Hitler used the logic for holocaust - that it would lead to something "better" for Germany and the world - and look what happened. The same will happen to Nazi Israel.
I guess more people now realize what Iran and others mean when they deny existence of Israel as a state.
I don't think we really know what Hitler was really about; though one thing is for sure for me: I can no longer trust the Western Mainstream to be the only source for the Hitler Narrative. But unlike the Caitlin Johnstone subcategory, that doesn't compel me to be pro-Communist. I can pat my head and rub my stomach at the same time.
"I don't think we really know what Hitler was really about" - if you mean what he was thinking, well, that's true about everybody unless one believes in mind-reading. In that case it'd be interesting to listen/read those reports.
As far as your "I can no longer trust the Western Mainstream" statement - you might be surprised but there's also East. In particular, at that point in time USSR. Are you going to doubt 27 million lives lost there? What was the breakdown of those losses? How does it compare with 6 million accepted number for the chosen ones?
The Hitler Narrative is what I'm referring to. How much of it is true, how much is disinformation & misinformation, is a tangled mess that probably would require at the very least an ability to read German, Polish, Czech, French, & Russian documents from the period in question, basically the first half of the 20th century.
There are plenty books by historians now which cite documents from that era. You can read the books and follow references if you don't believe or don't agree with writers' conclusions.
It's impossible to speak of current events as it's necessarily propaganda from all sides, but once time passes and originals are available there's much less doubt as to what transpired.
I'm afraid that subject is way too complex for the normal type of investigation you describe, since most book writers on 20th century history are myopic to the problem of disinformation/misinformation in mainstream Narratives. Diana West's book on WW2 comes close to sorting out this problem, but she also reflexively assumes the Hitler Narrative is true -- which is ironic, given that she intelligently questions everything else about the broader WW2 Narrative.
What could be more normal than looking at original documents? Not believing them? Then believing what, nothing, just speculating? How would that be better and not biased?
I think you're making it more complex than it is, maybe trying to hide your sympathy for Hitler. Just come out and say so. You're not alone in that regard and it's not against the law.
Hitler was sent by the incarnate wanderer angels. He got confused here into fighting shadows and destroyed himself as per the shadow qabal s hydra plan
The difference is Hitler didn't have a Samson doctrine of taking everyone else out with him, or the distain for other countries. Despite what is taught, it was his reticence to inflict mass casualties on civilian populations (at least of England and other "civilized european" ones) that distinguished him from Churchill. Of course that changed when England and US began deliberately incinerating entire cities with firestorms.
Ukraine has been modeled after Israel. Israel has been instrumental in setting it up as its mini-me.
By openly supporting and nurturing Nazi Ukraine Israel has explicitly pronounced itself as Nazi. There's no escaping that, and just as Nazis eventually fall everywhere, same will happen to both Ukraine and Israel.
Hitler used the logic for holocaust - that it would lead to something "better" for Germany and the world - and look what happened. The same will happen to Nazi Israel.
I guess more people now realize what Iran and others mean when they deny existence of Israel as a state.
I don't think we really know what Hitler was really about; though one thing is for sure for me: I can no longer trust the Western Mainstream to be the only source for the Hitler Narrative. But unlike the Caitlin Johnstone subcategory, that doesn't compel me to be pro-Communist. I can pat my head and rub my stomach at the same time.
"I don't think we really know what Hitler was really about" - if you mean what he was thinking, well, that's true about everybody unless one believes in mind-reading. In that case it'd be interesting to listen/read those reports.
As far as your "I can no longer trust the Western Mainstream" statement - you might be surprised but there's also East. In particular, at that point in time USSR. Are you going to doubt 27 million lives lost there? What was the breakdown of those losses? How does it compare with 6 million accepted number for the chosen ones?
The Hitler Narrative is what I'm referring to. How much of it is true, how much is disinformation & misinformation, is a tangled mess that probably would require at the very least an ability to read German, Polish, Czech, French, & Russian documents from the period in question, basically the first half of the 20th century.
There are plenty books by historians now which cite documents from that era. You can read the books and follow references if you don't believe or don't agree with writers' conclusions.
It's impossible to speak of current events as it's necessarily propaganda from all sides, but once time passes and originals are available there's much less doubt as to what transpired.
I'm afraid that subject is way too complex for the normal type of investigation you describe, since most book writers on 20th century history are myopic to the problem of disinformation/misinformation in mainstream Narratives. Diana West's book on WW2 comes close to sorting out this problem, but she also reflexively assumes the Hitler Narrative is true -- which is ironic, given that she intelligently questions everything else about the broader WW2 Narrative.
What could be more normal than looking at original documents? Not believing them? Then believing what, nothing, just speculating? How would that be better and not biased?
I think you're making it more complex than it is, maybe trying to hide your sympathy for Hitler. Just come out and say so. You're not alone in that regard and it's not against the law.
Half is prob disinfo
Hitler was sent by the incarnate wanderer angels. He got confused here into fighting shadows and destroyed himself as per the shadow qabal s hydra plan
How true (last line)
The difference is Hitler didn't have a Samson doctrine of taking everyone else out with him, or the distain for other countries. Despite what is taught, it was his reticence to inflict mass casualties on civilian populations (at least of England and other "civilized european" ones) that distinguished him from Churchill. Of course that changed when England and US began deliberately incinerating entire cities with firestorms.
"Hitler didn't have a Samson doctrine" - no, he didn't. If he did, he'd use it so he's no better than current Israel.
As to his "reticence" it looks like you don't count USSR among deserving countries. Just like Hitler.
Maybe so.
As far as Russia, you should read my stack since the Ukraine conflict began. I think Russia is legitimately defending itself from neocon aggression.
Ukraine has been modeled after Israel. Israel has been instrumental in setting it up as its mini-me.
By openly supporting and nurturing Nazi Ukraine Israel has explicitly pronounced itself as Nazi. There's no escaping that, and just as Nazis eventually fall everywhere, same will happen to both Ukraine and Israel.
Khazarian mafia