Thursday, August 02, 2007

Hitler the Jewish Zionist (Part III)

Here we go with the third and final installment of my ongoing analysis (mainly of the sources) in Jim Condit Jr's film The Final Solution to Adolf Hitler.

Read more!
  • The Rakovsky Interview. This is Condit's big source for the last fifty-odd minutes of this film. This is a singularly difficult book to get one's hands on, so I'm going to take the somewhat risk approach of trusting Condit at his word that he's quoting correctly when quoting directly. There are some real gems offered here:
    1. The first thing that Condit pulls out of this alleged interview of Christian Rakovsky (more on him later) is this remark: "They [the bankers] were very displeased with Stalin. They viewed Stalin as a Bonapartist."

      Condit tells us that "Rattisbone" figured out that, as it was the bankers who funded Napoleon, but Napoleon turned on them. Thus any person who turns out the bankers is a "Bonapartist."

      Unfortunately, it seems neither the forgers of this interview, "Rattisone," nor Condit know what the term "Bonapartist" means to a Marxist. "Bonapartist" is a term coined by Marx in his 1852 piece The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. So first of all, we're not even talking about Napoleon Bonaparte; we're talking about Louis-Napoleon III Bonaparte, the second French Emperor who ruled from 1848 to 1870.

      According to the commentary on the article, Bonapartism "has been used to describe a government that forms when class rule is not secure and a military, police, and state bureaucracy intervenes to establish order. Nineteenth century Bonapartism is commonly associated with Twentieth century fascism and stalinism." In plain speech, Bonapartism is, to Marx, counterrevolutionary activity.

      Of course, if Condit's overarching theory -- that "the Jews" control both finance capitalism and communism -- is true, then perhaps Stalin was being referred to as a Bonapartist in the sense Condit suggests. But I have yet to hear a plausible explanation for why capitalists and communists would be in cooperation.

    2. Now Rakovsky is "quoted" as saying that, in looking for an agent to bring down Stalin, they turned to Germany and the "gifted orator" Adolf Hitler. More on this later.


  • The Prisoner of Ottawa by Douglas Reed. Condit refers to Reed as an "historian," but he was in fact a journalist. This book was about Otto Strasser, written while Strasser was living in Canada.

    It should be noted that Reed was an inveterate anti-Semite. He was attacked at least twice by none other than George Orwell on this point.

    Anyway, Reed says that Strasser told him that Hitler had money to burn in 1929, and Condit links this up to Rakovsky allegedly saying that "Warburg" (we're not told which one) to give Hitler $10 million. Condit makes reference to Who Financed Hitler? by James Poole, who wrote that in the 1933 election, the Nazis had unlimited funds.

    Condit is able to chalk this up in its entirety to Rothschild/Warburg funding, but he never takes up the issue of Hitler's funding by German industrialists such as Ferdinand Porsche, the Krupp family, etc. Condit also seems to believe that Hitler and Stalin both invaded Poland on the same day. Actually, the invasions were sixteen days apart.

    Condit next tells us that Hitler had the support of the Cliveden Group. We're told these were pro-Zionist English sympathizers of Hitler; their "Zionism" is no proved by Condit. If anything, they seem to be Mosleyites or perhaps of the Edward III set. Will Condit tell us that the Duke of Windsor was Jewish?

    Condit also mentions his belief that Rudolf Hess was incarcerated entirely alone in Spandau Prison for forty-four years. No, all the Nuremberg defendants went to Spandau. Hess was simply the last to die.

    Now Condit returns to Reed's book on Strasser. Strasser says, supposedly, that Hitler was in Munich while it was under communist control. So, we can assume, Condit says, that Hitler was "working with the communists" in Munich in 1919-20. His source for this?

  • Hitler: Hubris, 1889-1936 by Ian Kershaw. According to Condit, Hitler acted as a "go-between" for the communist Bavarian government in Munich and the army.

    Is this what Kershaw actually writes? (Never mind that Kershaw completely dispenses with the "Hitler's grandfather was a Jew" theory -- If Condit is quoting Kershaw correctly know, then he's quote-mining again.) No, of course not. Condit says that Hitler was a messenger between the communist government and the troops. The problem is that the government was not "communist" until after Kurt Eisner was assassinated and, as a whole, was "communist" for perhaps a month. Hitler's loyalty, Kershaw writes, was to the SPD (Social-Democratic Party of Germany), which had actually called in the Freikorps to crush the revolution in Berlin. And why did Hitler compromise his principals? Kershaw chalks it up to something that Condit never mentions -- he wanted to avoid being demobilized from the army for fear of being deported to his native Austria. Why does Condit omit this? Is he lying? Did he not read the book?

  • The House of Nasi: The Duke of Naxos. This book is about "Joseph of Nasi," the "prince of worldwide Jewry" in the sixteenth century (he was a Sephardi, and there is no "prince of Jewry." Its importance is beyond me, to be frank.

  • Perfidy by Ben Hecht. The thing that Condit seems not to realize in bringing up the Kastner case is that despite their protestations, the Irgun collaborated with the Nazis far more than the Labor Zionists.

    By the way, from the beginning of the state of Israel through Kastner's assassination, the foreign minister of Israel was Moshe Sharrett.

  • Zionism in the Age of Dictators by Lenni Brenner. Yaaaaawn. He also cites Brenner's 51 Documents.

    On the heels of this, we get the tired old story that the Zionists brought the U.S. into World War I in exchange for Palestine. (Germany was losing on the Eastern Front when people like Condit claimed they were winning.) Condit totally misconstrues Brenner's motives, by the way, since he never mentions that Brenner is a Marxist.

  • The Secret World Government by Major General Count Cherep Spiridovich. This is anti-Semitic conspiracy shit by a defeated White Army offficer. That Condit would rely on such a steaming pile of pony loaf speaks volumes about his inherent prejudices.

  • Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Anthony Sutton. So what? We know that big American industrialists were bankrolling Hitler. This does nothing to support the notion that Zionists or Rothschilds were doing it.

  • The War Against the Jews by Lucy Davidowicz. She's kind of a joke. I wonder if Condit know that. According to Davidowicz, everyone was responsible for the Holocaust.

  • The Jews of Italy by ADL of B'nai Brith. If we should be surprised that there were Italian-Jewish fascists, then Condit underestimates our knowledge of the history of fascism. He states that this ADL pamphlet says that Mussolini and Adolf Eichmann set up Irgun training camps in Italy.

    Well, that's a new one. As for Eichmann, he spent part of 1937 in Palestine and then returned to his native Austria to oversee security during the annexation of Austria. Again, if we're supposed to be surprised that Eichmann spent time in Palestine, we're not.

  • Special Treatment: The Untold Story of Hitler's Third Race by Alan Abrams. This is a book about Mischlinge. Since when is this story untold, for one thing? The 1935 Race Laws are clear that Mischlinge are distinct from Jews.

    If Hitler felt that people of partially Jewish and partially German ancestry would "rule the world," then why did he outlaw marriages between second-degree Mischlinge?

  • The Abandonment of the Jew by David Wyman. What I said about Davidowicz goes for Wyman too.

  • The German-Bolshevik by Nesta Webster? Condit seems not to realize that Germany is not a religiously heterogeneous country and therefore could not be unified on religious grounds.

  • John "Birdman" Bryant. Claims Alfred Rosenberg was Jewish.
I want to return to Rakovsky because Condit never really finishes up with him.

Condit claims Rakovsky was Jewish. The man's first name was "Christian," but disregard that -- he was a Jew because "Rattisbone" said so. Curiously, Trotsky, who was Jewish and was working on a biography of Rakovsky when he was assassinated, never identifies Rakovsky as being Jewish. This is probably because he wasn't.

A final point: What Condit's long, rambling film (and thus these long, rambling posts) never takes into account is this: If Hitler wanted Jews out of Europe, why wouldn't he cooperate to some extent with Zionists who were willing to do so? It's the simplest possible explanation for much of what Condit presents, and not that Hitler was getting Rothschild funding and was himself a Jew.

Condit wraps things up with a bit of Holocaust denial and religious anti-Semitism. He appeals to Denis Fahey and Hutton Gibson and his idiot wife who says there weren't six million Jews in Europe in 1941: The Nazis' own census show 11 million. He quotes palpable lunatic Michael Hoffman to the extent that the word "Holocaust" didn't appear capitalized in the dictionary until 1980. And this proves what? It's a complete non sequitur.

Condit, like most conspiracy theorists and anti-Semites, is unable to apply the principle of Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Isn't it possible -- just possible (I'd say probable if not definite) -- that a politically adept demagogue who hated Jews for no reasons of "family blood" was able to exploit fears of communism to rise to power in Germany and eradicate millions of Jews in the process? It wasn't the first genocide and sadly probably won't be the last, so why is it the most questioned?

Why the double standard, Mr. Condit?

1 comment:

Benjuran said...

"THE ONLY THING WE KNOW FOR SURE, IS THAT WE KNOW NOTHING FOR SURE"

Luckly, I'm a pure skeptic. History is written by the victor. History is an imperfect Science. People seem to make the mistake of seeing History(what ever there vantage point)as facts, not as the mere opinions and theories and hypothesis's of Historians, who more often than not are Politically pressured or Politically Prejudice. I read a few of the books that you offered a critical analysis on(Lol) and I wasn't particularly swayed by one, but the 2nd was very interesting "Red Symphony" I recomend you read it. Infact if you could please read the books and form your own opinion and stop just picking up bits and pieces of context out of Wikipedia and passing yourself off as a critic. I will take your advice on the simplist path is usually the correct one. Your Critique, was deffinetly not a critique, but more of an arrogant dissmisive mocking of facts and opinions. your motive's only G*d knows. Should some predjudice anti-semite read your critique, he would probably, If he was skeptical, probably be more inclined to believe Jim Condits Beliefs and if the person was already a biggot you have probably given him just cause to believe there is a conspiracy of silence and of manipulation of facts to conform to your Pre-judged beliefs and helped him increase and arm his belief in often true but twisted conspiracy theories. Do the rest of us a favour, don't speak for us........... Yes,Yes.... the U.S entered Iraq just because they thought they had weapons of mass destruction........ they just bungled it, a mistake........ that will be in the History books in fifty years time....... it will be called "The Liberation of Iraq"..... A Skeptics thought.Thank you.