Reply to topic  [ 511 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 ... 52  Next
Hitler -- What is the truth? 
Author Message
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9688
Reply with quote
Post Re: Hitler -- What is the truth?
Quote:
The Axis Powers have violated international law before, and the president is particularly concerned about the possibility of chemical warfare being used against the Allied military. Amidst concerns that Hitler was preparing to utilize poison gas, the U.S. authorized a shipment of mustard gas to the Italian war zone. As you know, a mixture of bad luck, poor planning, and faulty execution led to the catastrophe at Bari Harbor on December 2, 1943. Although YOU have been briefed on the hundreds of casualties and the environmental concerns that followed the accidental release of mustard gas aboard the John Harvey, that information has remained highly classified. Our British allies have helped us to keep many of the details secret. The Bari Incident has made President Roosevelt even more conflicted about the issue of chemical warfare. He is uncertain about his next move. -- source

This is how the "second Pearl Harbor" is spun, on the very rare occasions when it even shows up in the classroom. This example may be the only time anyone ever taught history students about it, for all we know.

The German bombing attack on the Allied ships in the harbor of Bari, Italy was likely done for the sole purpose of destroying the chemical weapons Roosevelt and Churchill conspired to use against German civilians. The Allied effort to cover up the entire incident and keep it out of the press is a testament to which side had criminal intent in this matter.

Let's start with "the Axis Powers have violated international law before..." While this is a true statement, what is not explained is that Germans typically only violated international law when the Allies did so first and did so repeatedly. The indiscriminate bombing of civilians is the classic example. Churchill ordered this deliberately, in flagrant disregard for international law, as a way to goad Hitler into responding in kind. Hitler even talks about it in one of his speeches here. So this is a very misleading statement, implying that the Allies were not guilty of such tactics, when they were actually the most guilty.

Next, "the president is particularly concerned about the possibility of chemical warfare being used against the Allied military." This is another deception. Roosevelt and Churchill were both conspiring to use chemical weapons against the Germans, which is why their conversations on this subject have been "sealed for perpetuity". The Germans, on the other hand, had been at war for well over four years, and had never once used biological or chemical weapons, despite having stockpiles of them. So why the alleged "concern" about the Germans using chemical weapons, when Roosevelt and Churchill were shipping chemical weapons to Europe with the intent of using them, knowing full well that the Germans would then be obliged to respond in kind! If those two sociopaths wanted to keep the war confined to conventional weapons, they wouldn't be preparing to use prohibited weapons!

"As you know, a mixture of bad luck, poor planning, and faulty execution led to the catastrophe at Bari Harbor on December 2, 1943." No way, Jose! The Germans did well to obtain the intelligence concerning the illegal Allied plan, the transportation of the illegal weapons, and the organization of their bombing attack to destroy them, which they successfully did! The good guys won that battle and prevented an evil escalation of the war! Bravo, Nazis!

And "...that information has remained highly classified. Our British allies have helped us to keep many of the details secret." Criminals naturally hide their illegal activities! That's why there was a cover-up. That's why information was deliberately withheld on how to treat the people accidentally exposed to the deadly chemicals that leaked out of the sunken ship.

"The Bari Incident has made President Roosevelt even more conflicted about the issue of chemical warfare. He is uncertain about his next move." Give me a break! Roosevelt wasn't "conflicted". He might have pretended to be, like any sociopath caught in a lie. In truth, Roosevelt was fully on board with Churchill's plan to escalate the war using illegal chemical weapons, and against civilians!

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:02 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9688
Reply with quote
Post Re: Hitler -- What is the truth?
Goering honors the dead, Hitler visits the wounded, German leaders meet, troops are reviewed, soldiers parade, and citizens salute. Germans honor their nation and support their troops. Yet somehow this is insidious "Nazi propaganda"! Why not translate the narrative into English to confirm this underhanded mind control?

Because it is just ordinary and factual news.




Nazi German Propaganda - Adolf Hitler - Rare Confiscated Film - WW2 History
(duration 6:34)

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:03 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9688
Reply with quote
Post Re: Hitler -- What is the truth?
The vilification of Hitler was official policy of the Allies, a policy that started early and continues to this day.

Quote:
A "secret" OSS letter dated 6 September 1943 discusses the Morale Operations (MO) Section anti-Hitler "Heel" campaign. Some selected comments are:

  • To destroy the myth and bring the Führer down to the level of the ordinary Party leader we must stress the human failings and foibles of der Führer.

    Suggested implementation: Hitler personally profited at the rate of 1 Reich mark for every kilometer of road built in Germany during the 1930s. Hitler is terrified by air-raids and has, therefore, never visited an area which has just been bombed and is apt to be bombed again. A Parisian connoisseur, after seeing Hitler’s collection of pornographic pictures stated that it was the best in Europe. Hitler has five luxurious estates which he visits in rotation so that he will not appear to be spending too much time in any one of them.

  • To picture Hitler as utterly unsympathetic toward the loss of life and the suffering of the individual German.

    Suggested implementation: Hitler has declared, "I will not stop fighting until 10,000,000 Germans have died. 4 million are gone, 6 million to go. Hitler has ordered that air-raid victims who have been maimed and crippled be done away with by euthanasia.

  • To spread the view that Hitler is insane.

    Suggested implementation: Hitler’s creeping paralysis due to syphilitic infection in the last war has now reached his speaking organs and his brain. When the Führer tried to rehearse a recent speech, it was discovered that he could not control his voice. Hitler hears voices every night and insists that Roehm is talking to him. Hitler now goes around all day dressed as Frederick the Great. Hitler keeps two Gypsy-Jewish soothsayers at Berchtesgarden all the time.

-- source

This shows us clearly which side was devoted to slander and underhanded lies. The Allies were the real "Axis of Evil" during WW2. It wasn't the Nazis.

Quote:
Shortly after his death, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's stamp collection was sold at auction. One of the documents found in this accumulation was a letter to the President from William H. (Wild Bill) Donovan, Director of the American Office of Strategic Services (OSS). This letter indicated that the United States government had counterfeited German postage stamps and other documents. -- source

Sociopaths like Roosevelt and Bill Donovan would get a big kick out of demeaning their opponent Hitler and accusing him of their own malfeasance.

Image

It gets worse though. The Allied sociopaths would sink to any level to character assassinate the Fuhrer.

Quote:
One of the most intriguing and insidious insults to Adolf Hitler was a propaganda postcard code numbered H.789 produced by Director Sefton Delmer of the British Political Warfare Executive (PWE) that showed the Führer with his penis in his hand. The postcard chosen to caricature was originally a product of Foto Hoffman of Munich. Hitler stands on what appears to be balcony with his left hand on the rail and his right hand on his waist. In the parody, his right hand is depicted holding a circumcised penis. This probably was designed to feed the rumor that Hitler was indeed a self-hating Jew.

When I interviewed the British master-forger Ellic Howe in 1980 he told me that about 100 copies of the postcard were printed in late 1943 or early 1944 but they were never disseminated. He thought that they had all been destroyed. My own research later determined that 2,500 postcards were delivered on 13 March 1944. The operation was cancelled on the order of the Director General of the PWE. One agent quoted a high British official as saying that he would rather lose the war to Germany than take part in such psychological warfare pornographic endeavors. -- source


So not all British officials were sociopaths like Churchill. Some were actually honorable.

You can see the pornographic post card here.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:41 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Hitler -- What is the truth?
Who financed Hitler?

We all have heard the conspiracy theory propaganda spread in the alternate media, that the Wall Street bankers financed Hitler (Uncle Zook parroted this religiously in this very forum). This claim makes no sense, as the Jews control the financial world, and they had declared global economic war on Hitler and Germany in 1933. Are they really going to finance their true enemy that they are trying to destroy economically?


What is patently absurd is the assumption that the Wall Street bankers have a true enemy.

By the 1900's, there is only one major player running the world, namely, the angloAmerican establishment controlled by the Rothschilds. India and China had both been subverted by the early 1900s ... India via centuries of British Raj rule ... and China via the British East India Company and the opium wars. Russia and Germany were chihuahua economies in comparison to the angloAmerican-controlled economy. The German economy was largely owned by so-called Jewish industrialists. I'd have to do more research to understand the Russian economy of that period, but the pattern suggests that the so-called Jews were enjoying power in that economy as well. As for Africa, the Dutch empire there was overrun by the angloAmerican empire via the Boer Wars.

So what true enemy of the bankers are you speaking about, Chico? There is only one major world power by the turn of the last century ... it had no real enemies. Not unlike the lion in the proverbial jungle, which also has no real enemies.

Unlike the lion, which only feeds when it needs to and wields power only when it has to, the human species contains additional ambitions. One lion won't try to dominate another lion's territory; indeed, the demarcation of each cat's territory is a matter of that cat's cat piss. For humans, however, especially those driven by cunning and guile, territory is a matter of unyielding acquisition and monopoly. Enter the Rothschild tribal monopoly, a monopoly long misnamed as being a Jewish monopoly when in fact it is an elitist bankster Khazarian monopoly ... not all Khazars, mind you, but holding enough cunning and guile driven Khazars in positions of power to earn the label of tribal monopoly and conspiracy.

In pursuit of this monopoly, the historical record is replete with the Rothschild banksters funding both sides of a conflict. Indeed, of actually creating, financing, and fomenting conflict. Many times, from thin air ... from the calm air over peaceful territories. How do you divide a peoples? By creating mutually opposing camps and setting those camps against each other, of course.

Any narrative of Hitler only makes sense if it understands this template of division and conquest. Hitler was a strongman created from scratch by the angloAmerican establishment with the goal of rearranging European territory. They had already secured Russia with the Khazarian-led Bolshevik revolution. Although many in their own tribe controlled the German economy, itself, the banksters wanted full control.

This, together with their ambition to resurrect Biblical Israel and make complete a false connection to The Covenant and Blblical Judea, these uppercrust impostors and late-day Caucus-region converts to so-called Judaism (actually, Phariseeasm) ... founded Hitler and the Nazi Party.

That said, the uppercrusts did not themselves want to settle in the desert ... deserts are generally barren for the most part, scorpions and rasttlesnakes notwithstanding ... so they loaded many of their tribal brethren (the middle-and lowercrusts) into cattle cars, with the plan to relocate Khazaria and a people without a land on a land without a people. Of course, to achieve the people without a land, they initiated pogroms in Germany. And to achieve a land without a people, they initiated ethnic cleansing against the people already there, the Palestinians (both Arabs and real Jews).

Hitler and Nazi Germany were a byproduct of the Rothschild empire's desire not just to own the world, as per the monopolistic ambitions of the cunning and the guileful ... but also to lose their own identity as barbarians from north of the Caspian and Black Seas and to assume a new identity as Biblical Jews. Once again, not all Khazars, not even a majority of them ... but enough in number to give the entire tribe a blotched reputation. Indeed, in any tribe or culture, all it takes is a vice-centered minority to stain the virtuous majority ... it is no different with teh Khazars.

I will leave you to digest what I have written so far. There is plenty more. But I do challenge you to find anything remotely mainstream about my overall narrative of Hitler. You often cast aspersion on my narrative by trying to pass it off as mainstream.

FTR, my Hitler narrative is a synthesis of many narratives. Much of my analysis comes from a stitching together of information mostly provided by alternative stream media (ASM) and relies very little on mainstream media (MSM) sources. I have a hostile position with respect to mainstream media, but even alternative media does not impress me all that much ... for I find that even with the ASM, there is a lot of deception going on. That's because much of alternative stream is just mainstream in disguise. Which then forces me to study patterns and give extra scrutiny to the data points I come across, contrary to your tired assertions of my research being simplistic and cursory.

Indeed, I am reconciled to the fact that you rarely address the strongest evidence that I uncover in support of my Hitler narrative, equally, draw attention to the weakest evidence. For my part, I plead guilty to providing both strong and weak evidence in support of my narrative. As a truthseeker, I'm obliged to present all evidence, not pick and choose the strongest from the weakest. The preponderance is a union of all evidence. By contrast, your fixating on weak evidence when strong evidence exists indicts you as something other than a truthseeker, Chico. So be it.

For completeness, the preponderance itself is an instance of strong evidence.

Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:20 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9688
Reply with quote
Post Re: Hitler -- What is the truth?
I must share the latest synchronicity with you, Zook, before I even read your latest post. Here is what I read this morning:

Quote:
Projective identification refers to a defense mechanism where one places blame for one's difficulties on others or attributes one's own unaccetable impulses and actions to others. -- My Life Among the Serial Killers, page 107

So projective identification seems to be the scientific term for what sociopaths almost always do — they accuse their opponents of their own malfeasance. This is what UncleZook always does too. Zook accused me of posting links to material that I hoped no one would read, and I had to explain to him that I always expect people to read the material at those links, which is why I post them. Could it be that Zook is accusing me of his own malfeasance? Could it be that Zook posts links to material he hopes no one will read? Many times i have discovered upon reading the material Zook links to that it doesn't support his arguments, and often works against them! It became clear that Zook often grabs whatever he can find with a Google search that appears to favor his position, which he hastily links to without ever reading the material, or reading it with little or no comprehension. This happened often enough that examples ended up in the UncleZook -- busted! thread.

This projective identification also manifests by UncleZook taking observations I have correctly reported about his sociopathic behavior (like attacking the messenger and ignoring the message), and trying to falsely demonstrate that I am guilty of the same behaviors. This is still the sociopathic defense mechanism of accusing your opponents of your own malfeasance, a kind of "turnabout is fair play" strategy. It's like the old childhood defensive chant of "I know you are, but what am I?"

I have often said that I am thankful to have Zook here to study. It is still true today. During many years of study and research, I wanted to learn who the bad guys are that are ruining our world. Was it the Satanists, the international banksters, the Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group, the Vatican, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Jesuits, the Masons, the Jews, the Federal Reserve and other central banks, the intelligence agencies, the military leaders... who was it?

It was all of them, specifically the sociopaths found in the positions of power and control of those organizations. It is sociopaths that ruin the world. The bulk of human evil flows from sociopaths. Of course it would, because they have no empathy for others, and thus no emotional / psychological reason to refrain from hurting others.

At the microcosm level, who are the bad guys that ruin the forum world? Again, it's the sociopaths. These are people like Bill Ryan, Atticus / Stephen, dsimon / David, IceCold, GypsyWoman, Warponies / 9eagle9, Richard (of Avalon and Nexus), Paul (Avalon admin), and many more that I need not name.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:18 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9688
Reply with quote
Post Re: Hitler -- What is the truth?
UncleZook wrote:
So what true enemy of the bankers are you speaking about, Chico? There is only one major world power by the turn of the last century ... it had no real enemies.

Anyone that resists their rule is the enemy! And when Hitler came to power, removed the Jews from government and positions of power, kicked out the Rothschilds and other Jewish parasites, created his own economy based on German labor, and grew his nation to a position of significant independent power...

... then Hitler and his National Socialist Party and by extension all of Germany became the enemy.

And a very dangerous enemy Hitler was, because he was one of the very few that had found a way out of the chains of debt with which the banking cabal controlled the world.

Your illogical premise that Hitler was funded by the Rothschilds and thus in league with their agenda for world control is stupid, and so beneath your self-proclaimed mighty intellect. I am still totally amazed that you haven't worked your way out of that wet paper bag yet, especially after all these years.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:40 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Hitler -- What is the truth?
It's a broken record. I offered a lot of data points for him to check up on and verify their veracity, yet Chico runs away from those points. He's only interested in the messenger, because the message minces his Hitler narrative down to its metaphorical atoms.

Question begs: why is Chico bringing up totally unrelated stuff like my alleged psychology (that he alone alleges being the amateur psychologist that he is) ... when all he had to do was discuss real verifiable content like the facts of the current central banking empire (which inform the facts of Hitler)?

Indeed, by reading the entirety of his rebuttal to the salient data points I offered, Chico offers us an insight into the mind and purpose of those in the alternative stream media that are not about genuine truthseeking, but about confusing things and obstructing genuine truthseekers. His umpteenth attempt to project his false energy behaviors on me is just him trying to wipe off his own fingerprints, after having committed deliberate acts of sabotaging the signal with noise.

He is definitely gatekeeping. I still cannot establish whether his is gatekeeping by design ... or whether it's the byproduct of a badly wounded ego trying to avenge himself against those that had exposed him as a shallow thinker who lacks traction in the integrated world of intellect and integrity. In either case, Chico is an abuser of truths .. and an evader of discussion that promises to converge on the truths. That much is practically etched in stone.

Pax


The stuff below reflects nothing more than an attempt to create diversion, as a tactic to avoid facing the vacuity of his own Hitler narrative. For if there had been any substance in his Hitler narrative, Chico would've been happy to discuss it and wouldn't have resorted to attacking the messenger of a real narrative.



I must share the latest synchronicity with you, Zook, before I even read your latest post. Here is what I read this morning:

Quote:
Projective identification refers to a defense mechanism where one places blame for one's difficulties on others or attributes one's own unaccetable impulses and actions to others. -- My Life Among the Serial Killers, page 107

So projective identification seems to be the scientific term for what sociopaths almost always do — they accuse their opponents of their own malfeasance. This is what UncleZook always does too. Zook accused me of posting links to material that I hoped no one would read, and I had to explain to him that I always expect people to read the material at those links, which is why I post them. Could it be that Zook is accusing me of his own malfeasance? Could it be that Zook posts links to material he hopes no one will read? Many times i have discovered upon reading the material Zook links to that it doesn't support his arguments, and often works against them! It became clear that Zook often grabs whatever he can find with a Google search that appears to favor his position, which he hastily links to without ever reading the material, or reading it with little or no comprehension. This happened often enough that examples ended up in the UncleZook -- busted! thread.

This projective identification also manifests by UncleZook taking observations I have correctly reported about his sociopathic behavior (like attacking the messenger and ignoring the message), and trying to falsely demonstrate that I am guilty of the same behaviors. This is still the sociopathic defense mechanism of accusing your opponents of your own malfeasance, a kind of "turnabout is fair play" strategy. It's like the old childhood defensive chant of "I know you are, but what am I?"

I have often said that I am thankful to have Zook here to study. It is still true today. During many years of study and research, I wanted to learn who the bad guys are that are ruining our world. Was it the Satanists, the international banksters, the Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group, the Vatican, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Jesuits, the Masons, the Jews, the Federal Reserve and other central banks, the intelligence agencies, the military leaders... who was it?

It was all of them, specifically the sociopaths found in the positions of power and control of those organizations. It is sociopaths that ruin the world. The bulk of human evil flows from sociopaths. Of course it would, because they have no empathy for others, and thus no emotional / psychological reason to refrain from hurting others.

At the microcosm level, who are the bad guys that ruin the forum world? Again, it's the sociopaths. These are people like Bill Ryan, Atticus / Stephen, dsimon / David, IceCold, GypsyWoman, Warponies / 9eagle9, Richard (of Avalon and Nexus), Paul (Avalon admin), and many more that I need not name.

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:51 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Hitler -- What is the truth?
UncleZook wrote:
So what true enemy of the bankers are you speaking about, Chico? There is only one major world power by the turn of the last century ... it had no real enemies.

Anyone that resists their rule is the enemy!


This is the kind of semantic claptrap that we have come to expect from you, Chico. The narrative I offered was specific and limited to any and all meaningful challengers/enemies that could reverse the Rothschild banking juggernaut of that time ... for only those challengers/enemies would have had the potential to disturb Europe during the 30s and 40s.

Granted, the average Joe on the street could declare themself as a challenger/enemy to the Rothschild hegemony, but no one would take him seriously, least of all the incumbent hegemony. Unless and until the average Joe organizes and becomes a possible threat does the hegemony even consider the average Joe to be an enemy. Before that, the average Joe remains a slave to the hegemony.

So the question begs: if Hitler started out as an average Joe, how did he become a meaningful challenger/enemy IOW, how did Hitler rise in power ... from there, to power? And I've already provided plenty of evidence to the financing connections, and virtually all connections lead back to the Rothschild hegemony.

Not only do you look silly in letting the semantic goose loose, Chico, but you look even sillier in chasing after it.

I reiterate, the global hegemony was so complete by the 30s and 40s, that no independent Joe from any street in any country on the planet had the means to independently organize against this hegemony. They were selected and installed for the ongoing profit of the hegemony, either as the protagonist of a cause ... or an antagonist to that cause.

Moreover, the putative cause itself creates protagonism and antagonism. As an illustrative example, the movement of so-called European Jews into Palestine would be seen favorably by one group of people (e.g. the controllers of the hegemony and nonJewish Germans) but would be met with resistance by other people (e.g. the people already living in Palestine, both Arabs and real Jews; and also so-called European Jews who didn't want to be displaced from Europe).

Of course, when a cause divides human populations into significant numbers, then you have two camps ready to fight each other ... and if two camps are managed by one hegemony, then you have an ongoing empire far from its inevitable ruins. The hegemons controlled Hitler and the nonJewish Germans under Hitler ... and they controlled world sympathy that waged the resistance against Hitler and the nonJewish Germans.

It was a win win for the hegemons. But it wasn't a win for the (so-called) European Jews who perished in concentration camps due to typhus and what not; or the many many many soldiers and civilians that perished in the war theatre created by the hegemons; or the Palestinian Arabs and precisely because none of their own was ever in a position to manage the resistance against Hitler. The hegemony managed both the pro-Hitler and anti-Hitler factions and achieved its goals and designed results. The facts bear this out.

But one has to be an intellectual aan/or a dedicated truthseeker with integrity before the facts can be transcribed faithfully.

Quote:
And when Hitler came to power, removed the Jews from government and positions of power, kicked out the Rothschilds and other Jewish parasites, created his own economy based on German labor, and grew his nation to a position of significant independent power...

... then Hitler and his National Socialist Party and by extension all of Germany became the enemy.


The above is mainstream claptrap. You'd make a great parrot, Chico. And you have the audacity to characterize my narrative as being too mainstream. Then again, you are hoping that by accusing me of your behaviors, that people will gloss over observable reality ... of both the Hitler narrative and your dedicated mischief/trolling/gatekeeping.

You should give the readers more credit than that, Chico. The good readers had outed you even without my help. Which is why this forum had dwindled to essentially a monologue chamber during my long absence.

Quote:
And a very dangerous enemy Hitler was, because he was one of the very few that had found a way out of the chains of debt with which the banking cabal controlled the world.

Your illogical premise that Hitler was funded by the Rothschilds and thus in league with their agenda for world control is stupid, and so beneath your self-proclaimed mighty intellect. I am still totally amazed that you haven't worked your way out of that wet paper bag yet, especially after all these years.


Not my illogical premise, facts. Irrefutable facts. The mathematics of so many Hitler connections to the Rothschild hegemony cannot be negated by your gatekeeping or anybody's conjecture. When a preponderance emerges, it is there to the bitter end or the better end.

From his orchestrated rise out of nowhere to the pinnacle of power in Germany ... to his controlled fall and departure from the sinking ship of Germany - as its captain - to latin America. Hitler was the hegemons' player and he did their bidding at each step of the play, including cosigning the Ha'avara agreement to displace "people without a land to a land without a people" (with both the landless people and the peopleless land being artificially induced by the hegemony); retreat from Dunkirk; attempted expansion into Moscow against the advice of his own general staff, thereby guaranteeing certain death of many of his own troops; etc.

The facts faithfully transcribe what was being planned as far back as 1909 (as per Norman Dodd's exposee of elitist thinktank thought of the time period in question), namely, contrived wars to change the face of Europe (WW1 and WW2). Hitler merely represented a tool to effect one major stage in their long range goals of total world domination. But facts can be taken out of shape by the fog. Indeed, many contemporary gatekeepers (paid and otherwise) are trying to keep things in a fog to match the efforts of their brethren, e.g. those past historians who originated the current fog with midcentury propaganda in the last century.

If anyone seriously believes that a king can ascend on their own efforts and volition in a world owned by kingmakers (lock, stock, and barrel) ... then they should have their head examined. Either that or they are working for the kingmakers in a concerted effort to maintain the illusion of suffrage and/or grassroots destiny. Lollipop providers for suckers, by another description.


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:41 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9688
Reply with quote
Post Re: Hitler -- What is the truth?
UncleZook wrote:
UncleZook wrote:
"It is also known that, in 1922 in Munich, a meeting took place between A. Hitler and the military attache of the US to Germany – Captain Truman Smith – who compiled a detailed report for his Washington superiors (in the office of military intelligence), in which he spoke highly of Hitler.

My poor Zook, you are so far behind on the subject of Hitler that you shouldn't even be opening your mouth. Not only did I read Truman Smith's book carefully and with great attention, but I posted about it numerous times in the Hitler thread (one example here). Did you even read and digest any of those posts? If you are true to form, you have not, and your ignorance is blinding.

I've not been reading your Hitler's threads all that closely in the past year and a half. Your contributions on the Hitler topic have been a mix of three-quarter truths, half-truths, one-quarter truths and what not ... you might have even contributed a handful of full truths in the Hitler threads here and there (and zero truths as well). Overall, there are enough nontruths in your narrative of Hitler, that I find your research to be lacking and wanting.

When Zook says "I've not been reading your Hitler's threads all that closely in the past year and a half", you are hearing a sociopath saying in typical sociopathic double-speak that he hasn't read the Hitler thread at all for the past year and a half! And this is quite evident from the same old faulty arguments Zook has made in his last 11 posts since returning to the forum. Zook's knowledge of Hitler and WW2 history has not advanced at all from his ignorant state of 17 months ago. Nor has his superiority complex and know-it-all attitude diminished from their outrageous state of 17 months ago. But this is normal, since sociopaths cannot change their psychological make-up.

Let's look at Captain Truman Smith for a moment, since Zook has pulled him out of his hat (i.e. his latest cursory Google search) in an attempt to give his arguments credibility. Like I stated to Zook, I read Truman Smith's entire book "Berlin Alert: The Memoirs and Reports of Truman Smith", and I posted about it numerous times in this thread ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ), which Zook clearly was unaware of, since he never read the 300+ posts in this thread that followed his last suspension from the forum. Nor has Zook ever read Truman Smith's book, yet Zook is more than ready to use Smith to support his bogus arguments. This will blow up in his face, as usual.

First of all, in 1922, Captain Truman Smith was only an assistant to the U.S. military attaché in Berlin, who was Lt. Col. Edward Davis, Smith's immediate superior. Smith did get to interview Adolf Hitler one afternoon at 4:00pm, November 20, 1922, in a house ("a shabby place") at Georgen Strasse 42 in Munich. Note that Hitler was practically a "nobody" at that time, which is why the assistant is interviewing him, and not the actual U.S. military attaché Lt. Col. Davis. Here is what Smith writes in his book, which was written well after the war, which explains his added and expected qualifiers concerning Hitler ("demagogue", "fanatical", "power over the mob").

Quote:
A marvelous demagogue. I have rarely listened to such a logical and fanatical man. His power over the mob must be immense. -- Berlin Alert: The Memoirs and Reports of Truman Smith, page 60

What Smith would have written in 1922 would have been much different, more like, "A marvelous intellectual. I have rarely listened to such a logical and convincing man. He would make a great public speaker." Of course, it was not acceptable to write accurately or favorably of Hitler after the war, so Smith had to adjust his prose accordingly. This is very typical of post-war descriptions of Hitler. The bias and brainwashing are clearly evident.

Smith's summary of Hitler's talking points are quite interesting, of which there are ten he lists in his book. I've selected important portions for the quote below, because these are what I highlighted on my first reading:

Quote:
1. His movement is a union of hand and brain workers to oppose Marxism.
5. The printing of paper money must be stopped. This is the worst crime of the present government.
7. Parliament and parliamentarism must go. No one can govern with it in Germany today. Only a dictatorship can bring Germany to its feet.
9. Hitler wants an understanding with France. He realizes the military absurdity of launching a war of revenge.
10. Monarchy is an absurdity. The people can decide the question of monarchy or republic after a national government has come to power. -- Berlin Alert: The Memoirs and Reports of Truman Smith, page 61

When considering point 5, note that hyperinflation had barely gotten started in Germany at that time, yet Hitler had already correctly assessed the coming danger.

Quote:
In 1918 a loaf of bread cost one quarter of a Reichsmark; by 1922 this had increased to three Reichsmarks. In 1923 the market price for bread spiralled, reaching 700 Reichsmarks (January) 1200 (May) 100,000 (July) 2 million (September) 670 million (October) and then 80 billion Reichsmarks (November). -- source

Likewise, Hitler was remarkably prescient with his other points as well. He never had any intention of being a dictator, but recognized that Germany badly needed one to right itself. He knew war with Germany's neighbors did not serve the best interests of ordinary Germans. He knew the real threat was Marxism, meaning the usurping of the nation by Jewish sociopaths, as had occurred recently in Russia. And as always, his focus was on what needed to be done to improve Germany for all Germans.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Oct 27, 2018 3:39 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9688
Reply with quote
Post Re: Hitler -- What is the truth?
Here's another one for you, Professor Zook. You think Hitler's rise to power was all about Rothschild manipulation and conspiracy.

Quote:
L’ancien journaliste économique s’étonne que « les livres d’histoire s’obstinent à effacer toute notion économique et sociale ayant permis à Hitler d’émerger en tant qu’homme politique de premier plan ». -- source

Translation: The old-school economic journalist (Pierre Jovanovic) is surprised that "the history books stubbornly erase all economic and social conditions that permitted Hitler to emerge as a first-rate politician."

That's right, Hitler was the beneficiary of complex and diverse economic and social conditions that the history books say nothing about. And why would they, since it is very complicated and confusing? In simple terms, Hitler was the right man in the right place at the right time. It wasn't the Rothschilds that deliberately created that zeitgeist. Thus, Hitler was no stooge of the Rothschilds. He was a navigator of new and unknown seas that no one could have truly predicted.

Notice that this is coming from independent French writing. American and British articles never paint the Hitler era in this manner. Could it be that they stick more to the official story (i.e. wartime propaganda) than the French? I've noticed that the French are a lot more feisty and independent-minded than the Americans or the British. They like to know the truth. Do you?



Image
November 9, 1923, when Hitler lost 16 party "martyrs" that he honored in small and then larger annual celebrations.
No Rothschild stooge is going to put his life on the line like this, and then consider suicide after luckily surviving the massacre.
Hitler is front and center, in a white trench coat, and a very visible target. One of the men next to him was promptly killed.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:48 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 511 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 ... 52  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.