I find Miles Mathis' genealogy research very problematic. It was most obvious in his paper on Hitler
This was his conclusion on page 10:
So with almost no research, we have already found Hitler is Jewish in all or almost all his lines. He is Jewish on both the maternal and paternal side, and on his mother's side—the important one—he is Jewish in many lines.
I don't know if Hitler is Jewish or not. I don't even know if he wasn't a sim. I think it is important to know this. But Miles has given no real evidence to make any conclusions. His method is very unscientific.
Just to make this clear I will quote all of his evidence that Hitler is Jewish on his maternal side.
So let's go forward three generations to the Huettlers. Hitler's great-grandmother married Joseph
Huettler, and she is listed as Eva Maria Decker. But her father is listed as a Tecker. His father
is a Docker. His father is a Dockher, and his father is a Deckher. So more misdirection. The
Deckhers are related to the Artners. This attempt at misdirection is pathetically weak, since all
those names are Jewish. Decker is a common Jewish name to this day. See Cody Decker. Or just run a
search on “Decker Jewish”. So is Artner. Go here to see that Hugo Artner, Jewish merchant in
Stuttgart, allegedly had all his property confiscated by the Nazis in 1933. Also see Lilian Artner,
who married famous Communist Lou Kenton in the same year. Also the art critic for the Chicago
Tribune, Alan Artner.
We will switch to the maternal lines. Hitler's mother is given as Klara Polzl. Her mother is Johanna
Huttler or Huettler. Johanna's sister is given as Josepha Hiedler. But we already saw those names on
the paternal side, didn't we? Are we supposed to believe Hitler's parents were first cousins, or are our
brains just being further stirred? I suggest the latter. I suggest they had some names they needed to
scrub in those positions, so they just inserted variations of the name Hitler again as further confusion.
So I am just going to blow by those names. The clues are farther back. Hitler's 4g-grandfather is listed
as Simon Pollack. That looks like a Jewish name to me, and we have already tied the Pollacks to the
families in previous papers. See my comments on Jackson Pollock, for instance. Or search on
“Pollack Jewish” and you will find literally hundreds of hits. If we keep going back from there, we
soon come to Haiders, which looks like yet another variation of Hitler. They may have had another
name that needed to be scrubbed in that position. These Haiders are the end of the line.
This is very important, because Decker is in the direct maternal line of Hitler. This is the line
that determines whether Hitler is Jewish in the eyes of Judaism. The name Pollack is also in that
line. One step back from Pollack in the maternal line, we find the name Fiechtinger, which is more
misdirection. They have misspelled it on purpose. It is Feichtinger, and it is also Jewish. See
Kristine Feichtinger, writing at that link about shtetl girls. Also see historian Johannes
Feichtinger. Also Martina Feichtinger at Hohenems Diaspora. Also writer Christian Feichtinger.
This Feichtinger is listed as being from Graz. Is he the same as the Christian Feichtinger at the
IAF? I could find no confirmation, but possibly. Both are connected to Graz. If so, it is curious
to see the head of the International Aeronautical Federation writing in 2011 about “Othering and
But it is even easier. Hitler's mother was a Polzl, remember? Well, that is also Jewish. See the
1942 Jewish census in Romania, where we find many Polzls. Also see here. This is why they want you
looking at Hitler's paternal grandmother Schicklgruber. If you are looking at her, you aren't
looking at his mother Polzl. They need to get your eyes off her immediately.
I am not kidding you, this is all of his evidence for his conclusion about the "maternal line". This is his method: he finds one of Hitler's ancestors from a genealogy website. Usually with a German sounding surname, for example "Decker". Then he googles "Decker Jewish". If he finds a few Jewish people with that name he calls it " a common Jewish name". This is enough for him to call that ancestor Jewish.
To me, Decker sounds like an occupational name. It could have been a name given to a roofer. see here
. Today a roofer is still called "dachdecker" in German ("dakdekker" in Dutch). Is this an occupation that was dominated by Jews? I don't think so. There is absolutely no evidence that a person with that name is likely Jewish.
On page 24 he tries to explain himself.
So, am I claiming that everyone with all these German names is actually Jewish? No, not anymore
than I am claiming that everyone in the US with the name Jones or Morris is a crypto-Jew from the
major lines. I am simply pointing out that in cases where we already have an avalanche of red flags all
pointing in the same direction, we should assume these names like Richter and Hess are Jewish. When
the mainstream assures they aren't, we shouldn't take their word for it. We should do our own research,
and not pass over any clues. That is all I am doing. Like Sherlock Holmes, I am combing the ground
for clues with a magnifying glass, and I am not letting myself be diverted when passersby assure me
the signs don't mean anything. I will decide what they likely mean by weighing what I find, and by no
Notice that he compares himself to a fictional character, made up by an author with many "red flags" in his bio.
He writes that when he is researching a suspicious character that has a German sounding name he automatically assumes that the person is Jewish. Sounds very racist to me. I highlighted the word "assume". He does that a lot. (He used that verb 19 times in the paper and the word guess "13" times.) It is not wrong to make a guess if you later find evidence, but that is not what he does here.
He doesn't even seem to understand the concept "logical assumption":
You may not understand why I would think that, so I will just tell you. It is because I always assume that the two top-ranked stories on any subject are both false. That is what I have always found,
so it is a logical assumption.
Reasonable perhaps, but not logical.
What is going on here? I know that the writer of the other papers is not that stupid to think this is real evidence. Are they blackwashing the other papaers? Or is this a DBA (dicredit by association) campaign?
The addendum to the paper dated January 28 was actually very interesting. It doesn't prove anything because the story could have been made up entirely. But I agree that it is possible that the agenda for Germany is exposed in that
. You can see for yourself.
Here are some quotes from that article that M.M. noticed:
Today, he believes Germany is doomed. "People there don't get married, and if they do they have one child," he says. "But the Turks and the other foreigners have many children. So it is a question of time that Germany will no longer be German." Why does he think this has happened? "I think it is a punishment for the Holocaust," he says, matter-of-factly. "Germany will leave the stage of history, no doubt about it." But the Jews, by contrast, will never die. This is a neat irony of history that he loves. "All the great cultures have left the stage of history," he says. "The Romans, the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Babylonians. But this little people, who gave so much to the world, do not." He chuckles. "That is something."
They talk about despising the Trinity and the terrible things that the Germans did to the Jews, but it seems like
they are talking a genocide that doesn't exist, even in their memories.
There was some criticism about the paper here: https://pieceofmindful.com/2017/02/07/r ... more-59379
Some background info:
is apparently a website started by Mark Tokarski. Mark is a supporter of Judy Wood. https://pieceofmindful.com/tag/dr-judy-wood/
and Miles Mathis and claims to have been one of his conference. Some of the posters that were defending Miles on this forum are active there (Daddie_o, Vexman). After the Hitler paper Miles wrote about the website, distanced himself from it and criticized some of their work.
The link above was a reaction to that paper. I was curious to see if they would start criticizing his papers. There was some good criticism about the same things I point out here. Daddie_o was somewhat defending him using the same logic as M.M.:"I can see that just because some Jews have a certain last name, doesn’t mean that everyone with that last name is Jewish. Though I think it can still be used as one piece of evidence."