By Ukes Baha | 26 April 2025
For generations, the world has been told a story of singular evil, unfathomable suffering, and miraculous nation-building: Hitler rose from obscurity to become a dictator, unleashed horror on Europe’s Jews, and, as if by fate, Israel was born from the ashes. The headlines, the history books, and the films all agree—this is what happened. But what if the story, so often repeated, doesn’t add up when you look closer?
This is not an isolated case. The same “miracle rise” and “from-chaos-to-control” storyline repeats through history: a leader appears from nowhere, is amplified by unseen sponsors, engineers a crisis, and emerges as the tool for elite goals. It is the same pattern in colonial coups, Cold War “regime changes,” and even 21st-century terrorism narratives. The faces and places change, but the machinery stays the same.
The mainstream narrative asks us to believe in impossibilities: that the greatest catastrophe for a people became their ultimate triumph; that a single man, apparently a genius and a madman, could seize power against all odds; that a population so deeply rooted and prosperous across the world could be moved en masse by horror alone, and that, by some miracle, this migration resulted in global sympathy, reparations, and the foundation of a powerful state.
I have seen too many contradictions, too many gaps, and too many questions silenced or attacked rather than answered. The mainstream has a long record of managing narratives for power, not for truth. When you follow the official story step by step, the facts begin to break down under their own weight. As always, the real trail is not in the headlines but in the hidden logic: Who benefited? Who paid? Who controlled the story—and why?
“Trust the facts, not the headlines. Truth begins where the official story ends.”
— Ukes Baha
Before catastrophe struck, Jewish communities across the world were far from a scattered, desperate minority clinging to survival. In places as varied as Tehran, Shiraz, Manhattan, Berlin, and Paris, Jews had built strong, respected, and deeply rooted societies. Their success was no accident. It rested on centuries-old traditions: the rights first granted under Cyrus the Great, the habits of disciplined reinvestment, and the pride of family enterprise handed down through generations.
Jewish families were known for their focus on business—whether it was saffron, kebab, and diamonds in Iran or property and retail in New York. They cultivated reputations for honesty, reliability, and resilience. Their influence grew not by chance but by consistency, reinvesting wealth into their own community rather than spending on luxury. They became anchors of local economies and were usually respected, even admired, by their neighbours.
Most importantly, these communities saw themselves as genuine citizens of their home countries. Iranian Jews identified as Iranians, Americans as Americans, Europeans as proud Berliners or Parisians. No one who had built such a life wanted to leave it behind. The dream of migrating to a distant, impoverished corner of Palestine was not a grassroots movement. In fact, few had any interest at all—why swap prosperity and respect for uncertainty and hardship?
It is a myth to imagine that Jews everywhere were restless wanderers or eager Zionists, looking for an excuse to uproot. Their real story was one of belonging, stability, and generational achievement. This is the context we must keep in mind when asking what, if anything, could ever have persuaded these people to abandon everything and migrate en masse.
“A people who are thriving at home do not volunteer for exile. The story starts with roots, not with flight.”
— Ukes Baha
The end of World War I left Germany shattered. Hyperinflation destroyed savings overnight, families lost homes, jobs vanished, and humiliation at Versailles bred national resentment. Despair and anger hung heavy in every city and village. It was in this wasteland of broken hope that the seeds of radical change were sown.
Amid this chaos, Jewish communities, with their networks of mutual support and habits of careful saving, managed to survive better than most. Their resilience stood out in a country where survival itself was becoming a privilege. For many ruined Germans, the contrast bred envy and, ultimately, scapegoating—ancient prejudices revived and stoked by desperate times.
The entire nation became hungry for solutions, any solutions—however extreme. The Weimar government, widely seen as weak and compromised, could not restore order or confidence. Radical ideologies—nationalist, socialist, and every mix in between—gained ground. The mood was open to new promises, new leaders, and new enemies. Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s was a landscape ready to be remade by anyone who could channel its chaos.
“A country in ruins does not look for logic; it looks for a saviour—or a scapegoat.”
— Ukes Baha
The mainstream story paints Hitler as a contradiction in human form: a failed artist and political nobody who becomes a master strategist, a ruthless manager, a mesmerizing orator, a genius, and a monster all at once. History offers few, if any, comparable figures—a “nobody” rising from poverty and obscurity to become the architect of disaster, seizing a whole nation’s destiny by force of will.
But is such a rise possible without powerful interests behind the curtain? In the annals of power, true anomalies are rare. In Rome, “psycho” kings were almost always born into the purple, inheriting thrones by birthright and palace intrigue, not by conquering the impossible ladder from poverty to emperor. Throughout history, self-made rulers who rise without patronage, sponsorship, or protection are nearly non-existent.
For Hitler to have achieved such absolute power, to maintain a regime as tightly controlled and operationally efficient as Nazi Germany, to attract loyal followers and international leverage, defies the logic of lone genius or lone madness. The rise from a failed soldier and obscure agitator to the absolute dictator of Germany would have required more than charisma or violence. It would have required support—funding, media attention, protection, and silent endorsement from those with the most to gain.
Like Reza Shah of Persia, who went from being a plain soldier to the king thanks to British sponsorship (and whose main obligation was to deliver oil and political compliance), Hitler’s improbable ascent suggests he was no “one-man miracle.” In every system, the greatest leaps are never made alone. The question is not whether Hitler was a genius or a psycho, but who benefited from his rise—and who helped make it possible.
“No psycho ever seized an empire alone. No genius made history without a sponsor.”
— Ukes Baha
When the story of a meteoric rise is too improbable, the missing piece is always the hidden hand of sponsorship. In the Germany of the 1920s and 30s, three powerful groups stood to gain from Hitler’s ascent—and each had their own motives.
Sponsorship is never charity. It’s a trade. Hitler needed money, media, and protection to seize power; his sponsors needed him to serve their interests in return. The logic was as simple as it was cynical: deliver war, order, and migration—then reap the rewards.
History is full of such bargains. Reza Shah’s kingship in Iran was bought with oil concessions (85% for the British, 15% for Persia), at the cost of national autonomy. Leaders who rise beyond their origins almost always do so by accepting hidden obligations to those who put them there. The miracle is not their genius, but their usefulness to others.
“Those who control the purse control the throne. And those who benefit most always stand behind the curtain.”
— Ukes Baha
For decades before Hitler, the Zionist project to build a Jewish homeland in Palestine faced an impossible obstacle: ordinary Jewish families had no reason to leave. Whether in Tehran, Berlin, Manhattan, or Shiraz, Jewish communities were stable, prosperous, and deeply attached to their homelands. Generations had invested in businesses, built social networks, and earned respect in their local societies. Voluntary migration to Palestine was minimal and, for most, unthinkable.
The notion that millions would uproot themselves for a distant, uncertain, and undeveloped land went against every instinct of family, business, and cultural pride. No amount of rhetoric or political pressure from above could persuade people to abandon generations of security for an elite vision that brought only hardship and risk.
Only disaster—true, existential terror—could break those roots. Hitler’s policies did what decades of persuasion and propaganda could not. Fear, dispossession, and violence made migration no longer a choice, but a matter of survival. The “dream” of Zion became, for many, the only route of escape from a nightmare engineered at the top.
This was not the fulfilment of a people’s longing, but a catastrophe leveraged to achieve a goal that ordinary people would never have chosen on their own. In any community, especially one as established and successful as the Jews of Europe, the only force that can move millions against their will is terror—never inspiration.
“When the story of migration begins with fear, you are not witnessing a dream. You are witnessing a forced march.”
— Ukes Baha
The more closely you examine the mainstream narrative, the more the logic falls apart. If Hitler was truly a genius strategist, why would he sabotage his own war ambitions by diverting so much energy and resources to the persecution and management of Jews—when victory in Russia or the West was supposedly his true priority? If his regime was purely about Aryan supremacy, why engage in a campaign of forced migration rather than simply destruction? So many actions attributed to him seem, on closer inspection, to serve outside interests as much as, or more than, his own.
If Hitler’s priority was winning the war, why drain resources to manage deportations and camps instead of securing military victory? If his only aim was destruction, why create migration channels rather than simply kill without movement? If his rise was purely organic, why did industrialists, bankers, and foreign powers give him the means to climb? The official logic collapses the moment these questions are asked without censorship.
Perhaps the most glaring contradiction is this: the darkest period in Jewish history, the era of mass terror and destruction, became the very engine that delivered the greatest collective gain—statehood, global sympathy, and reparations. Never in history has a group achieved its dream by means of such horror, nor has such horror produced such lasting geopolitical rewards. How can the “worst time” become the “best time” for the very group supposedly targeted for erasure?
Meanwhile, the lived realities of established, prosperous Jewish communities across Europe, Iran, and America are erased from popular memory. No one talks about why thriving families would abandon everything for a barren land they never wanted. Research that questions official numbers, motives, or the mechanics of migration is censored or outright banned—universities refuse to allow even academic inquiry, as seen in the Auckland thesis case.
Any attempt to examine the logic is immediately labeled “conspiracy,” “revisionism,” or “anti-Semitism.” Instead of open debate, there is only attack and silence. The more questions arise, the more vigorously the guardians of the narrative defend their version—not with evidence, but with threat. In the end, the contradictions themselves become the best evidence that something deeper is being concealed.
“When a story cannot survive honest questions, it was never the whole truth to begin with.”
— Ukes Baha
In every engineered disaster, the real story lies not in the headlines, but in the aftermath—who gained, who lost, and who quietly grew stronger as others suffered. For ordinary people, the toll of Hitler’s rise and the Holocaust was measured in loss, trauma, displacement, and death: Jews forced from homes and histories, Germans ruined by war and defeat, Poles and other Europeans caught between terror and occupation, Arabs in Palestine forced into dispossession and exile.
At the very top, the rewards were historic. Zionist elites finally achieved what decades of persuasion could not: the creation of Israel, established by international law, funded by world sympathy and vast reparations, and endowed with legitimacy it could never have earned through ordinary means. For the leaders of this movement, the “miracle” was not random—it was the outcome of crisis and design.
Bankers and industrialists who financed Hitler’s rise—and those who bankrolled the war effort on both sides—reaped vast profits from arms, loans, and postwar reconstruction. The chaos of war created new markets, new debts, and new dependencies. Western governments extended their reach across the Middle East, secured access to oil, and reshaped global power in their favour.
For all the public rhetoric about tragedy and horror, the hidden truth was this: catastrophe for the many became consolidation for the few. Whenever you “follow the money,” you find the same pattern—those who funded the disaster walked away with new power, new assets, and a tighter grip on the story itself.
“In every disaster, follow the money. The suffering is public, but the profit is always private.”
— Ukes Baha
The model revealed by Hitler’s rise was not unique—it became a blueprint for future power shifts around the world. When you examine modern history, you see the same playbook: sponsor an ambitious but dependent leader, use them to achieve foreign or elite goals, and discard them when their usefulness ends or when they threaten the arrangement.
Take the example of Iran. After the British engineered the rise of Reza Shah—from soldier to king—the country’s resources were exploited under an oil agreement that delivered 85% of the profits to the UK and just 15% to Persia. When his son, Mohammad Reza Shah, eventually tried to renegotiate a fairer share for his country, he was quickly overthrown in a coup orchestrated by British and American intelligence. The regime was replaced with one even more pliant, and foreign interests remained secure.
This is not just about Germany or Iran. The same regime change template was repeated in Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East. In every case, leaders are sponsored, then pressured or removed as soon as they step outside the invisible boundaries set by those who put them in power. The pattern is as old as empire itself, but the twentieth century gave it new scale, new ruthlessness, and new global reach.
“Regime change is never about freedom. It is always about securing the interests of those with the power to sponsor, shape, and remove.”
— Ukes Baha
The September 11 attacks followed the same sponsorship logic—different era, same method. Step one: a crisis of shocking scale, broadcast to the world. Step two: rapid, pre-prepared legislation such as the Patriot Act, expanding surveillance and executive power. Step three: wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, sold as security measures but aligning perfectly with defence contracts, oil access, and geopolitical positioning. Step four: narrative lockdown—questions dismissed as “conspiracy,” whistleblowers silenced, media unified in message.
The beneficiaries were the same type of actors seen in earlier patterns: defence and security industries, energy conglomerates, intelligence agencies, and political blocs seeking foreign intervention. The public paid in blood, rights, and treasure. The elite sponsors reaped profit, power, and strategic advantage.
“From Berlin in 1933 to New York in 2001, the steps are the same. Change the scenery, keep the script.”
— Ukes Baha
No system of engineered power can survive without strict management of its own story. After the disasters and regime changes, the true mechanics must be hidden, repackaged, or erased. The narrative becomes a fortress: only the official story is allowed in, and all dissent is shut out with force.
Academic freedom is the first casualty. When a student at the University of Auckland attempted to investigate the real numbers and mechanics of the Holocaust, his thesis was rejected before it began. Such topics are declared off-limits—not because they are false, but because the answers might undermine the entire postwar settlement. The gatekeepers of history, both academic and popular, enforce silence where questions might expose the pattern.
Media, from Hollywood to newsrooms to publishing houses, work in lockstep to reinforce the chosen narrative. Films dramatise the horrors and heroics in ways that leave little room for doubt or inquiry. Textbooks teach the next generation to accept, not to question. The public absorbs a story so carefully curated that the machinery of power remains invisible.
Whenever someone challenges the official account—by seeking real casualty numbers, by exploring sponsorship, by exposing contradictions—they are met not with debate, but with accusation: “conspiracy theorist,” “revisionist,” “anti-Semite.” The louder the question, the harsher the punishment. This is not how truth survives; it is how power protects itself from exposure.
“A history that cannot be questioned is not history at all. It is propaganda by another name.”
— Ukes Baha
The tragedy of anti-Semitism in modern history is not just its brutality, but how it has been manipulated to serve elite agendas at every stage. On the surface, anti-Semitism appears as blind, irrational hatred—a poison that stalked Jewish communities for centuries. But in the hands of power, it has served a double purpose: first as a weapon to traumatise and move entire populations, then as a shield to silence scrutiny of those who benefit most.
During Hitler’s rise, anti-Semitism was inflamed and weaponised, making ordinary Jews the object of public rage and driving them from their homes. The suffering was real, and the trauma profound—but at the top, this suffering became a lever, pushing migration that persuasion could never achieve. After the fact, the same horror story is used to justify the political and military power of the new state, and to label any critic of its policies as an anti-Semite, regardless of their argument.
The dual use of anti-Semitism—first as a whip, then as a shield—is no accident. It is a tactic familiar in the playbook of power. When questioning the official version becomes itself a forbidden act, the guardians of the story ensure that no one ever asks who benefits from the trauma, or why cycles of suffering are allowed to repeat.
“Weaponised hatred always leaves two victims: those it destroys, and those it protects from the truth.”
— Ukes Baha
The machinery of engineered catastrophe does not retire once a goal is achieved. Its logic, once established, becomes a template for new generations of power. The willingness to inflict suffering on innocents—children, families, entire populations—is no longer exceptional, but accepted as the price of achieving “greater” objectives. The cost is paid by those who have the least say, while those who order the sacrifice remain distant and untouched.
Today, we witness this legacy most starkly in the policies of the very leaders and institutions that once claimed the mantle of victimhood. Israeli leadership, once defined by the trauma of persecution, now exercises power with the same cold calculation. In Gaza, as in other recent conflicts, children and civilians are sacrificed—openly, relentlessly, and with barely a pretense of regret—because the logic of power demands it. These are not accidental casualties; they are seen as the cost of business, as history repeats itself under new banners.
The lesson is not limited to Israel or Palestine. Whenever power justifies any means for its ends, suffering will be ignored or explained away. The structures that permitted mass displacement and violence in the twentieth century have not been dismantled; they have been perfected. And as long as the pattern remains unchallenged, the innocent will continue to pay, generation after generation.
“For those who play the game of power, morality is only an obstacle. The casualties are just another line in the strategy.”
— Ukes Baha
In a world saturated with stories, slogans, and spectacle, true genius is not in crafting narratives or rising to the top of a rigged system. It is in seeing the pattern that lies beneath the noise. Power depends on the public believing that every disaster is a unique accident, every tyrant an isolated monster, every tragedy a mystery. But the evidence—when carefully traced—reveals the structure: engineered crisis, forced migration, profit at the top, and silence in the aftermath.
Most people never see the pattern, not because it is hidden, but because they are trained not to look. Education rewards memorisation, not questioning. Media offers ready-made explanations, never the tools to investigate. Even those who sense something is wrong are often isolated, dismissed, or shamed into silence. The greatest trick of power is not controlling the facts, but controlling what the public considers possible.
To recognise the pattern is not to become cynical or paranoid—it is the beginning of true understanding. It is the only way to break free from the scripts handed down by those with something to hide. Once you see the connections, you are no longer managed by headlines or frightened by official scorn. You become a witness, not a pawn.
“Genius is not believing the story. Genius is seeing the system that writes it—and daring to name it.”
— Ukes Baha
The cycle is not accidental, nor is it inevitable. The system that produced catastrophe for the many and profit for the few is not broken—it is operating exactly as designed. If we refuse to recognise the logic beneath the official stories, we are destined to play our part in the next round of engineered disaster, forced migration, and managed memory.
Accountability begins with seeing the pattern. It means asking not just who suffered, but who benefited, who funded, and who controlled the narrative. It means rejecting the myth that tragedies are random or that power is ever given, rather than taken and traded. Only when the public demands the truth behind the spectacle does the cycle begin to break.
The responsibility is ours—not just to remember, but to resist. Not just to criticise the past, but to demand transparency and justice now. When we refuse to accept prepackaged history and dare to name the architects behind disaster, we lay the groundwork for something new: a world in which suffering is not the secret currency of progress, and truth is no longer hostage to those who profit from silence.
“History is not destiny. But it will repeat—unless we break the script, expose the authors, and demand accountability.”
— Ukes Baha
The machinery that engineered the first mass migration has not disappeared—it has evolved. Today, we witness the same elite-driven logic at work in new forms. Modern Jewish leaders, wielding vast power and global networks, now preside over a nation-state but still view population shifts and territorial expansion as tools of survival and ambition. The methods have changed, but the willingness to manufacture crisis, justify violence, and sacrifice families remains.
The war on Gaza and the broader campaign against Palestinians are not simply battles over territory or security. They are campaigns in which the displacement of whole populations is accepted—even planned—as a necessary cost. As in the 1940s, civilian casualties, destroyed homes, and traumatised children are explained away as “collateral damage” or “unavoidable tragedy.” The moral logic has not advanced: when the goal is expansion or demographic reshaping, the suffering of the innocent is not a concern—it is a calculation.
We see the beginnings of another migration push: ordinary Palestinians are driven from their homes, pressured into exile, or forced into shrinking, besieged territories. World leaders look away, media spins the story, and the machinery of power grinds on. The lessons of the past are not only unlearned—they are repeated with the confidence of a system that was never truly held to account.
Those who orchestrate these crises do so with a chilling indifference to consequence. Families are destroyed, children killed, societies uprooted—all rationalised as steps toward a “greater good” or “security.” The pattern is clear: once power learns it can profit from suffering and escape justice, the strategy is never retired. It is simply recycled, again and again, under new names and banners.
“When yesterday’s crimes go unpunished, today’s architects feel no shame—and history becomes a script for endless migration, suffering, and silence.”
— Ukes Baha
What was true at Israel’s founding is true today. When the goal is land, statehood, or demographic change, the sponsors at the top have never hesitated to use the suffering and death of civilians as leverage. In the 1940s, catastrophe was engineered to force Jewish migration and world sympathy. Today, siege and bombardment force the displacement of Palestinians. The method is the same: crisis makes the impossible, inevitable.
This is not about peoples, but about power. The lives lost—whether Jewish in Europe, or Arab in Gaza—are counted as the price of progress by those who orchestrate the plan. The leaders who once accepted millions dead to build a nation now accept thousands more to expand it. Human cost is just a calculation.
“For those who sponsor history, tragedy is not a warning—it is a method. What worked once, works again.”
— Ukes Baha
This article exposes the mechanics of power. Only transparency can bring real accountability—and real change.
🔙 Back to Articles Index