TBR News January 22, 2017

Jan 22 2017

The Voice of the White House

Washington, D.C. January 22, 2017: “Now we have the edifying spectacle of the Militant Lesbian’s Pink Hat Brigade, furious because their sister Hillary lost the White House, energizing the left wing press to transports of delight by their demands that Trump resign and appoint a strap-on advocate to replace him.

The great majority of Americans have little or no interest in the ludicrous posturings of the Pink Hat idiots but from the space they give this nonsense on their Internet sites, one would think that Jesus had indeed returned and was going to give a bond rally in Times Square.

An Israeli bond rally of course because Fat Bibi has given permission to wipe out sacred Moslem mosques on the temple mount in Jerusalem and build a new Jewish temple in their place.

This is the act of a raving idiot because there will be an immediate and very violent resistance on the part of the Middle Eastern Muslims, who outnumber the Israelis 30 to 1.

Bibi no doubt is certain the US will send millions of their soldiers to fight the violence so that the casualties will not be theirs to mourn.”


A Book Review

We are not in the habit of carrying advertising but there is a published book giving background to the 9/11 attack that is very well worth reading. We have been thinking of getting permission to serialize it at some time but those who are interested in fact and not official propaganda, could well spare the loose change and get a new if highly controversial, view of a government rigged national disaster:


Descending into Darkness: The Making of a Wartime President

By Brian Harring

www.amazon.com  kindle ebooks $3.99



Published for the first time ever, Descending Into Darkness shows the actual, as opposed to the propaganda, background to the upheavals in the Middle East and the reasons for the 9/11 attacks. It also includes the complete, as contrasted with the false, official (at the time this book went to press) DoD listings of U.S. Military casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Also in Prelude to Disaster:

  • Events leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom
  • War in Iraq – Russian Military Intelligence Reports & Assessment [March 17-April 8, 2003]
  • The “Nazi” Neocons – Who are they?
  • The Secret Downing Street Memo – Setting the Stage for 9/11
  • Israeli Espionage Against the United States


Table of Contents

  • Israel approves hundreds of settlement homes in East Jerusalem
  • Netanyahu briefed on scenarios of violence should Trump move embassy to Jerusalem
  • Netanahu officially approves rebuilding of Soloman’s temple
  • Rebuilding the Temple Now
  • Why These Jewish Mystics Think God Helped Trump Win
  • 1,000s of Israeli Arabs protest against housing demolitions & killing of Bedouin teacher
  • In Moscow, Trump inauguration inspires Russian hopes of new nationalist era
  • Hungarian NGOs prepare for government crackdown
  • The Huge National Mortgage Fraud
  • Mein Kampf’: Murphy translation: Part 15

Israel approves hundreds of settlement homes in East Jerusalem

January 22, 2017

by Maayan Lubell


JERUSALEM-Israel approved building permits on Sunday for hundreds of homes in three East Jerusalem settlements, two days after U.S. President Donald Trump took office, expecting him to row back on the last administration’s criticism of such projects.

The housing projects, on land that the Palestinians seek as part of a future state, had been taken off the Jerusalem municipality’s agenda in December at the last minute at the request of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in order to avoid further censure from the administration of Barack Obama.

Israel’s right-wing expects Trump’s attitude towards settlements built in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, areas Israel captured in a 1967 war, to be far more supportive than that of his predecessor.

Netanyahu said he would hold his first conversation with Trump since he took office, by telephone on Sunday. “Many matters face us, the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the situation in Syria, the Iranian threat,” he said in broadcast remarks at the start of his weekly cabinet meeting.

Jerusalem’s City Hall approved the building permits for more than 560 units in the urban settlements of Pisgat Zeev, Ramat Shlomo and Ramot, areas annexed to Jerusalem in a move unrecognized internationally.

Meir Turgeman, the chairman of the municipality’s Planning and Building committee, told Israel Radio that the permits had been held up until the end of the Obama administration.

“I was told to wait until Trump takes office because he has no problem with building in Jerusalem,” Turgeman said, adding there were hundreds more units waiting for approval.

The Palestinians denounced the move. “We strongly condemn the Israeli decision to approve the construction,” Nabil Abu Rdainah, spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, told Reuters.

In its final weeks, the Obama administration angered the Israeli government by withholding a traditional U.S. veto of an anti-settlement resolution at the United Nations Security Council, enabling the measure to pass.

Trump’s nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, echoed his condemnation of the world body over its treatment of Israel at her Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday.

In a proposal that has drawn a Palestinian outcry, Trump has also pledged to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Israel sees all Jerusalem as is its capital but most of the world does not, seeing its final status as a matter for peace negotiations. The Palestinians have said an embassy move would kill any prospect for peace. Negotiations broke down in 2014.

Trump has also appointed a new U.S. ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, who is considered a settlements supporter.

Commentators in Israel have said it was too early to tell what Trump’s policy on these matters will actually be once he takes office.

Most countries consider settlement activity illegal and an obstacle to peace. Israel disagrees, citing a biblical, historical and political connection to the land – which the Palestinians also claim – as well as security interests.

(Additional Reporting by Ali Sawafta; Editing by Mark Potter and David Stamp)

 Netanyahu briefed on scenarios of violence should Trump move embassy to Jerusalem

Prime minister isn’t sure whether or when the incoming U.S. president would announce the embassy’s relocation, but has told defense officials to complete security preparations by the inauguration.

January 21, 2017

by Barak Ravid


The army, police and Shin Bet security service have presented Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and senior ministers with scenarios of worsening violence should incoming President Donald Trump announce the relocation of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Netanyahu has ordered defense officials to prepare for such a possibility from the moment Trump takes office Friday evening Israel time, senior Israeli officials said.

Earlier this week, Netanyahu convened a special security consulation on preparations for an announcement by Trump on the embassy. Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan were present, as were senior officials from the Israel Defense Forces, police and Shin Bet.

According to two senior Israel officials with knowledge of the consultations,  Netanyahu and other officials at the meeting said Israel did not have definite information on whether or when Trump would announceme an embassy move. One official said Netanyahu had spoken by phone with Trump a number of times since his election, but as of the meeting he had not received a clear answer on the embassy.

The meeting was held especially against the backdrop of the Palestinian media campaign on the possibility of the embassy move. One official said some Palestinian officials had made calls for violence over the issue.

The Shin Bet, Military Intelligence and police intelligence have no information on a clear warning that attacks or disturbances would take place, the ministers at the meeting were told. One scenario is that relative quiet might follow an announcement on moving the embassy, with the Palestinian response taking place only in the media and among officials.

But the IDF and police mentioned their preparations for scenarios of limited violence or even a conflagration across the West Bank and East Jerusalem.   One official noted that since the issue revolves around Jerusalem, the Palestinians believed that the issue had religious overtones, further increasing its sensitivity.

According to senior officials, at the the end of the meeting, Netanyahu told the IDF, police and Shin Bet to complete their security preparations by Trump’s inauguration. Amid the uncertainty, the assumption is that Trump could make an announcement on the embassy any moment after he enters the White House.

Incoming White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters on Thursday that an announcement on moving the embassy to Jerusalem was “coming soon” – he encouraged journalists to “stay tuned.”

Trump told the Sheldon Adelson-owned Israel Hayom daily on Wednesday that he “hasn’t forgotten” his campaign pledge to move the embassy. “And you know I’m not a person who breaks his promises,” he said.

Around two weeks ago, the Palestinians launched a media and diplomatic campaign against moving the embassy. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas referred to the matter a number of times, saying the Palestinians would not react violently to such a move, but would use diplomatic and legal channels. Abbas also sent a letter to Trump asking him not to relocate the embassy, noting that moving it to Jerusalem would have a devastating effect on the peace process.

Arab countries are also working against the relocation of the embassy. A number of Arab ambassadors to Washington have met with Trump’s advisers and warned them of the consequences.

Jordanian Media Affairs Minister Mohammed al-Momani said moving the embassy to Jerusalem would cross a red line and have “catastrophic consequences.”

Outgoing U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has told the American media over the last two weeks that relocating the embassy could lead to “an absolute explosion” in Israel, the West Bank and the Middle East. It would have a negative impact on relations between Israel, Egypt and Jordan.

“You’d have an explosion,” he told CBS. “You’d have an explosion – an absolute explosion in the region, not just in the West Bank and perhaps even in Israel itself, but throughout the region. The Arab world has enormous interest in the Haram al-Sharif, as it is called, the Temple Mount, the Dome [of the Rock], and it is a holy site for the Arab world.”

As Kerry put it, “And if all of a sudden Jerusalem is declared to be the location of our embassy, that has issues of sovereignty, issues of law that it would deem to be affected by that move and by the United States acquiescing in that move, and that would have profound impact on the readiness of Jordan and Egypt to be able to be as supportive and engaged with Israel as they are today.”

Netanahu officially approves rebuilding of Solomon’s temple

January 18, 2017

by Seth Nathanson


Israeli Prime Minister Netanahu has agreed that building of the new temple on Temple Mount will commence early in March of 2017 according to protocols under date of January 3rd.

Although Arab objections to the removal of improperly built Moslem mosques on the site of the original Temple are expected, the Prime Minister has been in close contact with the IDF and internal Israeli law enforcement and it is felt that any Muslim civil demostrations can be “easily dealt with” by these forces.

Approval of the new temple design and contracts let to Israeli construction firms are “firmly set” according to official documents and Israel is certain that they will have the “full support” of the coming American government.

Rebuilding the Temple Now

The Temple Institute

The Temple Institute is dedicated to all aspects of the Divine commandment for Israel to build a house for G-d’s presence, the Holy Temple, on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem. The range of the Institute’s involvement with this concept includes education, research, activism, and actual preparation. Our goal is firstly, to restore Temple consciousness and reactivate these “forgotten” commandments. We hope that by doing our part, we can participate in the process that will lead to the Holy Temple becoming a reality once more.

Why build the Temple?

Why this fuss over an ancient, seemingly outdated concept? What relationship does the Holy Temple have to our world today? The people of Israel have lived without a Temple for nearly 2,000 years, and seem to be doing fine without one. We don’t seem to need it, and G-d certainly doesn’t, so why think about rebuilding?202 Biblical Commandments

The Jewish people accepted the “Yoke of Heaven,” the structure of their relationship with the Creator and their spiritual responsibility, at the Mount Sinai revelation. This relationship is based on Israel’s acceptance and fulfillment of the Torah’s 613 Divine commandments. But in fact, fully one third – 202 of these commandments – are totally dependent on the existence of the Holy Temple for their fulfillment. But what is our attitude regarding these commandments? Do we think of them as inactive, dormant, dead? Do we believe that they are no longer applicable? Do we perhaps relegate them to that nebulous time of messianic redemption; that they will only be activated in the future with the coming of the messiah?

The Torah’s commandments are eternal, for now and forever

Nothing can be further from the truth. Maimonides teaches (Sefer Igeret Ha’Shmad) that the performance of all the commandments are not dependent on the coming of the messiah. They are to be fulfilled at all times. G-d does not change His mind, or nullify any of the commandments included in the Torah, which were given once, for all time. In lieu of Temple service, we may observe various “remembrances” of these commandments, but that is all they are – merely gestures of nostalgia.

Fish out of water

But we fool ourselves if we think that the state of Judaism today, without the Temple, is normal. On the contrary, we are like fish out of water. If 1/3 of all the Torah’s commandments center on the Temple, it would seem that Biblical observance in the Temple’s absence is but a skeleton of what G-d had intended it to be.

Our spiritual alienation

Sadly, much of our contemporary attitudes regarding the Holy Temple are a reflection of our own spiritual bankruptcy and alienation from the spiritual underpinnings of true Torah knowledge and faith. The Holy Temple was not some magnificent building. It was the direct arena for our direct relationship with G-d; the unfolding saga of man’s greatest spiritual longing. It was a place where heaven and earth met; a meeting place for man and G-d.Our relationship with G-d

At this one place on earth, unlike any other, the one place that the Creator Himself chose to rest His presence, the rectification of man’s connection with G-d takes place. All people were able to come to the Temple to partake in this direct and fulfilling bond; to recharge their spiritual batteries and come away with a renewed sense of purpose and being.

A new era of universal harmony

Every prophet of Israel, without exception, prophesized that the Temple would be rebuilt, ushering in a new era of universal harmony and peace unparalleled in the history of man. Thus, the “movement” to rebuild the Holy Temple is not new. It was born almost 2,000 years ago, at the moment of the Second Temple’s destruction. For when the Holy Temple stood in Jerusalem, it was the soul of Jewish people… and the entire world… as we believe it will be once again.

The rebuilding of the Holy Temple in our time

The reality of the Jewish experience means that the Temple will be rebuilt. Many people who visit the Temple Institute are incredulous and cannot help but exclaim: “Do you really think that you will live to see the Holy Temple rebuilt?” The answer to that question is of little importance. Let us rather recall that Jewish history has a trajectory, which began when the patriarch Abraham smashed his father’s idols. That trajectory has spanned the millennia, and it is obvious that we are rapidly approaching climactic times, in which the Holy Temple will once again become the focal point for mankind’s spiritual focus. Whether this transpires in our generation or not, we can still choose to be active participants, and not simply spectators, in G-d’s bold plan for the Redemption of Israel and all humanity.

Why These Jewish Mystics Think God Helped Trump Win

November 15, 2016

by Sam Kestenbaum


Step one: Elect Donald Trump president of the United States. Step two: Rebuild the Jewish temple destroyed by the Romans in the year 70. Step three: Welcome the Messiah.

At least, that’s the plan according to certain Israeli religious leaders who praised Trump’s election, describing it as a divinely ordained event that could usher in a messianic age.

“He is connected to the Messianic process which is happening right now,” Rabbi Yosef Berger, who oversees King David’s tomb in Jerusalem, told Breaking Israel News, a website of religious views on current events.

Israel’s political right wing has already embraced Trump. The Republican Party platform crafted under his leadership states that Israel should not be pressured to “recognize or support” a Palestinian state. Hawkish politicians have interpreted that as the end of the effort to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and as license to build more Israeli settlements on contested land.

But he also has fervent supporters in one of country’s most conservative religious camps: the movement that wants to return Judaism to its pre-Diaspora form, which was centered around a priestly class leading animal sacrifice and temple-based festivals.

“I hope that [Trump] will ascend the Temple Mount and, from that source of light and energy in the world, lead us in a dialogue of peace and reconciliation,” Yehuda Glick, a Knesset member and leading figure in the Temple Mount movement, told Israel National News.

The Temple Mount movement seeks to rebuild the Second Temple, constructed in the time of King Herod. The Western Wall, one of Judaism’s holiest sites, is part of what used to be the larger plaza of the Second Temple. Directly above the Western Wall is the area known as the Temple Mount to Jews, which also contains the Dome of the Rock, one of the most sacred sites in Islam.

This is where some want to see a revival of Jewish prayer and build their temple. The Temple Mount movement has long occupied a fringe position in Israeli politics, but has been making inroads into the mainstream. Glick even won a seat in the Israeli parliament this year.

Glick said that he was sending Trump “God’s blessing from Jerusalem.”

Trump has also signaled that he would recognize Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv, as Israel’s capital, and condemned a UNESCO vote that critics claim — despite text to the contrary in the resolution — denied Jewish historical ties to the Temple Mount. Trump also fashions himself as an “anti-globalist,” suggesting to some Temple Mount activists that, as a president, he will be hands-off in his approach to Israel and that their movement can grow without fear of American interference.

Temple Mount activists also see mystical meaning in Trump’s rise.

“When he promised to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem, he attached himself to the power of Moshiach [Messiah], which gave him the boost he needed,” Berger said. “The gematria of [Trump’s] name is Moshiach,” Berger said, referring to the mystical system that assigns numbers to letters and then finds meaning in connecting two seeming disparate words with identical numerical values.

And the so-called Sanhedrin, a self-fashioned duplicate of the tribunal that convened during the time of the Second Temple, called on Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin to “fulfill their biblically mandated roles by rebuilding the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem,” Breaking Israel News reported.

“We are poised to rebuild the Temple,” Rabbi Hillel Weiss, a spokesperson for the Sanhedrin told the religious news site. “The political conditions today, in which the two most important national leaders in the world support the Jewish right to Jerusalem as their spiritual inheritance, is historically unprecedented.”

Even before his victory, Trump already had support among the Temple Mount activists.

“Most people in the Temple Mount camp support Trump and buy into his anti-globalist approach,” said David Mark, a Hebron-based writer who runs the blog Israel Rising.

To be sure, it’s unlikely that proclamations from a relatively fringe religious movement have come on Trump’s radar, said Motti Inbari, a religious studies professor at University of North Carolina at Pembroke who has studied the Temple Mount movement and other messianic groups in Israel. “The Temple is not really on Trump’s agenda,” said Inbari.

Still, for activists who believe that the “messianic process” is ongoing and that their actions can help hasten this process — that the political and the mystical are intertwined — the victory of a candidate they see as their own is encouraging.

“I think Trump is going to do anything that he feels can connect his image with the conservative religious movement. He’ll probably end up using Israel in that vein,” said Mark, “and that will make everybody here happy.”

1,000s of Israeli Arabs protest against housing demolitions & killing of Bedouin teacher

January 22, 2017


Thousands of Israeli Arabs have joined a protest against the recent demolition of houses in the Arab sector and the death of a Bedouin teacher, who was killed during clashes with police this week. Police deployed stun grenades against the protesters.

The rally took place on Saturday in Wadi Ara, an area in Israel northwest of the Green Line, in the Haifa District. It is populated mainly by Arab citizens of Israel.

The demonstrators were protesting against the demolition of houses in Umm al-Hiran, a Bedouin village, and Qalansuwa, an Arab city in the Central District of Israel. Some people were seen carrying Palestinian flags and placards slamming demolition raids.

This is the right time to demand the Israeli government stop the home demolitions, because continuing this policy will only ignite the situation here and the members of this government will be responsible for the consequences,” Tawfik Mohammaed, a resident of the town of Arara in the Wadi area, said, as cited by the Times of Israel.

Yael Noy, a Jewish resident of Western Galilee, northern Israel, told Haaretz that she joined the demonstration to express solidarity with the Arab community. “They can’t fight this war without us,” she said.

Several protesters were injured after police deployed stun grenades against the crowd, Haaretz newspaper reported.

“The thousands of protesters here are sending a clear message from the Arab public to Netanyahu – we will not give in to a policy of demolition and incitement,” Ahmed Tibi from the Arab Joint List said, as cited by Haaretz.

The rally also denounced the death of math teacher Ya’akub Musa Abu Al-Qi’an from Umm al-Hiran, who was killed under disputed circumstances on Wednesday. The incident took place when Israeli Police conducted a demolition raid in the village.

People were seen carrying signs slamming the government’s “campaign of lies” about the teacher’s death, AFP reported.

In Moscow, Trump inauguration inspires Russian hopes of new nationalist era

For Muscovites watching the ceremony, US president’s past warm words towards Vladimir Putin are seen as sign the Kremlin will regain influence

January 21, 2017

by Shaun Walker

The Guardian

Maria Katasonova pointed proudly to the three stylised portraits behind her: versions of Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Marine Le Pen, all made to look eerily similar with blond hair and identical outfits. “It’s called Triptych,” she said. “It was painted a year ago, when nobody believed Trump had a chance of winning, except us. Now, it’s a vision of the future.”

It’s a vision that terrifies many in other parts of Europe, but here, people can hardly contain their excitement at the friendly noises Trump is making towards Russia, and the concurrent shakiness of the European liberal consensus.

Katasonova, a nationalist activist who has been backing Trump loudly on social media for months, hosted an inauguration party on Friday evening in a large hall a few hundred metres from the Kremlin. Russian sparkling wine and meat pies were handed around as guests watched coverage from Washington with simultaneous translation into Russian.

Later, at the same venue, there were debates broadcast live on an Orthodox Christian television station, and the launch of a Russian-language biography of Trump, entitled Black Swan.

Russians were also treated to live coverage of the inauguration on state television channels. “I can’t think of another event that has been broadcast in Russia by such a large number of media outlets,” opposition politician Alexey Navalny tweeted.

Putin has loomed menacingly over this US election and its aftermath. While the more spectacular claims of Russian influence on Trump – contained in the dossier compiled by a former MI6 agent and published by Buzzfeed last week – are unsubstantiated and denied by both Trump and the Russians, US intelligence believes with “high confidence” that, at the very least, Russia hacked Democratic party emails and passed them to Wikileaks.

While there have been strong denials and anger over the accusations of meddling, there has also been thinly veiled enjoyment of the attention generated by the claims. At a reception for foreign journalists last week, foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and his spokeswoman made repeated jokes about electoral interference and hacking

Back in 2005, Putin’s leading strategist, Vladislav Surkov, said it would be preferable to be a real enemy of the west than simply a failed competitor. And by 2016, that was where Russia had arrived.

Now, though, that could all change, as Trump enters the White House bewilderingly inconsistent on almost every policy position except for Russia and Putin, whom he has consistently praised.

Russian officials – from Putin down – have made little secret of their admiration for Trump and his rhetoric, and some of the new president’s words about Russia and the US coming together to solve the world’s problems mirror what Putin has been dreaming of for years.

While in much of the world, Barack Obama had a reputation as a president who was cautious on US interventions abroad, notably with his row-back from the infamous “red line” on Syria, Obama is regarded in Russia as the face of a meddling America bent on world domination.

Most notably, Russian television painted the Obama White House and state department as the progenitors of unrest in Ukraine, and the image of a rapacious White House was a key element of Kremlin propaganda to show Putin as a brave leader fighting off external enemies.

In addition to the specific dislike of Obama, there is also a more general irritation with the post-Soviet settlement and what Putin calls the “unipolar” world that emerged from it, with the US as the undisputed superpower.

The hope in Moscow is that Trump’s repeated disparaging of Nato, and insistence on “America first”, will mean Russia is able to regain a “sphere of influence” in Europe.

“America has been obsessed with leading the world,” said Leonid Reshetnikov, a retired general in Russia’s foreign intelligence service. “It reminds me of the Soviet Union in the 1980s, when we also tried to control the world.

“Donald Trump is an ordinary American and he wanted to end these attempts to interfere everywhere and all the time. The American people have voted for that.”

Katasonova agreed, claiming that Trump’s overblown rhetoric about America will actually mean that other countries are able to shine. “In a multipolar world, America will be great again, but also Russia can be great again and France can be great again.”

Alexander Dugin, a far-right Russian philosopher who has long supported Trump, and of whom the new US president’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, has spoken positively, said he believed that Putin would now play nice with Trump, in order to win long-desired concessions in Europe and across the world.

“We don’t have to do anything: we just have to not annoy Trump, not make him angry or provoke him with belligerent rhetoric, and everything will fall into our hands, like apples in the autumn. You don’t even need to shake the tree; they just come tumbling down on their own.”

Hungarian NGOs prepare for government crackdown

Viktor Orban’s government has denounced NGOs funded by George Soros for trying to “illegitimately” influence political life. The groups are gearing up for an assault from politicians who once saw them quite differently

January 22, 2017

by Dan Nolan


Budapest-George Soros, the US-Hungarian billionaire, was once hailed as a liberator in Hungary. Having aided the fall of communism by providing photocopiers for liberal opposition samizdat publications, he went on to found the prestigious Central European University in his native Budapest and made the city a regional hub for his liberal Open Society Foundations (OSF) grant-making network, which funds over 60 NGOs in Hungary.

But as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s vision of illiberal democracy threatens to go global, Soros, 86, has been declared persona non grata in Hungary, and his “open society” ideals are under siege. In mid-January Orban’s Fidesz party deputy singled out three Soros-funded NGOs – the human rights organization the Helsinki Committee, the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union TASZ and anti-corruption body Transparency International – to be “swept out.” The subject has been placed on the legislative agenda for the spring.

This week DW met with an OSF employee in a downtown Budapest cafe.  After he had slipped his mobile phone into a black Faraday bag – a device that prevents cyber surveillance by blocking electromagnetic signals – we spoke of the potential impact of the Trump victory on Orban’s NGO policies and the success of the black propaganda campaign against Soros, who openly supports the settling of refugees in Hungary. Even the possibility of some organisations relocating to a less hostile country is a subject of discussion inside the OSF, he revealed. However the following day the OSF press department veto the publication of his comments.

It was instead left to Soros to comment on the Hungarian government’s plans, which he called “a very serious threat.” A cautious Soros read from a pre-prepared statement, explaining that “I want to choose my words very carefully because the fate of our grantees and our staff is at stake,” in an otherwise free-flowing interview with Bloomberg Markets from the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Soros said “the threats being made by members of the Hungarian government against Hungarian civil society are an affront to the values of the European Union and to the commitment to the rule of law, on which it has been built over decades. Civil society is a vital component of democracy, and so is open debate about public policy. I have dedicated my foundations and my life to promoting open society: the current Hungarian government stands for the exact opposite,” Soros said. “Hungary greatly benefits from its membership of the EU: in that light the current government’s attempt to intimidate and discredit civil society is totally unacceptable,” Soros added, prompting applause from those watching.

Meanwhile the departing US ambassador to Hungary Colleen Bell – an Obama appointee – underlined the “great many things” Soros has done for Hungary in an interview with Index.hu yesterday. She listed Soros’s support of the Roma community and provision of scholarship funding for “talented Hungarians” as among his contributions. Several key Fidesz politicians were once beneficiaries of such scholarships, including Orban himself, giving the assault on Soros-funded NGOs an Oedipal twist.

Government interference

Marta Pardavi, co-chair of the Helsinki Committee, which receives around 30 percent of its 450 million forints (1.5 million euros) in funding annually from Soros, told DW that her organization has so far only heard that they have become a focal point from the media.

“There are two strands: One will be the private asset declaration of NGO leaders. The other thing is to target the NGOs that receive a high proportion of their sources from a foreign government,” Pardavi said.

Opposing foreign government involvement in Hungary’s affairs has long been one of the Orban’s flagship policies. Recently the prime minister said that under President Barack Obama, the US employed “the crudest methods of interference.”

Orban, for his part, placed a full-page pro-Remain advertisement in the UK’s “Daily Mail” newspaper in the week of the Brexit referendum, which Hungarian government spokesman Zoltan Kovacs said could not be construed as foreign government interference.

“That was an opinion and not concrete interference, because we were not trying to influence or involve politicians or civil groups,” Kovacs told DW. “That was clear and responsible government.”

Orban, who was the first government leader to back Trump’s US presidential candidacy, is happy to see his predecessor leave the White House.

A long-held grievance has been a reference Obama made to Hungary’s treatment of NGOs in a 2014 speech. “From Hungary to Egypt, endless regulations and overt intimidation increasingly target civil society,” Obama told the audience at a fundraiser.

In the Trump era, Kovacs said, a new line would be drawn between “elected politicians” and civil organizations that “influence or make politics in an illegitimate or unlawful way. You don’t have to think about Turkey or Russia – think about the US,” he added.

Kovacs also received Soros funding for his studies at Central European University.

Armed with transparency

When in opposition, however, Fidesz regularly engaged in civil actions. Fidesz Human Resources Minister Zoltan Balog, for example, protested “the alleged violation of human rights at state level and the application of double standards” in Parliament in 2009, having co-founded the “Freedom Circle” NGO two years earlier. Moreover, Fidesz regularly cited Transparency International reports and even called for state awards for TASZ and the Helsinki Committee.

Back then, Pardavi noted, “they found our critical remarks to be fact-based and unbiased.”

“Ten years ago it was completely different,” argued Kovacs. “Helsinki was trying to do its job on a voluntary basis based on civil benefit, on a grassroots level. In the last six years we see that civil groups are engaged in politics, and that’s a problem,” he added.

The Helsinki Committee was one of 62 Norway Grants-funded NGOs targeted by the Orban government in 2014. After office raids and extensive audits, however, no irregularities were uncovered.

In the meantime, Pardavi told DW, many of the targeted NGOs had formed an informal alliance and advocacy forum called Colop (Pile), which had drawn up a 64-page policy paper with suggestions for transparency. She said the government had chosen to ignore the paper.

Another NGO expected to be in the government’s sights again is the investigative journalism website Atlatszo (Transparent). Editor-in-chief Tamas Bodoky told DW that, if faced with an onslaught “we will defend ourselves and attack our adversary. If they demand transparency, let’s start on them, on taxpayers’ money – we will push this revolutionary idea.”

Bodoky added: “We are already transparent and publish our income sources.

“They have many NGOs and media outlets which are 100 percent government-financed. We are much more transparent than their “gongos” [government organized NGOs]. If they want to repeat the Norway war, we need to use their own arguments against them. I will have my colleagues compile a list of gongos and publish.”

Pardavi said the NGOs would need to see the bill to push out NGOs and determine whether it complied with EU law or whether “there is some sort of discrimination against receiving funding,” adding that: “It is hard to curtail financial transactions in the EU.”

 The Huge National Mortgage Fraud

January 22, 2017

by Harry von Johnston, PhD


Financial bubbles create an incentive for criminal and shady activity. Just like the stock bubble of the late 1990s created the climate for Enron and dozens of other companies to cook their books, the housing bubble created incentives for predatory lenders to exploit consumers.

The predatory lenders offered low rates, at least at first. Rates would rise later, but the lenders said that – because home prices were rising so fast and would continue to do so – borrowers could always refinance with a new loan.

The biggest of the predatory lenders was Countrywide, a mortgage lender acquired by Bank of America in January 2008. The company and its CEO, Angelo Mozilo, made an enormouf profit, while at the same timesetting up thousands and thousands of families for financial ruin.

By steering millions of people into bad loans, Countrywide has been the largest rogue mortgage lender in the country. According to Countrywide’s own data, more than 80 percent of its exotic adjustable-rate loans were made to borrowers that do not meet any current banking standards. Countrywide knew that these homeowners would not be able to make their monthly loan payments after dramatic payment increases became effective.

Predatory lending.

Lawsuits filed around the country have accused Countrywide of preying on borrowers through a variety of unfair and fraudulent tactics that have siphoned equity out of their homes and pushed many into foreclosure.

Borrowers and regulators have accused the company of steering borrowers with good credit into higher-cost ‘subprime’ loans,gouging minority borrowers with discriminatory rates and fees, working in conspiracy  with mortgage brokers who use bait-and-switch tactics to land borrowers into loans they can’t afford, and targeting elderly and non-English-speaking borrowers for abusive loans and packing loans with inflated and unauthorized fees.

Countrywide has been a leader in pushing unsound mortgage terms. These include exploding subprime adjustable rate mortgages – with reasonable interest rates in the first year that jump in subsequent years, often by as much as 30 percent to 50 percent.

Conflicts of interest.

Countrywide has created a corporate structure designed to allow its subsidiaries to work hand-in-hand in squeezing borrowers with excessive fees and penalties.

Countrywide affiliates handled appraisals, credit reports, flooded certifications and other documentation for new loans, provide “force-placing” insurance for borrowers whose homeowners insurance has lapsed, and served as a foreclosure trustee.

The interconnections enable Countrywide to charge high fees, and deny borrowers the benefit of third parties’ independent judgment and independent interests.

Broken promises on loan modifications.

The company has a history of failing to fully live up to its promises to help borrowers keep their homes by modifying onerous loans.

The report cites a Credit Suisse review that ranked Countrywide as one of the mortgage lenders least willing to adjust loan terms.

Abusive loan servicing.

Borrowers claim that Countrywide has engaged in sloppy and  fraudulent loan servicing that produced unwarranted fees and foreclosures.

With the collapse of the housing market in 2007, Countrywide’s fortunes turned, its mortgage-backed securities plummeted in value, and the company seemed on the edge of bankruptcy. In January 2008, Bank of America agreed to buy the company.

The company co-founder and long-time CEO Angelo Mozilo was given compensation worth $185 million from 2002-2006, according to an analysis by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Between November 2006 and December 2007, Mozilo sold $150 million in stock – effectively jumping from a sinking corporate ship for which he was supposedly at the helm.

“Particularly, the discrepancy between Mr. Mozilo’s compensation and Countrywide’s performance is striking,” concludes the Oversight Committee analysis. “In 2007, Countrywide announced a $1.2 billion loss in the third quarter and an additional loss of $422 million in the fourth quarter.”

By the end of the year, the company’s stock fell 80 percent from its February peak. “During the same period, Mr. Mozilo was paid $1.9 million in salary, received $20 million in stock awards contingent upon performance, and sold $121 million in stock.”

Mozilo retired as CEO in 2006, remaining as company chair and an employee. The House Oversight Committee analysis shows that his compensation contract, taking effect in 2007, was outrageous, and based in part on recommendations from a compensation consultant loyal to Mozilo rather than Countrywide.

Even so, Mozilo was bitter that the company did not give him everything he wanted. In an e-mail message turned up by the Oversight Committee, Mozilo wrote to the compensation consultant:

“I appreciate your input but at this stage in my life at Countrywide this process is no longer about money but more about respect and acknowledgement of my accomplishments. … Boards have been placed under enormous pressure by the left wing anti-business press and the envious leaders of unions and other so called ‘CEO Comp Watchers’ and therefore Boards are being forced to protect themselves irrespective of the potential negative long term impact on public companies. I strongly believe that a decade from now there will be a recognition that entrepreneurship has been driven out of the public sector resulting in underperforming companies and a willingness on the part of Boards to pay for performance.”

With attention focused on the discrepancy between Mozilo’s compensation package and Countrywide’s well-being, he waived various payments – totaling $37.5 million – he could have received once Bank of America finalized its takeover.

He also received substantial stock options, explaining, these were “options that required the price of the stock to rise above the option price before any income could be realized, thereby aligning me squarely with our shareholders.” In anticipation of his retirement, he testified, he put in place a plan to cash in some stock options earned in earlier years. His sales were thus planned in advance of Countrywide’s downturn. But he continues to hold substantial shares in Countrywide – shares worth much less than before the company’s stock collapsed.

Mozilo testified that he is “very proud of the home ownership opportunities that Countrywide has provided for over 20 million families,” while acknowledging the hardship faced by homeowners and Countrywide employees and shareholders.

“In my 55 years in the industry,” he said, “this by far is the worst housing crisis I have ever seen, combined with an unprecedented collapse of the credit and liquidity markets.”

“The problem we face,” he said, “is the deterioration of the value of homes. As values were going up, we had no problem. We had no delinquencies and no foreclosures, because people had options, because people run into three things in their lives generally – loss of job, loss of marriage, loss of health. When that happens and they own a home, and it impacts their income, they generally have a way out – sell the house, refinance, do something.

“That equity that they have in their homes has been virtually wiped out. And that’s what’s exacerbating this whole foreclosure problem.”

Wasn’t that problem entirely foreseeable? Didn’t Countrywide’s lending policies – which generously might be called aggressive – depend on constantly rising housing values in what was obviously a bubble market?

And after Bank of America took over Countrywide, they ran it along lines already established by Mozilo.

And one of the by-products of the massive mortgage fraud operation is that large American banks bought up the sham mortagage and mixing them in with legitimate ones, packaged these like a sausage and then cut up the sausage and sold bits and pieces of it to many foreign investors.

The result of this is that over 70 million American mortgage holders can pay on their mortgages for years, only to discover that no one knows who the actual mortgage holders are. This means that they cannot sell the property and can never legally own it.

All of this is well known in Washington and the sincere hope in that bastion of cupidity is that the truth of the enormous swindle will not emerge in their time in office.

To hide these terrible flaws, an organization called MERS was instituted to conceal the degree and extent of the financial disaster and home buyers are strongly recommended to check with the governmental offices that carry the public records of all housing deeds. If one sees MERS anywhere on the paperwork, the buyer would be very foolish to make a purchase of a house, or business building, he could never, ever, have a clear title to.

 ‘Mein Kampf’: Murphy translation: Part 15

January 20, 2017

There have been a number of translations of Hitler’s seminal book. Most have been heavily editited so as to promulgate disinformation about Hitler’s views and remove passages that might offend the sensitive.

The Murphy translation is considered to be the most accurate and is being reprinted in toto here.

Our next publication of this work will be the unexpurgated original German edition.

German officialy- approved historians have recently released a highly doctored edition of ‘Mein Kampf’ that is selling very well in Germany.

Perhaps a free copy of the unredacted original work would do better in the same marketplace. Ed





In 1919-20 and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois meetings.

Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days. It just had to be taken because it was good for one: but it certainly tasted unpleasant.

If it were possible to tie ropes round the German people and forcibly drag them to these bourgeois meetings, keeping them there behind barred doors and allowing nobody to escape until the meeting closed, then this procedure might prove successful in the course of a few hundred years.

For my own part, I must frankly admit that, under such circumstances, I could not find life worth living; and indeed I should no longer wish to be a German. But, thank God, all this is impossible. And so it is not surprising that the sane and unspoilt masses shun these ‘bourgeois mass meetings’ as the devil shuns holy water.

I came to know the prophets of the bourgeois WELTANSCHAUUNG, and I was not surprised at what I learned, as I knew that they attached little importance to the spoken word. At that time I attended meetings of the Democrats, the German Nationalists, the German People’s Party and the Bavarian People’s Party (the Centre Party of Bavaria). What struck me at once was the homogeneous uniformity of the audiences. Nearly always they were made up exclusively of party members. The whole affair was more like a yawning card party than an assembly of people who had just passed through a great revolution. The speakers did all they could to maintain this tranquil atmosphere. They declaimed, or rather read out, their speeches in the style of an intellectual newspaper article or a learned treatise, avoiding all striking expressions. Here and there a feeble professorial joke would be introduced, whereupon the people sitting at the speaker’s table felt themselves obliged to laugh–not loudly but encouragingly and with well-bred reserve.

And there were always those people at the speaker’s table. I once attended a meeting in the Wagner Hall in Munich. It was a demonstration to celebrate the anniversary of the Battle of Leipzig. (Note 17) The speech was delivered or rather read out by a venerable old professor from one or other of the universities. The committee sat on the platform: one monocle on the right, another monocle on the left, and in the centre a gentleman with no monocle. All three of them were punctiliously attired in morning coats, and I had the impression of being present before a judge’s bench just as the death sentence was about to be pronounced or at a christening or some more solemn religious ceremony. The so-called speech, which in printed form may have read quite well, had a disastrous effect. After three quarters of an hour the audience fell into a sort of hypnotic trance, which was interrupted only when some man or woman left the hall, or by the clatter which the waitresses made, or by the increasing yawns of slumbering individuals. I had posted myself behind three workmen who were present either out of curiosity or because they were sent there by their parties. From time to time they glanced at one another with an ill-concealed grin, nudged one another with the elbow, and then silently left the hall. One could see that they had no intention whatsoever of interrupting the proceedings, nor indeed was it necessary to interrupt them. At long last the celebration showed signs of drawing to a close. After the professor, whose voice had meanwhile become more and more inaudible, finally ended his speech, the gentleman without the monocle delivered a rousing peroration to the assembled ‘German sisters and brothers.’ On behalf of the audience and himself he expressed gratitude for the magnificent lecture which they had just heard from Professor X and emphasized how deeply the Professor’s words had moved them all. If a general discussion on the lecture were to take place it would be tantamount to profanity, and he thought he was voicing the opinion of all present in suggesting that such a discussion should not be held. Therefore, he would ask the assembly to rise from their seats and join in singing the patriotic song, WIR SIND EIN EINIG VOLK VON BRÜDERN. The proceedings finally closed with the anthem, DEUTSCHLAND ÜBER ALLES.

[Note 17. The Battle of Leipzig (1813), where the Germans inflicted an overwhelming defeat on Napoleon, was the decisive event which put an end to the French occupation of Germany.

The occupation had lasted about twenty years. After the Great War, and the partial occupation of Germany once again by French forces, the Germans used to celebrate the anniversary of the Battle of Leipzig as a symbol of their yearning.]

And then they all sang. It appeared to me that when the second verse was reached the voices were fewer and that only when the refrain came on they swelled loudly. When we reached the third verse my belief was confirmed that a good many of those present were not very familiar with the text.

But what has all this to do with the matter when such a song is sung wholeheartedly and fervidly by an assembly of German nationals?

After this the meeting broke up and everyone hurried to get outside, one to his glass of beer, one to a cafe, and others simply into the fresh air.

Out into the fresh air! That was also my feeling. And was this the way to honou an heroic struggle in which hundreds of thousands of Prussians and Germans had fought? To the devil with it all!

That sort of thing might find favour with the Government, it being merely a ‘peaceful’ meeting. The Minister responsible for law and order need not fear that enthusiasm might suddenly get the better of public decorum and induce these people to pour out of the room and, instead of dispersing to beer halls and cafes, march in rows of four through the town singing DEUTSCHLAND hoch in Ehren and causing some unpleasantness to a police force in need of rest.

No. That type of citizen is of no use to anyone.

On the other hand the National Socialist meetings were by no meansm’peaceable’ affairs. Two distinct WELTANSCHHAUUNGen raged in bitter opposition to one another, and these meetings did not close with the mechanical rendering of a dull patriotic song but rather with a passionate outbreak of popular national feeling.

It was imperative from the start to introduce rigid discipline into our meetings and establish the authority of the chairman absolutely. Our purpose was not to pour out a mixture of soft-soap bourgeois talk; what we had to say was meant to arouse the opponents at our meetings! How often did they not turn up in masses with a few individual agitators among them and, judging by the expression on all their faces, ready to finish us off there and then.

Yes, how often did they not turn up in huge numbers, those supporters of the Red Flag, all previously instructed to smash up everything once and for all and put an end to these meetings. More often than not everything hung on a mere thread, and only the chairman’s ruthless determination and the rough handling by our ushers baffled our adversaries’ intentions. And indeed they had every reason for being irritated.

The fact that we had chosen red as the colour for our posters sufficed to attract them to our meetings. The ordinary bourgeoisie were very shocked to see that, we had also chosen the symbolic red of Bolshevism and they regarded this as something ambiguously significant. The suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists. The actual difference between Socialism and Marxism still remains a mystery to these people up to this day. The charge of Marxism was conclusively proved when it was discovered that at our meetings we deliberately substituted the words ‘Fellow-countrymen and Women’ for ‘Ladies and Gentlemen’ and addressed each other as ‘Party Comrade’. We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims.

We chose red for our posters after particular and careful deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings–if only in order to break them up–so that in this way we got a chance of talking to the people.

In those years’ it was indeed a delightful experience to follow the constantly changing tactics of our perplexed and helpless adversaries.

First of all they appealed to their followers to ignore us and keep away from our meetings. Generally speaking this appeal was heeded. But, as time went on, more and more of their followers gradually found their way to us and accepted our teaching. Then the leaders became nervous and uneasy. They clung to their belief that such a development should not be ignored for ever, and that terror must be applied in order to put an end to it.

Appeals were then made to the ‘class-conscious proletariat’ to attend our meetings in masses and strike with the clenched hand of the proletarian at the representatives of a ‘monarchist and reactionary agitation’.

Our meetings suddenly became packed with work-people fully three-quarters of an hour before the proceedings were scheduled to begin. These gatherings resembled a powder cask ready to explode at any moment; and the fuse was conveniently at hand. But matters always turned out differently. People came as enemies and left, not perhaps prepared to join us, yet in a reflective mood and disposed critically to examine the correctness of their own doctrine. Gradually as time went on my three-hour lectures resulted in supporters and opponents becoming united in one single enthusiastic group of people. Every signal for the breaking-up of the meeting failed. The result was that the opposition leaders became frightened and once again looked for help to those quarters that had formerly discountenanced these tactics and, with some show of right, had been of the opinion that on principle the workers should be forbidden to attend our meetings.

Then they did not come any more, or only in small numbers. But after a short time the whole game started all over again. The instructions to keep away from us were ignored; the comrades came in steadily increasing numbers, until finally the advocates of the radical tactics won the day.

We were to be broken up.

Yet when, after two, three and even eight meetings, it was realized that to break up these gatherings was easier said than done and that every meeting resulted in a decisive weakening of the red fighting forces, then suddenly the other password was introduced: ‘Proletarians, comrades and comradesses, avoid meetings of the National Socialist agitators’.

The same eternally alternating tactics were also to be observed in the

Red Press. Soon they tried to silence us but discovered the uselessness of such an attempt. After that they swung round to the opposite tactics.

Daily ‘reference’ was made to us solely for the purpose of absolutely ridiculing us in the eyes of the working-classes. After a time these gentlemen must have felt that no harm was being done to us, but that, on the contrary, we were reaping an advantage in that people were asking themselves why so much space was being devoted to a subject which was supposed to be so ludicrous. People became curious. Suddenly there was a change of tactics and for a time we were treated as veritable criminals against mankind. One article followed the other, in which our criminal intentions were explained and new proofs brought forward to support what was said. Scandalous tales, all of them fabricated from start to finish, were published in order to help to poison the public mind. But in a short time even these attacks also proved futile; and in fact they assisted materially because they attracted public attention to us.

In those days I took up the standpoint that it was immaterial whether they laughed at us or reviled us, whether they depicted us as fools or criminals; the important point was that they took notice of us and that in the eyes of the working-classes we came to be regarded as the only force capable of putting up a fight. I said to myself that the followers of the Jewish Press would come to know all about us and our real aims.

One reason why they never got so far as breaking up our meetings was undoubtedly the incredible cowardice displayed by the leaders of the opposition. On every critical occasion they left the dirty work to the smaller fry whilst they waited outside the halls for the results of the break up.

We were exceptionally well informed in regard to our opponents’ intentions, not only because we allowed several of our party colleagues to remain members of the Red organizations for reasons of expediency, but also because the Red wire-pullers, fortunately for us, were afflicted with a degree of talkativeness that is still unfortunately very prevalent among Germans. They could not keep their own counsel, and more often than not they started cackling before the proverbial egg was laid. Hence, time and again our precautions were such that Red agitators had no inkling of how near they were to being thrown out of the meetings.

This state of affairs compelled us to take the work of safeguarding our meetings into our own hands. No reliance could be placed on official protection. On the contrary; experience showed that such protection always favoured only the disturbers. The only real outcome of police intervention would be that the meeting would be dissolved, that is to say, closed. And that is precisely what our opponents granted.

Generally speaking, this led the police to adopt a procedure which, to say the least, was a most infamous sample of official malpractice. The moment they received information of a threat that the one or other meeting was to be broken up, instead of arresting the would-be disturbers, they promptly advised the innocent parties that the meeting was forbidden. This step the police proclaimed as a ‘precautionary measure in the interests of law and order’.

The political work and activities of decent people could therefore always be hindered by desperate ruffians who had the means at their disposal. In the name of peace and order State authority bowed down to these ruffians and demanded that others should not provoke them. When National Socialism desired to hold meetings in certain parts and the labour unions declared that their members would resist, then it was not these blackmailers that were arrested and gaoled. No. Our meetings were forbidden by the police. Yes, this organ of the law had the unspeakable impudence to advise us in writing to this effect in innumerable instances. To avoid such eventualities, it was necessary to see to it that every attempt to disturb a meeting was nipped in the bud. Another feature to be taken into account in this respect is that all meetings which rely on police protection must necessarily bring discredit to their promoters in the eyes of the general public. Meetings that are only possible with the protective assistance of a strong force of police convert nobody; because in order to win over the lower strata of the people there must be a visible show of strength on one’s own side. In the same way that a man of courage will win a woman’s affection more easily than a coward, so a heroic movement will be more successful in winning over the hearts of a people than a weak movement which relies on police support for its very existence.

It is for this latter reason in particular that our young movement was to be charged with the responsibility of assuring its own existence, defending itself; and conducting its own work of smashing the Red opposition.

The work of organizing the protective measures for our meetings was based on the following:

(1) An energetic and psychologically judicious way of conducting the meeting.

(2) An organized squad of troops to maintain order.

In those days we and no one else were masters of the situation at our meetings and on no occasion did we fail to emphasize this. Our opponents fully realized that any provocation would be the occasion of throwing them out of the hall at once, whatever the odds against us. At meetings, particularly outside Munich, we had in those days from five to eight hundred opponents against fifteen to sixteen National Socialists; yet we brooked no interference, for we were ready to be killed rather than capitulate. More than once a handful of party colleagues offered a heroic resistance to a raging and violent mob of Reds. Those fifteen or twenty men would certainly have been overwhelmed in the end had not the opponents known that three or four times as many of themselves would first get their skulls cracked. Arid that risk they were not willing to run. We had done our best to study Marxist and bourgeois methods of conducting meetings, and we had certainly learnt something.

The Marxists had always exercised a most rigid discipline so that the question of breaking up their meetings could never have originated in bourgeois quarters. This gave the Reds all the more reason for acting on this plan. In time they not only became past-masters in this art but in certain large districts of the REICH they went so far as to declare that non-Marxist meetings were nothing less than a cause of’ provocation against the proletariat. This was particularly the case when the wire-pullers suspected that a meeting might call attention to their own transgressions and thus expose their own treachery and chicanery.

Therefore the moment such a meeting was announced to be held a howl of rage went up from the Red Press. These detractors of the law nearly always turned first to the authorities and requested in imperative and threatening language that this ‘provocation of the proletariat’ be stopped forthwith in the ‘interests of law and order’. Their language was chosen according to the importance of the official blockhead they were dealing with and thus success was assured. If by chance the official happened to be a true German–and not a mere figurehead–and he declined the impudent request, then the time-honoured appeal to stop ‘provocation of the proletariat’ was issued together with instructions to attend such and such a meeting on a certain date in full strength for the purpose of ‘putting a stop to the disgraceful machinations of the bourgeoisie by means of the proletarian fist’.

The pitiful and frightened manner in which these bourgeois meetings are conducted must be seen in order to be believed. Very frequently these threats were sufficient to call off such a meeting at once. The feeling of fear was so marked that the meeting, instead of commencing at eight o’clock, very seldom was opened before a quarter to nine or nine o’clock. The Chairman thereupon did his best, by showering compliments on the ‘gentleman of the opposition’ to prove how he and all others present were pleased (a palpable lie) to welcome a visit from men who as yet were not in sympathy with them for the reason that only by mutual discussion (immediately agreed to) could they be brought closer together in mutual understanding. Apart from this the Chairman also assured them that the meeting had no intention whatsoever of interfering with the professed convictions of anybody. Indeed no. Everyone had the right to form and hold his own political views, but others should be allowed to do likewise. He therefore requested that the speaker be allowed to deliver his speech without interruption–the speech in any case not being a long affair. People abroad, he continued, would thus not come to regard this meeting as another shameful example of the bitter fraternal strife that is raging in Germany. And so on and so forth

The brothers of the Left had little if any appreciation for that sort of talk; the speaker had hardly commenced when he was shouted down. One gathered the impression at times that these speakers were graceful for being peremptorily cut short in their martyr-like discourse. These bourgeois toreadors left the arena in the midst of a vast uproar, that is to say, provided that they were not thrown down the stairs with cracked skulls, which was very often the case.

Therefore, our methods of organization at National Socialist meetings were something quite strange to the Marxists. They came to our meetings in the belief that the little game which they had so often played could as a matter of course be also repeated on us. “To-day we shall finish them off.” How often did they bawl this out to each other on entering the meeting hall, only to be thrown out with lightning speed before they had time to repeat it.

In the first place our method of conducting a meeting was entirely different. We did not beg and pray to be allowed to speak, and we did not straightway give everybody the right to hold endless discussions. We curtly gave everyone to understand that we were masters of the meeting and that we would do as it pleased us and that everyone who dared to interrupt would be unceremoniously thrown out. We stated clearly our refusal to accept responsibility for anyone treated in this manner. If time permitted and if it suited us, a discussion would be allowed to take place. Our party colleague would now make his speech…. That kind of talk was sufficient in itself to astonish the Marxists.

Secondly, we had at our disposal a well-trained and organized body of men for maintaining order at our meetings. On the other hand the bourgeois parties protected their meetings with a body of men better classified as ushers who by virtue of their age thought they were entitled to-authority and respect. But as Marxism has little or no respect for these things, the question of suitable self-protection at these bourgeois meetings was, so to speak, in practice non-existent.

When our political meetings first started I made it a special point to organize a suitable defensive squad–a squad composed chiefly of young men. Some of them were comrades who had seen active service with me; others were young party members who, right from the start, had been trained and brought up to realize that only terror is capable of smashing terror–that only courageous and determined people had made a success of things in this world and that, finally, we were fighting for an idea so lofty that it was worth the last drop of our blood. These young men had been brought up to realize that where force replaced common sense in the solution of a problem, the best means of defence was attack and that the reputation of our hall-guard squads should stamp us as a political fighting force and not as a debating society.

And it was extraordinary how eagerly these boys of the War generation responded to this order. They had indeed good reason for being bitterly disappointed and indignant at the miserable milksop methods employed by the bourgeoise.

Thus it became clear to everyone that the Revolution had only been possible thanks to the dastardly methods of a bourgeois government. At that time there was certainly no lack of man-power to suppress the revolution, but unfortunately there was an entire lack of directive brain power. How often did the eyes of my young men light up with enthusiasm when I explained to them the vital functions connected with their task and assured them time and again that all earthly wisdom is useless unless it be supported by a measure of strength, that the gentle goddess of Peace can only walk in company with the god of War, and that every great act of peace must be protected and assisted by force. In this way the idea of military service came to them in a far more realistic form–not in the fossilized sense of the souls of decrepit officials serving the dead authority of a dead State, but in the living realization of the duty of each man to sacrifice his life at all times so that his country might live.

How those young men did their job!

Like a swarm of hornets they tackled disturbers at our meetings, regardless of superiority of numbers, however great, indifferent to wounds and bloodshed, inspired with the great idea of blazing a trail for the sacred mission of our movement.

As early as the summer of 1920 the organization of squads of men as hall guards for maintaining order at our meetings was gradually assumingdefinite shape. By the spring of 1921 this body of men were sectioned off into squads of one hundred, which in turn were sub-divided into smaller groups.

The urgency for this was apparent, as meanwhile the number of our meetings had steadily increased. We still frequently met in the Munich

Hofbräuhaus but more frequently in the large meeting halls throughout the city itself. In the autumn and winter of 1920-1921 our meetings in the Bürgerbräu and Munich Kindlbräu had assumed vast proportions and it was always the same picture that presented itself; namely, meetings of the NSDAP (The German National Socialist Labour Party) were always crowded out so that the police were compelled to close and bar the doors long before proceedings commenced.

The organization of defence guards for keeping order at our meetings cleared up a very difficult question. Up till then the movement had possessed no party badge and no party flag. The lack of these tokens was not only a disadvantage at that time but would prove intolerable in the future. The disadvantages were chiefly that members of the party possessed no outward broken of membership which linked them together, and it was absolutely unthinkable that for the future they should remain without some token which would be a symbol of the movement and could be set against that of the International.

More than once in my youth the psychological importance of such a symbol had become clearly evident to me and from a sentimental point of view also it was advisable. In Berlin, after the War, I was present at a mass-demonstration of Marxists in front of the Royal Palace and in the Lustgarten. A sea of red flags, red armlets and red flowers was in itself sufficient to give that huge assembly of about 120,000 persons an outward appearance of strength. I was now able to feel and understand how easily the man in the street succumbs to the hypnotic magic of such a grandiose piece of theatrical presentation.

The bourgeoisie, which as a party neither possesses or stands for any WELTANSCHAUUNG, had therefore not a single banner. Their party was composed of ‘patriots’ who went about in the colours of the REICH. If these colours were the symbol of a definite WELTANSCHAUUNG then one could understand the rulers of the State regarding this flag as expressive of their own WELTANSCHAUUNG, seeing that through their efforts the official REICH flag was expressive of their own WELTANSCHAUUNG.

But in reality the position was otherwise.

The REICH was morticed together without the aid of the German bourgeoisie and the flag itself was born of the War and therefore merely a State flag possessing no importance in the sense of any particular ideological mission.

Only in one part of the German-speaking territory—in German-Austria–was there anything like a bourgeois party flag in evidence. Here a section of the national bourgeoisie selected the 1848 colours (black, red and gold) as their party flag and therewith created a symbol which, though of no importance from a weltanschauliche viewpoint, had, nevertheless, a revolutionary character from a national point of view. The most bitter opponents of this flag at that time, and this should not be forgotten to-day, were the Social Democrats and the Christian Socialists or clericals. They, in particular, were the ones who degraded and besmirched these colours in the same way as in 1918 they dragged black, white and red into the gutter. Of course, the black, red and gold of the German parties in the old Austria were the colours of the year 1848: that is to say, of a period likely to be regarded as somewhat visionary, but it was a period that had honest German souls as its representatives, although the Jews were lurking unseen as wire-pullers in the background. It was high treason and the shameful enslavement of the German territory that first of all made these colours so attractive to the Marxists of the Centre Party; so much so that to-day they revere them as their most cherished possession and use them as their own banners for the protection of the flag they once foully besmirched.

It is a fact, therefore, that, up till 1920, in opposition to the Marxists there was no flag that would have stood for a consolidated resistance to them. For even if the better political elements of the German bourgeoisie were loath to accept the suddenly discovered black, red and gold colours as their symbol after the year 1918, they nevertheless were incapable of counteracting this with a future programme of their own that would correspond to the new trend of affairs. At the most, they had a reconstruction of the old REICH in mind.

And it is to this way of thinking that the black, white and red colours of the old REICH are indebted for their resurrection as the flag of our so-called national bourgeois parties.

It was obvious that the symbol of a régime which had been overthrown by the Marxists under inglorious circumstances was not now worthy to serve as a banner under which the same Marxism was to be crushed in its turn.

However much any decent German may love and revere those old colours, glorious when placed side by side in their youthful freshness, when he had fought under them and seen the sacrifice of so many lives, that flag had little value for the struggle of the future.

In our Movement I have always adopted the standpoint that it was a really lucky thing for the German nation that it had lost its old flag

(Note 18). This standpoint of mine was in strong contrast to that of the bourgeois politicians. It may be immaterial to us what the Republic does under its flag. But let us be deeply grateful to fate for having so graciously spared the most glorious war flag for all time from becoming an ignominious rag. The REICH of to-day, which sells itself and its people, must never be allowed to adopt the honourable and heroic black, white and red colours.

[Note 18. The flag of the German Empire, founded in 1871, was Black-White-Red. This was discarded in 1918 and Black-Red-Gold was chosen as the flag of the German Republic founded at Weimar in 1919. The flag designed by Hitler–red with a white disc in the centre, bearing the black swastika–is now the national flag.]

As long as the November outrage endures, that outrage may continue to bear its own external sign and not steal that of an honourable past. Our bourgeois politicians should awaken their consciences to the fact that whoever desires this State to have the black, white and red colours is pilfering from the past. The old flag was suitable only for the old REICH and, thank Heaven, the Republic chose the colours best suited to itself.

This was also the reason why we National Socialists recognized thathoisting the old colours would be no symbol of our special aims; for we had no wish to resurrect from the dead the old REICH which had been ruined through its own blunders, but to build up a new State.

The Movement which is fighting Marxism to-day along these lines must display on its banner the symbol of the new State.

The question of the new flag, that is to say the form and appearance it must take, kept us very busy in those days. Suggestions poured in from all quarters, which although well meant were more or less impossible in practice. The new flag had not only to become a symbol expressing our own struggle but on the other hand it was necessary that it should prove effective as a large poster. All those who busy themselves with the tastes of the public will recognize and appreciate the great importance of these apparently petty matters. In hundreds of thousands of cases a really striking emblem may be the first cause of awakening interest in a movement.

For this reason we declined all suggestions from various quarters for identifying our movement by means of a white flag with the old State or rather with those decrepit parties whose sole political objective is the restoration of past conditions. And, apart from this, white is not a colour capable of attracting and focusing public attention. It is a colour suitable only for young women’s associations and not for a movement that stands for reform in a revolutionary period.

Black was also suggested–certainly well-suited to the times, but embodying no significance to empress the will behind our movement. And, finally, black is incapable of attracting attention.

White and blue was discarded, despite its admirable aesthetic appeal—as being the colours of an individual German Federal State–a State that, unfortunately, through its political attitude of particularist narrow-mindedness did not enjoy a good reputation. And, generally speaking, with these colours it would have been difficult to attract attention to our movement. The same applies to black and white.

Black, red and gold did not enter the question at all.

And this also applies to black, white and red for reasons already stated. At least, not in the form hitherto in use. But the effectiveness of these three colours is far superior to all the others and they are certainly the most strikingly harmonious combination to be found.

I myself was always for keeping the old colours, not only because I, as a soldier, regarded them as my most sacred possession, but because in their aesthetic effect, they conformed more than anything else to my personal taste. Accordingly I had to discard all the innumerable suggestions and designs which had been proposed for the new movement, among which were many that had incorporated the swastika into the old colours. I, as leader, was unwilling to make public my own design, as it was possible that someone else could come forward with a design just as good, if not better, than my own. As a matter of fact, a dental surgeon from Starnberg submitted a good design very similar to mine, with only one mistake, in that his swastika with curved corners was set upon a white background.

After innumerable trials I decided upon a final form–a flag of red material with a white disc bearing in its centre a black swastika. After many trials I obtained the correct proportions between the dimensions of the flag and of the white central disc, as well as that of the swastika.

And this is how it has remained ever since.

At the same time we immediately ordered the corresponding armlets for our squad of men who kept order at meetings, armlets of red material, a central white disc with the black swastika upon it. Herr Füss, a Munich goldsmith, supplied the first practical and permanent design.

The new flag appeared in public in the midsummer of 1920. It suited our movement admirably, both being new and young. Not a soul had seen this flag before; its effect at that time was something akin to that of a blazing torch. We ourselves experienced almost a boyish delight when one of the ladies of the party who had been entrusted with the making of the flag finally handed it over to us. And a few months later those of us in Munich were in possession of six of these flags. The steadily increasing strength of our hall guards was a main factor in popularizing the symbol.

And indeed a symbol it proved to be.

Not only because it incorporated those revered colours expressive of our homage to the glorious past and which once brought so much honour to the German nation, but this symbol was also an eloquent expression of the will behind the movement. We National Socialists regarded our flag as being the embodiment of our party programme. The red expressed the social thought underlying the movement. White the national thought. And the swastika signified the mission allotted to us–the struggle for the victory of Aryan mankind and at the same time the triumph of the ideal of creative work which is in itself and always will be anti-Semitic.

Two years later, when our squad of hall guards had long since grown into storm detachments, it seemed necessary to give this defensive organization of a young WELTANSCHAUUNG a particular symbol of victory, namely a Standard. I also designed this and entrusted the execution of it to an old party comrade, Herr Gahr, who was a goldsmith. Ever since that time this Standard has been the distinctive token of the National Socialist struggle.

The increasing interest taken in our meetings, particularly during 1920, compelled us at times to hold two meetings a week. Crowds gathered round our posters; the large meeting halls in the town were always filled andtens of thousands of people, who had been led astray by the teachings of Marxism, found their way to us and assisted in the work of fighting for the liberation of the REICH. The public in Munich had got to know us. We were being spoken about. The words ‘National Socialist’ had become common property to many and signified for them a definite party programme. Our circle of supporters and even of members was constantly increasing, so that in the winter of 1920-21 we were able to appear as a strong party in Munich.

At that time there was no party in Munich with the exception of the Marxist parties–certainly no nationalist party–which was able to hold such mass demonstrations as ours. The Munich Kindl Hall, which held 5,000 people, was more than once overcrowded and up till then there was only one other hall, the Krone Circus Hall, into which we had not ventured.

At the end of January 1921 there was again great cause for anxiety in Germany. The Paris Agreement, by which Germany pledged herself to pay the crazy sum of a hundred milliards of gold marks, was to be confirmed by the London Ultimatum.

Thereupon an old-established Munich working committee, representative of so-called VÖLKISCH groups, deemed it advisable to call for a public meeting of protest. I became nervous and restless when I saw that a lot of time was being wasted and nothing undertaken. At first a meeting was suggested in the KÖNIG PLATZ; on second thoughts this was turned down, as someone feared the proceedings might be wrecked by Red elements.

Another suggestion was a demonstration in front of the Feldherrn Hall, but this also came to nothing. Finally a combined meeting in the Munich Kindl Hall was suggested. Meanwhile, day after day had gone by; the big parties had entirely ignored the terrible event, and the working committee could not decide on a definite date for holding the demonstration.

On Tuesday, February 1st, I put forward an urgent demand for a final decision. I was put off until Wednesday. On that day I demanded to be told clearly if and when the meeting was to take place. The reply was again uncertain and evasive, it being stated that it was ‘intended’ to arrange a demonstration that day week.

At that I lost all patience and decided to conduct a demonstration of protest on my own. At noon on Wednesday I dictated in ten minutes the text of the poster and at the same time hired the Krone Circus Hall for the next day, February 3rd.

In those days this was a tremendous venture. Not only because of the uncertainty of filling that vast hall, but also because of the risk of the meeting being wrecked.

Numerically our squad of hall guards was not strong enough for this vast hall. I was also uncertain about what to do in case the meeting was broken up–a huge circus building being a different proposition from an ordinary meeting hall. But events showed that my fears were misplaced, the opposite being the case. In that vast building a squad of wreckers could be tackled and subdued more easily than in a cramped hall.

One thing was certain: A failure would throw us back for a long time to come. If one meeting was wrecked our prestige would be seriously injured and our opponents would be encouraged to repeat their success. That would lead to sabotage of our work in connection with further meetings and months of difficult struggle would be necessary to overcome this.

We had only one day in which to post our bills, Thursday. Unfortunatelyit rained on the morning of that day and there was reason to fear that many people would prefer to remain at home rather than hurry to a meeting through rain and snow, especially when there was likely to be violence and bloodshed.

And indeed on that Thursday morning I was suddenly struck with fear that the hall might never be filled to capacity, which would have made me ridiculous in the eyes of the working committee. I therefore immediately dictated various leaflets, had them printed and distributed in the afternoon. Of course they contained an invitation to attend the meeting.

Two lorries which I hired were draped as much as possible in red, each had our new flag hoisted on it and was then filled with fifteen or twenty members of our party. Orders were given the members to canvas the streets thoroughly, distribute leaflets and conduct propaganda for the mass meeting to be held that evening. It was the first time that lorries had driven through the streets bearing flags and not manned by Marxists.

The public stared open-mouthed at these red-draped cars, and in the outlying districts clenched fists were angrily raised at this new evidence of ‘provocation of the proletariat’. Were not the Marxists the only ones entitled to hold meetings and drive about in motor lorries?

At seven o’clock in the evening only a few had gathered in the circus hall. I was being kept informed by telephone every ten minutes and was becoming uneasy. Usually at seven or a quarter past our meeting halls were already half filled; sometimes even packed. But I soon found out the reason why I was uneasy. I had entirely forgotten to take into account the huge dimensions of this new meeting place. A thousand people in the Hofbräuhaus was quite an impressive sight, but the same number in the Circus building was swallowed up in its dimensions and was hardly noticeable. Shortly afterwards I received more hopeful reports and at a quarter to eight I was informed that the hall was three-quarters filled, with huge crowds still lined up at the pay boxes. I then left for the meeting.

I arrived at the Circus building at two minutes past eight. There wasstill a crowd of people outside, partly inquisitive people and many opponents who preferred to wait outside for developments.

When I entered the great hall I felt the same joy I had felt a year previously at the first meeting in the Munich Hofbräu Banquet Hall; but it was not until I had forced my way through the solid wall of people and reached the platform that I perceived the full measure of our success. The hall was before me, like a huge shell, packed with thousands and thousands of people. Even the arena was densely crowded.

More than 5,600 tickets had been sold and, allowing for the unemployed, poor students and our own detachments of men for keeping order, a crowd of about 6,500 must have been present.

My theme was ‘Future or Downfall’ and I was filled with joy at the conviction that the future was represented by the crowds that I was addressing.

I began, and spoke for about two and a half hours. I had the feeling after the first half-hour that the meeting was going to be a big success. Contact had been at once established with all those thousands of individuals. After the first hour the speech was already being received by spontaneous outbreaks of applause, but after the second hour this died down to a solemn stillness which I was to experience so often later on in this same hall, and which will for ever be remembered by all those present. Nothing broke this impressive silence and only when the last word had been spoken did the meeting give vent to its feelings by singing the national anthem.

I watched the scene during the next twenty minutes, as the vast hall slowly emptied itself, and only then did I leave the platform, a happy man, and made my way home.

Photographs were taken of this first meeting in the Krone Circus Hall in

Munich. They are more eloquent than words to demonstrate the success of this demonstration. The bourgeois papers reproduced photographs and reported the meeting as having been merely ‘nationalist’ in character; in their usual modest fashion they omitted all mention of its promoters.

Thus for the first time we had developed far beyond the dimensions of an ordinary party. We could no longer be ignored. And to dispel all doubt that the meeting was merely an isolated success, I immediately arranged for another at the Circus Hall in the following week, and again we had the same success. Once more the vast hall was overflowing with people; so much so that I decided to hold a third meeting during the following week, which also proved a similar success.

After these initial successes early in 1921 I increased our activity in Munich still further. I not only held meetings once a week, but during some weeks even two were regularly held and very often during midsummer and autumn this increased to three. We met regularly at the Circus Hall and it gave us great satisfaction to see that every meeting brought us the same measure of success.

The result was shown in an ever-increasing number of supporters and members into our party.

Naturally, such success did not allow our opponents to sleep soundly. At first their tactics fluctuated between the use of terror and silence in our regard. Then they recognized that neither terror nor silence could hinder the progress of our movement. So they had recourse to a supreme act of terror which was intended to put a definite end to our activities in the holding of meetings.

As a pretext for action along this line they availed themselves of a very mysterious attack on one of the Landtag deputies, named Erhard Auer. It was declared that someone had fired several shots at this man one evening. This meant that he was not shot but that an attempt had been made to shoot him. A fabulous presence of mind and heroic courage on the part of Social Democratic leaders not only prevented the sacrilegious intention from taking effect but also put the crazy would-be assassins to flight, like the cowards that they were. They were so quick and fled so far that subsequently the police could not find even the slightest traces of them. This mysterious episode was used by the organ of the Social Democratic Party to arouse public feeling against the movement, and while doing this it delivered its old rigmarole about the tactics that were to be employed the next time.

Their purpose was to see to it that our movement should not grow but should be immediately hewn down root and branch by the hefty arm of the proletariat.

A few days later the real attack came. It was decided finally to interrupt one of our meetings which was billed to take place in the Munich Hofbräuhaus, and at which I myself was to speak.

On November 4th, 1921, in the evening between six and seven o’clock I received the first precise news that the meeting would positively bbroken up and that to carry out this action our adversaries had decided to send to the meeting great masses of workmen employed in certain ‘Red’ factories.

It was due to an unfortunate accident that we did not receive this news sooner. On that day we had given up our old business office in the Sternecker Gasse in Munich and moved into other quarters; or rather we had given up the old offices and our new quarters were not yet in functioning order. The telephone arrangements had been cut off by the former tenants and had not yet been reinstalled. Hence it happened that several attempts made that day to inform us by telephone of the break-up which had been planned for the evening did not reach us.

Consequently our order troops were not present in strong force at that meeting. There was only one squad present, which did not consist of the usual one hundred men, but only of about forty-six. And our telephone connections were not yet sufficiently organized to be able to give the alarm in the course of an hour or so, so that a sufficiently powerful number of order troops to deal with the situation could be called. It must also be added that on several previous occasions we had been forewarned, but nothing special happened. The old proverb, ‘Revolutions which were announced have scarcely ever come off’, had hitherto been proved true in our regard.

Possibly for this reason also sufficiently strong precautions had not been taken on that day to cope with the brutal determination of our opponents to break up our meeting.

Finally, we did not believe that the Hofbräuhaus in Munich was suitable for the interruptive tactics of our adversaries. We had feared such a thing far more in the bigger halls, especially that of the Krone Circus.

But on this point we learned a very serviceable lesson that evening.

Later, we studied this whole question according to a scientific system and arrived at results, both interesting and incredible, and which subsequently were an essential factor in the direction of our organization and in the tactics of our Storm Troops.

When I arrived in the entrance halt of the Hofbräuhaus at 7.45 that evening I realizcd that there could be no doubt as to what the ‘Reds’ intended. The hall was filled, and for that reason the police had barred the entrances. Our adversaries, who had arrived very early, were in the hall, and our followers were for the most part outside. The small bodyguard awaited me at the entrance. I had the doors leading to the principal hall closed and then asked the bodyguard of forty-five or forty-six men to come forward. I made it clear to the boys that perhaps on that evening for the first time they would have to show their unbending and unbreakable loyalty to the movement and that not one of us should leave the hall unless carried out dead. I added that I would remain in the hall and that I did not believe that one of them would abandon me, and that if I saw any one of them act the coward I myself would personally tear off his armlet and his badge. I demanded of them that they should come forward if the slightest attempt to sabotage the meeting were made and that they must remember that the best defence is always attack.

I was greeted with a triple ‘HEIL’ which sounded more hoarse and violent than usual.

Then I advanced through the hall and could take in the situation with my own eyes. Our opponents sat closely huddled together and tried to pierce me through with their looks. Innumerable faces glowing with hatred and rage were fixed on me, while others with sneering grimaces shouted at me together. Now they would ‘Finish with us. We must look out for our entrails. To-day they would smash in our faces once and for all.’ And there were other expressions of an equally elegant character. They knew that they were there in superior numbers and they acted accordingly.

Yet we were able to open the meeting; and I began to speak. In the Hall of the Hofbräuhaus I stood always at the side, away from the entry and on top of a beer table. Therefore I was always right in the midst of the audience. Perhaps this circumstance was responsible for creating a certain feeling and a sense of agreement which I never found elsewhere.

Before me, and especially towards my left, there were only opponents, seated or standing. They were mostly robust youths and men from the Maffei Factory, from Kustermann’s, and from the factories on the Isar, etc. Along the right-hand wall of the hall they were thickly massed quite close to my table. They now began to order litre mugs of beer, one after the other, and to throw the empty mugs under the table. In this way whole batteries were collected. I should have been surprised had this meeting ended peacefully.

In spite of all the interruptions, I was able to speak for about an hour and a half and I felt as if I were master of the situation. Even the ringleaders of the disturbers appeared to be convinced of this; for they steadily became more uneasy, often left the hall, returned and spoke to their men in an obviously nervous way.

A small psychological error which I committed in replying to an interruption, and the mistake of which I myself was conscious the moment the words had left my mouth, gave the sign for the outbreak.

There were a few furious outbursts and all in a moment a man jumped on a seat and shouted “Liberty”. At that signal the champions of liberty began their work.

In a few moments the hall was filled with a yelling and shrieking mob.

Numerous beer-mugs flew like howitzers above their heads. Amid this uproar one heard the crash of chair legs, the crashing of mugs, groans and yells and screams.

It was a mad spectacle. I stood where I was and could observe my boys doing their duty, every one of them.

There I had the chance of seeing what a bourgeois meeting could be.

The dance had hardly begun when my Storm Troops, as they were called from that day onwards, launched their attack. Like wolves they threw themselves on the enemy again and again in parties of eight or ten and began steadily to thrash them out of the hall. After five minutes I could see hardly one of them that was not streaming with blood. Then I realized what kind of men many of them were, above all my brave Maurice Hess, who is my private secretary to-day, and many others who, even though seriously wounded, attacked again and again as long as they could stand on their feet. Twenty minutes long the pandemonium continued. Then the opponents, who had numbered seven or eight hundred, had been driven from the hall or hurled out headlong by my men, who had not numbered fifty. Only in the left corner a big crowd still stood out against our men and put up a bitter fight. Then two pistol shots rang out from the entrance to the hall in the direction of the platform and now a wild din of shooting broke out from all sides. One’s heart almost rejoiced at this spectacle which recalled memories of the War.

At that moment it was not possible to identify the person who had fired the shots. But at any rate I could see that my boys renewed the attack with increased fury until finally the last disturbers were overcome and flung out of the hall.

About twenty-five minutes had passed since it all began. The hall looked as if a bomb had exploded there. Many of my comrades had to be bandaged and others taken away. But we remained masters of the situation. Hermann Essen, who was chairman of the meeting, announced: “The meeting will continue. The speaker shall proceed.” So I went on with my speech.

When we ourselves declared the meeting at an end an excited police officer rushed in, waved his hands and declared: “The meeting is dissolved.”

Without wishing to do so I had to laugh at this example of the law’s delay. It was the authentic constabulary officiosiousness. The smaller they are the greater they must always appear.

That evening we learned a real lesson. And our adversaries never forgot the lesson they had received.

Up to the autumn of 1923 the Münchener post did not again mention the clenched fists of the Proletariat.





No responses yet

Leave a Reply