Hitler "Founder of Israel"?
Keep in mind that Palestine was already in the process of being mass-infiltrated by European, British and even some American (and other) Jews. That being said, to begin with, Harry Truman (a Juden-Mischling) was the man who recognized the state of Israel well after the war. Second, most Jews emigrated to Palestine after the war ended. Third, the authoritarian democracies (the USSR, Britain and America) would not accept emigrating or refugee Jews. Fourth, Lord Balfour preceded Hitler by a long shot and started the process of Jewish colonization of Palestine (Hitler wanted them to live in Madagascar but this plan was made impossible by the Allied powers with the commencement of World War II). So, as you can see, the situation was far more complicated than how it may appear to have been on the surface. Hitler did not “found” Israel. The West (with the ‘help’ of International Jewry of course) ‘founded’ Israel.
It is thus the responsibility of the ENTIRE West, since each Western pillar played a role in its founding. Hitler’s role was clearly inadvertent, as opposed to intentional, so he ought to bear the least responsibility for the Jewish-Zionist Problem today. Remember, Britain and America swore to become allies of that state and uphold it at any cost, not Hitler. Hitler just wanted Jews out of Europe. The Allies, on the other hand, had an NWO design with the Jewish state in mind.
Finally, the “holocaust” nonsense (another lie) was a necessary component of the Jewish grievance movement: without it, the current American, European, and British governments would not be allocating free aid money to that rogue state. It was not until after the war, and after a false trial before Jewish and Judaized American and British vermin, that this “holocaust” reparations insanity was implemented. Without that money, Israel doesn't exist. That is why the hoax has to be the first pillar to fall. But even more important to fall are the LIES about the Hitler government and Hitler himself. He was not Jewish and he did not found Israel anymore than you or I did. I strongly believe that this is a new ‘truthseeker’ front that the Jews and their useful idiots have created to steer people away from the truth once again (though useful at times, DBS and Hufschmid are both victims of it).
My own litmus test was the following: did Hitler uphold the person and legacy of Christ and Christian values on the whole? The answer is yes. How can anyone believe these new lies when a comprehensive study of Hitler leads you to Christ? Somebody has not been consulting their primary sources on this topic, I see! Satan and/or Jewry will NEVER lead one to Jesus Christ, sorry to say. And that is the only litmus test I need.
I had written awhile ago:
"After years of struggling with the British and the Jewish influx into Palestine, the Mufti emigrated to Berlin in 1941, in an effort to obtain Germany’s help. Not soon after, Rash?d Al? joined him, as he too fled to Berlin in search of Nazi-Sozi support for Iraq [Ibid. 348-49]. What is quite interesting is the fact that N?sir expressed his sympathy and disappointment with Germany’s loss after the war. Also, S?d?t’s memoirs indicated that he was a “willing cooperator in German espionage” [Ibid. 349]. Author Lewis attempts to try and argue that this Arab and Middle Eastern enthusiasm for Nazi-Sozi collaboration appears out of place, due to the fact that Germany was almost solely responsible for the mass exodus of Jewry into Palestine. In essence, the historical picture he attempts to paint here is one that would serve to indict Germany—completely and utterly—for the creation of Jewish Palestine, when in fact it was the British who conceived of, legislated, and made possible, Jewish Palestine.
"It is true that there was a significant amount of Nazi-Sozi-Jewish collaboration, however let us not forget that Jewry was originally to be deported to Madagascar—as per the Madagascar Plan—as documented and discussed by Göbbels, Hitler, Raeder, Himmler, Frank, Heydrich, and Strechenbach (as well as many others) [Irving, pp. 84, 311-12; Rigg, p. 253; Browning, pp. 56-57, 83, 101, 426]. The beginning of the war—as per the illegitimate Allied entry into this European affair—made the Madgascar Plan completely unfeasible. Hence, naturally acting in its own best interest, Germany did everything in its power to rid itself of Jewry, and Palestine was the only feasible destination, as very few or none of the Allied countries would accept or absorb emigrating Jews.
"Moreover, had the Germans won the war, it is more than likely safe to assume that Jewry would have been deported from Palestine—on the wishes of the Arabs and other Moslem populations in the region who had supported Hitler from the beginning—to either far east Russia or Madagascar. So, even though Lewis would prefer to lay blame on Germany, do not forget that Germany was a far greater friend historically to the Middle East than any other Western country, hence, these Mid-East allies were willing to suffer in the short term for the benefits in the long run. Obviously, they did not know that Germany would lose until it was too late to reverse the Jewish exodus into Palestine and the demographic upheaval that ensued.
"Also, it was not Germany that continued to support and defend Jews emigrating to Palestine; it was first Britain, and thereafter America. Remember too, that most Arab countries were still opressed under colonial rule, and any possible chance of ending this occupation made Arabs grapple at the first feasible opportunity. Nazi-Sozi Germany was their only forseeable hope.
"The primary reason for Arab support for the Nazi-Sozis was more than likely their anti-Jewish agenda [Lewis, p. 349]. The Mufti urged the German government to bomb Tel Aviv, probably in order to inflict a blow unto the Jews, and Jewish organizations urged the governments of London and Washington to bomb the camps of Auschwitz for reasons I am unaware of. Perhaps they wanted to usher in a ‘Holocaust’ against their own people, via mass Allied bombings, in an effort to encourage Gentile sympathy for Jews emigrating to Palestine. Needless to say, all three governments declined to fulfill these wishes, because they did not view them as strategically beneficial for winning the war [Ibid. 351]."
The authoritarian democracies (the USSR, Britain and America) would not accept emigrating or refugee Jews.
The jewish propaganda is that your boy Adolph was an evil, jew-hating arian hun. You're right, however, about the concerted/ contrived effort not to allow jews to land in any country during that time frame.. anywhere but Palestine, that is, which they needed desperately to populate. Ergo, Adolph Hitler: Founder of Israel, indeed.
Yes, although I'm hardly what could be called an expert, and there are still undoubtedly arguements that can be made on either side of the issue, I'm of the opinion that Adolpho was a full-blooded jew (same as Bush/ Cheney), who was intent on bringing Germany to ruin and submission. Way to go you great and magnificent genius Nobodaddy!
Why are you sock-puppeting? Don't you think your comments can stand or fall on their own merit without you logging in with one of your many aliases to chime in support of yourself?
The first was an accident-- went to retrieve some info from a previous Nobo blog, and answered first time under Nobo-- second, I was being fairly obvious, I thought. And while I'm answering your objection, I have one of my own. My phrase 'full-blooded' seems possibly beside the point.
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/4976
Hmmm…. “Jewish Palestine”? Interesting term Ehud. I won’t really bother to comment on the content of this post because it is too full of inaccuracies for me to think that it was posted on the basis of an honest effort in terms of information. I don’t deny that you did an effort ‘Ehud’, but you certainly went out of your way to twist History in order to appease Omlet’s nightmares. It is useless anyway to debate you or question you on any of the very questionable material you post… since you never have been able to answer just one of my questions.
‘Ehud Olmert’s worst nightmare’ is a cute name…
Happy 60th
the most prominent mind among the commentators to this posting. I stand by my work and anyone wishing to challenge my work (i.e., take me to task) may do so, but only if they provide me with contrary evidence. My organization, AHRS, supports everything I say. I have been working diligently to extract the truth for three years now and I do not intend to let a silly blogger (Nonesuch101) who cannot show me evidence derail my findings. If I cannot support what I say with some form of rational and/or peer-reviewed evidence, then I don't say it. Pure conspiracy theory does not suffice as evidence supporting a truth. Show me some facts and then we'll battle it out from there.
When did you ever ask me a question or questions? Don't be a 'tittyballs' and ask me now that I'm here and paying attention.
I've given you my sources-- but you're infatuated with Adolph Hitler (going so far as to refer to him as handsome and attractive: and you call me silly.. hahoha). I'll say it yet again: I will not argue with a fool who refers to Maimonides and other jewish 'historians' for every bit of their erroneous evidence.. See yez..
I've figured out how to get rid of you Nonsense. Now I know how. I'll be sure and discount what Jews say from now on. Thank you, Jewish agent based in Tel Aviv, for your invaluable input. And yes, Hitler was dead sexxy. Lord have mercy!
Auf Wiedersehen!
I'm pretty sure that's where you're coming from, and that's all I have to say.
Makes sense to me.
So does this:
AZ - Jews want anti-zionists to think any attempt to resist zionism is hopeless, since even Hitler was “Jewish.”
I always thought that Hitler couldn't be jewish. Anyway I agree with Ehud and AZ. I have a relative who has read up on Germany and Hitler extensively and he has told me the same things more or less. Quite an eye-opener! I'm going to have to get talking to him again.
Once again:
If the zionist media is making a demon out of Hitler... chances are he most likely wasn't a demon. Always believe the opposite of the zionist FAIRY TALES.
Speaking of FAIRY TALES .... I see that zionist FK is spinning yarns forevermore on his post. I am deeply curious at how zionism spreads its tentacles in such bizarre fashion - but never mind - the conclusion is always the same.
And I happen honestly to agree with Fahim Knight, for the most part-- but that's beside the point. I'm no Hitler fan or scholar. I'm sure that he was a real swell guy-- a saint even. I'll leave you people here to sort him out. Seig Heil.
You're absolutely correct. One has to love the subject one studies to really be good at what one does. I will never hide my bias because I realize that all scholarship contains bias. I just choose to be open with regard to my own biases. I am absolutely a National Socialist, a Christian, and love the Fuehrer.
How ever did you notice, though? I always thought I could keep my infatuation under wraps. Is it really that obvious? You must have visited my home page. Perhaps over a thousand photos of Hitler is a tad excessive, but I am a womyn, and thus, a member of the "weaker" sex. So, I have an inherent excuse.
When you want to stop hating I am all for hearing you out. I still read what you post.
for a short time before he became a 'Nazi'? That's just one of the facts stated in Jim Condit & Bjerknes' research on Hitler that if true would make it extremely improbable that Hitler was legit imo. He was a bad guy anyway in my personal opinion but it's also likely he was a fraud.
You're f*cking kidding me, right? Bjerknes is a gawd-damned Jew. Hello. I would trust Condit as much as I would trust Hillary Clinton's left asscheek. Neither is capable of telling even a nascent version of the truth.
Yeah, you're a real genius.. honest too (NOT).
I forgot to mention objective-- yep, you're obviously that as well.
Hitler's on the march again (in the form of Bush..)
What I find amusing is that you always post to my, and thus, obviously find my material interesting, while I never post to yours. I never read what you post either because it's boring and poorly cited. I already read that Wall St. book. And?
You may call me "Miss Nazirite," you little Jewish tittyballs. I can tell my Hitlerian posts ruffle your peacock feathers, as Rhi would say, so keep on a readin.' I enjoy pissing you off.
I've told you several times now, I will not argue with a fool (jackass, more like, who doesn't seem to understand that nearly every at this site can see right through your bullshit).
Anthony C. Sutton is a libertarian conspiracy theorist whose book "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution" argues that the Bolsheviks were financed by foreign powers, such as Germany, and then by the capitalists that supposedly were their opponents. Sutton believes that the Wall Street bankers and US monopolists wanted Russia to become a huge "captive market", and that the Communist regime made this possible.
The question of contacts between Bolsheviks and capitalist groups is surely an interesting one. Indeed, I dont think any serious historian denies that such contacts existed. But why did they exist? To what extent? And was it really a "conspiracy" in the sense conspiracy theorists believe? After all, there are always strange bedfellows in politics. What about the CIA and one Usama bin-Laden?
My main objection to this book is that it contains several pretty elementary factual errors, and a number of absurd interpretations. This makes the book highly problematic, perhaps even worthless, as source material. The authors research has been sloppy, so why should we trust him on anything? I therefore recommend customers to buy other books on Russian history. If you want to buy this one, do it simply because of interest in conspiracy theory, not out of interest in the actual issues covered.
Here are some of the errors and misinterpretations I managed to find:
Page 19. Sutton claims that there was a 700,000 strong Green Army during the Russian Civil War, which fought both Reds and Whites. He wonders why no history book ever mentions it. Simple: it did not exist. Peasant guerillas sometimes called "Greens" did exist, but they were never centralized into an army. Perhaps Sutton is referring to the great peasant rebellion in Tambov? But that rebellion is well known. He is explictly not referring to the equally well-known Makhnovists. Suttons Green Army seems to be a hallucination.
Page 25. Sutton writes that Trotsky crossed the Finnish-Russian border at Tornea on June 13, 1917. This is a double mistake. Tornea is situated at the Swedish-Finnish border, not the Finnish-Russian border. Moreover, since Finland was still controlled by Russia at the time, the border was strictly speaking the Swedish-Russian border! Finland didnt become independent until December 6, 1917.
Page 33. Sutton claims, on the authority of Canadian intelligence, that Trotsky was a German agent, and even an ethnic German. The "proof" is Trotskys real name, Bronstein. But this is not a German name at all, but a Jewish name. The Jewish language Yiddish is derived from German, but it was spoken by Jews in Russia as well. This is common knowledge, yet Sutton doesnt seem to know it. (That a lone Canadian intelligence operative didnt is perhaps more excusable.) Sutton also claims that the name "Trotsky" is Polish, citing this as another suspiscious fact. But some Bolsheviks were Polish, Felix Dzerzhinsky being the most notorious. Nor is this surprising, since Poland was controlled by Russia during the period in question!
Page 47. Sutton quotes a Moscow newspaper, presumably published by the Kadets, complaining about the "social revolutionaries" getting money from the West. Since I havent seen the original article,this may be risky to judge. But please note that there was a Russian political party called SRs or Social Revolutionaries. The article might therefore be about them, rather than about the Bolsheviks, who, as far as I know, were always referred to simply as "bolsheviki".
Page 52-53. While the Mexican Revolution is surely a complicated story, Suttons analysis of it is mystifying, to say the least. He seem to think that Pancho Villa and Carranza belonged to the same faction, when in reality they often fought each other. Carranzas faction was the most moderate one during the Revolution, which explains why the US supported him once he was firmly in power. After all, Carranza wanted to suppress the radicals around Villa and Zapata. That the Mexican Constitution was written by "Trotskyites" is an absurd statement, since there were no "Trotskyites" in Mexico in 1917. The claim that the constitution was "Soviet-type" is also problematic. It was a very radical document, to be sure, but Mexico has never been socialist! But perhaps Sutton has such a broad definition of socialism that even Mexico becomes socialist?
These, then, are some of the errors I found in this book.
"Here is what Irving has said about Thyssen's "work":propagandist Emery Reves (Imre Revész) along with a host of other fables. Rauschning, a former Nazi Danzig politician, met Hitler on only a couple of formal occasions. It was being republished in Vienna as recently as 1973, although even the otherwise uncritical West German historian Professor Eberhard Jäckel-who carelessly included 78 forgeries in a serious volume of Hitler's manuscripts, and then dismissed this poisonous injection as making up less than 5 percent of the total volume!-emphasized in a learned article in Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht (No. 11, 1977) that Rauschning's volume has no claim to credibility at all. Reves was also publisher of that other famous "source" on early Nazi history, Fritz Thyssen's "memoirs," I Paid Hitler (London, 1943). Henry Ashby Turner, Jr., has pointed out in a paper in Vierteljahrsheft für Zeitgeschichte (No. 3, 1971) that the luckless Thyssen never even saw eight of the book's nineteen chapters, while the rest were drafted in French! The list of such spurious volumes is endless."
Cached Page