Adolf Hitler

Hell

Type: Controlled Opposition

Lifetime: April 20, 1889 – April 30, 1945

Adolf Hitler was a German politician who rose to power as the leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi Party). He became Chancellor of Germany in 1933 and later Führer in 1934.

## Biography

The mainstream is now admitting Hitler was at least partially Jewish. That is from History.com, and the data comes from DNA evidence. You will say we don't trust History.com when they tell us things we don't agree with, so why do we trust them when they tell us this. I will tell you why. It isn't because we trust them on this question. Trust has nothing to do with it. It is because we can see that they are misdirecting even while admitting it. Notice that in the article, they want you to think Hitler is only Jewish in a couple of lines, while being mostly Gentile. They are selling it as a minor irony, while not tying it to anything important. So they are spinning it heavily. This is what they do. We saw them do it with Lenin and many others. This indicates to me that Hitler was probably a lot more Jewish than they are admitting. But I am not taking their word for it either way. I am going to do my own research from the ground up, as usual. I just take their spinning as a hint.

### Genealogy

So let's hit Geni.com hard. Hitler wasn't even really a Hitler. We are told the family was originally **Hiedler**. So why did his father change it? Why move from Hiedler to Hitler? We are told it was to move up in the Austrian Civil Service. By 1876, his father Alois Hiedler, age 39, had topped out in rank [border police, Austrian Customs] “due to his limited education”. To remedy this, he now did two things. One, he amended his baptismal record to indicate Johann Georg Hiedler was his real father rather than his foster-father. Previously, the slot for father had been left blank. This emendation requires four witnesses, but only three testified. We are told all three were illiterate family members and had been underage at the time of Alois' mother's death. Therefore, they shouldn't have been qualified to testify. Two, Alois changed his name to Hitler. We aren't told why this would have helped him move up in rank, and the event isn't even tied to the change in the baptismal record. However, since both events happened at the same time, we may assume they were both done for the same reason. What was that reason?

Well, we assume the problem was that even after the baptismal record change, Hiedler still had a problem: the name sounded Jewish. Locally, it may have been known to be Jewish. In fact, I suspect the entire Frankenberger story has been inserted as misdirection. As you may know, the current worstcase scenario for Hitler's genealogy is that his real paternal grandfather was a Frankenberger, admitted to be Jewish. I suggest that isn't true, and that it has been inserted as a dead end. It looks to me like the “Hiedlers” were Jewish and so was Maria Schicklgruber. But if you are looking at the Frankenbergers, you aren't looking at the Hiedlers and Schicklgrubers.

You may not understand why I would think that, so I will just tell you. It is because we always assume that the two top-ranked stories on any subject are both false. That is what I have always found, so it is a logical assumption. On any websearch, the truth will either be unlisted or it will be downlisted to oblivion. Since the Frankenberger story came up near the top of the first page, I assumed it was garbage, just like the mainstream story. Remember that: the mainstream story and the alternative story are always **both false**.

Since we will see name changes from all these people below, also pause to ask yourself this: If you are a Gentile, how many times has your family changed its name in the past century? In all my lines, So you should find it very suspicious that all these Nazis were constantly changing their names. If they were normal people with nothing to hide, why would they do that? If history was really what we have been told, why are the famous people so well hidden?

### Hitler's Father

In support of our hunch, notice that Hitler's father is named Alois. That doesn't sound very Austrian. Looks French. Since he originally spelled it Aloys, that seems even less Austrian. We send you to this Wiki page to get a taste of the name Alois in history. A lot of Nazis there, but not a lot of old Austrian figures. In fact, this page is a goldmine, not only for this article, but for the entire larger question. Notice that the Pope before the current one was an Alois. Joseph Alois Ratzinger. Arnold Schwarzenegger's middle name is Alois. The mayor of St. Louis during the war was Alois Kaufmann. Kaufmann is of course a Jewish name, and Missouri has long been one of the most politically corrupt places in the US. That's where Truman came from, and Pendergast and Hannegan and that bunch. Then we have Aloys Sprenger, also probably Jewish. He spoke Hebrew and was the principal of Delhi College—which was funded by the East India Company. Not surprisingly, it spawned several gurus who later came to the US and made trouble. Then we have Alois Haba, the Jewish composer from Prague.

[If that link doesn't convince you, try this one, where we learn that at the 1923 invitation of Leo Kestenberg (Jewish), Franz Schreker and his entire class abandoned Vienna for Berlin. Haba was part of that class.] Then we have Alois Buttinger, Socialist and Jew. Also Alois Brunner, who I hit in my last paper on Spotlight. He is sold as a Nazi, but appears to be Jewish. Alois Hudal, pro-Nazi bishop, ditto. Alois Adolf Riehl, philosopher and promoter of Nietzsche. We get a two-fer-one with his names, don't we? Alois and Adolf. Riehl is also a Jewish name. See Regine Riehl, convicted in 1907 in Vienna of being a madam, and admitted to be Jewish.

Also see Nikolaus Riehl, who worked on the bomb for the Soviets. Also see famous meteorologist Herbert Riehl, admitted to be Jewish. Then we find the famous doctor Alois Alzheimer, admitted to be Jewish. Then Aloys Wach, previously Wachelmeier, Jewish expressionist painter [Wiki: “Was not allowed to paint during the Nazi regime”]. Then we find the Czech writer Alois Jirasek, not admitted to be Jewish but he was a reproducer of Jewish legends and teller of Prague's Jewish history. Then we have Alois Swoboda, son of Adolf, mail-order millionaire who promoted Charles Atlas and the perfect physique. Swoboda was promoted by Ernest and L. Ron Hubbard, who later used Swoboda's gimmickry in Scientology. We assume all were Jews, although we will have to hit it later. It would swamp this article.

In short, almost every Alois listed throws up some kind of Jewish red flag, so that from now on we can use the name as a probable marker. Rather than see it as a variation of Louis, as we are told, we can tag it as a variation of Israel, Zion, or Sion. In fact, Alois backwards is Siola. Or, Sion-la. In French, “Zion there”. And look at the picture of Alois Hitler they have posted at Geni. You have to laugh. That guy has absolutely no resemblance to Adolf Hitler or anyone else in the family. Here is his other son Alois Hitler, Jr.

Zero resemblance. That picture of Alois, Sr. is a fake. They just grabbed a picture of the most criminal-looking person they could find from that period and posted it as Hitler's father. Don't believe me that we are being toyed with? Check out this: on Alois Hitler, Jr.'s page, he is listed like this in the title: **Alois Hitler (Matzelsberger), Jr.** What? We appear to be being told that his mother's maiden name is Matzelsberger, but that isn't the way it is usually given. So I see it as a clue. His mother is given as Franziska Matzelsberger, so they want to be sure you don't miss that. Why? Because it couldn't be more Jewish if it were Matzoball. We learn nothing else about her. No parents. Why do they use that name? Because it is almost extinct. According to Namepedia, there are only 12 instances in the entire world. For comparison, Mathis brings up 786,000. Jones brings up 38 million. This indicates Matzelsberger is a fake name, used only by Intel for its jokes.

Also curious to find Alois Hitler, Jr.'s son listed as William Patrick Stuart-Houston. His life is another big joke. On his Geni page, it is made to look like he took his mother's names Stuart-Houston, but in the biographical section at the bottom, it says he just made it up. Besides, his mother's maiden name was Dowling. We have seen that in other articles, as a variation of Downing, indicating this woman was actually in the peerage. Regardless, according to Wikipedia and other mainstream sources her name wasn't Stuart-Houston, so listing her as a Stuart-Houston is a major problem.

Or was it? Stuart is of course a prominent name in the peerage, so perhaps someone at Geni is giving us a hint here. To unwind it, we have to respell both names, to get Stewart-Houstoun. We then find Houstoun Stewart-Nicholson, a friend of Boswell. His son was the 5th Baronet Greenock, and his grandson was Admiral of the Fleet (5-star) Houston Stewart. His son was also Admiral William Houston Stewart, and he lived until 1901. Bridget Dowling was born around 1891, so we just need the final link. In searching on this, we found some interesting things which we will share. At thepeerage.com, there is a Doris Dowling, peer, d. 2004, daughter of an unknown Dowling, and Doris came to the US to be an actress. She married Artie Shaw the famous bandleader, and Leonard B. Kaufman (producer of Hawaii 5-O, etc). Why is she scrubbed? Is it connected to our mystery here? We suspect so.

Anyway, it is hard to make that link between Stewart and Dowling, due to scrubbing, but the Dowlings and Stewarts/Stuarts are very closely related, as you see here at Tim Dowling's lineage. As you may know, he has built his own genealogy website, and it is huge. Anyway, he says that he is related to King James Stewart II, 2nd cousin 18x removed. That's an incredibly close relationship to someone so distant in time, as you can see by just scrolling up and down the rest of that page. Do a pagesearch for 1 st and 2nd, and you find that the only other relationships that close but distant in time are a Bacon (13x removed), a Bowes, a Brandon (16x removed), a Bruce (22x removed), a Cecil, a Clifford (14x removed), a de Bourgogne, a de Castile, a Douglas, King Hardecanute, King Harold Harefoot (33 times removed), three King Henriques, a Neville, two King Charles of France, King James V of Scotland, King John II of France, two King Charles of France, Henry V, VI, VII, and VIII of England, three Seymours, a Stafford, King James Stuart I, a Talbot, King Edward VI, and Queens Mary and Elizabeth.

Therefore, when we see Alois Hitler marrying a Dowling and then changing his name to Stuart (Stewart), we should be very suspicious. The odds are very high that Bridget Dowling really was closely related to the Stewarts and that it was part of her name or the name of someone in her family. Obviously, they had to scrub all this **because it means Hitler's brother married into the British peerage before WW1.**

### Hitler's Friend Houston Stewart Chamberlain

Also interesting is Houston Stewart Chamberlain, d. 1927, a British-born German philosopher with red flags all over him. He married Richard Wagner's daughter Eva after her mother divorced famous composer the Baron Hans van Bulow. {Think of the later Claus von Bulow.} Notice all the composers we see here. Hitler referenced Chamberlain—one of his favorite writers—often. Chamberlain's bio is very curious, since they call him German despite the fact that both his parents are said to be English/Scottish and he was born in England. So why was he German? Are they giving us a clue? Chamberlain's father is given as Rear Admiral William Chamberlain and his mother as Eliza Hall, of the Baronets Hall from Dunglass, Scotland.

Her father was a captain in the navy and her grandmother was Helen Douglas of the Earls of Selkirk. So why was H. S. Chamberlain German? He studied under Carl Vogt in Geneva [think of actor Jon Voight] and Julius von Wiesner in Vienna. Odd. After his studies he settled in Dresden and became a “hater of Disraeli”, etc. This all looks staged as opposition control. Why would the son of two military families from the peerage settle in Dresden? Chamberlain later got involved in the Theosophy project, importing bastardized Eastern religions to the West, today better known as New Age, to create chaos. We will have to research Chamberlain more deeply another time, but we can already see him as an early man on the ground in the Nazi project, connected to all these people. It is no coincidence that Houston Stewart and Stuart-Houston come from the same families and the same project.

### Hitler's Nephew

But let's continue with Hitler's nephew William Patrick Stuart-Houston. We really suggest you study his Wiki page. He was born in Liverpool. This is curious since the Houston Stewart family was related to the Stanleys of Liverpool. Margaret Shaw-Stewart married the Duke of Somerset, which linked them to everyone important in the peerage. They were also related to the Maxwells, the Walkers, the Forbes, and the Millers. Otherwise, we aren't told why the Hitlers were in Liverpool. Dowling was allegedly from Dublin, and Hitler was of course from Austria. We are told they were in Liverpool because Alois was avoiding conscription, but since this was 1911, the war wouldn't start for about three years yet. If he was dodging the upcoming war, he didn't do a very good job of because we are told he returned to Austria in 1914 to gamble and find a second wife. Just in time for the start of the war. And yes, he was a bigamist.

We discovered more evidence at the Dailymail.co.uk. In an article from 2014, we find that while in Liverpool, Alois “worked at a Jewish cafe”. Even better, that cafe was Lyons Cafe—another clue as we know since the Queen is a Bowes-Lyon. Even better, they give us a picture of Alois Hitler:

See a problem? It doesn't match the other famous photo of him. Not even close. We will be told, “Yeah, he just got older and thinner”. No, getting older and thinner can't change the shape of your nostrils. We are fortunate because these two photos are taken at almost exactly the same angle. Look at the distance from the nose and mouth corner on the far side to the edge of the face. That tells us these two heads are turned away from us at almost exactly the same angle. But in the first photo, the guy has a broad flat nose at the end. The other guy has a much narrower nose. Since the second guy is younger, you can't tell me he had a nose job to make his nose flatter and uglier. The ears don't match, either.

And we have even more problems. In the census sheet posted there, we find him listed as Anton Hitler, age 28. His son Wilhelm is listed as one month, which would make this April 1911. But since Alois was born January 1882, in April of 1911 he would have been 29 not 28. And his name wasn't Anton. If he were going to change his name from Alois to fit in in England, he would have changed it to something English like Arthur or Alan or Anthony. To the English, Anton wouldn't have sounded any better than Alois.

We are told Bridget sent her son William to his bigamist father in Germany in 1929, but that is not believable, either. He wouldn't have wished to go and his mother wouldn't have sent him. Anyway, William was working in a bank in Berlin in 1933, but the rest of his bio up to 1939 is contradictory and sparse. Since he was now 28, notice that we have been told nothing about his early life. We don't know where he went to school, how he learned German, or anything else.

### William Randolph Hearst

Suddenly, in 1939 William Randolph Hearst brought him and his mother to the US for a lecture tour. The theme of the lectures was pro-Nazi. Despite that, we are told that at the outbreak of the war he was stranded in the US. He joined the US Navy in 1944 and served until 1947. Despite being a pharmacist's mate, he allegedly won a purple heart. Why would he serve until 1947? *Only so that they could work that number in there*. There were laws against foreign nationals serving during the war, and the idea that Hitler's nephew would be allowed to join the US Navy in 1944 in any capacity is beyond absurd. Again, when he was lecturing in 1939, he was telling his audiences how wonderful his uncle was and what a joy Nazism was. Remember, Hearst was pro-Nazi, and they admit that. It would be hard to deny, since the paper trail stacks to the Moon. To scrub that will require a mighty big bonfire.

But you wouldn't know it from Hearst's Wikipedia page. We get almost no information on Hearst in the 1930s and 40s, and what we do get is heavily spun. His bio basically stalls at 1934, and all we get is this:

* *In 1934, after checking with Jewish leaders to ensure a visit would be to their benefit, Hearst visited Berlin to interview Adolf Hitler. When Hitler asked why he was so misunderstood by the American press, Hearst retorted, "Because Americans believe in democracy, and are averse to dictatorship."*

That makes it look like Hearst was anti-Hitler, but Hearst was actually a personal friend of Hitler. For an unspun take on Hearst, you may visit this page, where the authors reprint actual documents of the time. So William Hitler's page is a complete reversal of the truth at all points. We are told William married a woman named Phyllis Jean-Jacques who was born in Germany in the 1920s. Really? No actual DOB for this person? Why? Because she is another ghost. Jean-Jacques isn't a German name and it isn't a surname. It is a French given name. Although the couple had four sons from 1945-61, none of them had any children, ending that bloodline. Convenient. We typed Phyllis Stuart-Houston of New York into InstantCheckmate. She is there, age 93, but—although she has many aliases—no mention of the name Jean-Jacques. Also strange that William does not come up as a relative. Only Alex, Brian, and Louis. No son Howard Ronald, Special Agent for the IRS. Same thing at Intelius. No William, no Howard.

### Hitler's real surname

But back to Hitler. The name Hiedler itself is uncertain. It was also given in various documents as Hikler and Huetler. All this fudging about something that shouldn't be so variable leads me to believe all the names are slurred. Yes, I think they are all fake, the real name most likely being Hiller. You will see more evidence of this wild-goose chase in a moment, but for now we will tell why we think the name is Hiller. It is because the Hillers were prominent and wealthy Jews in Vienna and Germany, and it would explain the connections Hitler later had in both places. To get you started, see this link to Ferdinand von Hiller, 1811-1885, famous composer and conductor. A student of Hummel, he was already prominent enough at age 15 to visit Beethoven on his deathbed. He was a friend of Spohr, Hauptmann, and Mendelssohn. [Mendelssohn is admitted to be Jewish]. Hiller was from a family of wealthy cloth merchants. His father was originally Isaac Hildesheim, but he changed the name in around 1780 to hide his Jewish roots. This would also help his son, since it would link him to the earlier famous Hiller composers like Johann Adam Hiller. Also remember that Disraeli told us many of the top composers were crypto-Jews.

That means Hitler's real name was not Hitler, Huetler, Hikler, Hiedler, or any other. It was Hildesheim or Hiller. We think you now see why they had to make up so many ridiculous stories to hide that. Although his mother's side is even more important—and we will get to it in a minute—the name Hildesheim on his father's side would have killed the story by itself. As you can see from the scrollbar, we came to that conclusion very fast, after just a cursory look at the evidence here. As usual, we came into the question cold, not knowing anything about it before today. That's the way we like to do it. We don't read anyone else's opinion on the subject, we just look at the baseline data, as close to the ground as possible. Does this mean we are jumping to conclusions? No, it means the answer was very obvious to people not groomed to follow the lies. These things are not hidden in plain sight. In fact, they aren't hidden at all. They are like poop in a kitten's catbox. The little guy just throws some litter around, but doesn't even bother to be sure it covers the poop.

For another Jewish Hiller, see the Socialist writer Kurt Hiller. He was from the same period as Hitler, flourishing in Germany in the 1920s. He was also a gay rights activist, taking over the chair of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee from Magnus Hirshfeld in 1929. This indicates he was a leading spook of the time. He was probably from the same family as Hitler. Why do we say that?

Because Hiller has a family resemblance to Hitler. We don't actually have any good pictures of Hitler young: in our opinion they are all faked or manipulated. However, that one is about as good as we are going to get. We didn't draw the marks on the ear. They were already there, for reasons unknown to us. However, they may have been drawn by the Muses as a clue for us. Although Hiller's ears stick out more, we think you can see the very close shape match. It is astonishing, really. They also both have heavy-lidded eyes that slope down on the corners. The noses are similar, and the eye-to-mouth distance is about the same. To see Hitler's eyes a bit better, we can switch to this one:

There, you can better see how heavy-lidded and sloping Hitler's eyes were, even young. Same ear and nose as the previous Hitler, indicating the same person. We say that because we will see below that many of the famous Hitlers don't match at all. Before we get there, we can practice on these two. I already noticed something, from just those two. It is the same guy, as we said, but the first one has been manipulated. Look at his eye to your right in the first one. It looked strange to me immediately, but we couldn't spot the problem until we imported the second pic of him. They used the eye from the second one to paste into the first one.

Look closer:

The eye to your right doesn't match the eye to your left. The eye has been taken from the other photo, pasted in, and then the lid fold above it has been drawn in—in the wrong place. In fact, we now think the entire first photo was faked using the second as a guide. That's why the left eyes, cheeks, and ears look like carbon copies. This is why it is good to have a portrait painter doing your analysis for you here. we have even been hired occasionally to retouch old photos, so we can see when things have been repainted. When things are wrong—even small things—they jump out at me.

But we will look at more photos later. Let's go back to the genealogy. For more on the name Hiller, we refer you to the Wiki page on that name, where we find much support. See Arthur Hiller, film director of “**over 33** films” [including Love Story], admitted to be Jewish. No genealogy past his parents. Stanley Hiller, a pioneering developer of the helicopter. Notice that he is linked to Berkeley and billionaire Henry J. Kaiser. We se him in our article on Max Keiser. Hiller's genealogy is very well scrubbed, with no grandparents. No children are listed for him or any of his siblings, which is unlikely. Then we find actress Wendy Hiller, daughter of major cotton merchant Frank Hiller and wife of Ronald Gow—son of a banker. Otherwise her genealogy is totally scrubbed.

You would expect Hiller to be a very common name, wouldn't you? So ask yourself why Wikipedia lists only 20 worldwide, with seven of those minor sports figures. I suggest it is because once you have scrubbed Hitler and everyone remotely related to him, you don't have much left.

### Hitler and Liverpool

What British city did Adolf Hitler study art in? The answer? **Liverpool**. Wow. So in 1981, this bit of knowledge must have been mainstream. It is now pooh-poohed by paid mainstream historians and talking heads in the media, but we do have paper evidence for it. Alois' wife Bridget Dowling wrote a book in the 1930s, and in it she admits Adolf was in Liverpool in 1912-13.

These paid historians dismiss her admission, telling us she was just trying to make money with the book. Maybe she was, but that doesn't address the question, does it? Are they saying she could charge more for the book by mentioning Liverpool? Do they have evidence of kickbacks paid to her by the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce for the plug? No. They are obviously just trying to misdirect, and can be ignored. So we now have evidence linking not just Alois to Liverpool, but Adolf himself. And again, the question is, “Why Liverpool?” Why not Galway or Glasgow or Canterbury? What is the real connection to Liverpool? We found the likely answer in this article, where we was led back to Liverpool by the Stanley Hiller—helicopter developer— you just met. We ran his genealogy, and found that this famous American inventor of the 20th century had a daughter who married a Chadwick in a big wedding in London. That ties in here, because the Chadwicks not only hailed from Anglesey, they also hailed from Liverpool. What's more, they were of the peerage, being Baronets who took over the huge and impressive Stanley Manor outside Liverpool.

I showed that this indicated a connection between the Chadwicks and Stanleys, and through them to the Hillers. In fact, it may be where Stanley Hiller got his first name. So it appears this may be why the Hitlers were in Liverpool. It look to me like they had kin in Liverpool, and this kin just happened to go right to the top. The Stanleys had been at the top of the peerage for centuries, and had actually installed several kings in the past. Although now apparently less prominent than a family like the Spencer-Churchills, they may simply have gone underground to some extent: having all the old power, or more, but choosing to stay out of the limelight. In support of that, we again point to Bridget Hitler being a Dowling. That name is prominent in the peerage, possibly tying her to all these people as well. The Dowlings are linked to the Stuarts, and through them to everyone, including the Stanleys.

We would say the Hitlers' presence in Liverpool before WWI indicates the Stanleys were involved in the Hitler project from the ground floor. We will follow that important clue in other articles. For now, you should know we have yet another link through the Mitford sisters. At least two of them were friendly with Hitler, and no one has ever been able to make sense of that. But the link is again the Stanleys, since the Mitfords descended directly from them. The 1st Baron Redesdale married Lady Ogilvie, daughter of David Graham Drummond Ogilvie, 9th Earl of Airlie, but her mother was Henrietta Stanley, daughter of the 2nd Baron of Alderley. This also linked them to the Warburtons, Pitts, and Grosvenors. So you see, the answer appears to be the Mitfords were friends of Hitler because they were cousins. Since the Pitts are other cousins, it means Brad Pitt is also related to Hitler. Almost everyone in Hollywood is.

### Hitler's Mother

We will switch to the maternal lines. Hitler's mother is given as Klara Polzl. Her mother is Johanna Huttler or Huettler. Johanna's sister is given as Josepha Hiedler. But we already saw those names on the paternal side, didn't we? Are we supposed to believe Hitler's parents were first cousins, or are our brains just being further stirred? We suggest the latter. We suggest they had some names they needed to scrub in those positions, so they just inserted variations of the name Hitler again as further confusion. So we are just going to blow by those names. The clues are farther back. Hitler's 4g-grandfather is listed as Simon Pollack. That looks like a Jewish name to us, and we have already tied the Pollacks to the families in other articles. See my comments on Jackson Pollock, for instance. Or search on “Pollack Jewish” and you will find literally hundreds of hits. If we keep going back from there, we soon come to Haiders, which looks like yet another variation of Hitler. They may have had another name that needed to be scrubbed in that position. These Haiders are the end of the line.

So let's go forward three generations to the Huettlers. Hitler's great-grandmother married Joseph Huettler, and she is listed as Eva Maria Decker. But her father is listed as a Tecker. His father is a Docker. His father is a Dockher, and his father is a Deckher. So more misdirection. The Deckhers are related to the Artners. This attempt at misdirection is pathetically weak, since all those names are Jewish. Decker is a common Jewish name to this day. See Cody Decker. Or just run a search on “Decker Jewish”. So is Artner. Go here to see that Hugo Artner, Jewish merchant in Stuttgart, allegedly had all his property confiscated by the Nazis in 1933. Also see Lilian Artner, who married famous Communist Lou Kenton in the same year.

This is very important, because Decker is in the direct maternal line of Hitler. This is the line that determines whether Hitler is Jewish in the eyes of Judaism. The name Pollack is also in that line. One step back from Pollack in the maternal line, we find the name Fiechtinger, which is more misdirection. They have misspelled it on purpose. It is Feichtinger, and it is also Jewish. See Kristine Feichtinger, writing at that link about shtetl girls. Also see historian Johannes Feichtinger. Also Martina Feichtinger at Hohenems Diaspora. Also writer Christian Feichtinger. This Feichtinger is listed as being from Graz. Is he the same as the Christian Feichtinger at the IAF? We could find no confirmation, but possibly. Both are connected to Graz. If so, it is curious to see the head of the International Aeronautical Federation writing in 2011 about "Othering and Exclusion."

But it is even easier. Hitler's mother was a Polzl, remember? Well, that is also Jewish. See the 1942 Jewish census in Romania, where we find many Polzls. Also see here. This is why they want you looking at Hitler's paternal grandmother Schicklgruber. If you are looking at her, you aren't looking at his mother Polzl. They need to get your eyes off her immediately.

So why don't they scrub this better? Do they assume we are all idiots? YES! They assume no one will do their own research on this question or any other. They assume you will go to secondhand sources, and as long as all those sources spin this, they figure you won't catch on. They know you won't trust your own eyes at someplace like Geni, so you will Google search on it. When you do, you will find the two planted paths for you: on path one, Hitler isn't Jewish at all; on path two (planted at Stormfront, JewWatch, History.com, etc.), Hitler is Jewish in a couple of unimportant lines. Plus, they figure the only ones really asking questions here are Gentiles, and they figure we are dumb. They think we can't decode these names like Polzl or Feichtinger as Jewish, or that we will believe it when they tell us the names aren't Jewish. So they only have to partially scrub Hitler's genealogy at places like Geni. They may have removed a few names like Cohen or Einstein or Freud or something, but they just leaves these others up there.

So with almost no research, we have already found Hitler is Jewish in all or almost all his lines. He is Jewish on both the maternal and paternal side, and on his mother's side—the important one—he is Jewish in many lines. There is no way he wasn't aware of it. Given that, we may assume that the whole story about his paternal grandmother being a servant is also false. Like everyone else we have outed, Hitler looks to have been from wealth. He would never have been chosen for his part if he weren't from wealth. To be picked for the magnificent Beer Hall Putsch fake, Hitler must have been from the top Jewish families of Germany and Austria.

If you aren't yet convinced, that is fine. We're not finished.

## Hitler's Political Career

The Beer Hall Putsch was the failed coup in Munich in 1923, led by Hitler. We 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.

### The Beginning

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. We 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.

We 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 our article, 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 we quote that? Do you see it? **The number 47**. That is one of the signals of Intelligence. 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 we are 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. 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? We 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, we began googling on certain terms to try to force more information to arise. I immediately saw several red flags on Philipp Scheidemann, for instance. This name is Jewish. So we 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?

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 we have shown in great detail in other articles— 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 or the Black Panthers. 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.

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 nonentity, 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 our 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 we 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?

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.

### Back to the Beer Hall Putsch

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 our article 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 nonsense, 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.

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.