We need to talk about... World War II

[Helioform]

No, I made the point we really don't know what happened during that time. Myself, I'm leaning towards option B (masonic agent) being the most likely - which would make him a possibly even greater monster than what we've been told he was... But with the sheer amount of lies we've been told, I don't think option C can be ruled out. Thus, it doesn't really make sense to pass judgement, as I stated.

You're asserting he 'murdered millions' as though this is proven fact, however... but I would say the lesson is to look at 9/11. If we imagine society 50 years into the future [that they want to build] it will be 'common knowledge' and 'established fact' that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11 and only the most fringe conspiracy theorists will consider the possibility this isn't true, same as how very few today are really concerned about the JFK assassination.

Consider also how it would probably have been easier in the 1940's to create such a monumental lie about what happened. Yes, they use the media to lie and manipulate nowadays but back then, when the fastest mode of communication was the radio, and especially during war time when people will have mistakenly felt propaganda was somewhat allowed it will have been very easy for the Masons - who seem to have already then controlled all sides - to create the exact depiction of reality they preferred.

Just look at the players.

Clearly, the smartest thing is to never trust government and refuse to follow them into any wars... which is also why it would be great to wake up the masses to these things so they can see the sheer insanity of it all. Globalism, nationalism, socialism, capitalism... none of it will ever work so long as you've got the Masonic psychopaths in charge and millions prepared to blindly follow their orders 'because reasons'.

Since you've mentioned 9/11 I have to add that the Reichstag fire that occured in Germany at that time, was the 9/11 of the period. It was instrumental in bringing Hitler to power, which was an inside job (by Nazis many believe). It was a "terrorist attack" that was blamed on the Communists and helped immensely Hitler to gain power. Same tactics, different people. I don't need to mention the connections between the Bush family and Nazis as there is ample documentation of that already.

https://www.google.ca/amp/freebeacon.com/politics/flashback-2007-ellison-compared-911-attacks-reichstag-fire/amp/

 

[Etagloc]

The question is not whether Hitler was evil. Of course he was evil. That the Holocaust happened is certain.... the question is whether the numbers are sometimes exaggerated. We can't just ignore the Holocaust and I think it's immoral to. It is immoral to cover up genocide.

I have a copy of Derrota Mundial and I've studied the pro-Nazi revisionist side...... the truth is Nazism was extremely evil.... Derrota Mundial is very interesting but..... even that book.... what it really was about was denouncing atrocities by the Allies and humanizing the Nazis. Of course the Nazis were human and it might be possible the Allies committed atrocities but I think the grain of truth on the pro-Nazi side is not that the Nazis were right.... but that the Allies were not saints either. I think the Allies should be looked at critically just like the Axis side. But ultimately who was more right? I think the Allied countries use Germany as a scapegoat for their own injustices. In US schools, you hear all this about the holocaust and nothing about the holocaust against the Indians. so the US can say all this against the Germans and forget about its own crimes. so the holocaust is made to serve that purpose.

But whatever might be legitimately said about the allies, The Allies were right to defeat fascism and it is a good thing that fascism was defeated. it would have been horrible if the axis powers had won.

 

[Etagloc]

I think WW2 was a historic high point for the US. I don't think we should pretend the US was perfect and erase its domestic issues of that period..... I shudder to imagine what i would find if I researched African-American history of that period.... even my older white history teacher who was alive in that period was not going to lie about the racism that was rampant in that time.... but he was right to take pride in the US's role in WW2... the US did something good in fighting fascism

 

[Illuminized]

Who was Hitler? Was he:

1) The horrible dictator like we've always been told
2) A Masonic agent and instigator
3) A heroic freedom fighter combatting the nefarious schemes of the Zionists
4) Other

I think he was one of the first modern politicians to embrace pre-Christian, ancient Greek conceptions. He wasn't a pagan, he was modern. To me, it's not about what he allegedly did, but what he held privately. That's the best way to assess him.

As an ex-nationalist, I can safely say that the nationalists and their subversive elements (Alt-Right) are mostly reactionary. This can be seen in their hostility towards Islam and immigration. The nationalists start from his movement rather than his religion. The movement was just a means to effecting his worldview on a broader scale. His private religion is the gear which turned it.

The nationalists do well to point out that things are not as they seem, but at the same time, their propaganda has the effect of subordinating the individual to a narrative identical to the Holocaust one. He believes he understands, but he does not understand. Just as there are people out there repeating the six million mantra, there are also people repeating the mantra of "Cultural Marxism". The message is simply not adapted for it's hearers. It's explicitly nationalist, without regard for the social aspect. I think it's better to work outside of this framework.

 

[Illuminized]

Are you actually trying to defend Hitler? He was a monster who murdered millions of people. Yes, he was a product of his time but that does not excuse the fact that he was a monster who orchestrated the murder of millions.

Defending Hitler is the mark of a moralist. It's waste of time and energy to do that when he's already maligned by hundreds of historians and biographers. At the very least, you can point out his positive traits, but this shouldn't be stated in a broad sense (i.e. Hitler was sympathetic to animals, Hitler was vegetarian, Hitler liked being around children). I've studied the man and his religion, I'm familiar with his traits and they go further than the nationalist propaganda would have you believe. His reasoning for the aforementioned preferences was more than just "it's good and moral".

 

[Hubert]

No, I made the point we really don't know what happened during that time. Myself, I'm leaning towards option B (masonic agent) being the most likely - which would make him a possibly even greater monster than what we've been told he was... But with the sheer amount of lies we've been told, I don't think option C can be ruled out. Thus, it doesn't really make sense to pass judgement, as I stated.

You're asserting he 'murdered millions' as though this is proven fact, however... but I would say the lesson is to look at 9/11. If we imagine society 50 years into the future [that they want to build] it will be 'common knowledge' and 'established fact' that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11 and only the most fringe conspiracy theorists will consider the possibility this isn't true, same as how very few today are really concerned about the JFK assassination.

Except we do know what happened during that time. WWII and the atrocities of the holocaust are very well documented. What lead you to believe that the holocaust didn't happen?

 

[Hubert]

Defending Hitler is the mark of a moralist. It's waste of time and energy to do that when he's already maligned by hundreds of historians and biographers. At the very least, you can point out his positive traits, but this shouldn't be stated in a broad sense (i.e. Hitler was sympathetic to animals, Hitler was vegetarian, Hitler liked being around children). I've studied the man and his religion, I'm familiar with his traits and they go further than the nationalist propaganda would have you believe. His reasoning for the aforementioned preferences was more than just "it's good and moral".

I'm confused. Are you saying that because Hitler had good, religious, reasons for being a vegetarian, liking animals, and children historians should ignore his genocidal actions?

 

[Illuminized]

I'm confused. Are you saying that because Hitler had good, religious, reasons for being a vegetarian, liking animals, and children historians should ignore his genocidal actions?

No I'm saying that his reasons for the aforementioned preferences were grounded in reasoning rather than sentimentality or good nature.

He saw vegetarianism as an eventual course of action for humanity and he based this on the idea that Judaism and Christianity were foreign to humanity.
Children: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odic_force
Animals: He thought humans weren't superior to animals since the animals also can think, feel, and see.

 

[mecca]

Clearly, the smartest thing is to never trust government and refuse to follow them into any wars... which is also why it would be great to wake up the masses to these things so they can see the sheer insanity of it all. Globalism, nationalism, socialism, capitalism... none of it will ever work so long as you've got the Masonic psychopaths in charge and millions prepared to blindly follow their orders 'because reasons'.

Exactly.

 

[DesertRose]

. but he was right to take pride in the US's role in WW2... the US did something good in fighting fascism

I am always horrified by Nagasaki and Hiroshima regarding the US role in WW2.

 

[mecca]

I am always horrified by Nagasaki and Hiroshima regarding the US role in WW2.

Should have never been done.

 

[Lurker]

I am always horrified by Nagasaki and Hiroshima regarding the US role in WW2.

I would say that the firebombings were as bad, if not worse.

 

[DesertRose]

I would say that the firebombings were as bad, if not worse.

I'll take your word for it Lurker however don't atomic weapons have effects on the subsequent generations?
Weren't the Japanese going to surrender anyway?
Then there is the issue of the internment camps....

 

[Lurker]

don't atomic weapons have effects on the subsequent generations?

Not denying that.

Weren't the Japanese going to surrender anyway?

Some say.

Then there is the issue of the internment camps....

That's why I only answer "number of people" on the census.

 

[Karlysymon]

Because of Project Paperclip, isn't it right to say that the Third Reich wasn't extinguished but lives on, in America, as the Fourth Reich?

I'd argue the 4th Reich is more brutal and more menacing. For example, 'America's space programme', nursed to life by German scientists (image), is in a nutshell, meant to control man....from space. Mkultra is also said to be a Paperclip offspring.

Now, for more interesting bits about WW2, Charles Lindbergh Sr on the creation of the Fed, said that depressions would be scientifically created. And it happened but according to Paul Krugman, war is good for the economy and it broke out just in time to 'save the day'. In Oh! What A Lovely War!:
World War II is the great natural experiment in the effects of large increases in government spending, and as such has always served as an important positive example for those of us who favor an activist approach to a depressed economy.

Then there's that Marian apparition, Fatima, in 1917 Portugal, that prophesied of a great war. Although some researchers have found the event to be a psyop, hinting at WW2 as a planned event. A handful of us were discussing this afew months ago. And just the other day, i read an account of a priest who ,allegedly, saw flying (saucers) discs on that day.

Were the Prophesied ‘Unknown Lights’ in the Sky at the Start of World War II Artificial?[/B]

 

[mecca]

Because of Project Paperclip, isn't it right to say that the Third Reich wasn't extinguished but lives on, in America, as the Fourth Reich?

Yes.

 

[Hubert]

No I'm saying that his reasons for the aforementioned preferences were grounded in reasoning rather than sentimentality or good nature.

He saw vegetarianism as an eventual course of action for humanity and he based this on the idea that Judaism and Christianity were foreign to humanity.
Children: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odic_force
Animals: He thought humans weren't superior to animals since the animals also can think, feel, and see.

Why should I care about his reasoning? Why does it matter? What would it change? He ordered the murder of millions, hundreds of thousands of whom were children. Actions are what matter, and Hitler's actions were nothing short of genocidal. Why would you defend such a man?

 

[Illuminized]

Why should I care about his reasoning? Why does it matter? What would it change? He ordered the murder of millions, hundreds of thousands of whom were children. Actions are what matter, and Hitler's actions were nothing short of genocidal. Why would you defend such a man?

As I said before, it had a basis in ancient Greek conceptions. You have no idea how much depth there really is to his religion. Not even the nationalists know of it. All they see is the man's movement, not the personality behind it.

Look up hylozoism and tell me what kind of modern politician adheres to it? In our time, this would amount to Martin Luther or Galileo.

Besides those actions, whether or not they occurred, were all enacted on the basis of his religion.

Among Hitler's justifications for his actions was his private philosophy of nature. Both in public speeches and private conversation he would repeatedly refer to this philosophy, his purpose being to convince his listeners that this philosophy represented the final truth about life. He took such principles as the struggle for existence, the survival of the fittest and strongest, for the law of nature, and considered them a “higher imperative” which should also rule in the community life of men.

 

[Hubert]

As I said before, it had a basis in ancient Greek conceptions. You have no idea how much depth there really is to his religion. Not even the nationalists know of it. All they see is the man's movement, not the personality behind it.

Look up hylozoism and tell me what kind of modern politician adheres to it? In our time, this would amount to Martin Luther or Galileo.

Besides those actions, whether or not they occurred, were all enacted on the basis of his religion.

Again why should I care about his justifications for genocide?

 

[Illuminized]

Then there's that Marian apparition, Fatima, in 1917 Portugal, that prophesied of a great war.

There's nothing significant about this particular prophecy, the Catholics have been talking about it for centuries. They expect a WW3 between the West and East followed by an ecumenical council.