Eckart and Hitler on Jewish Bolshevism, part 2
American Dissident Voices broadcast of 6 November, 2021
Listen to the broadcast
Introduced by Kevin Alfred Strom
OUR own Vanessa Neubauer has recorded an audio version of the first book ever published by Dr. William Pierce, his translation of Dietrich Eckart’s Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin (available from Cosmotheist Books) — a conversation between the author and German leader Adolf Hitler. In its pages, we can see how these two men — the poet, and the architect of a reborn Germany and a new European order — influenced Dr. Pierce and contributed to his understanding of religion, spirituality, and the biological reality underlying the Jewish power structure.
Let’s continue with part 2 of this extraordinary book. When we left off last week, we were discussing the ability of the Jews to mimic the behavior of whatever people among whom they might reside — I give you Vanessa Neubauer.
* * *
BOLSHEVISM FROM MOSES TO LENIN:
A DIALOGUE BETWEEN ADOLF HITLER AND ME
WITH startling rapidity they change their nationality back and forth, and wherever their feet touch, there resounds either the ‘Watch on the Rhine,’ or the ‘Marseillaise,’ or ‘Yankee Doodle.’ Dr. Heim does not once question the fact that our Warburgs, our Bleichroders, or our Mendelssohns are able to transfer their patriotism as well as their residence of today to London or to New York on the morrow. ‘On the sands of Brandenburg an Asiatic horde!’ Walther Rathenau once blurted out about the Berlin Jews. 
He forgot to add that the same horde is on the Isar, the Elbe, the Main, the Thames, the Seine, the Hudson, the Neva, and the Volga. And all of them with the same deceit toward their neighbors. Our charmers and wizards, however, distinguish between respectable and not-so-respectable, between settled and newly immigrated, between western and eastern Jews, and if worse comes to worst, they shrug their shoulders and mutter, ‘Every country has the Jews it deserves.’ It means nothing to them that it was a Jew who coined this fine-sounding phrase. Nor that in the case of Germany, considering the quality of the Jews we have ‘deserved,’ it becomes a resounding slap in the face. ‘All Israel stands openly in the British camp!’ announced the American union leader Samuel Gompers in 1916. And that includes the German Jews too, as the American, Ford, well knew. He has written of the faithlessness of the so-called ‘German’ Jews toward the country where they live, of the fact that they have united themselves with the rest of the world’s Jews toward the ruin of Germany. ‘Why?’ jeers the Jew. ‘Because the German is a vulgar scoundrel, a backward, medieval creature, who hasn’t the faintest idea of our worth. And we should help such rabble? No, he has the Jews he deserves!’ Such arrogance is indeed staggering to behold.”
I reminded him of Russia. “Before the revolution, the Jews condemned her as a downright sewer of vileness, even though they were the evident vermin in that sewer; now, the same Jews are at the helm, and, wuppdiwupp, the same Russia is a great nation.”
“In the year 1870,” he rejoined, “we Germans had the privilege of being a great people. The Jews considered that the time had arrived for replacing the French emperor, who had become undependable, with a pliable president. This also seemed an excellent opportunity to establish the Commune;  thus the ‘heroic German people.’ No wonder that right behind our princes and generals a pack of gesticulating Jewish financiers rode into Paris. Meanwhile, though, we have sunk back down into the pack again. The press, ‘that select tool of the Anti-christ,’ as Bismarck called it, has designated us as ‘Boches’ and as ‘Huns.’ But have patience! The more quickly we approach Bolshevism, the more glorious we will become again. And one fine day it will be the English and the French who are the scoundrels. One doesn’t need spectacles to see that. ‘I am a British subject but, first and foremost, a Jew,’ screamed a Hebrew years ago in a large English-Jewish newspaper.  And another: ‘Whoever has to choose between his duties as an Englishman and as a Jew must choose the latter.’  And a third: ‘Jews who want to be both patriotic Englishmen and good Jews are simply living lies.’  That they could venture things of that sort so openly indicates how overrun with Jews England already was then.”
“The stronghold of European Jewry had its origin in the period between Cromwell and Edward VII,” I emphasized. “Since then, however, the center of Jewish activity seems to have been transferred to America. They have had a good footing there for a long time. Sombart maintains that it was Jewish money which made the first two voyages of Columbus possible.  A Jew, Luis de Torres, is supposed to have been the first European to step on American soil. And, topping everything else, the Jews have recently claimed Columbus himself as one of them.”
“That’s not surprising,” he laughed. “Everyone who has somehow played a role in the world, the dear Lord included, is a Jew.  They even have Goethe and Schopenhauer on their list. And blessed be he who believes it. For my part, I contest them Columbus as well as Torres; ocean travel was much more hazardous then than now.”
“According to Hauser,” I replied, “Columbus was an Aryan, perhaps even of German descent.”
“It’s all the same to me,” he responded. “As far as I’m concerned, he could have been a Zulu, I’d sooner attribute his deed to a Negro than to a Jew.”
“Completely aside from that, it’s clear that they have had America by the throat for quite a while,” I continued. “No country, writes Sombart, displays more of a Jewish character than the United States.  We have already seen a consequence of this in the World War. In 1915, at a time when the true Americans hadn’t the slightest thought of a war against us and, in fact, were so disposed toward us that any indication of a possible conflict of interest could have been smoothly and amicably settled, a secret advisory committee met with President Wilson for the sole purpose of preparing the country for war against Germany.  And who was the chief wire-puller in these nefarious activities, which were set into motion a full two years before the engagement of the United States in the war? The previously unknown Jew, Bernard Baruch. ‘I believed that the war would come, long before it came,’ he later calmly explained to the special committee of Congress which confirmed all this. And no one got up and beat the crafty scoundrel to a pulp.”
“The resolution of the Jewish high command many years ago to unleash the World War is well authenticated,” he said. “At the sixth Zionist Congress in Basel, in 1903, the president, Max Nordau, proclaimed: ‘Herzl knows that we stand before a tremendous upheaval of the whole world.’  Good old Herzl! What an idealist! Our charmers and wizards were filled with awe at the thought of this noble patriarch. The scoundrel knew, however, what his filthy people had in mind for us!”
“But Herzl was a Zionist,” I interjected.
“He was a Jew!” he said, striking the table with his fist. “The word Jew says everything. There is no need for any further distinction! ‘God’s chosen people’ want to have their own ‘God’s country’ again. Catch that: ‘again’! God’s people and God’s country, neither of which, in reality, ever existed! Every portrayal ridicules for its depravity that general state of affairs which existed for some six hundred years in Palestine, till the Assyrians put an end to the mischief. Can you call that a country? Can’t one accept the Old Testament as the authority on the matter? First we read of the uninterrupted murders and plunderings of the other peoples of Palestine, which, naturally, took many years. Then right up to the last, with the most abominable vileness, one state of anarchy followed another. The pinnacle, the flowering, the glory of Jewish statesmanship, namely, King David, was such a rascal that even the unprecedented villainy of the letter condemning Uriah was not enough for him; on his deathbed he urged his son to murder his old war comrade, Joab.
“When Cyrus gave the Jews permission to return to Palestine (from their Babylonian ‘captivity’) the overwhelming majority ignored Zion and remained in immeasurably rich Babylonia. Completely content there, they continued their financial speculations and other activities.”
“In the year 1267,” I informed him, “there were only two Jewish residents in Jerusalem. Up to the World War, the number of Jews in all Palestine had grown to only 12,000,  even though they had been free to return there since ancient times and certainly weren’t lacking travel expenses. The remaining twenty or so millions — exactly how many is difficult to ascertain, since the Jews themselves do the counting — fatten themselves upon the sweat of others all over the world. It is hard to understand how tiny Palestine can hope to accommodate this enormous crowd.”
“That’s not necessary,” he retorted. “The point is that it is now official. Israel has remembered itself. Its chains are cast aside. The sun of a new God’s state rises over Zion. What an act! Finally liberated from bondage! Everyone is numbed with awe. The Jews grin.”
“They have already issued a resolution….” I wanted to continue.
“Yes indeed,” he cried, “if anywhere, this is where the cat jumps out of the bag! The resolution of the Pan-Jewish Conference of 1919, in Philadelphia!: ‘The Jews are citizens of the new Jewish state of Palestine, but at the same time they have complete rights of citizenship of whatever countries they choose to live in.’ One must read that non plus ultra of arrogance twice, indeed, a hundred times, in order to be sure one isn’t dreaming. Imagine instead: ‘The English are citizens of Great Britain. Each Englishman who chooses to live in Germany or France or Italy retains all his rights of English citizenship, but at the same time he has the complete rights of citizenship of the country in which he is living.’ Now ask yourself what a scream of indignation, not we or the French or the Italians, but the Jews themselves would raise if the English people had actually made such a resolution! The Pan-Jewish Congress, however, issued its resolution as categorically as a command.
“This assembly comprised representatives of all the Jews of the world, including the Zionists. Their intentions were, in short, that the Jews should stay where they were and that the new Zion should simply have the purpose, first, to strengthen their political backbone, second, to gratify their arrogance, and last but most important, to provide them a state where they could carry on their dirty business without fear of detection.
“I think we can form a pretty good idea of Jewish nationalism from this.”
“Okay. So they are neither national nor international,” I acknowledged. “What, then?”
“In terms of our customary concepts,” he shrugged, “it really can’t be defined. It is a rank growth over the whole earth, sometimes advancing slowly, sometimes leaping ahead in great bounds. Everywhere it sucks voraciously at the lifeblood of the planet. What was in the beginning a swollen abundance will become in the end nothing but dried-up sap. Zionism is the visible, surface aspect. It is connected underground to the rest of the monstrous growth.
“And nowhere is there to be found a trace of opposition to this thing.”
“One might say,” I laughed, “that the wolves have split themselves into two packs. It has been agreed that one of these shall abandon the land of the sheep in order to go live somewhere, quite among themselves, as pure vegetarians.”
“There is one thing above all of which we must always keep in mind,” he tendered, “one thing of which we must always remind ourselves: ‘Great masters of the lie’! One need only forget Schopenhauer’s words for an instant in order to begin slipping under the influence of their deceptions. To be sure, we also lie but, in the first place, not as a matter of habit and, in the second place, clumsily. Any really experienced judge of human nature is able to detect the lie of an Aryan, even a very shrewd one. Sherlock Holmes himself, however, would be at a loss when confronted with the Jewish cold-bloodedness in deception. A Jew is only embarrassed when he inadvertently blurts out the truth. If he should happen to deliberately tell the truth, it is always with a mental reservation, thus making a lie even of the truth.”
“Indeed, Luther,” I replied, “said to the Jews: ‘You are not a German, but a deceiver, not a Frenchman, but a faker.’  His synonym for Jew was ‘liar’!”
That’s what everyone who knows them says of them.” he rejoined, “from the Pharaohs up to Goethe and our time. It has been said in every dead and living language: in Greek, Latin, Persian, Turkish, English, French, or what have you. One would hope that these universal condemnations, throughout the whole world, would give our charmers and wizards at least a little to think about. God forbid! Not even Christ was able to reach them. He stood there among the cringing Jewish rabble, his eyes flashing, the very image of scorn, and his words fell among them like whiplashes: Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it (John 8:44). But to our charmers and wizards that means no more than the unintelligible stammering of a child.”
“They delude themselves by believing that to be only a stern but well-meaning lecture of the Lord to his beloved people of Israel,” I underscored his irony.
“Christ,” he continued with a raised voice, “was never other than perfectly straightforward and frank. God, not to feel the fact that there two fundamentally different worlds opposed one another! In Palestine after the Babylonian captivity there was a great lower stratum of non-Jews ruled over by Jewish moneylenders, powerful through their usury. One can read that in the book of Nehemiah. Sombart says that it leaves absolutely nothing to be desired in the way of clarity.  The outstanding point is that the real population, composed of oppressed peasants, was of an entirely different race than the Hebrews. Gradually the Jews forced their religion on them. Christ himself growled about that: ‘Woe onto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye encompass sea and land to make one proselyte…’ (Matthew 23:15).To the Jews, Galilee was the land of the Gentiles, whose population ‘sat in darkness,’ as they impudently imagined (Matthew 4:15-16). They said: Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?’ and ‘Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet’ (John 1:46; 7:52). The Hebrews were so firmly convinced of the non-Jewish ancestry of Christ that they counted him among the especially hated Samaritans (John 7:48). We live and learn! There are many more such examples.”
One could hardly recommend a better policy than that which lets each man find salvation in his own fashion,” I stressed. “The tacit assumption in that policy, though, is that each man’s fashion should involve some sort of decent sentiment, some genuine belief, and not just a contemptible Phariseeism. This distinction should have been expressly emphasized long ago. It wasn’t, and the religion of the moneychanger has received the benefit of this misguided tolerance. Christ was not so tolerant. With a whip he put a stop to the business of the children of the devil, even though he had said, ‘Love your enemy’!”
“Yes,” he replied, “but we must understand what Christ meant by ‘enemy.’ We can love an honorable and decent enemy, even a brutal one, who is frank and forthright in his enmity. And at the same time we can beware of him. But Christ never dreamed that we should love men whom no love whatever could dissuade from their implacable determination to poison us, body and soul. Indeed, he himself did not do that. On the contrary, he continued to strike with his whip as hard as he could. And the words that he flung with indignation into the faces of the rabble breathed of irreconcilability itself. To me, he acted very proudly in the founding of his religion: there was very little contradiction between his sermons and his deeds! Why, then, have the ‘pious’ never followed his example? They least of all. They mercilessly persecute even their decent adversaries — as a matter of fact, only their decent adversaries. Their eyes remain closed to the most cunning bunch of swindlers in existence. The Bavarian People’s Party, for instance, knows quite well that we are defending the Christian foundations of our nation without mental reservations. They also know, however, that we can make no common cause with them as long as they adhere to their present policies. And so they turned to the Jews, hoping to remain in power with their help. They surprised themselves. Dripping with friendliness at first, the Jews turned on them murderously when they had gotten the upper hand.”
“That was inevitable,” I agreed with him. “Fortunately, the Jews would not be able to provide us with that same sort of dreadful experience, for we do not betray and murder our own flesh and blood for the sales of profit. So far as we are concerned, the Bavarian People’s party could even remain in office, provided they clean the manure out of they pigsty and perceive the correctness of our views. We are not willing to tear ourselves apart just for power. But we want Germanism, we want genuine Christianity, we want order and propriety, and we want these things so firmly established that our children and grandchildren can remain satisfied with them.”
“They consider that impossible,” he said, “and therefore they consider our program nothing but empty phrases, of no more sincerity than the empty phrases with which they consciously try to peddle themselves to the people. But our goals are not only possible, they are certain, even if we don’t attain them tomorrow. But first a beginning must be made. So far, never and nowhere has there been a truly social state. Everywhere and always the upper crust has leaned much more strongly to the principle, ‘what is yours, is mine,’ than to, ‘what is mine, is yours.’ These wise ones have only themselves to blame for the fact the lower stratum, full of rage, now is committing the same error. The Jew is able to take advantage of both these groups. One of them provides for his affairs, the other carries them out. Therefore, we oppose them both. We will put an end to unfair privileges as well as to slavery.”
“Decidedly,” I replied. “Our front stands against both left and right. A strange situation; from two directions we must ward off attackers who also fight one another. The Reds scream at us as reactionaries, and to the reactionaries we are Bolsheviks. From both sides the Jew directs the attack on us. The lower stratum doesn’t see him yet and, thus, hates us from sheer stupidity; the upper stratum sees him but thinks it can serve its own selfish purposes with him and thus, shoots us in the back more from unscrupulousness than stupidity. One really needs a good deal of faith under such circumstances in order to maintain one’s courage.”
“Which we have, God be thanked, in a hundred ways,” he said, laughing, as he stretched himself. “No words were spoken more directly to our hearts than ‘Be not afraid’! (Matthew 28:10) And that was supposed to have been said by a Jew? Those creatures of eternal fear? Crazy!”
“Every time new and promising opportunities for meddling have arisen,” he brought out, “the Jew has been immediately involved. He has demonstrated an uncanny ability to sniff out like a bloodhound anything which was dangerous to him. Having found it, he uses all his cunning to get at it, to divert it, to change its nature, or, at least, to deflect its point from its goal. Schopenhauer called the Jew ‘the dregs of mankind,’ ‘a beast,’ ‘the great master of the lie.’ How does the Jew respond? He establishes a Schopenhauer Society. Likewise, the Kant Society in his work, in spite of the fact that — or, rather, because — Kant summarily declared the Jewish people to be a ‘nation of swindlers.’  The same with the Goethe Society. ‘We tolerate no Jews among us,’ said Goethe. ‘Their religion permits them to rob non-Jews,’ he wrote. ‘This crafty race has one great principle: as long as order prevails, there is nothing to be gained,’ he continued. He categorically emphasized: ‘I refrain from all cooperation with Jews and their accomplices.  All in vain; the Jewish Goethe Society is still there. It would be there even if he himself had expressly forbidden such knavery.”
“With exactly the same right,” I interjected, “the two of us could join a Talmud Society. What impudence that would require! Inconceivable.”
“Not to the Jew,” he replied. “To him impudence has no meaning. He is only able to think in terms of advantage or disadvantage, profit or loss. One must approach him with a different sort of measuring stick.”
“Our charmers and wizards,” I rejoined, “all fall for their trick. Goethe, Kant, Schopenhauer seem to be nothing but babblers to them.”
“Bah, Goethe!” he interrupted contemptuously. “Not even the saintly Thomas Aquinas is able to reach these people. The great father of the Church has described in his writings our relationship with the Jews in terms of a voyage on a ship. The Jews, embarked on the same vessel with the Christians, play a characteristic role: while the Christians are occupied with sailing the ship, the Jews plunder the storeroom and bore holes in the hull. St. Thomas recommends that they should be relieved of their booty and chained to the rudder. What an atrocity! How un-Christian! Poor Jews! One can learn so much from them! At least, according to Drs. Heim and Schweyer. And so the world goes on, governed with the same wisdom as in the time of Joseph’s Pharaoh.”
“Namely, by statesmen,” I completed, “who are so busy ruling that they completely fail to notice that not they but others actually rule; by men like Czar Nicholas, who indulged himself in the same self-deception and got a bullet in the head for it. As early as 1843 Disraeli gave us a hint of what we should expect there. ‘The mysterious Russian diplomacy is organized by Jews,’ he boasted. Also, ‘the mighty revolution which is in the making in Germany is evolving entirely under the leadership of Jews.’” 
“Most of our revolutions,” he said, “whether initially with desirable goals or not, have evolved under Jewish leadership. The revolutions of vulgar predisposition were, for the most part, the work of Jews; and those with loftier tendencies were soon subverted into a darker course by Jews.
 Walther Rathenau, Berliner Kulturzentren, 1913. Rathenau was a Jewish war profiteer in World War I and later a minister in the Weimar government. He was executed by German patriots in 1922. [Translator]
 A Jew-controlled, socialist government of Paris which lasted only from March 18 to May 27, 1871, but which was responsible for thousands of horribly atrocious murders during this brief period. [Translator]
 M.J. Wodeslowsky, Jewish World, January 1, 1909.
 Joseph Cohen, Jewish World, November 4, 1913.
 Jewish Chronicle, December 10, 1911.
 Sombart, op. cit., pp. 32-33.
 Jesus was, of course, Jewish by birth. But there are in fact ancient documents that suggest otherwise, such as a spurious letter purportedly by a contemporary of Pontius Pilate, the Epistle of Publius Lentulus, which describes Jesus as blond and blue-eyed. Eckart is relying on this tradition of the Aryan Christ.
Cf. Alfred Rosenberg, The Myth of the Twentieth Century, trans. Vivian Bird (Newport Beach, CA: Noontide Press, 1982), p. 397: “There is no proof for the often-made claim that Jesus was a Jew. Indeed, there is much to show for the contrary. Jesus possibly was Aryan, or partially so, showing the Nordic type strongly. Let us look at Die historische Persönlichkeit Jesu (Munich, 1924). It reports that, according to the Syrian-Christian preacher Ephraem (fourth century A.D.), Jesus had a Danaite woman, that is, someone born in Dan, for a mother and a Latin as a father. Ephraem sees nothing dishonorable in this, adding ‘Jesus thus derived his ancestry from two of the greatest and most famous nations — namely, from the Syrians on the maternal side and from the Romans on the paternal.’ Ephraem presupposes the universal acknowledgement of this fact.” [Irmin]
 Ibid., p. 39.
 Five years after Der Bolschewismus was written — on June 2, 1928 — an article appeared in Liberty magazine, by the former head of the United States Secret Service, William J. Flynn, detailing the previously secret intrigues of Wilson, Baruch, et al. in 1915 to engage the United States in the World War. But these treacherous proceedings pale into insignificance when compared to the activities of the Zionist Jews in 1916, following the negotiations between the British Government and world Jewry which led to the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
In a pamphlet published in London in March 1936 by the New Zion Press and entitled Great Britain, the Jews, and Palestine, Samuel Landman, the well-known Zionist, states that these negotiations led to a “quid pro quo contract” in which Jewry agreed to use its influence to bring America into the war on Britain’s side in return for Britain’s guarantee that Palestine would be handed over to the Jews. He says that, once the negotiations were complete, “the change in official and public opinion as reflected in the American press in favor of joining the Allies in the War was as gratifying as it was surprisingly rapid.”
Eckart, of course, did not know the full story of these arrangements in 1923. [Translator]
 Litman Rosenthal, American Jewish News, September 19, 1919. Rosenthal, writing in reminiscence of his attendance at the 1903 conference, blatantly lays bare the eager Jewish anticipation of a world war, eleven years before the fact. Nordau’s speech continues “… let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, the Zionistic Congress, the English Uganda proposition, the future world war, the peace conference where with the help of England a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.” [Translator]
 Hauser, op. cit., pp. 484, 491.
 Martin Luther, Von den Juden und ihren Lügen. Luther’s words are more poetic in German: “Du bist nicht ein Deutscher, sondern ein Täuscher; nicht ein Welcher, sondern ein Fälscher.” [Translator]
 Sombart, op. cit., p. 371.
 Immanuel Kant, Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht (Königsberg, 1798).
 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre; Goethe, Das Jahrmarktfest zu Plundersweile; Goethe, Tag- und Jahresfeste; ibid.
 Benjamin Disraeli, Coningsby (London, 1844).
Original html and additional notes by Irmin Vinson
* * *
You’ve just heard part two of of Dr. William Pierce’s translation of Dietrich Eckart’s Bolshevism From Moses to Lenin (available from Cosmotheist Books), read by Vanessa Neubauer. We’ll continue this important, insightful work next week — right here on American Dissident Voices.
* * *
You’ve been listening to American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the National Alliance. This program is published every week at whitebiocentrism.com and nationalvanguard.org. Please write to us at National Alliance, Box 4, Mountain City, TN 37683 USA. We welcome your inquiries and your financial support in spreading our message of hope to our people. We also welcome your applications for membership in our community of the conscious. Once again, that address is Box 4, Mountain City, TN 37683 USA. Thank you for your help.
Listen to the broadcast