual, was to empty all the national treasuries in many rich countries, steal all the productivity of the lower classes for several years, cull the populations a bit, test new weaponry, and bring the aristocracy down another notch. All this acted to further solidify and cloak the positions of the Industrialists. After this major theft and hoax, the citizenry was naturally suspicious. By 1918 many were whispering the truth: that Germany—like Russia—had just been raped by the Industrialists with the war as an excuse and smokescreen. Many were looking sideways at the bankers and the richest Jewish families. So these families realized the first thing they needed to do was a run a major misdirection campaign, to redirect everyone's gazes. Hitler's career was just the most visible part of this campaign over the next two decades. He was hired to tell the people what they already knew, but then to subtly turn their gaze to other things. After he had done that, the whole story could be flipped. Hitler would fall in the nastiest manner possible, making the average citizen think they were wrong about the Jews and other Industrialists.

And this is exactly what happened. Hitler was made to look far worse than any Jew or Industrialist, and after the war everyone was taught to look out for genocidal Nazis, not cloaked Industrialists. Beyond that, a constant stream of other manufactured bogeymen have been marched across the headlines in the Western Press, again to keep your eyes off the real bad guys. In the US it was Red Commies, then cult murderers like Manson, then serial killers, and now mass murderers. Anything to keep your eyes off the Industrialists that have been running all the real schemes all along.

On the way out, I beg you to notice I have taken a third path here. I am not confirming what anyone else has told you, on either side. I have shown you that both the mainstream story and the alternative story of Hitler has been faked. I am neither pro-Hitler or anti-Hitler, since I have just shown you he was little more than an actor and agent. He was no more responsible for whatever happened in WW2 than Obama is responsible for whatever is happening in Libya or Syria. Without a Teleprompter, Obama couldn't even spell Libya or Syria. It was the same with Hitler, and that also includes all his fake henchmen, who were also just poster boys for Nazism. Nazism, like everything else, was manufactured from the ground up by Military Intelligence, at the behest of the billionaires. It was little more than another stupid script.

This doesn't mean the World Wars didn't happen, it just means they didn't happen for the reasons you are told. They were manufactured in whole and faked in part, to do exactly what General Smedley Butler told you in 1935: to hide the racket that is war.

So, was Hitler's death also faked? Of course. But I have gone far beyond that here, showing that his LIFE was faked. It was all from a script, and large parts of it never happened at all. They only happened on paper and in fake photos and newsreels. So when David Irving said Hitler was created by Hollywood and Madison Avenue, he wasn't joking. It may have been a slip of the tongue or a clue dropped on purpose, but either way it was very close to the truth. It explains why propaganda and theater and art were such a major part of the Nazi story, including the whole Leni Riefenstahl subtext. Remember, her first movie for the Nazis, Victory of Faith, came out in September 1933. Her second movie, Triumph of the Will, came out in 1935. She was a famous movie director and actress, and these Nazi films (including the later Olympia) were huge productions. Triumph of the Will “starred” Hitler,

Himmler, Hess, Lutze, and many other top Nazis, as well as 30,000 extras. Some will write in to tell me the big crowd scenes we see in the Hitler newsreels couldn't have been faked, but they were faked in Triumph of the Will. Again, director Riefenstahl had 30,000 extras to work with. After all I have shown you above, you should really pause and look closely at these Nazi movies in a new light. They are a gigantic clue most have passed over. They weren't just propaganda, they were the actual creation of the story.

I also remind you that Hitler had connections to the Prussian Royal Theatre, through his early handler Dietrich Eckart. Remember, Eckart was the protégé of the artistic director of the Royal Theatre, Count von Hulsen-Haeseler. So do you really think it was a coincidence Hitler was already hanging out with actors and playwrights by 1920? No, it is another big clue, one everyone has missed. This is why they insert fake clues like the Thule Society. The whole Thule Society clue has always been a diversion, and it was inserted right at this place in the history, when Hitler was meeting Eckart. They wanted you following the sexy occult clue, and missing the obvious link to the Prussian Royal Theatre.

Of course there is a lot more to be said about Hitler and both World Wars. This paper is just one in a series. Any questions you have may be answered in future. Or not. I don't claim to be able to answer all questions. I simply report what I find. My research is in progress and I have no idea what I will discover tomorrow. I had no idea what I would discover in this paper until I discovered it. Most of it is as shocking to me as it no doubt is to you, and if you are screaming at the computer screen, join the club.

*Although this quote says 9 months, it was actually just over 8, according to the dates given.

** It is true that this question was never decided by a court, so concerning Debs you are free to disagree with my assessment. I will be told Debs was allowed to run for office, but it would be more accurate to say that Debs was not prevented from running for office. At the time, you could not prevent write-in votes, so the question of Debs actual eligibility never came up. No one sued to prevent him from saying he was running, so the question was never decided. But concerning Hitler, there is really no question about his eligibility to run for President in 1932: he was definitely ineligible. Though again, it apparently didn't come up, because he didn't win and no one sued during the election.

† This project was also faked, of course.