You know it's not really the Nazi's...right?

a reply to: Madrusa

Can't say i have studied hitler but i would say extreme nationalism defined him. Or perhaps "a means to an end" also defined him. As scapegoating the jews and starting the biggest war in history was a means to his idea of a better Germany.

And with all the negatives of ultra liberalism and individualistic capatalism, it is a far better path than that of extreme nationalism or communism.

Unfortunately we tend to move toward extremes as human beings. And i much rather live in a country like the u.s. than Nazi Germany's oppressive vision or Stalin's communist wasteland.

a reply to: strongfp

And its probably good its being undone. Gender roles, patriotism, bias history, snd pledge of allegiance were all done through social engineering.

Now it's somewhat being undone through social engineering. A society cannot grow if it remains glued to the past. We should examine what was once the typical norms.

And of course theyll be some negative side effects, but that is far better than retrogressing into the ideologies and belief systems of the past.

a reply to: Madrusa
You've been reading to much BS sites. Hitler never ever was against bankers or masons (they are one and the same really). I would challenge anybody to find me a megalomaniac dictator that DIDN'T get backed by the banks. Don't sat Gadhafi as he was setting up his own bank.
Where monies concerned there are no enemies.
If you look you'll find films of the allies bankers (America and the UK) meeting every year with Nazi bankers all the way through the second world war in Switzerland. Yes, that's correct, while the young men of the US and the UK were dying in their thousands our bankers were sitting down with Nazi bankers drinking their champagne discussing the finances during the war and what was to happen after the war.
I wont go into how American bankers set up the finances and backed the Nazi party. Seek and ye shall find.

a reply to: crayzeed

Hitler shut down the Masons in Germany and all occupied countries which sort of suggests he was against them, with Bankers it's more complex but this is interesting on the subject, the myth that Americans funded Hitler is used to make the claim that therefore they are all Nazi's and direct attention away from what they actually represent, the midwit position you have adopted.

Debunking Funding myth

a reply to: CptGreenTea

The USA was a product of Liberalism, Capitalism and Nationalism, how long has it taken them to totally ravage and create the dystopian society upon an entire Continent?

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I know the JW leadership made overtures of we come in peace, as did the Masons, but they were still shut down

originally posted by: Madrusa

I don't think Hitler suppressing elements in Germany defined his ideology, it was a means to an end the general German public certainly not feeling oppresed and being supportive,

You might want to look up what Hitler himself said. You're on the internet.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: Madrusa
You've been reading to much BS sites. Hitler never ever was against bankers or masons (they are one and the same really).

Look up SS Section II/111, later Section VII B1 of the RSHA.

originally posted by: Madrusa
Now it is true that Hitler had a suppressive agenda against Cosmopolitan Bankers, Free Masons, Communists, advocates of sexual degeneracy and weird American cults such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, banning their activities and sending them off to the Political re-education camps such as Dachau, and so it's reasonable to state similar methodology is being used by Governments of today, however it's totally disingenous to proclaim they are therefore Nazi's when in fact they are more likely to constitute those who were formerly suppressed that won the war.

It would obviously make a lot more sense then to state that it's the Communists who employed the exact same suppresive methods and generally involving far greater death counts against cultural conservatives and ethnic-Nationalists, to state it is the Nazi's is to to claim that such groups are orchestrating their own genocide, that the victims are in fact the perpetrators, which is of course entirely a suggestion of the Globalist shill.

The more fantastical disinformation would suggest that the Nazi's actually won the second world war but of course that's the opposite of the reality and if they had what is currently occuring wouldn't be, for the midwit to believe they may have and that Globalism is the Nazi's redirects then directly away from the actual perpetrators and leaves one chasing shadows such as is common with the Q-research mindset.

It can be argued that Hitler's method of suppression against the subversive forces within Germany at the time made it easier for his enemies to propogandize against his methods and thus generate popular suppost for the war within Countires which promoted Liberal values closely linked with Free Masonry, but those preachers of tolerance have become increasing intolerant against those who mistrust their agenda, were liberalism doctrine of do what thou will became the whole of the Law, it is more the case that they are doing what they do today because they simply want to towards self-empowerement at the expense of others and are getting away with it.

How to succed, and how to suck eggs

originally posted by: Madrusa
Now it is true that Hitler had a suppressive agenda against Cosmopolitan Bankers, Free Masons, Communists, advocates of sexual degeneracy and weird American cults such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, banning their activities and sending them off to the Political re-education camps such as Dachau, and so it's reasonable to state similar methodology is being used by Governments of today, however it's totally disingenous to proclaim they are therefore Nazi's when in fact they are more likely to constitute those who were formerly suppressed that won the war.

It would obviously make a lot more sense then to state that it's the Communists who employed the exact same suppresive methods and generally involving far greater death counts against cultural conservatives and ethnic-Nationalists, to state it is the Nazi's is to to claim that such groups are orchestrating their own genocide, that the victims are in fact the perpetrators, which is of course entirely a suggestion of the Globalist shill.

The more fantastical disinformation would suggest that the Nazi's actually won the second world war but of course that's the opposite of the reality and if they had what is currently occuring wouldn't be, for the midwit to believe they may have and that Globalism is the Nazi's redirects then directly away from the actual perpetrators and leaves one chasing shadows such as is common with the Q-research mindset.

It can be argued that Hitler's method of suppression against the subversive forces within Germany at the time made it easier for his enemies to propogandize against his methods and thus generate popular suppost for the war within Countires which promoted Liberal values closely linked with Free Masonry, but those preachers of tolerance have become increasing intolerant against those who mistrust their agenda, were liberalism doctrine of do what thou will became the whole of the Law, it is more the case that they are doing what they do today because they simply want to towards self-empowerement at the expense of others and are getting away with it.

Well the same families do have a lot of involvement. Quandt, Reimann etc.