Marxism is founded on an ancient erroneous worldview:
Fundamental Problems of Marxism, translated by Paul Flewers
Marxism is an integral world-outlook. Expressed in a nutshell, it is contemporary materialism, at present the highest stage in the development of that view upon the world whose foundations were laid down in ancient Greece by Democritus, and in part by the Ionian thinkers who preceded that philosopher. What was known as hylozoism was nothing but a naive materialism. It is to Karl Marx and his friend Frederick Engels that the main credit for the development of present-day materialism must no doubt go.
Marxism… is an integral world outlook, a philosophical system, from which Marx’s proletarian socialism logically follows. This philosophical system is called dialectical materialism. Hence, to expound Marxism means to expound also dialectical materialism. Why is this system called dialectical materialism? Because its method is dialectical, and its theory is materialistic.
(Source – Marxists Internet Archive)
One has good grounds to be suspicious in regard to any new idea, or any doctrine or philosophy, any political or economical movement, which tries to deny everything that the past has produced or to present it as inferior and worthless. Such an antipathy is usually due to a sense of inferiority or to malicious intention.
Plekhanov wasn’t the only one to represent hylozoics in an inferior sense.
2Kant is proof that this hylozoics has been misunderstood completely. Thinking himself able to judge everything, he pronounced his oft-quoted judgement displaying his actual ignorance: “hylozoism would be the death of all natural philosophy”. On the contrary, it furthers research. The assertion that it excludes a mechanical explanation of nature is erroneous. The laws of nature are fundamental.
On the law of interia (next to that of the permanence of substance) the possibility of a natural science proper entirely rests. The opposite of the first, and therefore the death of all natural philosophy, would be hylozoism.
The possibility of a natural science proper rests entirely on the law of inertia (along with the law of the permanence of substance). Hylozoism [= ‘the thesis that matter itself is alive’] is the opposite of this, and is therefore the death of all natural philosophy!
At age 13, ✡Einstein was introduced to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, and Kant became his favorite philosopher, his tutor stating: “At the time he was still a child, only thirteen years old, yet Kant’s works, incomprehensible to ordinary mortals, seemed to be clear to him.”
Count Richard N. Coudenhove Kalergi:
Almost all European ethics are rooted in Judaism. All champions of religious or irreligious Christian morality, from Augustine to Rousseau, Kant and Tolstoy, were Jews by choice [Wahljuden] in the spiritual sense; Nietzsche is the only non-Jewish, the only pagan ethicist in Europe.
Plekhanov, a non-Jewish Communist, was most notably considered a “founding father” of Communism. He was also opposed to the Jew Lenin. According to the wiki:
During his life Plekhanov wrote extensively on historical materialism, on the history of materialist philosophy, on the role of the masses and of the individual in history. Plekhanov always insisted that Marxism was a materialist doctrine rather than an idealist one.
Karl Marx’s doctoral thesis “The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature” evaluates the thought of the Pre-Socratic philosopher Democritus, one of the founders of Atomic theory.
Within the Marxist philosophical tradition the Pre-Socratics are recognized as the first Materialists.
Obviously, Plekhanov would have been one of the few people to be in a position to correctly assess the Marxist doctrine.
Once Again on the Trade Unions, the Current Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Burkharin
Party members that you cannot hope to become a real, intelligent Communist without making a study — and I mean study — of all of Plekhanov’s philosophical writings, because nothing better has been written on Marxism anywhere in the world…
[in process of verifying this quotation]
It’s worth noting Lenin’s bitter denunciation of Soviet “monists” in his essay Materialism and Empirio-criticism.
In his Ludwig Feuerbach, Engels declares that the fundamental philosophical trends are materialism and idealism. Materialism regards nature as primary and spirit as secondary; it places being first and thought second. Idealism holds the contrary view. This root distinction between the “two great camps” into which the philosophers of the “various schools” of idealism and materialism are divided Engels takes as the corner-stone, and he directly charges with “confusion” those who use the terms idealism and materialism in any other way. “The great basic question of all philosophy,” Engels says, “especially of modern philosophy, is that concerning the relation of thinking and being”, of “spirit and nature”.
Today we are in the middle of another revolutionary epoch. Revolutionary scientific understandings of genetics and race have found political expression in the National Socialist world view. Once again a world of appearances collapsed, which had concealed from our eyes the true nature of humanity and the connections between body, soul, and spirit. The foundation of the Christian worldview is the doctrine of the separation of body and soul; the soul and spirit belong to a world independent of the physical, free of natural laws, and they are even to a certain degree able to free the human body from its natural setting. It is a major shift when racial theory recognizes the unity of body, soul and spirit and sees them as a whole that follows the eternal laws of nature. A new epoch is coming, one perhaps even more revolutionary than that resulting from Copernicus’s work. Ideas about humanity and peoples that have endured for millennia are collapsing.
11It can hardly be claimed that the theologians have too vast knowledge of reality. The “material world” (the physical world) and the “spiritual world” are the only worlds existing to them.
12When theologians in the manner of Anders Nygren at Lund University deny the existence of superphysical worlds, they concur in Jewish theology according to which there is no other life than physical life.
Lars Adelskogh (Fke3.1.5)
5Physicalism is the assumption that matter equals physical matter, thus that there is no material reality beyond the physical. Physicalism was the necessary logical consequence after they had understood that matter consists of atoms but had not understood that there are other kinds of atoms beside the physical kind.
25Demokritos tried, within the limits of the permissible, to construct an exoteric theory of the nature of matter. To enable himself to do this he introduced the concepts of “void” and “falling” of atoms…
26Demokritos marks the beginning of philosophy, or exoteric speculation as we know it, and thus one is wholly justified in saying that “materialism” (actually physicalism) is as old as philosophy (subjectivism).
[Democritus’] character can also be seen from his writings. “He would seem,” says Thrasylus, “to have been an admirer of the Pythagoreans. Moreover, he mentions Pythagoras himself, praising him in a work of his own entitled Pythagoras. He seems to have taken all his ideas from him and, if chronology did not stand in the way, he might have been thought his pupil.” Glaucus of Rhegium certainly says that he was taught by one of the Pythagoreans, and Glaucus was his contemporary. Apollodorus of Cyzicus, again, will have it that he lived with Philolaus.
Aristoxenus in his Historical Notes affirms that Plato wished to burn all the writings of Democritus that he could collect, but that Amyclas and Clinias the Pythagoreans prevented him, saying that there was no advantage in doing so, for already the books were widely circulated. And there is clear evidence for this in the fact that Plato, who mentions almost all the early philosophers, never once alludes to Democritus, not even where it would be necessary to controvert him…
When we survey this enormous mass of philosophic systems from the point of view of general biology, we find that we can divide them into two main groups.
The first and smaller group contains the monistic philosophy, which traces all the phenomena of existence to one single common principle. The second and larger group, to which most philosophic systems belong, constitutes the dualistic philosophy, according to which there are two totally distinct principles in the universe.
These are sometimes expressed as God and the world, sometimes as the spiritual world and material world, sometimes as mind and matter, and so on. In my opinion, this antithesis of monism and dualism is the most important in the whole history of philosophy. All other systems are only variations of one or the other of these, or a more or less obscure combination of the two.
The form of monism which I take to be the most complete expression of the general truth, and which I have advocated in my writings for thirty-eight years, is now generally called hylozoism. This expresses the fact that all substance has two fundamental attributes; as matter (hyle) it occupies space, and as force or energy it is endowed with sensation (cf. chapter xix.).
1Francis Bacon rightly considered Demokritos to be the only one of the ancient philosophers possessed of common sense. Bacon passed over Pythagoras and Platon because their teachings had never been understood correctly and such as those teachings were presented in the history of philosophy they were without reality. Bacon made an exception for Demokritos in this respect because Demokritos gave mankind the atomic theory (albeit veiled) as a lasting result. That was the only thing left standing of the speculations of philosophy up to his time.
And therefore the natural philosophy of Democritus and some others, (who did not suppose a mind or reason in the frame of things, but attributed the form thereof, able to maintain itself, to infinite essays or proofs of nature, which they term fortune,) seemeth to me, as far as I can judge by the recital and fragments which remain unto us, in particularities of physical causes, more real and better inquired than that of Aristotle and Plato; whereof both intermingled final cruises, the one as a part of theology, and the other as a part of logic, which were the favourite studies respectively of both those persons.
Even Ernst Haeckel, who at least advocated a form of hylozoism, viewed it’s older iteration as primitive (or at least presented it that way as his own speculation).
Especially notable are those great Free-thinkers of classic antiquity who taught a monistic view of life in the sixth century before Christ—the Ionic natural philosophers, Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes; and a little later, Heraclitus, Empedocles, and Democritus. They made the first thorough attempt to explain the world on rational principles, independently of all mythological tradition and theological dogmas. However, these remarkable efforts to found a primitive monism, which found so finished an expression in the De rerum natura of the great poet-philosopher, Lucretius Carus (98-54 B.C.), were shortly thrust out by the spread—through Plato’s curious dualism—of the belief in the immortality of the soul and the transcendental world of ideas.
10The pre-Sokratean philosophers were all hylozoicians. Even of their alleged wisdom nothing more is left than a few meagre utterances, and that fact alone should have enjoined caution in assessing them.
11Those wise men possessed knowledge of reality that the scientists of today still lack. It is typical of the traditional lack of judgement that they are put forward as examples of the “first attempts at thinking”. And this in spite of the allegation that the following is known about them:
12They taught that the fixed stars are suns; that the planets revolve round the sun, shine with reflected light, and have once been liquid masses that have detached themselves from the sun. They described the periods of revolution of the sun and the moon, predicted eclipses of the sun and the moon. They knew that the earth is round, gave the correct figures concerning its size. They had views on the most fundamental concepts and the most difficult problems, for example, mechanical or final causes of processes in nature.
2The most ancient philosophers were initiates of esoteric schools, the so-called mysteries. What was taught in these remained secret. Historians have tried to construct some sort of “first attempts at thinking” from some of the philosophers’ misunderstood statements that were accidentally preserved. As though thinking made its start only in 600 B.C. The élite of Atlanteans, Indians, Chaldeans, Egyptians and other nations possessed esoteric knowledge. They had no use of philosophy, which is the speculation of ignorance. The Greek term for esoterics was hylozoics.
Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), July 7, 1942:
The real protagonists of culture, both in the thousand years before Christ and in the thousand years after Him, were the peoples of the Mediterranean. This may appear improbable to us to-day, because we are apt to judge these people from present-day appearances. But that is a great mistake.
North Africa was once a heavily wooded territory, and Greece, Italy and Spain, too, at the time of the Grasco-Roman era also had many vast forests. In passing judgment on Egyptian history, too, let me advise caution. Like Greece and Italy, Egypt also during the period of her glory was a most habitable country with a most equable climate. So when a people begin to cut down their trees without making any provision for reafforestation—and thus rob nature’s wise irrigation system of its most essential pre-requisite—you may be sure that it is a sign of the beginning of their cultural degeneration.
The available literary information refers particularly to Athens. Attica experienced a rise in population during the seventh and sixth centuries BC, which resulted in increased clearing of the wooded slopes of the nearby Aegaleus and Hymettus Mountains (Figs. 5 and 6).
However, wood was not used only for purposes of domestic construction and fuel, but also since the fifth century BC in large measure for mining and shipbuilding. The rise of Athens caused the demand for wood to increase considerably.
Athenian democracy developed around the fifth century BC in the Greek city-state (known as a polis) of Athens, comprising the city of Athens and the surrounding territory of Attica, and is often described as the first known democracy in the world. Other Greek cities set up democracies, most following the Athenian model, but none are as well documented as Athens’.
“Our western philosophical tradition began in ancient Greece in the 6th century BCE.”
In the history of Europe, its most structured cultural manifestation was Athenian pederasty, and became most prominent in the 6th century BC.
Though examples of such a custom exist in earlier Greek works, myths providing examples of young men who were the lovers of gods began to emerge in classical literature, around the 6th century BC. In these later tales, pederastic love is ascribed to Zeus (with Ganymede), Poseidon (with Pelops), Apollo (with Cyparissus, Hyacinthus and Adnetus), Orpheus, Heracles, Dionysus, Hermes, and Pan. All the Olympian gods except Ares are purported to have had these relationships, which some scholars argue demonstrates that the specific customs of paiderastia originated in initiatory rituals.
1Current textbooks of the history of philosophy make philosophical thought begin at about 600 B.C.E., which is instead the period marking the definitely helpless decline of Greek culture and, with it, of the so-called mysteries. It was in order to counteract the foreseen fall that Pythagoras (in about 700 B.C.E.) founded a colony (called Krotona) outside the town of Taormina in Sicily, the population of which was one day to annihilate the colony and murder him. There are three different legends of Pythagoras. Everything told about him is false, is far from the truth…
Sokrates and Platon
Greek genius must recognise Platon as the man who, in the midst of a great decomposition, represented sober prudence.
4The mystery schools declined. As they decayed they began to substitute speculation for traditional knowledge of reality. Platon, who foresaw the decline, made attempts to save as much of the knowledge as possible through hints.
Platon placed the words of his own soul in the mouth of Sokrates. Thus, the true Sokrates vanished from the world. Only a few passages in Platon truly refer to him.
In the Phaedon, for example, Platon relates that Sokrates had admitted that he possessed no aptitude for investigation of organic events. The true nature of things for Sokrates therefore consisted ultimately not in their investigation by observation, but in our thinking about them.
Unfortunately we have little direct knowledge of this earliest Humanism. Its heroes and martyrs, Protagoras and Socrates, have left us no memorial. It is true that by the irony of history the spiritual heritage of one of them soon became a valuable asset, to be disputed over by the philosophic schools of the fourth century, and that so in the end Socrates has become for history what it suited the interest of the strongest, i.e., of the greatest writer, that he should appear.
Plato has made our ‘Socrates’ into an intellectualist like himself. But this is manifestly one-sided. The teaching of the real Socrates must have been such as to inspire not only Plato, but also Xenophon, and Aristippus, and Antisthenes. He cannot, therefore, have been the beau idéal of intellectualistic idealism Plato makes him out to be. In his general attitude towards life he probably came far nearer to the progressive types of his own age than a careless reader would infer from Plato.
For Plato has made him into a stalking horse in his campaign against his own professional rivals, the Sophists. The historic Socrates, however, probably got on with Sophists of his time even better than Plato admits in the Protagoras.
[Likewise, the Protocols of Zion are probably not in their original form.]
1Xenophon’s “Recollections of Sokrates” gives a better picture of how it used to be. Sokrates became the anonymous mouthpiece that Platon needed in order to avoid persecution. Thanks to Platon, the execution of Sokrates was recognized as a judicial murder. Thus Sokrates was henceforth allowed to proclaim his views freely. By consistently putting his views into Sokrates’ mouth Platon avoided the risk of attracting too much attention to himself. The democratic equality complex and envy would not tolerate anyone living raising himself above the crowd. (“If anyone is great among us, let him be great somewhere else.”)
Once Perikles, as lord of Athens, had to beg the court for its indulgence in granting civil rights to his son born of his foreign wife. This was granted him in an exceptional case. This strict racial law, made under Perikles himself, vanished with the progressive impoverishment of the blood of Athens.
1What spared Perikles (the only one of the “great ones” of Athens) the fate of being overthrown was that he knew how to flatter the mob, begging forgiveness for his existence and, with tears in his eyes, beseeching them to excuse his genius. With his exception, all the great men of Athens were persecuted, ostracized, or murdered.
Platon was essentially an aristocrat, an Olympian fighter, a formative artist, and a profound thinker. At the end of his life he wished to save his people racially by enacting a powerful constitution. None of this was Socratic; it was the last great flowering of the Hellenic spirit.
If it be denied that races differ from one another in their cultural creative ability, then this same erroneous notion must necessarily influence our estimation of the value of the individual. The assumption that all races are alike leads to the assumption that nations and individuals are equal to one another. Therefore, international Marxism is merely the adoption by the Jew, Karl Marx, of a general conception of life, which had existed long before his day, as a definite profession of political faith. If it had not already existed as a widely diffused infection, the amazing political progress of the Marxist teaching would never have been possible.
In reality what distinguished Karl Marx from the millions who were affected in the same way was that, in a world already in a state of gradual decomposition, he used the unerring instinct of the prophetic genius to detect the essential poisons, so as to extract them and concentrate them, with the art of an alchemist, in a solution which would bring about the rapid destruction of the independent nations of the earth. All this was done in the service of his race.
Thus the Marxian doctrine is the concentrated extract of the mentality which underlies the general Weltanschauung to-day.
For this reason alone it is out of the question and even ridiculous to think that what is called our bourgeois world can put up any effective fight against Marxism, for this bourgeois world is permeated with all those same poisons, and its Weltanschauung in general differs from Marxism only in degree and in the character of the persons who hold it.
The bourgeois world is Marxist, but believes in the possibility of a certain group of people—that is to say, the bourgeoisie—being able to dominate the world, while Marxism itself systematically aims at delivering the world into the hands of the Jews.
Democracy, as practised in Western Europe to-day, is the forerunner of Marxism. In fact, the latter would not be conceivable without the former. Democracy is the breeding ground in which the bacilli of the Marxist world-pest can grow and spread. By the introduction of parliamentarianism, democracy produced an abortion of ‘filth and fire,’ the fire of which, however, seems to have died out.
9The assertion of Marx that physical factors are the only active forces in social development evidences his ignorance of life. Emotional illusions and mental fictions are far more powerful than physical factors.
10Sentimentality affords power of deciding to ignorance and impotence, grants rights without duties, gives power without responsibility, preaches equality, so doing away with all differences between stages of development. That is like allowing children to rule in the society of adults.
11Sentimentality also manifests itself in perverse coddling pedagogy, in the goodness that is just weakness and irresolute laxity, that lets children grow up in ignorance of the laws of life, makes them weak-willed milksops, victims of their own impulses, unable to take care of themselves, hold them back at the infantile stage of barbarism with its arbitrariness and wilfulness.
6Bacon’s observation, “in the schools of philosophers, the adepts learn to believe”, has always been valid. They never understood the problems they tried to solve. They were in all times the victims of their vagaries, and their echoes accepted their fictions. It is vouchsafed the present age, however, to evince the unconditional surrender of reason to the worst aberration of them all: semantics. Another example is that muddlehead, Marx, whose imaginative speculation has turned the heads of Russian and Chinese philosophers of a low intellectual standard. How far is mankind still from the acquisition of common sense, from the ability to determine the truth or falsity of its vagaries, from the ability to solve the problems of philosophy!
1The prophet of Russian communism, the
German [Jew] Karl Marx, Russell dismisses fairly summarily. He did not consider it worth spending time refuting this primitive physicalist conception of history, absurd sociology, and grotesque political economic theory. He clearly saw the perversity of all this hate propaganda, which corresponds to the emotional thinking of the lower emotional stage, meeting the pertaining needs of illusions: envy and other expressions of hatred.
2The question is, however, whether it would not be worthwhile to study the pertaining illusionism and fictionalism psychologically. At all events it confirms Platon’s saying that “ideas rule the world”.
3That this self-evident fact has not been generally recognized is as good an indication as any other as to the current intellectual standard. What unspeakable suffering has mankind had to endure because of religious and moral ideas! What do the ideas of mad nationalism cost us today! When ideas actuate the driving force of emotion, they lead to action. When emotions are aroused at the lower emotional stage (the repulsive stage), the result is the deeds of hatred. But the essential thing is that we realize that madness is mad ideas, that the idea is the initial impulse. And that is why ignorance is the root of evil.
4The conquests of Marxism refute the hypothesis of Marx himself that man’s only needs are physical ones. Even at the lowest stage of development he has need of emotional illusions and mental fictions. Their power is often greater than physical needs. One of the proofs of this is the Russian people among others.
5As for the illusion of the “dictatorship of the Soviet proletariat”, Russell is content with the laconic remark that by this is evidently meant the Communist Party. It is fantastic that workers in many countries let themselves be duped by the obvious lies of bolshevik agitation, blind to the new slavery that has deprived the workers of their human rights. Mankind has not progressed further than both Russia and China being ruled by bandits.
6What condemns the Soviet system is partly its inhumanity, its barbarous contempt of the individual’s divine right to integrity, partly it tyranny of opinion. It is sheer parody that this power is allowed to take part in the United Nations work for mankind just in order to destroy this very work, this power more terrible than that of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, this power the aim of which is to wipe out all nations, to make all men slaves physically and spiritually, and by its satanic methods to try to stifle every endeavour to find and proclaim the truth.
1Russell is undoubtedly the best object of study for the esoterician wishing to illustrate the philosophic-scientific world view of our times with its merits and limitations. He is the most suitable one for many other reasons too. He has demonstrated the fictitiousness of the alleged knowledge of theology, philosophy, and science, which mankind has inherited from its ancestors down the centuries. He has tried to free people from the enormous burden of theological dogmas warring with reason and moral taboos hostile to life, which make it impossible for people to live together without friction. He has shown up the faults of the political idiologies of our times: capitalism, socialism, fascism, Marxism. He has demonstrated the necessity of finding a new basis for life view. In one word, he has tried to work for a reformation in most spheres of human life.
Bertrand Russell, June 25, 1920:
I have got thus far on my return, but boats are very full and it may be a week before I reach England. I left Allen in a nursing home in Reval, no longer in danger, tho’ twice he had been given up by the Doctors. Partly owing to his illness, but more because I loathed the Bolsheviks, the time in Russia was infinitely painful to me, in spite of being one of the most interesting things I have ever done. Bolshevism is a close tyrannical bureaucracy, with a spy system more elaborate and terrible than the Tsar’s, and an aristocracy as insolent and unfeeling, composed of Americanised Jews. No vestige of liberty remains, in thought or speech or action. I was stifled and oppressed by the weight of the machine as by a cope of lead. Yet I think it is the right government for Russia at this moment. If you ask yourself how Dostoevsky’s characters should be governed, you will understand. Yet it is terrible. They are a nation of artists, down to the simplest peasant; the aim of the Bolsheviks is to make them industrial and as Yankee as possible. Imagine yourself governed in every detail by a mixture of Sidney Webb and Rufus Isaacs, and you will have a picture of modern Russia. I went hoping to find the promised land.
[Bertrand Russell is quite the anomaly of a humanist. He saw through the reigning fictions and yet, according to the wiki…]
Russell opposed rearmament against Nazi Germany. In 1937 he wrote in a personal letter: “If the Germans succeed in sending an invading army to England we should do best to treat them as visitors, give them quarters and invite the commander and chief to dine with the prime minister.”
In 1940, he changed his view that avoiding a full-scale world war was more important than defeating Hitler. He concluded that Adolf Hitler taking over all of Europe would be a permanent threat to democracy.
In 1943, he adopted a stance toward large-scale warfare: “War was always a great evil, but in some particularly extreme circumstances, it may be the lesser of two evils.”
[Russell also judged Schopenhauer harshly, perhaps being influenced by his Jewish friend. – See https://hitlerianhylozoics.wordpress.com/compatibility/%5D
10They speak about democracy as if it were the same as freedom. That is a mistake. Democracy, such as it has hitherto appeared in all nations, has sufficiently demonstrated intolerance, and has done so to such an extent that one may very well say that there has never existed any true freedom. This holds good of democracy as well. It is so far from being realized that it rather stands out as a utopia, an ideal that is good enough to be used in propaganda and to throw dust in people’s eyes who allow themselves to be blinded by beautiful phrases and do not have judgement enough to see through the old trick of empty promises.
[At the very least, he opposed Marxism and Zionism.]
Modern Communist propaganda: Another View of Stalin. Although offering some fresh, alternative perspective on Stalin, it still weaves in monstrous lies and propaganda about the National Socialists, aiming to link them up with the capitalists, reinforcing the increasingly popular false notion that Hitler was controlled opposition. It also recommends Stalin: Man of History by Ian Grey, which might be worthwhile.
“During the eighties, the Right took up several themes that the Nazis had developed during the pyschological war against the Soviet Union. Since 1945, efforts to rehabilitate Nazism have generally started with affirmations such as `Stalinism was at least as barbaric as Nazism’. Ernst Nolte, followed by Jürgen Habermas, claimed in 1986 that the extermination of the kulaks by Stalin could be compared to the extermination of the Jews by Hitler!”
“On February 18, 1935, the Hearst press in the U.S. began the publication of a series of articles by Thomas Walker. (Hearst was a huge press magnate and a Nazi sympathizer.) Great traveler
and journalist, Walker had supposedly crisscrossed the Soviet Union for several years. The Feb rua ry25 headline of the Chicago American read, `Six Million Perish in Soviet Famine: Peasants’ CropsSeized, They and Their Animals Starve.’ In the middle of the page, another headline read, `Reporter Risks Life to Get Photographs Showing Starvation.’ At the bottom of the page, `Famine — Crime Against Humanity’.”
“The multi-millionnaire William Randolph Hearst met Hitler at the end of the summer of 1934 to finalize an agreement under which Germany would buy its international news from the Hearstowned company International News Service. At the time, the Nazi press had already started up a propaganda campaign about the `Ukrainian famine’. Hearst took it up quickly, thanks to his great explorer, Walker.”
In 1934, after checking with Jewish leaders to ensure a visit would be to their benefit, Hearst visited Berlin to interview Adolf Hitler. When Hitler asked why he was so misunderstood by the American press, Hearst retorted: “Because Americans believe in democracy, and are averse to dictatorship.” Hearst’s papers ran columns without rebuttal by Nazi leader Hermann Göring and Hitler himself, as well as Mussolini and other dictators in Europe and Latin America.