Pluto's Child wrote:I pity you, you really think that there are leaders who are heros, you are seriously deluded & possibly mentally deficient if you think there is anything "good" about Hitler

No wonder you only stalk fringe forums, the bigger ones would kick you straight off, and not because they are "zionist"

I can feel your love, PC. Where have we crossed paths before? Would it be the Atticus1 forum, or was it Avalon?

Fred Steeves wrote:To me it adds another layer of insight into Hitler's frame of mind. He was a student of history, knew full well of this, and had zero problem with it.

Are you suggesting Hitler should have had a problem with it? Keep in mind that he wasn't even born yet. Perhaps your understanding of the subtleties of the situation is incomplete.

The Berlin Conference of 1884–1885 marked the climax of the European competition for territory in Africa, a process commonly known as the Scramble for Africa. During the 1870s and early 1880s European nations such as Great Britain, France, and Germany began looking to Africa for natural resources for their growing industrial sectors as well as a potential market for the goods these factories produced. As a result, these governments sought to safeguard their commercial interests in Africa and began sending scouts to the continent to secure treaties from indigenous peoples or their supposed representatives. Similarly, Belgium’s King Leopold II, who aspired to increase his personal wealth by acquiring African territory, hired agents to lay claim to vast tracts of land in central Africa. To protect Germany’s commercial interests, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who was otherwise uninterested in Africa, felt compelled to stake claims to African land -- source.

The emphasis is mine in that quote. Hitler's focus was on protecting Germany, and if Bismark had the same philosophy, it doesn't seem likely that Hitler would have a problem with that.

Fred Steeves wrote:The only time I've ever seen his attention turned towards it, was in wanting those colonies back after being forfeited as a result of WW1.

Wanting your nation's "forfeited" territories returned is also quite normal, especially when you understand exactly how they were stolen by your neighbors.

Fred Steeves wrote:Another related insight into his mindset IMO, would be his admiration for how effortlessly England seemed to handle/manage such a massive population in India. It seems logical this would have been his model for doing the same thing.

Your logic doesn't serve in this case. Hitler had no intention of using such a model, though he recognized the source of its efficacy.

Adolf Hitler wrote:At any rate, up to now the English fleet was always the most striking proof, regardless of how the form of the organisation of the land army looked, that decisively determined England's will to self preservation. This was the reason why the English mercenary army never acquired the bad characteristics of other mercenary troops. It was a fighting military body of wonderful individual training, with excellent weapons, and a conception of service which viewed it as a sport. Thus what endowed this small body of troops with a special importance was the direct contact with the visible manifestations in life of the British world empire. As this mercenary army had fought for England's greatness in almost all parts of the world, it had thereby in like measure also come to know England's greatness. The men who now in Southern Africa, now in Egypt, and at times in India, represented England's interests as the possessors of her military prestige, through this also received an indelible impression of the immense greatness of the British IMPERIVM. -- source, page 49

Those are Hitler's own words.

Hitler also recognized the efficacy of the sociopathic mindset required to maintain the British empire. However, it's a common misconception / deception to claim that Hitler was condoning such psychology. In reality, he was condemning it.

Adolf Hitler wrote:If later even England nevertheless mouthed the word culture, it was only from a purely propagandistic viewpoint, so that she also could morally embroider her own exceedingly sober actions somewhat. In reality the living conditions of the savages were a matter of complete indifference to the English as long, and to the extent, that they did not affect the living conditions of the English themselves. That later still other ideas, of a political prestige character, were linked with colonies of the size of India is conceivable and understandable. But no one can dispute that, for instance, Indian interests never determined English living conditions, but instead English living conditions determined India's. Likewise it cannot be disputed that even in India the Englishman does not set up any cultural institution of any kind so that, for instance, the natives may share in English culture, but rather so that, at best, the Englishman can draw more benefits from his colonies. Or does one believe that England brought railroads to India just to put Indians in possession of European transport possibilities, and not in order to make possible a better utilisation of the colony as well as to guarantee an easier domination? -- source, page 87

Pluto's Child wrote:I pity you, you really think that there are leaders who are heros, you are seriously deluded & possibly mentally deficient if you think there is anything "good" about Hitler

No wonder you only stalk fringe forums, the bigger ones would kick you straight off, and not because they are "zionist"

I am going to tackle this straight on. First I will unequivocally state that while I don't believe in or practice idol worship I agree with Chico on most accounts regarding the forbidden subject of Adolf Hitler, after all I initiated this thread under the subject Germania - Exploring the Age-Old Propaganda Wars Against Germany. This stance is the result of my independent research and intrepidly delving deep enough into the subject to see past the multilayered filters and highly developed propaganda put out by the "ruling cabal". I won't stop with that statement, let's go deeper ... even the word zion merits a study of where it came from, what it is intended to transmit and how we individually interpret that word.

I have clearly stated many times on the ee forum that all subjects should be freely spoken about without resorting to the use of ad hominem attacks. Again speaking clearly, we obviously haven't reached a level of sane self awareness nor used the faculty of wisdom when we do this.

So allow me to try and disclose why I followed this trail, how hard it was and what I have been willing to give up to speak publicly about Adolf Hitler.

My first encounter with the idea that Hitler wasn't the most vile being to ever walk the face of the Earth shook me to my core. It was a given after all, something everybody knew, that he was the purveyor of the utmost evil and hell bent on world domination. I used to postulate the question to myself that if I knew what he was going to do when he was a baby would I have killed him? That is how deep this man made archetype has been embedded in our collective subconscious. So when I was actually forced to look at this from a new angle I felt like I was going against humanity, how could I dare to think this way? It was frightening.

I am not claiming to be right, I am not claiming I know everything however I do claim the right of a free being to carry my own truth. By stating that I also recognize that the same is granted to every living thing. To believe or act otherwise is hypocrisy.

What is shocking and yet not surprising is that so many awake and aware people can't see past the deceptions that are the smoke screens and mirrors keeping us from the Real, or as maggie says... the good, the lovely and the magic. There is a lovely lilting voice on this forum and it comes from the Mother herself, usually through the women who post here and sometimes the most sensitive gentlemen. It would behoove us all to pay attention to this voice along with our desire to burn down the walls of deception. Pay attention to the emotionally charged feelings of shame and the unbearable sorrow that this "reality" is trying to teach us.

I have noticed that those who can't bend their personal reality enough to look for a more comprehensive and whole truth avoid the blaring questions that have been asked. For me it is obvious that we must look where we are forbidden to look. How is it possible that we can agree on the flagrant use of tyranny in our current falsely and forcefully fed reality at the hands of sociopaths and not use the same measure when looking down this particular historical timeline? This is the question I will do my utmost to answer.

To do so I will be forced to use words that trigger visceral responses in each of us to one degree or the other. I use the word visceral with exact intent, for this acceptance or rejection of re-vision-this history is embedded in our physical bodies, it has to do with our genetic memories and I would go so far as to postulate our DNA. I have many Jewish friends, I studied Kabbalah with a dear friend for many years, I have genetic coding of Jewish lives so when I speak of Jewish I am not speaking of a the people themselves. I am however speaking that those who carry these codes are the most susceptible to the deceivers that use them as a shield for their nefarious agenda. This code is very difficult if not near impossible to crack. Even my closest Jewish friend who is probably one of the most loving and kind women I have ever met turned to hatred during a frank conversation we had about Adolf Hitler. She had asked me about my research and how I came to the position I have today so I shared freely though somewhat cautiously with her ... her response was "I will always hate Hitler.", this wasn't uttered it was spit out of her in a most visceral manner. So here we come to a solid wall with seemingly no way past.

This term is possibly more difficult to disclose; white supremacy. This label is used a thousand times a day on the internet more often than not linked to the sloppy use of Hitler's name as the supreme Nazi white supremacist and evil doer. Then it is linked to the nefarious KKK, the neo-nazis; practitioners of racism, hatred and genocide. Why do we buy this when it is blatantly clear that the policies of Israel coupled with the US war machine are the ones reigning down horror on the people of Syria, Palestine, Yemen and any country that dares defy the controlling psychopaths.

To say we are gullible doesn't cut it. To say we are unduly prejudiced doesn't work either for inherent within us is the whole and the ability to see past these mechanizations IF we choose to. I am going to try and break it down further, it won't be the first time I've written about our roots and the root races. For some reason people get irate when we speak about our roots, preferring to belong to a group mentality and play follow the leader. This is what I risk every time I write, I risk losing people I care about, I risk losing my social facade ... For truth I am willing to lose all for what I actually lose in the end is the false.

Through out the ages people have been taught many cosmologies, mythologies (amazingly similar in native cultures) and also subjected to uncountable variations of socializing. The ability to put all of this into a cohesive and coherent truth is a Herculean task. My delve last year into the Native cultures along with a study of Nordic mythology brought me to the structure of the Medicine Wheel and the cycles of completion. This completion can't be concluded without finding our roots within the cosmic Tree of LIFE. On the medicine wheel we see four root races, four directions, four colors and four elements. White-Red-Black-Yellow are the colors represented. Is any one of these "races" more supreme than the other? My answer is no. Have all races suffered injustice and genocide? My answer is yes. Does each race carry something specific and vital to the whole? My answer is yes. We all know the oft repeated "conquer and divide" tactic, right? It is always in full play. So why do we fall for it again and again?

Truth is internal and eternal, it isn't altered by what we think, believe or argue about. The best I can do is speak from that place in me without trying to prove anything. What I have learned for myself is to ask questions and wait for the answers that my individuated consciousness is prepared to hear.

To conclude I would pose a few questions; Is it possible that Adolf Hitler saw what was coming to fruition through an insidiously embedded alteration in our genetics? That he knew what the "nefarious deceivers" were installing here? That his primary concern was for his people, the Nordic white race? That he wasn't bent on world domination but the sovereign freedom of Germany?

The Gnostics, a Semitic people knew of this foreign installation.

And before we jump to answer the proposed questions we should try to remember that we have access to thousands of previously occluded texts, manuscripts and documents that most people in the 1930's and 40's had no access to unless they were rabbis, priests or initiates.

The ancient sorcerers also knew of this foreign installation so I will end with a quote that has stayed with me since I first read it.

"I cling to nothing therefore I have nothing to defend." ~ Don Juan Matus

or perhaps more evocative still...

“For me there is only the traveling on paths that have heart, on any path that may have heart, and the only worthwhile challenge is to traverse its full length--and there I travel looking, looking breathlessly.”

Chicodoodoo wrote:

Fred Steeves wrote:To me it adds another layer of insight into Hitler's frame of mind. He was a student of history, knew full well of this, and had zero problem with it.

Are you suggesting Hitler should have had a problem with it? Keep in mind that he wasn't even born yet.

Absolutely, that is if he were the man of *extreme* conscience as is being portrayed here. Having not been born yet, is IMO not much of a reason to excuse/ignore the past of one's nation. Here's just one small example: I wasn't around yet when the U.S. swallowed up the Sandwich Islands. But I still have a problem with that, and if we would have lost them in a war, I wouldn't demand them back like I would if my home had been stolen from me.

Then again, I would be a terrible leader for a nation who needed her breathing room. If you want to talk about actual German homeland that was stolen, that's a completely different story.

The Berlin Conference of 1884–1885 marked the climax of the European competition for territory in Africa, a process commonly known as the Scramble for Africa. During the 1870s and early 1880s European nations such as Great Britain, France, and Germany began looking to Africa for natural resources for their growing industrial sectors as well as a potential market for the goods these factories produced. As a result, these governments sought to safeguard their commercial interests in Africa and began sending scouts to the continent to secure treaties from indigenous peoples or their supposed representatives. Similarly, Belgium’s King Leopold II, who aspired to increase his personal wealth by acquiring African territory, hired agents to lay claim to vast tracts of land in central Africa. To protect Germany’s commercial interests, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who was otherwise uninterested in Africa, felt compelled to stake claims to African land -- source.

Chicodoodoo wrote:
The emphasis is mine in that quote. Hitler's focus was on protecting Germany, and if Bismark had the same philosophy, it doesn't seem likely that Hitler would have a problem with that.

Great, so Hitler and Bismark shared that same philosophy, along with the rest of the European powers. Reminds me of my own country's bulging excuse of world plunder (see Smedley Butler as a prime example), it's only about our commercial interests. The old "nothing personal, it's just business".

Fred Steeves wrote:The only time I've ever seen his attention turned towards it, was in wanting those colonies back after being forfeited as a result of WW1.

Chicodoodoo wrote: Wanting your nation's "forfeited" territories returned is also quite normal, especially when you understand exactly how they were stolen by your neighbors.

There again, nothing about the rape and plunder of that great land, right? "It was *mine*", is all I hear, "and I want it back!"

Fred Steeves wrote:Another related insight into his mindset IMO, would be his admiration for how effortlessly England seemed to handle/manage such a massive population in India. It seems logical this would have been his model for doing the same thing.

Chicodoodoo wrote:Your logic doesn't serve in this case. Hitler had no intention of using such a model, though he recognized the source of its efficacy.

Adolf Hitler wrote:At any rate, up to now the English fleet was always the most striking proof, regardless of how the form of the organisation of the land army looked, that decisively determined England's will to self preservation. This was the reason why the English mercenary army never acquired the bad characteristics of other mercenary troops. It was a fighting military body of wonderful individual training, with excellent weapons, and a conception of service which viewed it as a sport. Thus what endowed this small body of troops with a special importance was the direct contact with the visible manifestations in life of the British world empire. As this mercenary army had fought for England's greatness in almost all parts of the world, it had thereby in like measure also come to know England's greatness. The men who now in Southern Africa, now in Egypt, and at times in India, represented England's interests as the possessors of her military prestige, through this also received an indelible impression of the immense greatness of the British IMPERIVM. -- source, page 49

Chicodoodoo wrote:Those are Hitler's own words.

Chicodoodoo wrote: Hitler also recognized the efficacy of the sociopathic mindset required to maintain the British empire. However, it's a common misconception / deception to claim that Hitler was condoning such psychology. In reality, he was condemning it.

Adolf Hitler wrote:If later even England nevertheless mouthed the word culture, it was only from a purely propagandistic viewpoint, so that she also could morally embroider her own exceedingly sober actions somewhat. In reality the living conditions of the savages were a matter of complete indifference to the English as long, and to the extent, that they did not affect the living conditions of the English themselves. That later still other ideas, of a political prestige character, were linked with colonies of the size of India is conceivable and understandable. But no one can dispute that, for instance, Indian interests never determined English living conditions, but instead English living conditions determined India's. Likewise it cannot be disputed that even in India the Englishman does not set up any cultural institution of any kind so that, for instance, the natives may share in English culture, but rather so that, at best, the Englishman can draw more benefits from his colonies. Or does one believe that England brought railroads to India just to put Indians in possession of European transport possibilities, and not in order to make possible a better utilisation of the colony as well as to guarantee an easier domination? -- source, page 87

Sure looks like admiration to me, and don't forget he wanted to partner up with England.

Again, I see many similarities to U.S. foreign policy. Endless military campaigns abroad to protect America's freedom and interests.

It occurs to me that given the nature of Hitler talk, I need to make the following abundantly clear: I'm agnostic on who the guy was or wasn't, and what he may or may not have done. No dog in this fight, we could just as easily be discussing the pros and cons of Julius Caesar, or Robert E. Lee.

If it gets too hot I'll just mozy on to something else, however I do find the subject (as with history in general) fascinating.

I agree with you, Fred, that there is no justification for rape and plunder, unrestrained capitalism, domination and enslavement of others, and similar sociopathic actions. Hitler also agreed. Pinning the past mistakes of Germany on Hitler that occurred before he was born would be like pinning the past mistakes of the USA on you. It doesn't make sense.

Another thing you don't understand is territorial expansion when necessary for survival. When a child grows up and leaves home, by necessity he is expanding his territory. We all do it, as does all of life. There are right and wrong ways to acquire and use territory. Again, it comes down to the concept of right and wrong. Note that it does not come down to "what is useful", which can be used to justify all manner of evil.

Before we can judge Hitler for what he did in terms of right and wrong, we need to know the truth about what actually happened. The ruling sociopaths who crushed Hitler have sabotaged this process by feeding us a mountain of lies implying evil intent on the part of Hitler, and they have adjusted history to fit those lies -- e.g. the Holocaust, the "good" war, the greatest generation, etc. It's not easy to get around this brainwashing, especially when we don't care to address it.

Fred Steeves wrote:It occurs to me that given the nature of Hitler talk, I need to make the following abundantly clear: I'm agnostic on who the guy was or wasn't, and what he may or may not have done. No dog in this fight...

Your posts suggest otherwise. You seem quite concerned about the "right or wrong" issues of the Berlin Conference of 1884, but not about the "right or wrong" issues of WW2, which are even more pertinent to our present situation. Again, you are not making sense. Your visible inclination is to assign fault to Hitler and Germany, exactly in accordance with your brainwashing. Claiming you have no dog in this fight is just a deception and manipulation to paint yourself as unbiased, when your bias is evident.

Fred Steeves wrote:If it gets too hot I'll just mozy on to something else...

Yes, I've recognized that pattern. You are not one to stand on principle.

Chicodoodoo wrote: Where have we crossed paths before? Would it be the Atticus1 forum, or was it Avalon?

Atticus ? There's a blast from the past lol, what ever happened to him ?


We have never crossed paths before, we may have been on some of the same forums but not at the same time.

Before I stray too far off topic I think the role of France needs to be at least mentioned on this thread, had the ridiculous treaty of Versailles not been so over the top Germany wouldn't have been such a seeding ground for hot heads & revolutionaries in the first place.

Posting foreign soldiers in Germany after WW1 to ensure outrageous "reparations" were paid caused armed rebellion, hard not to question if the Marshall plan wasn't because they had learnt the error of such tactics.

Christine wrote:My first encounter with the idea that Hitler wasn't the most vile being to ever walk the face of the Earth shook me to my core. It was a given after all, something everybody knew, that he was the purveyor of the utmost evil and hell bent on world domination. I used to postulate the question to myself that if I knew what he was going to do when he was a baby would I have killed him? That is how deep this man made archetype has been embedded in our collective subconscious. So when I was actually forced to look at this from a new angle I felt like I was going against humanity, how could I dare to think this way? It was frightening.

I had to pass through this very gauntlet as well. It's unavoidable when you are born and raised on the deception and wish to be free of it.

Christine wrote:How is it possible that we can agree on the flagrant use of tyranny in our current falsely and forcefully fed reality at the hands of sociopaths and not use the same measure when looking down this particular historical timeline?

That is the unavoidable hypocrisy that results from the deception the ruling sociopaths feed us. It is the cognitive dissonance we suffer from when we accept their manipulations as truth.

Christine wrote:Even my closest Jewish friend who is probably one of the most loving and kind women I have ever met turned to hatred during a frank conversation we had about Adolf Hitler. She had asked me about my research and how I came to the position I have today so I shared freely though somewhat cautiously with her ... her response was "I will always hate Hitler.", this wasn't uttered it was spit out of her in a most visceral manner.

It is the Jews that accuse others of hate speech and anti-Semitism, yet this example clearly shows where the hate and discrimination originates.

Christine wrote:...practitioners of racism, hatred and genocide. Why do we buy this when it is blatantly clear that the policies of Israel coupled with the US war machine are the ones reigning down horror on the people of Syria, Palestine, Yemen and any country that dares defy the controlling psychopaths.

Yes, we see it again, the hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance I spoke of earlier, which comes from the deception and manipulation the ruling sociopaths subject us to. I admire your ability to see this so clearly and express it. We should all be so blessed.

Christine wrote:For some reason people get irate when we speak about our roots, preferring to belong to a group mentality and play follow the leader. This is what I risk every time I write, I risk losing people I care about, I risk losing my social facade ... For truth I am willing to lose all for what I actually lose in the end is the false.

I have passed this way, too. We should all be so blessed.

Christine wrote:Is any one of these "races" more supreme than the other? My answer is no. Have all races suffered injustice and genocide? My answer is yes. Does each race carry something specific and vital to the whole? My answer is yes. We all know the oft repeated "conquer and divide" tactic, right? It is always in full play. So why do we fall for it again and again?

Sociopaths. They are masters of deception and manipulation. Non-sociopaths are practitioners of trust and empathy. Where the two intersect creates the insanity of the human world.

Christine wrote:Is it possible that Adolf Hitler saw what was coming to fruition through an insidiously embedded alteration in our genetics? That he knew what the "nefarious deceivers" were installing here? That his primary concern was for his people, the Nordic white race? That he wasn't bent on world domination but the sovereign freedom of Germany?

His real "crime" was defending his nation and his people against the parasites trying to consume them. You can see how the parasitic ruling sociopaths would view this as an unpardonable crime, just as the Germans would view it as the natural right of self-defense.

Christine wrote:"I cling to nothing therefore I have nothing to defend." ~ Don Juan Matus

There are some things worth clinging to and defending, like love, truth, liberty, and justice for all. I think this is what drove Hitler. It is clearly not what drove Stalin, Churchill, or Roosevelt.

Chicodoodoo wrote:

Fred Steeves wrote:If it gets too hot I'll just mozy on to something else...

Yes, I've recognized that pattern. You are not one to stand on principle.

True to form, you continue to twist words and meaning to suit your obsessions. In this particular case, way to compartmentalize a brief message saying I'm neutral and not going to get involved in a possible flame war, into something shifty and dishonorable.

Bad on me for second guessing my inner knowing of it being a bad idea to ever engage with you again, this will be the last. However, as with dear Sandy, I do wish you well. I really do.

Adios amigo.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn3Ef2ABIA8[/youtube]

Good on you Fred..............Iam waiting to comment on Hilter and will do so when my words will not be twisted into division/sides.....

The reasson I say good on you Fred is for not allowing yourself to be manipulated into partaking in the game to bring dissention and ultimate division to this wonderful, loving and respectful forum.