Oliver Stone: Jewish control of the media is preventing free Holocaust debate

Remember that Hitler was a (illegitimate) Rothschild. One of the theory is that he was hating himself and that he felt he was born with no (real) name, no (real) family, no (real) religion. He didn't know what he was. He only knew he was not recognized by the Rothschild who were much more richer than him and his family.

In a second time, he was really hating the Jews and wrote it in "Mine Kampf". He said he was to destroy them, and the French too, unless the french government give Alsace and Lorraine back and become actor of the "world order" (a term he will use for the first time in 1940).

During that time, Prescott Bush and George Walker (the great father of George Bush and junior) were financing Hitler till 1924-28 to 1942. First to get the founds of the very violent Na-Zi party (talking about the Jews and conspiracy theories like about Free Masonry, and a last war against France to get the power over all Europe with first the Anshluss : Austria and Germany, heart of the new order in Europe). When the NaZi party became big, Prescott and George made some other deals with Hitler : they militarised Germany with Fritz Thyssen, saying nothing to nobody (treat of Versailles). They involved a lot of Wall Street Bankers and participated to a lot of terrible seminaries (against the Jews, the free masonry, the sterilisation of handicapped people and poor populations, the primacy of WASP, racism and segregation, money and politic made with the Nazis). American people, in 1940 was more for Germany and it's theories that for France, England and occupied countries.

Skull and Bones hate Free Masons, for a long time. Skull and Bones are emigrated college secret society from Germany in the 18 century. Skull and Germany had always have a lot of "good" relations. Those black order are "leaving" with free masonry (the biggest masonry that involved all others, it is a federation of all masons, but some American, German and later some Bolshevik ones didn't want to join the "illuminist" group) and the religious orders (Catholics, protestants, orthodoxes and sometimes some new movements or sects like Mormons, Hamish, Scientology...). In the beginning (17 and 18th centuries), the free masonry was religious and was linked to religious orders, but was interested only in human organisations (mutuality, insurance, access to hospital for all, justice for all, school for all, constitution for all, liberty...). This was the contrary of the German orders (Skull, Scroll...) which were elitist and had an other lecture of Jean-Jacques Rousseau : democracy means nothing, only the high society can reign over the universities and who they form. The fight between the Black Order (liberal) and Free Masonry (democracy) had begun in the 18 and 19 century.

It became very complicated in Europe. Napoleon, Garibaldi ans then 3 wars between Germany (1870, 1914, 1939) and France had always the same origin : which kind of chancellery (demo or elite, republic or pseudo-religious) must have the power. For Garibaldi, Victor Hugo and many others, it was clear : both, so they need laïcity (secularism). The black orders didn't like it and wanted the power over all Europe. The free masons (federation of all masons) managed to take it before the others and imposed the right to vote for women, the obligation of school for every body and a bit after the equal access to university.

The Bolsheviks, atheists, refused every remembering of religion and pushed the republic to communism. Well, we know what it became. They killed their past and created with propaganda a (short) future. Those one hate both illuminism (secularism in the 18 and 19th century in Europa and a part of America) as did the black order (elite by some American and German families).

In America, the constitution was illuminist (I don't talk about illuminati, that term is only for bad and very simplest conspirationists who think FM is one thing). It means that God is present but the democracy too. In the 18th century, FM became a kind of norm in Europe and the black orders had no more power in Germany. So they came in America. They entered the "liberal" free masonry of America and created their high schools (Yale...). In that time, they started to say that Jews were behind everything, especially free masonry witch they were coveted to take the power over it.

Garibaldi represents what was FM : "I'm catholic and FM and I will always be both : this is republic and democracy".

In France the Grand Orient made the "liberal" choice of "laïcité" (secularism), England choose to stay mother of FM and refused secularism, in America, they stood behind the mother loge of England but had a very different politic about liberality in politic and education. They stood linked to Germany and the elitism of high school. In Germany, the Grand Orient of France took the place of older masonries like the teutonic order (a kind of religious charity and hospital order like the Malt Order which would enter the FM order in the late 19th).

The Bolsheviks began to fabric their own masonry in the beginning of the 20th century. Hitler started to develop Nazism a bit later. The propaganda said Bolsheviks were Jews and that socialism was a Jew idea, especially in Germany and America, and in England (labour party, English revolution). When Hitler arrived in 1924-28, he said that every country was Jew and that FM and Republic were the same and were Jew. So Germany would have to fight against a Jew order in the world. It was then time for the black order to take the power over the world, helped by people like Prescott Bush who would finance and insure the wars of Hitler like said in Mine Kampf. This was a pure sub-propaganda, everybody must be seen as a Jew (Bolsheviks, american administrations, France and even England). If they could make everybody believe that, the black orders could take the power back and finish with the royal families and the basic republics.

In America, People like Aleister Crowley followed the ideas of Hitler with an ambition of subversion linked to pure Satanism (music and sex). They were rapidly fired from FM but had a very big power in para-masonry. Today, Skull and Bones and para-masonries are more powerful than FM and religion. This is the rest of hitlerism in Culture and also the base of the New Age (and a lot of conspiracy theories like "yellow books", always used for sub-propaganda and alternative-passed religions).

Of course, you will excuse my English in the last post. Tks

Hitler and its paintings : Paintings, Noise of War :

The holocaust is a money spinner

The holocaust is big business

don't expect to go away anytime soon


But gee, those jews are so ungenerous. They push 'their' holocaust down everyone's throats (ensuring continued profits) but they dummy spit like babies if the holocaust they inflicted on the Palestinians is mentioned

hypocrites

The "Jewish question" and the "Jewish conspiracy" over republics and truth in History have always been used to take the power. Once by the Bolsheviks, once by the hitlerians, once by the royal families against FM, once by the tsarists against the Bolsheviks, once by the republicans Napoleonians against some contre-revolutionaries (and other contre-revolutionaries, linked with the terror of Robespierre against royalist napoleonians), once by the islamists, once by the new-agers against islamists and Islamic "pré ou pseudo-democratic" parties (Hamas, Hezbolah), once by the Catholics against the pest (they said the Jews were poisoning the water) once by the conspirationists against the subversion post-68, once by new-agers against conservationists, once by conspirationists against the Jewish origins and Zionist links of Hitler (Bush, Rothschild...), once by the conservationists against the post 68, once by Michael Jackson because he has not all the media for himself and is accused to be puerile (much more than paedophile), once by the conspirationists against the atheism of Theodore Herzl and what he did of Israel (teach the war and massacre), and more significant, my grand mother against her baker because of the price of his bread...

Well, the Jews seems to be everywhere. In fact, ...used everywhere to say everything you want.

The fact seems to be that you can do what you want with them and make them tell what you want. But is it the truth? Does the holocaust serve someone and is it really the Jews and the Jewish religion. Why people Like the Bush family had elaborate their fortune on Auschwitz and the wars of Hitler, and weapons today Israel? Who is used? When we say that the Holocaust is a lie, who do we protect? Who does Ahmadinejad stupidly protect when he enters the universe of the negation of the Holocaust? What do they teach the Israelis today, what are they making with them and their army? Do you really think that they like Muslim or Jews? If you think differently, they will make you take your decision and enter the conflict. It doesn't matter if you like Jews, Zionists or Muslims, you must take a rule in the conflict. Think what you want (Jews are bad, Muslims are bad, Hitler was for or against Jews and Semitic religions, killed or not), there will always be a place for you in the conflict and the wanted confusion between each other.

Accuse the Jews and the Arabs, this is the debate they want. But you'll never be able to say who did what during WW2 or in the Israeli conflict, and who are those very same people. Deny the holocaust and you exonerate them (they would always madiatised that with very big naive titles as the question goes very very far from the responsibility of the bankers of Hitler and focus only on German nazis and what they did or not in Auschwitz, Poland or told in the pogroms). Say it is or was only the Germans (or not, or the Nazis and Hitler) or today the Jews (doing holocausts on Palestinians), and they have everything they want. This is called a fire-wall.

[edit on 3/8/2010 by Alchy]

An other thing : I have read posts on that topic and some doesn't know (strangely) what the politic about the Jews was during WW2.

There really were pogroms and we have the speechs (radio, film, by written...), there was really a book called Mine Kampf in which Hitler condemned and menaced the Jews of everything, calling to end with that, there were really ghetto made for the Jews, even in France, there were really big round-up of Jews, even in France and camps where they were sent (75.000 people taken from France, from the ghettos and the towns, taken to the Vélodrome d'Hiver (13.000) or/and then sent in camps of Drancy (67.000, only 3% will come back), Pithivier or directly or indirectly in Auschwitz (10.000)), there were really resistance movements that saved Jews from the nazis and the police, even in France, those who are called "righteous among the Nations" are people who helped Jews - generally children whose parents were already dead or in camps - alone or with those movements (church, communists, regular army...), there were really people back from Auschwitz and other camps (2.500 French Jews on 75.000 sent!) to tell what they lived in Auschwitz, those who didn't came back are really dead and missing in the registries and the families, they were really wearing yellow stars and had no right to exercise a job or just go out from the ghettos like in Varsovie (Poland) where most of them died directly in the streets, there is really no doubt that there was a politic against Jews and that they died of it.

In France, it was "light", compared to what was possible in Poland or Germany (and only half of France was under occupation!). But 1/4 of the Jews (75.000) in France (on 300.000) were deported and many others where hidden by the resistance and the righteous. Only 3.5% of the deported Jews came back from camps thanks to the end of the war and the liberation of the camps. All other were killed. Many others died in ghettos and are not counted as deported. Survivors have given there evidences and resistants and righteous too.

In France, the nazis kidnapped and killed 1/4 of the French Jews in front of everybody from 1941 to 1944. It is not a hazard and was clearly signified to be a politic to clear Europe from the Jews.

reply to post by Alchy

Interesting paintings. Hitler was a much better painter than he is generally given credit for. I'm not surprised that he made money from his paintings. His biggest failure as an artist was undoubtedley his decision not to stick with it, come what may.

He certainly would not be the first artist to have made that decision.

I wanted to say something else about the Jews and the media. One of the staples of the media in the last fifty years or so has been the figure of the Jew seeking acceptance.

Woody Allen is the classic example of that person, the neurotic Jew, surrounded by Gentile friends who accept him but whose acceptance is somehow unsatisfying because he can never communicate to them just how much existential anxiety he is dealing with.

Their casual acceptance, though welcome, is actually a source of aggravation to him because, although his friends accept him, they don't really accept him because they, being Gentiles, haven't a clue who he (a Jew) really is.

Howard Stern is the "heavy metal" version of the same character. He craves acceptance. Hilariously, he craved it initially from the "we hate whitey" black kids at his predominently black high school. Stern has explained this ludicrous situation in all it's grotesque psychological ramifications in great comical horrifying detail on his program.

But essentially they are the same "Jew seeking acceptance" character. The existence of these two examples of this character type is a commentary on the tribal insularity of the Jewish community. If Jews were not so careful about things like marrying other Jews, the Jewish community would likely have been assimilated long ago.

But standing apart is a stress. Hence the Woody Allen and Howard Stern sort of characters.

A question arises. How can a Jew get acceptance and love from the community at large, outside the Talmudic perimeter, and still be true to and not compromise the Jewish tradition?

The answer? Join an industry filled with people who crave approval and adulation, who in short share the same anxieties, even though they may have come to them by a different route. And which industry is that? The entertainment industry, of course.

Jewish motivation in the entertainment industry is twin-engined, propelled not only by the same thing that propels all entertainers but also by stress felt as members of a self-segregating society, who are also often denigrated.

Jewish omnipresence in the media is understandable on that psychological basis, but problems arising from that state of affairs shouldn't be papered over as if they didn't exist. The more intense politics becomes, the more serious this issue is likely to be.


[edit on 4-8-2010 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by Alchy


Thank you for the fantastic contribution, your video showing Hitler's artwork is wonderful, and thought provoking.

Sometimes I like to imagine that there is perhaps a "providential" element operative in human affairs, and in regards to Hitler's artwork, I'm inclined to think that it could be what's needed, one day, to allow humanity to look beyond Hitler's apparent inhumanity.

As ipsedixit has said, there is still more to this story, not just of Hitler, but of Nazism, and fascism too, which is not yet done, even in our era.

No, I don't think that we need to look at Hitler's artistic talents, and conclude he was something he wasn't, but the fact is, most of us who have not been so familiar with this "side" of of the man, should at least own up to some incongruous feelings, when contemplating this artwork.

What I'm getting at is the fact that most of us have this "picture" of Hitler, derived from the history we learned, and in our imaginations, he is a most unpleasant fellow. In fact, he is just a man, with many facets making up who he was, and more importantly, why he did the things he did.

And yet, I can't help but thinking that these are exactly the kinds of musings that would get squashed by the modern "thought police", in favor of maintaining the old terrible image, so one-sided, regardless of the truth.

Shouldn't we be able to imagine some legitimate scholarly interest here, as politically incorrect as it may be?

After all, Hitler is part of history, none of us has a choice in the matter. There is clearly more to him than meets the eye, and if historians were allowed to simply explore things at will, without the fear of being ridiculed, professionally sanctioned, or worse, even jailed, who knows what we might learn about our "real" history?

Perhaps it wouldn't even matter one way or the other, but there is yet that haunting proverb, about those doomed to repeat history...

JR

PS: I think your English is just fine!

reply to post by JR MacBeth


I've never seen these paintings before , I knew hitler dabbled in art , from learning about him in history and some documentries , however I had no idea he was so talented with the arts.

it would certainly be telling to find out the time period these were painted over, it would certainly be jey to his psyche .

People who are deeply troubled by dark thoughts wouldnt normally paint , scenic pictures of rural austria or germany , they would be dark and foreboding images of depression , horror , anger and blind rage.

there is definetely something more to the events and accepted history of WW2

we need a better understanding and insight into the truth

so who was the better painter, churchill or hitler ?

seams quite ironic that both painted landscapes which they then destroyed...

Holocaust? Jews aren't that poor. They are liars!!! I mean do you really believe that 6 million of them died during the second world war? umm go and check the facts. Besides other people died too , not just the jews.

Originally posted by Crimson_King

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
You say that writing a scholarly opinion about the real number will get you in jail if you don't write 6 million? Then please provide me with a case.

I provided one case above I will provide you of more cases, do a search for them:
1. Ernest Zundel
2. Sylvia Stolz
3. Dr. Fred Toben
4. Wolfgang Frohlich
You can start with these, I hope they are enough to occupy you for sometime.

What... Are you kidding me? Neither of those 4 qualify for having made "scholarly opinions". A "scholarly opinion" is formed by objective processes, goes through peer review and is open to critical inquiry. I'm sorry but even a very quick search on google will bring you to any number of papers that deal with an criticise the flaws in the arguments of those people. Are you honestly suggesting that these names represent legitimate scholarly research into the Holocaust? How come they don't work for univesities? How come they don't have grants? Why can't they publish their findings in a peer-reviewd journal?
I guess your answer is: "Because the jews run the universities ".... Being a historian myself, I can only laugh at that. I'll give you a hint for the future... Whenever a "researcher" or "historian" writes a book titled "why we loved Hitler and why we were right" and then goes on to claim to have an objective stance on things... Be a bit skeptic. Zundel was a propagandist long before he claimed to be a "Historian" ...

My challenge still stands: Show me one scholarly paper (that means written by a scholar under a grant, in a reputable publication (including peer-review) that is based on the scientific method and that was indicted under the Holocaust-Denier-Laws. Seems no one can.

The rest is pretty much off topic. I could spend the rest of the hour with pointing out why none of the 4 you mentions even qualifies under the description I gave--- But that sounds like just as much fun like trying to tell Kirk Cameron why the words "Banana" and "Evolutionist nightmare" don't go that well together... I'm just not up for it. Not everyone that writes a book is a scholar. THe scientific method is the only way to produce reproducable arguments and therefore is the only objective path of investigation to a historian....

Originally posted by Crimson_King

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
If you come up with a reasonable, scholarly argument based on sources that there were only 4 million jews killed by the Nazis then you won't be prosecuted. If all you do is claim that the Holocaust is a hoax, then you will be prosectued.

Please do let this author know what you claim is to be true, I don't think he will agree with you.

Uhm... your example is Ernst Zundel?

- He is neither reasonable ( He was a Holocaust denier before he claimed to be a researcher)

- Nor is he a scholar ( NO title, No grant, no peer review, no opening of sources)

- He is not revising the numbers; his position is that there was no mass killings of jews at all.

I think you misread my post. My challenge was to name one serious scholar that has forwarded a serious, peer-reviewed scholarly opinion on the question of Jews killed by the Nazis and that has come up with a different number than the "exact 6 million" and subsequently was indicted?

There's simply no such case in Germany.

I never claimed that publishing books that say "the Holocaust is a hoax" wouldn't get you indicted. I claimed that not once was a scholar indicted under these laws for simple research. If Zundel was interested in and would adhere to the scientific method he would never have gotten indicted. But he's neither a scholar nor a historian so this is not an example that refutes my claim.

As I said.. For the rest... I don't delve into that discussion -... Hope that cleared it up

reply to post by JR MacBeth

It is hard for us now to understand the hatred felt for Hitler and the Nazis by the generation that suffered his persecutions and had to go to war to stop his criminal rampage. When I was at university studying English in the late 1960's early '70s, I took a course in Modern Poetry and was surprised that Ezra Pound was not on the curriculum.

Pound was a Fascist fellow traveller, who espoused the economic theories of Social Credit, hated usury and, not coincidentally, might be regarded as an anti-semite. He also made radio broadcasts of a cultural nature for the government of Benito Mussolini during the war. After the war, only the strong intervention of famous artists and academics prevented him from being severely punished as a traitor to the United States.

Instead, he did time in St. Elizabeth's Hospital, a mental institution. After his release he got on a boat and went right back to Italy, not without giving the fascist salute to the skyline of New York as the boat left the harbour.

All of that weighed heavily against any possibility of his being included in the poetry curriculum of our English Department.

The fact that he had been one of the greatest poets in english of the twentieth century was of secondary and lesser importance.

People today do not realize what a titanic struggle WW2 was and how close Germany came to winning it. People had every right to hate the man who symbolized for them, more than anyone else, the destruction and death of that time. The loss of something we take for granted today, our own individual peaceful lives.

But time has past. It is important for the generations that follow the "greatest generation" to know the real truth as much as possible, even if it differs from hitherto "received" opinions and judgements. Only knowing the truth will prevent a repetition of the mistakes of the past.

Turning Hitler into a cardboard demon in our minds is a big mistake. It will blind us to the rising "Hitlers" in our midst.

reply to post by ipsedixit

Only knowing the truth will prevent a repetition of the mistakes of the past.

Turning Hitler into a cardboard demon in our minds is a big mistake. It will blind us to the rising "Hitlers" in our midst.

I couldn't agree more. There is a serious risk in repeating an unpleasant part of our history, simply because we are being deprived of the complete picture.

The cardboard demon as you put it, of course we might recognize him. But while we were looking for the little mustache, perhaps a "smiley face" variety could rear it's head, and we would be ill-equipped to see any similarities.

A better understanding of the appeal fascism has, is as important today as ever. This I know from conversations with others, from participating in other threads, where people step forth, and still boldly advocate fascism. Often these are the same people who "religiously", if I may use the term, hold to every facet of the official stories. Perhaps they expect a benevolent dictator today, one who is much more modern, and who will get unruly humanity under control somehow, without having to resort to "harsh" methods...but somehow I doubt such a thing is possible.

We need to learn more, before we begin marching down the same path. Because it may indeed turn ugly at some point.

JR

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Imagine that!

I know of the bankers in the Bush family financing the Nazis but not IBM or GM.

Whoa!

Makes you wonder what IBM and GM are financing today doesn't it?

Can anyone highlight which corporations financed the Nazis?

The person who has most highlighted the US and British corporations that financed Hitler is Antony C. Sutton in his incredible book "Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler".

Here is the review on the back cover...

Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler makes every previous book on World War II obsolete.

Finally, a ditinguished scholar has penetrated the cloak of falsehood, deception, and duplicity that for more than thirty years has protected one of the most incredible secrets of World War II: the support from key Wall Street financiers and other international bankers in subsidizing Hitler's rise to power.

Professor Antony C. Sutton proves that World War II was not only well planned, it was extremely profitable - for a select group of financial insiders. Carefully tracing this closely guarded secret through original documents and eyewitness accounts, Sutton documents the roles played by J.P. Morgan, T.W. Lamont, the Rockefeller interests, General Electric Company, Standard Oil, National City Bank, Chase and Manhattan Banks, Kuhn, Loeb and Company, and scores of other business elitists.

The book can be read here...

www.vho.org...

Though not mentioned above, the Ford Motor Company was an early and ardent supporter of Hitler. Hitler had a portrait of Henry Ford hanging on the wall behind his desk. Henry Ford was also a big fan of Hitler. Ford also made profits from both sides of the battlefield.

Read this amazing story in detail in Robert Lacey's book " FORD The men and the machine "

Be prepared to be shocked


[edit on 11-8-2010 by aethron]

[edit on 11-8-2010 by aethron]

reply to post by aethron


I'd be careful with recommending that books by Sutton. I personally know that at least one source he uses in that book has been proven to be hoax years before he even published it. Although that only concerns one chapter - Sutton does have this deplorable tendency to publish known Hoaxes... Be that the Sassoon papers (hoax) in "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution" as well as the "Sydney Warburg hoax" in "Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler".

Ford and GM, of course, have undoubtedly cotributed to the Nazis. In fact, Ford is supposed to have financed far right-parties even before Hitler came onto the scene. There is testimony to this fact in Hitler's trial of 1924 - although there's been some speculation about the accuracy of that claim.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

posted in error

[edit on Mon Aug 23 2010 by DontTreadOnMe]