A Jewish Revolution
There's a hilarious new book out by a "scholar" called In Hitler's Munich which argues that even though the revolution in Bavaria in 1918-1919 was ridden with Jews it was in no way a Jewish revolution. Nope, not at all. You see there was one Jew who objected and another Jew who was for it but kept his mouth shut. So there was nothing intrinsically Jewish about this revolution, it just happened that it was ridden by Jews. But that was just a coincidence. You see those Jews were not real Jews, because they didn't believe in the Torah, didn't pore over the Talmud, didn't keep kosher, did not flock to the Synagogue, did not associate with the Jewish community. So they weren't Jews, it was only a fluke that their parents were Jews, that ancestors were all Jewish, that their names were Jewish, that they grew up in a Jewish milieu, and so to call it a Jewish Revolution is wrong. Really, those revolutionaries might as well just have been Chinese or Māori, or Bushmen--or anything. Nothing to see here goy!
Really, this is what the author argues. He's running massive cover and interference for Jews, trying to say that just because Jews appear in such stunningly disproportionate number in subversive movements, it doesn't mean anything. It's just one of those wild happenstances that happen from time to time. Whenever anything colossally inimical to the Whtie race happens Jews just happen to be there in their millions. Who knows why? Certainly nothing can be deduced by it. You certainly don't' want to base an ideology on it, that would be one of those crazy conspiracy theories Jews love to talk about.
The author is Michael Brenner and of course he's a Jew. The Jew run Wikipedia labels this Jew a "German-Jewish Historian" but the "German" is superfluous, that just happens to be where he lives and gets his bread buttered by the Jew loving state. Michael Brenner is a Jew. Just like all those Jews who fomented that revolution in Germany. I don't' care if he keeps kosher, or prays to Moses, or goes to the synagogue on a Saturday, or what. He's a Jew. And he's written a book about a Jewish Revolution in order to toss fairy dust in our eyes and get us to swear it's not Jewish. That he's lying. He's spitting on our cupcake and insisting that it's frosting. It's what Jews do. The bibliography and the scholarly apparatus and the University imprint most certainty notwithstanding.
Michael Brenner has written eight books on Jewish history.
Hitler knew the revolution that got him obsessed with politics was a Jewish revolution. Indeed, his first record utterance on the crucial Jewish Question came in 1919 and was elicited by this Revolution. And he skewers the position of Michael Brenner lo this century later. He knows that biggest gag that the Jews try to perpetrate on unsuspecting White people is their camouflage as "Germans" or "French" or whatever when in fact they are nothing but Jews. He knows the Jews try to blend in and deny that their Jewishness has anything to do with their evil. He makes short work of it:
"Jews have never adopted more than the language of the foreign nations in whose midst they live. A German who is forced to make use of the French language in France, Italian in Italy, Chinese in China does not thereby become a Frenchman, Italian, or Chinaman, nor can we call a Jew who happens to live amongst us and who is therefore forced to use the German language, a German."
That is they are Jews. And when they act against the White race, which they always do, they are acting as Jews. There is nothing incidental about this Jewishness. It part and parcel and intrinsic to their identity and what they do.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn said that reason people misunderstand the Russian Revolution is that they call it the Russian Revolution. He said of course it was nothing of the kind, there was nothing Russian about it. He said that if people called it what it really is, The Jewish Revolution, everything about it would become quite clear.
Victor Klemperer has attained his meager fame because he was a Jew who kept a diary in Germany all through 1933-1945. Jews like to quote it to show how bad things were, but he was a Jew so things were supposed to be bad for him. That he escaped the chimney is a great tragedy. Back in the early 1920s Klemperer showed his true colors (Jew) when he said that Kurt Eisner didn't look Jewish at all, which is ridiculous. Take one look at Kurt Eisner, who was the titular head and driving force of the Jewish Revolution in Bavaria and you'll see that the map of Zion is written all over his face, that the Valley of Kidron is deep down in his pores, the Dead Sea is inscribed in his eyes. Indeed he would not be more Jewish if he had been born in Jerusalem and been taken to the Temple Mount to be circumcised by the Hight Priest his uncle, he would not be more Jewish if controlled the money supply, or poisoned the wells, or if had kidnapped a young European and drained him of his blood and drank it in a ritual in the synagogue on Yom Kippur. Indeed, Julius Streicher could have had his picture on his desk and when he wanted his cartoonist to sketch a particularly odious and malodorous and evil and perfidious Jew and used it as a model. Had he come down from the mountain after speaking to his God in the burning bush with ten commandments he would not be more Jewish, had he sold liquor at exorbitant prices to the peasants he would not be more Jewish, were he living in upstate New York with his family ten to a house, living off welfare, his wife cranking out retarded babies like a pez dispenser, and wearing an outsized hockey puck for a hat, and rocking and humming while he reads the Talmud all day he would not be more Jewish.
And yet Brenner says Eisner was a Jew "in name only." He belonged to the fictional category that he summons up out of his backside called "the non-Jewish Jew." He calls them "Jewish heretics." His prime example gives the game away: Trotsky. He says Trotsky abjured his "Jewishness" and was embarrassed by it. Perhaps he did, but that is irrelevant. Indeed, there has never been more a Jewish Jew than Trotsky aka Bronstein. The map of Zion is written all over his actions, his evil bound totally up with his Jewishness.
Once a Jew always a Jew. A Jew can come in many guises, many faces, and many costumes; but he can deny or embrace what he wants. He's still a Jew. And will be as long as he crawl over the face of the earth.
Imagine someone saying that there were Germans who were not National Socialists, that some opposed it, that some stood aloof; and that therefore the National Socialist Revolution of 1933 was not a German Revolution. This thought puts in plain relief the sleight of hand perpetrated by Jews and by Brenner in this book; of course, it was a German Revolution, the exception proves the rule, it was a German Revolution through and through, the naysayers notwithstanding. And so too the fact that some Jew in Munich wasn't in tune with Eisner in no way mitigates of diminishes the Jewishness of the Revolution. It was Jewish through and through, Jewish to the core, Jewish in all particulars, that one guy notwithstanding. What was Jewish about it, other than all those Jews who made it, was that it was anti-German. That's always the telltale sign, the very mark of Jewishness. It would not have been more Jewish had the revolutionaries marched across the Isar River bridge under the banner of the Star Of David, or had they danced to the Hava Nagila in the Bürgerbräukeller while downing blintzes in their tiny hats.
"The conspicuous prominence of Jewish revolutionaries prompted a reaction that created a space for anti-semitic agitation to an unprecedented degree."
Yes indeed it did; in the climate of already growing anti-semitism in Munich the sudden appearance of so many Jews overthrowing a centuries old way of life at the drop of a tiny hats was alarming. Why wouldn't it be? You've been German from top to toe for time immemorial, and now in and instant everything is toppled and grimy and greasy foreign Jews all of a sudden rule you? It must have been a real shock to the system. For such an appalling (and revolting) development only a draconian response was in order. National Socialism was that draconian response. In the immediate aftermath of this Jewish Revolution (to give it its proper historical name) good Germans all joined the Freikorps and soon put the revolution down. But it left scars, scars which Hitler was able exploit by saying he could heal them. Heal them from the Jews. And when one has come that close to being ruled by the hereditary enemy it was a powerful message indeed.
Brenner has a section heading which surely must go down in the history of scholarship as one of the greatest head scratchers ever. It reads:
"Jewish revolutionaries do not a Jewish revolution make."
I kid you not.
What, do they make a Chinese Revolution? A Nigerian Revolution? It's child-like and nonsensical on its face. Actually, it's axiomatic and a tautology that Jewish revolutionaries make a Jewish revolution. Jews can make no other kind, it's bred deep in their foul bones. But the likes of Brenner don't want you to draw the obvious conclusion. Nor do Jews want us to draw the obvious conclusions by the crowding of Jews in all activities set to overturn the White race. As a recent for instance and whatever you think of Trump (not much probably) the Judge who signed off to allow the FBI to raid his home was a Jew.
Many such cases.
"It is indisputable that neither before or afterward in Germany have there been so many Jewish politicians in the limelight."
This is his concession before he turns Jew magician and tried to pull the rug out form under out two feet which are standing solidly on the ground. He admits that it was Jews as far as the eye can see, it was Jews galore, Jews to the gills, Jews packed in like sardines, Jew from top to bottom and stem to stern. But don't go making any hasty generalizations Brenner warns. You're not of those anti-semites ar are you? The ones that can see an obvious pattern? Heaven forfend!
"The great majority of the Jewish community distanced themselves from the Jewish revolutionaries."
Perhaps they did, perhaps they didn't. Perhaps some favored it but kept quiet, perhaps some did not like it. So what? That is irrelevant. Either way it's a canard, and a classic Jewish attempt at misdirection, the Jew stock in trade. Some Japs in Okinawa probably didn't want to bomb Pearl Harbor but that doesn't' stop us from say that the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor does it? By no means. All that matters is the select few, the leaders, the elites who drive history. And in this revolution it was Jews--none other.
Of course, there is a point to all this; there always is a point with the Jews. Hitler's rise was predicated on the notion that Jews had overtaken Germany; that communism was Judaism; that Jews were threatening the very blood and soil of Germans and Germany. Hitler again and again brought up the issue of the Jewish Revolution of 1918-1919. It happened after all in Munich, the home city and heartland of National Socialism. The event itself and the Jewish fomenting of it was so searing, dramatic, and traumatic that it was unforgettable. Indeed, the Jewish Revolution was the primal scene of National Socialism, the one they always harked back to and which lesson they learned as with their mother's milk: the Jew must never be allowed to rule us, the Jew must be finally defeated.
So if one admits the plain truth that it was in fact a Jewish Revolution once concedes Hitler' point. It was not a conspiracy theory but a fact. And once you admit that Hitler was right on the biggest issue of all---how do you defend against him?
You have no defense. The Jews were predators just like he said. And when you read the book In Hitler's Munich you don't even have to read between the lines to see it. For whatever the author's purpose the truth is there for all to see as plain as day.
It was a revolution alright. A revolution made by and for Jews.
A Jewish Revolution.
The only kind a Jew can make.