It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hitler 'had Jewish and African roots', DNA tests show

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


Actually you haven't done much to prove your case; in fact you are in no better position to acquire the actual documentation that supports your conclusion than anyone else.

Why? Because many of these things were being sanitized from the moment they transpired.

Russians, Americans, English, French, Germans etc. et al have carved up little slices of what was Nazi Germany in ways that suited their post war propaganda positions.

Documents, surviving personnel, physical structures, all have been selectively destroyed, altered, or whisked out of the public eye to paint a picture that yes, you know very well.

Anyone can learn to be a parrot and mimic things that they are taught through educational programs.

Program being the key word, like one programs a computer, one can also program a human, it's all about the information that you feed them and program into them, and the elites have known this for thousands of years.

Yes you are programmed very well, besides earning a star on your forehead for accepting everything hook line and sinker, I see no 'winning' virtue in it.

Not much point in debating someone who has a closed mind.

Not much point in trying to pretend you can meet the evidentiary standards of someone with a close mind that requires a level of proof that has long ago been wiped away.

In the conspiracy world everything is about motive and opportunity, conjecture and then hunting down the evidence that hasn't been destroyed, to look for the information that you weren't programmed with.

Much of that evidence will be purely circumstantial.

Just a difference circumstance than victors with guns, deciding what relevant information you can know, in order to get you to support political policies and a military industrial complex that's long been used to solve problems in a barbaric way, that some people then later like to pretend their justifications for that are some exercise in intellectualism.

The long and short of it, is as long as people have questions and doubts they should continue to look for answers and explanations to fill in those doubts.

Even amongst the official stories as they are told by the various powers, there are huge discrepancies; you are satisfied with your sources for history.

Other’s aren’t, they most frightening thing is not about who might be right or wrong, but that a very large segment of people would resort to anything to prevent people from asking questions or digging at all.

Pretty simple, enjoy that ‘victory’ in your mind, sadly to proclaim it, is an admission of being blind.




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


Actually you haven't done much to prove your case; in fact you are in no better position to acquire the actual documentation that supports your conclusion than anyone else.



Hogwash. As I have shown, all of the documents that you have invoked are still around - and we know from people who looked at them back then that it's the same thing.

What is missing? His Taufschein isn't. His Father's Taufschein isn't.




Why? Because many of these things were being sanitized from the moment they transpired.



Uhm. Can you please give me the name and approximate date of the people who did this? How can they have sanitized something when the originals we still possess today conform with what the people saw 80 years ago?

Come on.




Russians, Americans, English, French, Germans etc. et al have carved up little slices of what was Nazi Germany in ways that suited their post war propaganda positions.



Maybe so - but Hitlers Taufschein is not among them. It was never stolen, it never went missing.

Again you try to counter a specific argument by making broad-brushed claims.




Documents, surviving personnel, physical structures, all have been selectively destroyed, altered, or whisked out of the public eye to paint a picture that yes, you know very well.


Given that this is true - you wouldn't know about it now, would you?

This doesn't matter as Hitlers Taufschein was never stolen.





Anyone can learn to be a parrot and mimic things that they are taught through educational programs.


Who is parrotting here? You seem to be the parrot.

I have invested money, time and effort to see for myself where the claim originated that Hitler is a Rothschild. Since I have done so I find myself to be quite competent to counter people who clearly haven't done so.




Program being the key word, like one programs a computer, one can also program a human, it's all about the information that you feed them and program into them, and the elites have known this for thousands of years.



Ah. But only Protoplasmic traveller, since he is so unique, could free himself of his programming to come to ATS and enlighten the world. Come one, haven't you got another spiel - one that hasn't been tried over and over and over?



Yes you are programmed very well, besides earning a star on your forehead for accepting everything hook line and sinker, I see no 'winning' virtue in it.


Wait a minute. You're the one claiming (uncritically, parrotting) that HItlers "birth certificate" was stolen because someone told you so - I went and checked that claim and showed you that it isn't so.

Who's programmed? The one who actually checks the BS that he is told or the one who simply spreads it? My money is not on the latter.




Not much point in debating someone who has a closed mind.



Not much point in debating someone who can not back up his claims.




Not much point in trying to pretend you can meet the evidentiary standards of someone with a close mind that requires a level of proof that has long ago been wiped away.



Ah. So mere speculation trumps history based on sources - as long as it fits your pre-conceived view of the world, that is.




In the conspiracy world everything is about motive and opportunity, conjecture and then hunting down the evidence that hasn't been destroyed, to look for the information that you weren't programmed with.



If it would have been destroyed and you know about it - you could cite me the source that documents said destruction. If - as you do - you fail to produce that I'm left with the following options i) you are simply making up BS ii) you're the only one who really got history right, but there's no way to review the process by which you came to your conclusions.

Well, it's not a hard choice.




Much of that evidence will be purely circumstantial.



But it still comes from documents as history deals with nothing else.




Just a difference circumstance than victors with guns, deciding what relevant information you can know, in order to get you to support political policies and a military industrial complex that's long been used to solve problems in a barbaric way, that some people then later like to pretend their justifications for that are some exercise in intellectualism.


So actually knowing that many of the myths about Hitler originate in the 1950's somehow makes me part of a conspiracy to support a military industrial complex?

Yeah, because I'm so supportive of Empire and everything just because I prefer source-based history to mere speculation. Right.




The long and short of it, is as long as people have questions and doubts they should continue to look for answers and explanations to fill in those doubts.



Yes - and by peer-review we determine if these answes and explanations are plausible to more than one man's logic - that's why we need to be able to reproduce our lines of thought and can't just make bold assertions.




Even amongst the official stories as they are told by the various powers, there are huge discrepancies; you are satisfied with your sources for history.


When it comes to the question of Hitlers ancestry then I am quite satisfied with the sources. The Rothschild version is the most implausible, as I have demonstrated. If it were true Austria would never have been annexed.

And BTW - when it comes to Hitlers origins, there is no "official story". In history there never is such thing as an "official story". History is constant flux and constant revision in light of new sources.




Other’s aren’t, they most frightening thing is not about who might be right or wrong, but that a very large segment of people would resort to anything to prevent people from asking questions or digging at all.


I haven't prevented anyone from anything. I just showed you that you have no basis for the bold claims you make - sorry if that upsets you. But assigning the straw-man position of "debate supresser" to me won't help you - as anyone can see I'm fairly interested to debate the details.



Pretty simple, enjoy that ‘victory’ in your mind, sadly to proclaim it, is an admission of being blind.


Well, taking your defitinion of being "blind" and "asleep", I am quite happy to fit the description. In your books this just means "being anyone who doesn't swallow my BS" - a title I'm proud to wear.

Now - If you have further proof of Hitler being Jewish - let's discuss that... If not .. Let's leave it at that, ok - since 90% of the stuff you post an I answer to have nothing to do with this thread. I'll be happy to discuss my so called blindness and your impressive superiority in the appropriate place.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 





Hogwash. As I have shown, all of the documents that you have invoked are still around - and we know from people who looked at them back then that it's the same thing.

What is missing? His Taufschein isn't. His Father's Taufschein isn't.


Really are those the only things I mentioned? Have you seen the documents you are referring to? Have you independently verified their authenticity?




Uhm. Can you please give me the name and approximate date of the people who did this? How can they have sanitized something when the originals we still possess today conform with what the people saw 80 years ago?

Come on.




Wow evidently you aren't too up on what transpired in Germany in the immediate aftermath of the war?

How do you know they are originals?

Who exactly are the "we" that possess them?

Which herd are you proposing 'we' join or are a part of today?

Think for yourself ever at all?




Maybe so - but Hitlers Taufschein is not among them. It was never stolen, it never went missing.

Again you try to counter a specific argument by making broad-brushed claims.




Really were you there have you ever seen it? The actual document and had it forensically tested for authenticity?

Lot's of bold claims from a third party removed, with no actual access.




Given that this is true - you wouldn't know about it now, would you?

This doesn't matter as Hitlers Taufschein was never stolen.



I think thou doest protest too much!




Who is parrotting here? You seem to be the parrot.

I have invested money, time and effort to see for myself where the claim originated that Hitler is a Rothschild. Since I have done so I find myself to be quite competent to counter people who clearly haven't done so.



Really says who, evidence and sources please, reciepts, notes, travel records, brick and mortar locations you have visited.

Unsubtantiated claims and heresay are not interesting to me.

In fact posts about how 'smart' people think they are, and how 'right' they claim to be never do.

All you are asking me to do is parrot you!




Ah. But only Protoplasmic traveller, since he is so unique, could free himself of his programming to come to ATS and enlighten the world. Come one, haven't you got another spiel - one that hasn't been tried over and over and over?


So after having presented no evidence to support your claims, assail the plaintiff, the person asking those nagging probing pesky questions?

Outstanding. Take your argument down another notch why don't you?






Wait a minute. You're the one claiming (uncritically, parrotting) that HItlers "birth certificate" was stolen because someone told you so - I went and checked that claim and showed you that it isn't so.

Who's programmed? The one who actually checks the BS that he is told or the one who simply spreads it? My money is not on the latter.



So you imagine, you simply found a source to validate your own political stance, pretending it is an academic one is rediculuous.

There are all kinds of sources of false information to reinforce the dogmas and lies of World War I and II.

That does not make them a credible source.

The people who have seen a badly photoshopped birth certificate of Obama's posted on a web site believe they have seen his actual birth certificate.

They haven't. But they love to imagine they have.




Not much point in debating someone who can not back up his claims.


Which is why I responded to you with humor. There is no point in debating someone who has no credible sources, and you have NO credible sources.




Ah. So mere speculation trumps history based on sources - as long as it fits your pre-conceived view of the world, that is.


So you admit that perspectives can be manipulated through the skillful presentation of selective evidence do you?

It's about who had motive and opportunity, not a world view, it's about a relentless pursuit of the truth, in a world, where often the truth is the opposite of what we are told or made or allowed to see.




If it would have been destroyed and you know about it - you could cite me the source that documents said destruction. If - as you do - you fail to produce that I'm left with the following options i) you are simply making up BS ii) you're the only one who really got history right, but there's no way to review the process by which you came to your conclusions.

Well, it's not a hard choice.


Not a hard choice at all for people who believe everything they are told.

I love those three little monkeys what where their names again? See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

You haven't provided one definitive source for anything you are claiming.

They are just sources that satisfy your own level of ability to questions things.




But it still comes from documents as history deals with nothing else.


Documents are as easy to forge as they are to destroy.

Ask any old spy you happen to see.




So actually knowing that many of the myths about Hitler originate in the 1950's somehow makes me part of a conspiracy to support a military industrial complex?


Glad to see you admit that!




Yeah, because I'm so supportive of Empire and everything just because I prefer source-based history to mere speculation. Right.


Consider the source, the sources is THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!

DUH.




Yes - and by peer-review we determine if these answes and explanations are plausible to more than one man's logic - that's why we need to be able to reproduce our lines of thought and can't just make bold assertions.


You should learn to speak for yourself, and stop attempting to govern others.




When it comes to the question of Hitlers ancestry then I am quite satisfied with the sources. The Rothschild version is the most implausible, as I have demonstrated. If it were true Austria would never have been annexed.


That's nice, too bad where the powers that be are concerned they manage to shape the definition of what is implausible.

Oh a military strategist now too!

The Powers that be never have a thing to fear with wind up dolls on their side that will parrot what they are told.




And BTW - when it comes to Hitlers origins, there is no "official story". In history there never is such thing as an "official story". History is constant flux and constant revision in light of new sources.


So you admit your version is just a story!




I haven't prevented anyone from anything. I just showed you that you have no basis for the bold claims you make - sorry if that upsets you. But assigning the straw-man position of "debate supresser" to me won't help you - as anyone can see I'm fairly interested to debate the details.


Actually read your posts you are the one upset when people have inquisitive minds that don't arrive at the conclusions you want them too.




Well, taking your defitinion of being "blind" and "asleep", I am quite happy to fit the description. In your books this just means "being anyone who doesn't swallow my BS" - a title I'm proud to wear.


I am not selling absolutes, I am selling the notion that it's always wise to continue to investigate.

Your argument is all about focusing in on one narrow point of focus to deflect.

But once again, nice to see the admission, perhaps there is hope for all one day!




Now - If you have further proof of Hitler being Jewish - let's discuss that... If not .. Let's leave it at that, ok - since 90% of the stuff you post an I answer to have nothing to do with this thread. I'll be happy to discuss my so called blindness and your impressive superiority in the appropriate place.


Well if you knew anything about the Judaen religion that would help since no his Rothschild Grandfather does not make Hitler Jewish just a Rothschild.

The mother must be Jewish for the child to be Jewish, it does not matter if the father is.

Do you always get this confused when people talk about other aspects other than the ones you have been programed with?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Before this ends in a complete pissing match - can we stay on topic?

Isn't it your claim that Hitler was a Rothschild? Would you want to start over and present what makes you think that this is the case? I'll be happy to counter those claims. I mean, there must be a basis for your belief that he was a Rothschild beyond that if fits your overall worldview?

And can you please show me what the hell makes you think that his "birth certificate" was stolen? (Let's just assume that you meant Taufschein with "birth certificate", not to complicate things.)

Edit: I really didn't want to portray myself as a hero or anything concerning the question. But ever since I've encountered the claim of Hitler was a Rothschild as a teen ( I think it was Icke claiming it back then) I have followed the question thoroughly and as systematically as possible.

What I have done is the following: I traced the origin of the claim through the footnotes and then bought those books. So all I'm saying is that I am in possession of the first source making the claim publicly - arguably the basis on which all the internet rumour about him being a Rothschild is based - and determined their worth.

I'm not gonna repeat this here as I commented on the plausibility of those 2 books in the very beginning of this thread. If you have an additional source, or a direct criticism of my views on those books, please provide it.

But if the argument is that "no one can know for sure" because "all the documents are missing or forged" then I don't see the merit in debating you, since by definition then you are the only one to know as you can arbitrarily dismiss sources to your pleasing. I'm not interested in getting rund-downs of your world view - I'm interested in the factual truth of the matter that can be established by sources. The same people looking at the same source usually do come to the same conclusions, or almost, at least - that's the beauty of science - we can analyze the sources and then decide if any given interpretation is justifyied. Of course, if we dismiss souces as a basis for forming opinions, then were left with nothing but your gospel - something I'm not really interested in.


[edit on 26-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 26-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


Actually endless World War II documentaries on Hitler present the Birth Certificate controversy. You can see those on Networks like the History and Discovery Channel.

These are the documentaries that tend to be the official version of people's history.

So if documentaries by such organizations as Time/Life report what you insist are distortions how many other distortions are they then reporting?

The case for Hitler having Rotschild blood is circumstantial yet compelling, because of who ended up funding Hitler and the Third Reich.

Harriman through Prescott Bush operating as a bagman through Thyssen is well documented.

Harriman represented Rothschild wealth in America and that's well documented too.

Now this financing through Harriman with Prescott Bush as the bagman continued all the way up till 1942, when Congress put an end to it.

That's a matter of Congressional Record not speculation.

In other words years after Hitler's public stance on the Jews and Communists Hitler was still recieving Rothschild money, through Harriman and Bush.

No few people are going to piece a conclusive case to prove these things, simply because the records are divided between States, and those are the surviving records, and the only people who might know the full extent of it are the descendants of those people who played a hand in it that are no longer alive today.

In other words neither you nor I, have access to the level of sources we would need to prove or disprove this, and if true, those sources would have been sanitized long ago to protect what are some of the wealthiest people in the world.

There are still documents pertaining to World War II that are rumored to implicate the British Royals and other nobles in England sealed under National Security Provisions.

There are still documents pertaining to World War II that are rumored to further implicate American Oligarchs that are sealed to this day for National Security Reasons.

There is no denying Hitler conquered Europe using General Motors and Ford Trucks and fueled them at Esso/Standard Oil/Rockefeller Gas Stations often along the way.

There is no denying substantial investments of Wall Street money in the Nazi Party as well as the fascists in Italy.

War is a lucrative sport for the elites, and simply an emotional exercise for the masses.

We likely will never know the whole truth, or precise truth.

There are no facts, just shaped opinions.

Once again look at motive and opportunity and who benefited and who benefited the most in the long run, to see whom amongst the elite would have stood to gain.

Follow the money.

Personally I do believe that Hitler was not an aboration, but a carefully cultivated persona and not one of simply his own making.

Scapegoating Hitler as entirely a product of himself does serve a lot of people with at the very least financial ties to him.

Why did they select him to invest in, when you see how close the Rothschild family MAY have been involved from the beginning, through his grandmother FACTUALLY being in their employ, and then realize that Rothschild Money continued to flow to him through American cutouts well past the point a World War was waging, yes you have some very compelling circumstantial evidence to ponder.

When you consider that circumstantial evidence does reflect poorly on what is reputed to be the world's wealthiest family, they certainly do have ever means and ability and reason to try to dissociate them selves from that.

All I am saying is trust these official stories at your own risk.

Today Israel has managed to through it's very presence create the pretext for inflating the price of oil worldwide to obscene levels making the oil companies the most profitible ventures ever known to man, despite the fact that oil is in fact plentiful and cheap.

Who benefited from that Rothschild and Shell, Rockefeller and Exxon, etc. etc.

Jewish immigration into Palestine in the pre-war years was never more than 10,000 people a year and some years as little as 4,000 with an everage of 7,000.

At that rate it would have taken decades to achieve a new status quo in Palestine, that could have allowed for a Jewish nation to become a reality.

It was either a manipulation of the highest and most sinister order or a true stroke of good fortune Hitler turned out to want to persecute Jews.

Bear in mind one man's misfortune is often another man's good fortune.

Who stood to benefit the most, who had motive and opportunity, and all the circumstantial evidence does not point to Hitler being is own man, or the person that had the most to benefit off of his barbarism and cruelty.

Because our only 'credible' sources of information come from the very same States and Militaries that rely on oil to run their infrastructure and war machines, the States that are home to these mega-corporations, I don't consider the source to be reliable.

That's my considered opinion and that's all I am offering or proferring, and there is no denying that offends some people, who would prefer for emotional and political reasons that people never speak of or question these things in that way.

What else you choose to read into it, is simply what you choose to read into it.

Very simple.

A mind convinced against it's own will, is a mind that remains unconvinced.

Thanks.



[edit on 26/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


Actually endless World War II documentaries on Hitler present the Birth Certificate controversy. You can see those on Networks like the History and Discovery Channel.

These are the documentaries that tend to be the official version of people's history.

So if documentaries by such organizations as Time/Life report what you insist are distortions how many other distortions are they then reporting?



I've googled "Hitler birth certificate controversy" and similiar things and it has turned up exactly zilch. I have done the same in german. I went to Jstore and searched for scholarly articles - nada.

I have already pointed out that there is no such thing as a birth certificate for Hitler. There is only a Taufschein - and that is simply not missing. It was there in 1924, it was there when Himmler sent his goons for it, it was there when Maser investigated Hitlers ancestry after World War 2. This leads me to believe that it is not missing - if you insist it is please give me something to base that belief on. Surely you're not just saying this without having read it somewhere?

And can you please give me a link to the time/life "official" story where it is mentioned that there is a controversy about his birth certificate? Thank you - I can't seem to find any reference to it.




The case for Hitler having Rotschild blood is circumstantial yet compelling, because of who ended up funding Hitler and the Third Reich.


So you have connected Vögler and Hugenberg to the Rothschilds? Please show.

But anyway - do I understand your correctly you say:

Premise: Hitler was funded by the Rothschilds
Conclusion: Therefore it is plausible that he was a family member

If this is your argument - well, I'm not convinced. First I don't think the premise is necessarily true and even if it were these contributions are miniscule compared to the NSDAP's main bulk of income.




Harriman through Prescott Bush operating as a bagman through Thyssen is well documented.
Harriman represented Rothschild wealth in America and that's well documented too.


I agree with the first part - but "bagman" is not a realistic description. UBC made money out of their deals, SO was protecting their business interest - yes, in the end, the deal was tilted to the germans favour. But such business deals where both profit seem marginal when compared to the large " no deal involved - no questions asked" contributions that the party extracted from their base and the traditional german elite.




In other words years after Hitler's public stance on the Jews and Communists Hitler was still recieving Rothschild money, through Harriman and Bush.


Have you ever compared the amount of money infused into Nazi Germany this way with the total of Nazi war investment? Maybe you should. On the hand were talking millions - on the other we're talking hundreds of billions. This does seem quite important because the logic you apply is basically "whoever pays them, get to order them what to do" - so you have other groups besides the Rothschilds - groups that would never trust even a cent in Jewish hands - contributing funds to the Nazis which are larger by a factor of at least 100 or so. So it seems it wasn't the Rotschilds in control when your sole measure of that is who paid how much to whom....




No few people are going to piece a conclusive case to prove these things, simply because the records are divided between States,


I'm sufficintly convinced of the Harriman-Bush story you refered to above. I've read tons of literature on it - yes, there is less published about this than say German industrial contributions - but that's largely because compared to those the American aspect seems quite small.



In other words neither you nor I, have access to the level of sources we would need to prove or disprove this,


Harriman-Bush is proven. This thread is about Hitlers ancestry - finding a confession of Bush and Harriman to be Rotschild agents would not necessarily confirm Hitlers Rothschild ancestry as I have pointed out above.



There are still documents pertaining to World War II that are rumored to implicate the British Royals and other nobles in England sealed under National Security Provisions.


That there was quite the astonishing amount of American and British fascists and that further disclosure of documents would help clear the picture is not in dispute. That such documents would prove Hitlers supposed Jewishness, is, though.



There is no denying Hitler conquered Europe using General Motors and Ford Trucks and fueled them at Esso/Standard Oil/Rockefeller Gas Stations often along the way.


I think that is a very black and white view - yes there were GM factories and Ford engines.... But how does this prove Hitlers Jewishness?



There is no denying substantial investments of Wall Street money in the Nazi Party as well as the fascists in Italy.


Of course - these people had a hard on for fascists and if it weren't for Semdley Butler's honour they would have created an American branch of Fascism too - well they did, but I mean an official one who doesn't mind being named as such.




War is a lucrative sport for the elites, and simply an emotional exercise for the masses.


Generelly, there is more money to be made in peace, especially for investors. But for the right kind of people, of course, war is very lucrative - a motive that would trump any supposed familial or religious affiliation that you seem to view as the main motive.



Follow the money.

Many people did. If you do that you'll end up with allot of völkisch Racist idiots for the majority of funds and a small but wealthy set of international fascists such as Bush and co.




Personally I do believe that Hitler was not an aboration, but a carefully cultivated persona and not one of simply his own making.


If that's your opinion you should be able to point out who cultivated him, shouldn't you? Who was the Rothschild's man to give him a run-down of their agenda?



Scapegoating Hitler as entirely a product of himself does serve a lot of people with at the very least financial ties to him.


Believing that there is not enough evidence to accept a "Jewish grandfather" is not scapegoating him.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 





Why did they select him to invest in,


There's tons of reasons short of inventing a family tie. (Love for Fascism - lucrative business deal - uncritical anti-communism; i.e. willing to use the Devil to fight Belzebub, a false sense of modernity .-.. I could go on and on. There's plenty of reasons and they have been discussed extensively.



when you see how close the Rothschild family MAY have been involved from the beginning, through his grandmother FACTUALLY being in their employ,


But that is my question. What makes you think that Maria Anna Schicklgruber was in the Rothschilds employ?.

Simply writing ALL CAPS is not an argument. I wonder what this "factual" evidence is that she did.

The Austrian Empire, or at least certain parts of it like Vienna (where this allegedly took place) had compulsary registration laws for domestic workers. If she worked there why didn't Maser find her name in the registry? If her entry was removed why was there no entry missing? Why was the page for said date not ripped out? Why wasn't the registry stolen? I'm just wondering.

Additionally to these reasons I have pointed out more circumstancial evidence why it is unlikely on page 2 or 3 - you haven't a dressed that. (Waldviertel Subjects were not likely candidates as domestic workers, Schicklgruber was 40+ when Salomon Rothschild was known to only employ "very young girls" since he prefered to sleep with that type, etc. etc....




and then realize that Rothschild Money continued to flow to him through American cutouts well past the point a World War was waging, yes you have some very compelling circumstantial evidence to ponder.


The UBC channel was closed in 1942 although the perps didn't pay fines and kept their profits - the moenyflow stopped.

The SO/IG deal for withholding the patent was disregarded in 1942 by SO and "patriotic" (lol) as they were they provided it to the US gov.

But again - considering how triffle the amount of American funds flowing in to Germany by that time are when compared to the amounts extracted from occupied territories, Jews and minorities it's quite hard to keep up the argument that these funds were of fundamental consequence.




All I am saying is trust these official stories at your own risk.


Dude, you're using the same sources as I am. There's only so much sources to go with. Considering a source does not equate uncritically believing it.




It was either a manipulation of the highest and most sinister order or a true stroke of good fortune Hitler turned out to want to persecute Jews.


Manipulation by whom? We know who hung around the Führer.... Who of them manipulated them?

I find the sources speak for themselves in establishing Hitler as one of the most independat political minds in world history.




Because our only 'credible' sources of information come from the very same States and Militaries that rely on oil to run their infrastructure and war machines, the States that are home to these mega-corporations, I don't consider the source to be reliable.


I think you're jumping the shark here. All evidence that I have presented in this thread is: A book by Thyssen, a book by Koehler, and Masers scholarly investigation into HItlers ancestry. Neither of them are representatives of states or Militaries (well, Koehler was an Ex-Nazi turned Emigré, but anyway.

Look, writing history is extremely more boring and less sinister than you imagine. I work at a university and therefore had the luck to gain some insight into the question of how history is written. Mega-corporations, war-machines and States have very little to do with it - although undeniably there is some kind of structural bias and blind-spots in academia, the thought of it being controlled to any significant degree is just ridiculous.

And no, this is not saying that there isn't tons of hidden, mind-blowing knwoledge to be gained from yet secret and classified sources. But my point is that we base our beliefs on sources.
Either Hitler was a Rotschild or not - it comes down to that. You can present the reasons that you believe he was, and you have - but I can't help to find them insufficient to convince me.
Especially when your arguments relies on the proven lie that it is "FACTUALLY" established that Maria Anna Schicklgruber worked for Salomon Rothschild. Am I saying this is impossible? Certainly not! Am I saying this is not as probable as other versions? Yes I am. But most of all I am trying to give you all the known facts and therefore show you that to positiviely worked for Salomon Rothschild can neither be disproven nor proven with the given sources.
Since this is very similiar to your stance I just can't help to find the strong assertion that she did do so quite curious.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
LMAO,
Well ya know I'd have to say I'm not suprised, but it is sad all the Jewish that were exterminated at his command. Scientific evidence in the form of fossils have showed for awhile now that many of humans first ancestors remains were found in Africa and they begin to migrate. There where also ancient remains found in china is it homo erect us or er actus someone may know. What he did if he shares Jewish blood was hyprocracy at its best, what a shame.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


You seem obsessed with Hitler possibly being a Jew as the lynchpin that is required to prove a valid conspiracy.

It is documented that Hitler’s grandmother served briefly as a housekeeper to the Austrian Branch of the Rothschild Family.

It is RUMORED that this particular Rothschild was a notorious womanizer.

It is KNOWN that she did get pregnant while in his employ and left his employment a short time afterwards as a result.

Once again the evidence is Circumstantial, it is as impossible to prove as it is to discount. Hitler is dead, the Rothschild in question is dead, and if true this would have been a very private matter at a time handled discretely in ways that would have left little to no documentation.

Coincidental perhaps, if you believe in coincidences, which I happen to not believe in coincidences as is my right born of freewill.

Further I can appreciate English might not be your native or first language but I listed one source for the Birth Certificate controversy as being video documentaries such as Time/Life’s series on World War II that you can often find shown on the Discovery and History Channel. These are broadcast corporations in America, and I do believe History Channel has an International Channel that is broadcast in additional countries. I suggest you try Amazon.com and fall off some more money to rent some of these video documentaries to verify the validity of my very clear statement.

You may also find this in land mark widely read books like Hitler and Stalin, or the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

Google is NOT the Library of Alexandria my friend.

For someone who claims to have spent time and money researching these things, I am assuming that money was not simply an investment in a PC and your research involved other things besides Google?

Finally if you understood business, there is always a front end to a deal and a back end to a deal.

If you are focused on front end money, which is usually a much smaller profit than back end money, then you might become confused as to who really benefits the most and to what extent.

Back end money is typically points on financing, there was a huge amount of financing involved in World War I and II, it also includes maintenance contracts, most of Europe needed rebuilt in the aftermath of World War II and there was some big money to be made there as well, and it also includes royalties, like from the petroleum that has just kept going up and up and value, as well as publishing rights, to the fictions you get to learn all about in trying to comprehend what happened and why.

Yes you do want to invest as little amount as money to get a maximum return. Smart investors provide “seed” money that starts a project off that then encourages a plethora of ‘little’ and ‘small’ investors to jump in the pool and fund it to a much greater extent but with out most of the lucrative “Back End” payouts.

Conspiracies of this nature usually revolve around a ‘script’ not micro-managing the actors.

The script which is the outline of a plan designed to attain stated objections is usually formulated by the principle and initial investors.

Once those agreements are reached, no it does not require being on the telephone every day with a competent manager like Hitler you have outlined an agenda for. You give them the ball and you let them run with it, knowing in advance what the goals are.

What might be inhibiting you to more clearly see the possibilities is your own limited knowledge of how such people operate in their particular strata and circles in carrying these things out, as opposed to how you imagine you might carry them out if you were to try, from a much more diminished logistical standpoint and perception.

Yes it is likely Hitler had Rothschild blood in my opinion though from the male side of the family, and no, this would not make him Jewish.

What it would make him is an ideal candidate to keep it all in the family at the upper levels, to ensure both secrecy of and security in their investment. Once again this is how the elite prefer to do things, through their families, relatives, and those tied by blood.

There is no denying the Parisian and then the London Rothschild Families were approached by Theodore Herzl to fund the Zionist movement. It is no secret that the Parisian branch of the family turned him down, but the London branch, that branch most closely aligned with the papacy and Rome accepted it.

There is no denying the Papacies ties to Hitler either, or his Jesuit schooling, private schooling that like many things Hitler seemed to enjoy throughout his early years exceeded his father’s own wealth and likely inclination to provide.

There is no denying the Papal ties to the London Rothschild Family as they all are bestowed with Papal Titles.

There is no denying the Balfour Agreement was addressed to Lord Rothschild personally, promising land in Palestine that the British didn’t even control at the time, as a means to have their credit extended during World War I.

There is no denying the Reich bank was controlled by Max Warburg a Rothschild agent and close family friend for generations and that the Federal Reserve was controlled by his biological brother Paul Warburg and that once the Balfour Declaration was issued, the Reich Bank turned off credit to the German Republic and the Federal Reserve began issuing fresh credit to the bankrupt British and French.

That the conclusion of the First World War was then decided through financial manipulation with the highest objective being the Balfour Declaration and the subsequent bankrupting of both the United States and Germany to bring them firmly under control of the Rothschild Papal Banking Cartel.

There is no denying Rothschild funded the Jewish Colonialists to Palestine, nor most of it’s public buildings once it became a state including the Knesset.

No my friend, this is a conspiracy that victimized not just the Jews but hundreds of millions of people the world over that paid with their lives and more.

So no it doesn’t all hinge on Hitler being Jewish and it should not, not be investigated simply because some Jews find it offensive for political and emotional reasons.

There are no such things as coincidence, just well crafted stories to make people think they mean nothing.

Hitler was a Rothschild, Rothschild serves Rome, and Israel is an integral part of prophecy leading to a one world government and an apocalyptical war that sets it all up.

It’s all a manipulation of the grandest order.

A rather brilliant one I might add.

Dare to think outside of the box, and you will break free of the box.

Come on up, the air is fine.


[edit on 26/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 





It is documented that Hitler’s grandmother served briefly as a housekeeper to the Austrian Branch of the Rothschild Family



Please show me where this is documented. It is purported to be in the Dollfuss file, but the existence and contents of said files have never been proven. So please show me where this is documented outside of the mythical Dollfuss file - both Thyssen and Koehler refer to it.

Can you show me the registry entry of Anna Maria Schicklgruber as domestic servant in 1836 in Vienna? It's not there - I've cited you at least one scholar who has been there and verified it himself.

EDIT:




Once again the evidence is Circumstantial, it is as impossible to prove as it is to discount. Hitler is dead, the Rothschild in question is dead, and if true this would have been a very private matter at a time handled discretely in ways that would have left little to no documentation.



It is not impossible to prove. If Anna Maria Schicklgruber worked as a domestic servant in Vienna in 1836, she would have needed to be registered in said file. She wasn't - as a control sample: The "young girls" Salomon loved so much are in that registry - and again, he was not a "womanizer", the only thing we know about him is that he "loved young girls and therefore only employed very young girls as servants" - Anna Maria Schicklgruber was 42 at the time.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 26-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

EDit:




Further I can appreciate English might not be your native or first language but I listed one source for the Birth Certificate controversy as being video documentaries such as Time/Life’s series on World War II that you can often find shown on the Discovery and History Channel.



For the love of god couldn't you give me a link to a site that airs/ or describes the documentary within which this claim is discussed? I can't find it.

I just find it curious because it's like more than 10 years that I've been looking into this on and off and I have never in my life before heard someone claim that his Taufschein was in dispute.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


Outstanding so once again you have managed to prove my contention that no records are not easy to find that may potentially incriminate the very rich and powerful.

By the way, these sources you keep stating? I have yet to see you actually link one, and since when it is a laudable effort to NOT find something.

Hey you didn't find Gold you aren't rich congradulations!

Hey you didn't find the girl's phone number, you get no date, congradulations!

That doesn't mean there is no Gold out there, or that the girl has no number.

It just means you haven't found it.

Now impress me, and find me a source that lists every household servant the Baron ever employed!

Since you have these great records you keep alluding too, lets look at these supposed records of who the Baron did employ?

The fact of the matter is you will be hard pressed to explain away all the fortuitous things that happened to Hitler throughout his early life, and rise to power, that far exceeded both his known station in life, and his own talent.

There was a hidden hand in play, obviously, one with money, one with political power and connections that acted as a benefactor from his earliest formadive years.

Do you have an alternative theory as to who that benefactor was, someone powerful enough to see he only served six months for a five year sentence with a private secretary writing his first book for him at the same time.

Someone wealthy enough to see he was able to pursue the life of a talentless artist during the great depression?

Someone powerful enough to get him a cushy job in the rear as a staff messenger during World War I?

Someone rich enough to pay for private schooling in a class society that he was not an official member of that class?

Think about it.

Because the best suspect at this stage of the investigation is the Rothschild family!

Lot's of things came out of World War II besides Israel, the permanent Military Industrial Complex, the United Nations, the complete indebtedness of the nations of the world to the International Banking Cartel.

I think you are thinking way to small on this one.

Just because you may lack the imagination and intelligence to pull of such a conspiracy does not in fact mean the people who obviously did, did!



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


It is a fact that every domestic worker in Vienna was registred.

As for the sources - I've told their names, haven't I.

The Rothschild myth that your spreading here originated in the late 30's and was first publicly stated in the books by Koehler and "Thyssen" that I've mentioned.

Werner Maser is the one who investigated the registry in Vienna - good luck reading his stuff without being proficient in the German language. But for all cases:

Werner Masers seminal work about Hitler/Stalin myths

Edit: luckily this has been translated, as I've just been told:

English Version

I haven't used any other source for the discussion of Hitler. If you are asking for a long list of books aboutg Nazi finance, I'll be happy to do so.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 26-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 




Can you show me the registry entry of Anna Maria Schicklgruber as domestic servant in 1836 in Vienna? It's not there - I've cited you at least one scholar who has been there and verified it himself.


Actually you claimed you were that scholar.

Since when though does stating the name of a scholar and what you contend that scholar determined actually constitute anything but a sourceless story?

Your bias on this matter is clear, you are out to defend the Rothschild name, which so far you have been doing by simply insinuating the existence or better yet the lack of existence of scholars you haven't in fact named, and registries you haven't actually displayed, and reports you haven't actually displayed, other than you feel some unamed person, said they saw them.

All the while discounting how easy it is for people with obscene fortunes to buy influence and alter records.

I must say it's almost laughable that you are now prepared to paint this Rothschild in question as a pedophile "A lover of young grils" to insinuate he would not have had sexual relations with Hitler's grandmother, which you don't even believe was in his employ.

Think your arguments through much?

Evidently not!

Hitler was a Rothschild and I smell a Rothschild stooge.

Here is the deal, make the check out for 5,000,000,000.00 and I MIGHT consider a proposal to look the other way on this.

The 5,000,000,000.00 is just for an audience, to consider possibly NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.

Hitler was a Rothschild, no doubt about it, your arguments have now taken on a contradictory level of fear.




She wasn't - as a control sample: The "young girls" Salomon loved so much are in that registry - and again, he was not a "womanizer", the only thing we know about him is that he "loved young girls and therefore only employed very young girls as servants" - Anna Maria Schicklgruber was 42 at the time.


He was a pedophile who couldn't have possibly seduced an older woman who wasn't in his employ?

That's too funny!

Not as funny as my Birth Certificate, but funny!




[edit on 26/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


Laugh out loud your source is Werner Maser?




His credibility was compromised, however, when he claimed in the late 1970s to have tracked down Hitler’s illegitimate son, said to have been born of an 18-month liaison with a peasant girl.


NewYorkTimes.com

Yeah that's one heck of a researcher alright.

A author who made an entire career out of pushing Hitler myths.

Did you find those Micro Fish records from the Baron's little girl's yet?




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


You can name the Illuminati, great.
Perhaps names are nothing compared to what they do.
I'll just stay with the doing.

And they do screw a lot of maids.
Watching mass media TV PBS might help as they say so for
Hitler.

No need to go any further the Illuminati have spoken via TV.
ED: mass media TV PBS fingered Illuminati doing maid that brought Hitler.


[edit on 8/26/2010 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


Here is yet more very powerful circumstantial evidence.

Hitler's own near obsessive interest in wealthy Jews having German serving girls.


Further evidence for how highly charged the serving maid-Jewish master fantasy was in Hitler's own mind can be found in its prominence as a pornographic motif in Julius Streicher's Der Sturmer, in Hitler's peculiar ecstasy over Streicher's coverage of the Hirsch case, a celebrated 1920s trial of a Jewish master for the rape of his Aryan serving girl. And in Hitler's denunciation of Matthias Erzberger, one of the "November Criminals" (the men who signed the "stab in the back" November 1918 armistice), as "the bastard son of a Jew and a serving girl."


NewYorkTimesRonRosemblaum

Rather interesting thing for the man to fixate on.



And then, as Robert Waite has pointed out, there is the serving-girl codicil which Hitler insisted on including in the 1935 Nuremberg racial laws, a codicil that not only specifically outlawed intercourse between Jews and Aryans but also explicitly forbade Jews even to employ Aryan women under the age of forty-five in their homes. It is a bizarre legislative provision, in that it seems to have a pornographic fantasy embedded within it. It's a subversively ambiguous fantasy at that: While it seems to say that Jews could not be trusted with nubile Aryan women in their employ, the fact that the prohibition extended not just to the act of miscegenation but to the possibility of a Jewish master and Aryan maidservant being in each other's presence carries an implicit hint that the Aryan maids themselves might not be trusted. This deeply embedded distrust, or at least deeply divided view of the serving girl and her relationship to the shadowy pater incertus who may be her master, is at the heart of the enigma of Maria Schicklgruber and the fantasies projected upon the blank line on the baptismal certificate she filed in Dollersheim.


NewYorkTimesRonRosemblaum
Oh no did Prote read that right? The blank line on the baptismal certificate as to who Hitler's father's father was?

Oh dear!


No explicit eyewitness or documentary evidence has survived to support this dark view of Maria. The rumored paternity correspondence that would document the story of a liaison between Maria and a wealthy Jew she served, the "Jew from Graz" cited by Hitler's personal attorney Hans Frank in his Nuremberg memoir, has never surfaced. There is no testimony from Maria's contemporaries to indict her, to indicate she was anything other than a simple good-hearted peasant woman, even a courageous single mother who defied poverty and advancing age to bear a child without benefit of clergy or paternal support at an age, forty-two, when other peasant women might have resigned themselves to declining years of childless drudgery.


NewYorkTimesRonRosemblaum

So why was Hitler so obsessed by his Grandmother's life?


And yet there is testimony, reported testimony, from a descendent. A story about Maria, a sordid story of low, mean sexual intrigue, fraud, and blackmail that makes her out to be a cunning and deceitful anti-Semitic extortionist. It's a story we might otherwise ignore were it not for its source--a man specifically assigned by Adolf Hitler to investigate the circumstances of Maria's pregnancy, an attorney who claimed he got his seamy, disreputable portrait of Maria from a member of her own family. And yet there is testimony, reported testimony, from a descendent. A story about Maria, a sordid story of low, mean sexual intrigue, fraud, and blackmail that makes her out to be a cunning and deceitful anti-Semitic extortionist. It's a story we might otherwise ignore were it not for its source--a man specifically assigned by Adolf Hitler to investigate the circumstances of Maria's pregnancy, an attorney who claimed he got his seamy, disreputable portrait of Maria from a member of her own family. To be more precise: from Adolf Hitler himself..


NewYorkTimesRonRosemblaum

Wow from Hitler himself????

Now let's see what this researcher has to say about Maser:


"Various candidates have been suggested," Maser writes. In addition to the official nominee on the Nazi Party family tree for Hitler, Johann Georg Hiedler, and Maser's own candidate, Johann Georg's wealthier brother Johann Nepomuk Hiedler, there are "a 'Graz Jew' by the name of Frankenberger, a scion of the seigneurial house of Ottenstein, and even a Baron Rothschild of Vienna." Maser doesn't believe Adolf Hitler was a Frankenberger, an Ottenstein, or a Rothschild descendant (the latter astonishing suggestion seems to be traceable to the pre-Anschluss anti-Hitler Austrian secret police). But he has concocted an elaborate theory of rural sexual intrigue and greed over a legacy to bolster the candidacy of his man, Johann Nepomuk Hiedler.


NewYorkTimesRonRosemblaum

So in fact Maser had a compelling reason to discount Rothschild as he had his own preferred cantidate Johan Nepomuk Hiedler he favored.

This would be the Maser who was eventually discredited for pushing baseless stories he favored.

The Maser you cite as a source.

Now why is it so hard to find out more information regarding Hitler's past?


In his discussion of the controversial assertion, in a pre-execution Nuremberg memoir by Hitler's one-time private attorney Hans Frank, that Frank had uncovered evidence to support the view that the mysterious stranger/paternal grandfather of Hitler was a Jew, Jetzinger cites "this curious fact which may be interpreted as bearing out Frank's story":


Not two months after Hitler invaded Austria, in May 1938, an order was issued to the Land Registries concerned to carry out a survey of Dollersheim (Alois Hitler's birthplace) and neighbourhood with a view to their suitability as a battle training area for the Wehrmacht. In the following year the inhabitants of Dollersheim were forcibly evacuated and the village together with the surrounding countryside was blasted and withered by German artillery and infantry weapons. The birthplace of Hitler's father and the site of his grandmother's grave were alike rendered unrecognizable, and today this whole tract of what was once fertile and flourishing country is an arid desert sown with unexploded shells. But an area so closely associated with Hitler's family could not have been used for battle training without his knowledge and permission. Then why did he give it? Or did Hitler himself initiate the order for the destruction of Dollersheim out of insane hatred of his father and the desire to erase the "shame" of his Jewish blood?

While Jetzinger's account has been challenged, primarily by Werner Maser (who argues that it was the Russians who destroyed Dollersheim after 1945 to eliminate a possible future shrine for neo-Nazis), in either version the goal was the elimination of the problematic archival nexus of Hitler's origins--a sanitizing, cleansing operation designed to exterminate the rats' nest of ambiguities that had its origin there, to exterminate the possibility of hostile or empathetic explanation.


NewYorkTimesRonRosemblaum

Just like Proto said, many things have been sanitized!

Many apparently without good explanation by Hitler himself!

So there you have it Hitler's fascination with not just who his grandmother really was, but making sure the rest of the world never find out, up to and including passing a law making it illegal for any German woman under the age of 45, to serve a Jewish man!

How very, very odd!



[edit on 26/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Lol. The title of the article that you cited was " Advertise on NYTimes.com
Werner Maser, a Leading Hitler Scholar, Dies at 84 ".

Obviously making one mistakte while single-handedly digging up more documents on Hitler than all of the rest combined is not something that kills your credibility. He admitted that he jumped the gun - but if you follow the story you will see that back in the 60's it was rather plausible to believe that he had a son. In the book I linked to the story is dealt with extensively - he didn't claim Loret was Hitlers son until his death, he recanted as soon as other people brought evidence to the contrary to the light.

The last word on the controversy was only spoken 2 years ago when the Belgian journalist mentioned in the article could prove by DNA that Loret wasn't Hitlers son. By that time the story was improbable but never disproven, now it is.

Did you ever make a mistake in your life? I hope not because by your standards then you will be a complete moron for the rest of your life. Historians make mistakes - unlike revisionists they have no problem admitting it in the face of contrary evidence.


Edit:

In the Ron Rosenbaum story you linked to, everything that refers to Hans Frank is not the "Rothschild" story - Hans Frank claimed that Hitler was a descendent of a Jew named Frankenberger (sometimes Frankenreiter) from Graz, not a Rothschild from Vienna.

As to why you cite Rosenbaum - I'm quite confused - I own the book and he does not believe that HItler was a Rothschild. But yes, it is quite interesting, especially his research into how Hitler made his hometown into a large proving ground for weapons.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


Wow you must have the word LEADING confused with CREDIBLE as it seems as some are displaying that one not be Credible to get someone to buy your books and publications and pass it off as gospel.

Further I have displayed that in fact a handful of men are considered to possibly be Hitler's Grandfather, but that Credible researchers concede they will never know because of a LACK of surviving records.

Which echoes basically what I said myself, impossible to prove or disprove because of a lack of real sources.

Your source for Rothschild not being Hitler's Grandfather, is an author who's credibility is in fact in question because of FALSE claims.

One who was doing so to push an alternative theory as to who his Grandfather was, and you seem more interested in who is Grandfather wasn't as opposed to who it was.

If Miss Cleo died tomorrow her obituary would say one of America's leading telephone psychics even though she was sent to jail for fraud.

The fact of the matter is no, you can't produce the source documents that Maser 'claims' to have seen and Maser was involved in other controversies such as his theory that Russia was ready to invade Germany in 1941 and poised to do so and Hitler simply preemptively attacked the Soviet Union.

No evidence to support that but it was one of Maser's books, which very well might have just been Cold War Propoganda to suggest the Soviets couldn't be trusted, and brought down Hitler's rath on them selves.

To not see Russia as a victim of the war. It was highly controversial though.

So was Maser just sensationalizing to sell books, or was he aiding in Cold War Propoganda as a Book Author?

If so, how do we know his claims about Baron Rothschild are any better researched than his contentions that the Soviets planned to invade Germany before Hitler invaded them, and that Hitler had a illigitimite son he ultimately couldn't produce.

Finally do you really imagine the Rothschild family that owns both Rueters and the Associated press and funds authors at times, would not have possibly PAID someone like Maser to throw people off the trail?

The truth is you have made a lot of absolute statements based on the works of a highly speculative author who ended his career with his credibility tarnished.

So you read some books, congradulations, yet you don't have any research of your own to actually back up the claims you are making, you don't have the registry you are referring to, and you don't have the baptismal certificate you are referring to, nor have you ever seen them in person, you simply have a dubious researchers claim to have seen the registry, even though the whole area where it existed was raised to the ground by Hitler.

Can you even concede that these things like the Hitler Diaries that turned out to be forgeries are forgeries, just as tales of human skin lamp shades and soap made out of people also turned out to be made up stories and forgeries.

That there is an endless amount of false and incomplete history out there, much of it pushed by people looking to financially profit or push political propoganda?

If not then well?

I for one don't think you are the expert you claim to be in your mind, and I for one am not looking to sell books or profit off of my desire to know the truth.

You really have presented no evidence that discounts Baron Rothschild as being the Grandfather, and I have been saying all along no one can prove or disprove it.

This is in essence what Rosenbaum is saying that no one can prove it or disprove it and that is why I am referring to him, additionally because as someone who has tried to research records at the source, he admits freely that many of those records are gone, because Hitler did have them as well as the entire town destroyed and the people who lived there driven off.

You seem more interested in disproving it is Rothschild than proving who it actually is, so that really does illustrate either an agenda or at least a clear bias.

I believe it is Rothschild based purely on circumstantial evidence, which you have not displayed any kind of credible source to rule out, thanks.

I could be wrong, I will concede that, but it is the most sensible conclusion based on so many of the other enigmas surrounding Hitler.

If you did some research on the Bloodlines themselves you would likely come to the conclusion that yes they do sire bastard offspring that they set up into positions of power that are then well distanced from them.

One of those reputed to be William Jefferson Clinton, who's real Father is a Rockefeller.



[edit on 26/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by Studenofhistory
 


There's simply no good reason to believe that Hitler was Jewish, as is elaborated in the previous pages of this post, and - contratry to what the article makes of it - is not what the journalist mentioned in the article came to conclude from the DNA tests.
But who cares, right?


"Hitler had a Jewish grandfather" is true


[edit on 25-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]


Therefore, Hitler was in fact a Jew if you use Nazi thinking.

So explain your circular logic on how you conclude that he wasn't.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by bentai22]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Why people keep bringing the ``jew part`` in every situation even if the person in question is jewish?

Who cares what religion someone is. If he's a sick bastard, he's a sick bastard, be he christian, jewish, muslim or whatever religion.

Rothschilds are sickos, not because they are jews but because of their actions.

If they were christians or muslims wouldn't change a thing, they would be as evil.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join