The "Hitler" Speech They (Don't) Want You To Hear..!

[loungelizard]

Again, Andrew, I'm struggling to understand your point by posting this video snippet, as you don't explain your thinking.
*EDIT: you have since added another video which I have yet to see - this reply relates to the first in your post.

Posting random youtube videos without any description of the contents, or clarification about why you think it's valuable to the debate gets us nowhere: perhaps, sometime, you could come back and respond to the comments made by others about the film you posted, rather than just posting another one.

There is little information available about the film maker - said to be a Brit called Dennis Wise - but read an interview with him, in which he made the statement "I have no doubt some Jews may have been killed illegally" so that gives us a pretty unequivocal idea of his agenda.

This snippet of the film paints such a biased and perverted picture of Berlin in the 1920s that it's almost unrecognisable! The film maker seems to have an unhealthy obsession with what he sees as the sexual depravity of the time, and deliberately chooses to ignore the balanced picture.

And why does he present such a slanted, prejudiced image of a city supposedly descending into chaos? To pave the way for a portrait of the Saviour Who Was To Come…Adolf Hitler rescued Germany from the clutches of the lecherous, licentious, immoral Jews and socialists and homosexuals. Simple!

Berlin at that time was, by all reliable reports, the most amazing city. Yes, there was post war poverty and hyperinflation. Yes, there was prostitution, which has its roots in poverty and is often the path to survival rather than the lifestyle of choice. but the economy was growing rapidly, and there a sophisticated, intellectual centre of freedom, tolerance and openness free from the starchy claustrophobic restraints of the old social and political framework.

Universities allowed Jewish scholars to study for the first time
Bauhaus was born
Philosophers and sociologists formed the Frankfurt School
Vital scientific research and contributions were made in this time (Einstein being one of these)
There was an openness and acceptance of sexuality in all its forms
A flourishing "talkies" film industry
The German Expressionism movement was born
Painters, sculptors, playwrights, architects, film makers, composers thrived as part of the November Group
great interest in mysticism and astrology, and Eastern philosophies
There was fertile community of writers from many countries
Organic agriculture had a big following, led by Steiner
A rich selection of over 500 cabaret halls offering a wide range of erotic entertainment
Far from being merely a den of iniquity, there was a huge movement to introduce the idea of healthy living and self improvement (Lebensreform)
Noble prizes were awarded to nine German citizens during the Weimar Republic

The legacy of these pioneering, inquisitive people is still around today.

Or it was, as the Nazis referred to it, A Haven of Vice.

For the people of the Weimar Republic, censorship had been abolished. They were no longer suffocating under the oppression of the previous regime. Life was like nothing they had ever experienced before, and they intended to grab it by the throat and experience it as fully and as decadently and as wildly as they could.

Goebbels hated Berlin as the people never offered genuine support for the Nazi party. He could not understand the love of life running through the veins of the people of that city - he called it "a melting pot of everything that is evil". Berlin was a threat that had to be crushed and subdued through Nazi propaganda - exactly like this video - and violence.

Andrew, how much of history do you actually understand??

[Cidersomerset]

What the Nazi knew very early on was the power of propaganda , and Goebbels
set up a flourishing industry. The Brown shirts para military thugs were a vital
factor used in the cities to counter act communist worker parties and later
morphed into the SS and other unsavoury unit of the Nazi military/police arm.
Himmler expanded this after a coup within the organisation itself forcing
Rohm to shoot himself. Now you either believe history as we have be taught
or you do not , and as it is usually written by the winners and their sometimes
biased views interpretation can be everything.

Poland only came into existence after WW1 and had to stave of invasion from
Soviet Russia in 1920 and was fully aware historically of the dangers of her
neighbours from the east and west, so had a large army, but it was not
as modern as Germanys who had been frantically rearming since the mid
1930's.Poland knew Germany was going to attack her sooner or later and
pointed this out as loudly as she could, without much success so tried to
negotiate with Germany. Whos 'None aggressive' policies had already
remilitarised the Rhine land , annexed Austria and the Sudatenland
part of Czechoslovakia so Poland knew she was next, especially with Danzig
and the west Prussia issue.

Territorial changes began soon after Hitler came to power, so to say Hitler
was not aggressive is a myth, even before he started the main conflict.







What did Denmark ,Norway, Holland, Luxemburg, Belgium , Yugoslavia & Greece
have to do with ethnic German disputes ??




If there were atrocities against ethnic Germans in Poland pre 1939, they are
to be condemned, as well but we need more proof they existed to the extent
claimed. No doubt there were tensions leading up to the invasion particularly
in Danzig as Poland knew it was next on Hitlers eastward expansion plan
for 'Living space'.




http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebit...iefsrev1.shtml

[Andrew]

Germany was being suppressed way before Hitler came to power. When Hitler got into power he was voted in by most of the country democratically. Of coarse they went to extreme measures they were trying to get the country away from the clutches of the empire and bankers, Jews or whatever you want to call them. The Germans (Nazi's) knew way before they would get invaded. So they setup counter measures, they didn't want war and tried for many peace offerings which were rejected always. Everything you see going on today they did back then to Germany except Germany stood up to them and fought to the bitter end, eventually to be crushed and pretty much wiped of the planet ethnically cleansed! And the same folk are doing it today and have been all along, the people that apparently was saving Europe from Hitler took it over.

Your just not looking at both sides of the coin whats so ever, you bring up war crimes but forget about the atrocities which TBH are tenfold to what the Germans did to try and make Germany look bad, you are using propaganda in that way to subvert the truth of the situation.

[loungelizard]

Thank you for taking the time to write a reply, Andrew - it's so much better talking direct to someone rather than just seeing a video posted

Taking a look at your statements:

Posted by Andrew (here)
Germany was being suppressed

I assume you're talking about the Treaty of Versailles? Or it is something else?

Posted by Andrew (here)
they were trying to get the country away from the clutches of the empire and bankers, Jews or whatever you want to call them

Can you please explain what you mean by this? With supporting evidence and sources, not just opinions.

Posted by Andrew (here)
The Germans (Nazi's) knew way before they would get invaded.

By whom? How did they know? Again, evidence please.

Posted by Andrew (here)
So they setup counter measures

Was the first concentration camp opened in Dachau in 1933 part of their "counter measures"? Was the annexation of Czechoslovakia "counter measures"?

Posted by Andrew (here)
they didn't want war

That could be true: it is one of the discussions in which historians are constantly involved. It could have been mere opportunism and ambition - there is much debate about this point.
However, Hitler wrote of his dream in Mein Kampf - the need for Lebensraum ('living space' for the expanding Germany) in Eastern Europe and Russia. He hoped to be able to conquer Eastern Europe and use the land and resources to make Germany stronger - and he hoped that he'd be allowed to do that. Britain and France's appeasement over Hitlers invasion of Czechoslovakia perhaps led to his belief that he could then go ahead and invade Poland and get away with that too.
He announced in 1933 that Germany was to rearm (in secret), and told his military leaders that his planned date for "going to war in the east" was 1942 Richard Evans The Third Reich in Power).
Why did he annex Austria?
Why did he introduce compulsory conscription in 1936?
Why did he move troops in to the Rhineland zone in 1936?
Why did he incite Nazis in other countries such as Sudetenland to stir up violence?

He was constantly testing the water, to see how far he could push to achieve his overall vision. And to a point, he was allowed to do this - because the British and French wanted to avoid another war so much that they gave Germany Sudetenland, which made Hitler believe he could then invade Poland.

Posted by Andrew (here)
...and tried for many peace offerings which were rejected always

Again, evidence please. The only peace offering I'm aware of is in the one to Churchill in 1940, although there is a rumour that Hess travelled to Britain to offer a peace treaty in 1941, on condition that Germany be permitted to invade the Soviet Union unchallenged.

Posted by Andrew (here)
...pretty much wiped of the planet ethnically cleansed!

Who was wiped off the planet? The Nazis?

Posted by Andrew (here)
And the same folk are doing it today

For "folk", can I understand you to mean "Jews"?

Posted by Andrew (here)
...you bring up war crimes

To what are you referring here? The Shoah?

Posted by Andrew (here)
...but forget about the atrocities which TBH are tenfold to what the Germans did to try and make Germany look bad

Again, can you be specific about this accusation?

Posted by Andrew (here)
you are using propaganda in that way to subvert the truth of the situation.

What evidence do you have that I am not looking at both sides of the coin? Please present it to me. I've been studying this subject for quite some time, and have researched right across the spectrum from IHR and Codoh to USHMM and Nizor. I have also watched every video you have posted, and considered the merits of each one. I have gone to great lengths to post my thoughts - which you seem to have ignored.

Is it because I find most of the material you post is biased, revisionist and inaccurate that you accuse me of attempting to "subvert the truth?" A true historian would counter my arguments with evidence to support their conclusions and rebuff my claims, rather than throw accusations around.

So you think you know the truth of the situation, Andrew? Really? Really?
I certainly couldn't make that claim...

[Andrew]

You asked me to show evidence to one of the most controversial parts of history, evidence for the most part destroyed or covered up, you discount great historians like David Irving who has spent his whole life reviewing WW2, who have gathered plenty of evidence to paint a different picture to the official story. I admit I am not a historian and this would be one of the hardest parts of recent history to really look at it with an open mind.

You have not really shown me any evidence to discount what I have said either.

Hitler saying that an expanding peoples would eventually need more space is not conquering Europe is it? (you seem to slant things this way alot) and when Hitler annexed Austria they were happy, they were welcomed.

Here Hitlers gives his reason for going into Czechoslovakia.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=8rF7-w1qx5w

Also bare in mind the treaty of Versailles like you pointed out as to why they were secretly building up defenses and an army (these people were not stupid) and taking back land TAKEN from them.

Considering all of Germany was supporting Nazi's you could say they were all Nazi's could you not? and yes most were killed including the children... but wait Hitler was the evil guy

Now the camps and Jews, first who are the Jews? well before Israel they were just a rogue group were they not? no country no identity infact the Jew separated themselves away from everyone else saying they are Gods children and no one else is, so who are the Jews?

The camps were needed to segregate these people from the countries they were/are trying to take over according to Hitler and many others, by moving into positions of power and doing things according there plan in other peoples sovereign countries hmm why would any sovereign countries allow that?

There is ample evidence out there to support why Hitler did what he did, it's just you refuse to look at it and glaze over the OTHER evidence people (not me) who have put forward. Everything you say when you say for instance.. Hitler was going to do this and that you have ZERO evidence for because Germany was destroyed therefore anything Hitler was going to do in regards to conquering the world is an assumption is it not? During the War yes Germany went on the offensive but really they were already on the defensive to start the Jews declared War on Germany many times, don't you think they would of felt threatened?

You have not even shown real evidence for the Gas chambers (nobody has) some testimony and you expect everyone to believe that but yet you discount anything that is counter argument.

There has been so many discrepancies in the official story, there has been whole diaries forged lies told, but as time goes on the big picture becomes clearer.

Here is a 6 hour documentary showing the Nazi story not the allied version, I suggest people check it out and compare what happened then to whats happening today and you decide. Adolf Hitler The Greatest Story Never Told

Everything people have assumed to be about Hitler is turning out to be false (like everything else the lyres have lied about).

[loungelizard]

Andrew - thanks for your reply. I'm afraid i can't watch that video - I don't speak German fluently enough to be able to understand it, and the subtitles are fuzzy and illegible on my computer. Is there another version of this?

To deal with the rest of your post:

Posted by Andrew (here)
this would be one of the hardest parts of recent history to really look at it with an open mind.

No, it isn't. It is one of the best documented events in recent history - the Nazi Party was obsessive with their record keeping. In order to be a historian, you have to have an open mind. It's all about looking at evidence, drawing up theories and then testing them to see if they hold up.

Posted by Andrew (here)
Hitler saying that an expanding peoples would eventually need more space is not conquering Europe is it? (you seem to slant things this way alot) and when Hitler annexed Austria they were happy, they were welcomed.

Really? You can speak for all the people who lived in Austria in 1933? If they were so happy, why did Hitler refuse to allow a referendum to take place before he moved his troops in as he was worried the people would vote against being annexed?
And exactly how could there be more space for the German state without other countries being subsumed into Nazi Germany?

Posted by Andrew (here)
Also bare in mind the treaty of Versailles like you pointed out as to why they were secretly building up defenses and an army (these people were not stupid) and taking back land TAKEN from them.

Territorial disputes are a major cause of war and always have been. There ware those who thought Germany was punished too harshly after WW! - and there are those who considered, in the light of the devastation, that the punishment was fair. Those who lose always complain loudly about how they were victims of injustice - have you never been to a football match? LOL

Restoration of territory has been a standard feature of European war settlments for hundreds of years - rightly or wrongly, the winner takes all. Incidentally, Germany in its turn was pretty ruthless in its victory against France after the Franco-Prussian war in 1871. The difference after WW1 was that this time the colonies were handed to the League of Nations.

Posted by Andrew (here)
Considering all of Germany was supporting Nazi's you could say they were all Nazi's could you not?

Again, how do you know this? Can you really speak for the people of Germany 80 years ago? You also seem to be saying that being a German and being Nazi is the same thing.

In the election in 1933, 17 million people voted AGAINST Hitler. 12 million voted for the communists and socialists.

Hitler did much for the country of Germany - he was a brilliant politician and leader. Why wouldn't he have support in the country he had pulled out of a depression?

But don't forget: if all the population had loved him so much, what need would he have had for his feared Secret Police - the Gestapo? Hitler ruled by fear in the later years. It was a Police State. In 1936, the Gestapo Law meant that the activities of the Gestapo were free from any review by courts of law. This law effectively meant that the Gestapo became a law unto themselves.

Posted by Andrew (here)
first who are the Jews?

Now that's a whole new thread.

Posted by Andrew (here)
well before Israel they were just a rogue group were they not?

No. "Rogue" is an interesting choice of word. That is not how I would describe them.

"Rogue: a dishonest or worthless person [/QUOTE]
an individual exhibiting a chance and usually inferior biological variation"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rogue

Posted by Andrew (here)
no country no identity

Again, I am not defined by the country in which I was born. Each human being is sovereign. Each life is individual, and does not exist solely as part of a state.

You are implying here that as "these people" had no country and no identity, they were worthless. It was therefore OK for them to be eliminated.
By that logic it could be said that as they now have a state (Israel) and identity, they have worth.
Would you agree?

Posted by Andrew (here)
infect the Jew separated themselves away from everyone else

From my experience, they don't "separate themselves". And how would you know if they did? How do you spot a Jew? They don't have horns - even though some would have you belief they do LOL. In a room full of people, how do you know who is Jewish? If you see a group in the pub, huddled together in the corner, do you suspect they are Jewish?

Anyone who wants to convert to the Jewish faith can. How is that separation? We can all be different by choice: that does not mean we exclude others. 

If people chose to live among those with whom they have much in common - particularly if they have a history of persecution - why does that bother you so much? It would only bother you if you believed that they were secretly plotting evil…now, isn't there a name for that?

You can't have it both ways, Andrew. You can't blame the Jews for allegedly having so much control out there in the big wide world, and at the same time blame them for keeping themselves separate. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Posted by Andrew (here)
The camps were needed to segregate these people from the countries they were/are trying to take over according to Hitler and many others, by moving into positions of power and doing things according there plan in other peoples sovereign countries hmm why would any sovereign countries allow that?

So, Andrew, by "these people" I take it you are again referring to the Jews. Moving in to take over? The population of Jews in pre WW2 Germany was less than 1%. Less than 1%! What exactly was this tiny group going to do against the armed state of the German Nazis? How were they taking over?? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

This facile myth about "Jews taking over the world"…currently, the Jewish population is LESS THAN ONE QUARTER OF A PERCENTAGE! Some threat eh?

Oh, hang on…you're not one of those people who actually believes the Protocols are true are you?

Posted by Andrew (here)
During the War yes Germany went on the offensive but really they were already on the defensive to start the Jews declared War on Germany many times, don't you think they would of felt threatened?

No I don't - because they weren't. 1% is not a threat against 99%.

The Jews declared war on Germany? How could that be? The news story to which you referring is reporting an Economic Boycott, and came out AFTER the persecution of the Jews had begun in Germany: their businesses were shut down, and they were being put into ghettos. The report was about Jewish people abroad, especially in the United States and England, who were obviously deeply concerned about this, and held rallies, protests, etc

Unlike the Nazi party, the Jews had no arms. No tanks. No guns. No concentration camps. No political leaders. No co-ordinated plan. No state. They were just a group of ordinary individual human beings going about their daily lives. THE JEWS HAD NO COUNTRY AND NO ARMY - HOW COULD THEY POSSIBLY DECLARE WAR?

And if they had, don't you think it would have been splashed across the front cover of every newspaper throughout Europe?

Posted by Andrew (here)
You have not even shown real evidence for the Gas chambers (nobody has) some testimony and you expect everyone to believe that but yet you discount anything that is counter argument.

Please read my posts 452 and 453 on this thread in response to the video YOU posted. There is definitive proof of the existence and use of gas chambers.

Even David Irving, whom you respect, changed his mind on this subject:

British historian David Irving has pleaded guilty in a court in Vienna to charges of denying the Holocaust.

"I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz," he told the court, referring to comments he made in Austria in 1989.
On Monday, before the trial began, he told reporters: "I'm not a Holocaust denier. Obviously, I've changed my views.
"History is a constantly growing tree - the more you know, the more documents become available, the more you learn, and I have learned a lot since 1989."
Asked if he admitted the existence of the Holocaust, he replied: "I would call it the Jewish tragedy in World War II."
"Yes, there were gas chambers," he said. "Millions of Jews died, there is no question. I don't know the figures. I'm not an expert on the Holocaust."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/619619.stm

And of course, we have the testimony of RUDOLF FRANZ FERDINAND HOESS, the Commandant of Auschwitz:

"2. I have been constantly associated with the administration of concentration camps since 1934, serving at Dachau until 1938; then as Adjutant in Sachsenhausen from 1938 to 1 May, 1940, when I was appointed Commandant of Auschwitz. l commanded Auschwitz until 1 December,1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease, making a total dead of about 3,000,000.

4. Mass executions by gassing commenced during the summer 1941 and continued until fall 1944.1 personally supervised executions at Auschwitz until the first of December 1943 and know by reason of my continued duties in the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps WVHA2 that these mass executions continued as stated above. All mass executions by gassing took place under the direct order, supervision and responsibility of RSHA.31 received all orders for carrying out these mass executions directly from RSHA
The Camp Commandant at Treblinka told me that he had liquidated 80,000 in the course of one­half year. He was principally concerned with liquidating all the Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto. He used monoxide gas and I did not think that his methods were very efficient.
So when I set up the extermination building at Auschwitz, l used Cyclon B, which was a crystallized Prussic Acid which we dropped into the death chamber from a small opening.

It took from 3 to 15 minutes to kill the people in the death chamber depending upon climatic conditions. We knew when the people were dead because their screaming stopped. We usually waited about one ­half hour before we opened the doors and removed the bodies. After the bodies were removed our special commandos took off the rings and extracted the gold from the teeth of the corpses.

7. Another improvement we made over Treblinka was that we built our gas chambers to accommodate 2,000 people at one time, whereas at Treblinka their 10 gas chambers only accommodated 200 people each. "

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1946hoess.html

Posted by Andrew (here)
There is ample evidence out there to support why Hitler did what he did, it's just you refuse to look at it and glaze over the OTHER evidence people (not me) who have put forward.

Andrew, I'm wondering if your conscience is beginning to kick in here

You have clearly not done what you are preaching at me to do: to examine all sides of this event. Have you EVER considered for one moment that you could be wrong? I understand how hard that is - the implications are huge. The pain is almost unbearable when you suddenly realise that all that suffering really did happen.

There is a big difference between fighting for the truth, and fighting for the truth the way you would like it to be.

[Agape]

Posted by Andrew (here)

Hitler saying that an expanding peoples would eventually need more space is not conquering Europe is it? (you seem to slant things this way alot) and when Hitler annexed Austria they were happy, they were welcomed.

Here Hitlers gives his reason for going into Czechoslovakia.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=8rF7-w1qx5w

Czechoslovakia was virtually 'sold' to Germans by our 'allies' in Munich 1938 , in their fragile and somewhat naive hope that by giving away this piece of 'strategically important' territory global war could be avoided .

The president this country sported that time , Hacha , was very weak, puppet figure and he is remembered for that weakness to this day , being pressed down in Munich , signing the agreement and handing the country to Adolf . All by 'peaceful means' .
I believe he's abdicated shortly after German government and offices were installed here following autumn 1939/spring 1940 , unless he committed suicide , not sure about that ,

yes the propaganda by Nazi Germany was politically so strong at that time that when they arrived for the first time , people waited for them with flowers and welcome boards , some anyway .
The country was sold , politically , like many times before and many times after .

It took about 2 months to the locals to find out what kind of 'innovation' is being installed here , as 'Protektorat Bohmen und Mehren ' .

The country was practically occupied like all other territories held by Germany till the end of the war in 1945 and the rule imposed here and violence committed by the SS, the Gestapo , all their army units is hardly ever to be forgotten .


This all has very little to do with any sort of 'racial purity' in my mind, human races are one of the chief myths and excuses for committing evil on very large scale in order to force depopulation.

I'm not sure if those 'new age conspiracists' of 2012 who are familiar with term Agenda 21 and speak of FEMA camps and plans to depopulate the earth by one or another kind of elitists ever realise , those without historical overview anyway ,
that the chief reason why anyone is afraid of this now is that history repeats itself and that we've witnessed attempt to change the world by brute force merely 60 years ago and it did make an impact .

Adolfs 'defenders' are peeing their own pants here ( sorry for the expression ) if they claim that actually nothing if very little has happened and changed ,
it was not 6 million people dying in concentration camps , and no your 'fuhrer' was truly not responsible for 60 million perishing in the WWII including his 'own Germans' .


No man is judged according to the 'niceness' of his speeches but it's the impact of his actions that speak for him ,
and in this case , dear Andrew , he is remembered for his megalomania , for his plan to impose unified NWO , the first expression of such a plan of recent history anyway ,
if you call it 'a master plan' beware who are you bowing to as your master then ..

and if you feel like to be part of 'freedom minded forum' where people desire awakening from oppressive regimes , systems and manipulations by them,

since the Nazi rule was one of the strongest and strictest regimes people remember ,

yes he is remembered by the world for inflicting so much pain..


for being dictator . His pre-WWII speeches are carried in different tune than what they turned to be several years later ,

I've always questioned this as a kid .. I did ... how could any 'normal kid' , once innocent being grow up to killing beast , to someone no matter who they are on this earth killing each other ..

I went quite far in my life to find 'true answers' , even then .. can't claim I'd have them all .


What may not be clear to everyone the same way is that human life naturally, already contains so much suffering .. and if we have any task here , on this planet .. then it's to be happy , to fight and alleviate the suffering ,

certainly not to create more of it , in cruel childish hope that by causing someone pain I'll save own happiness .


.........

The bottom line .... we all would be more than happy to forget what has happened in WWII, WWI , all the other wars, most of us who call themselves cultured being would , anyway .

The problem is ... that people come up and out again and again ... and will , until differences exist , until there's this stupid faith in human territoriality, races , nations, religions and so forth and will be blaming each other for not being quite as expected , inferior or superior , simply some 'other people' .

It really does not matter if this was Pandavas against Kauravas 4000 thousand years ago on the battlefield of Kurukshetra , or if it's Nazis vs Jews or any other dominant powers standing against each other ..
philosophically , physically .. you need 2 people , 2 sides .. to engage in misunderstanding . The ignorance that transcends this world, this human kind is not particular attribute of any race , nation or religion, it's all pervading , it's everywhere .

It may take life time to individuals to realise .. and thousands if not millions years to mankind ...

[Andrew]

loungelizard - thanks for your time with responses I do appreciate it. For the record I respect all of humanity that shares this Planet with us. Many people have questions about all topics and there's nothing wrong with asking questions to more understand, this is whats happened here in this thread many questions asked. Thanks for answers.

Do I believe in the Protocols of Zion? No idea, some write as if they are true others dismiss them.

No, I don't think any people should be eliminated.

I don't agree with any kind of Jew hate either or being derogative towards a specific race.

It seems it's the common people who suffer the most, thanks to the decisions of our leaders.

Agape - Hope we all can learn from the mistakes of our past and for everyone to have an equal chance in our future...

[loungelizard]

Andrew - I really appreciate your reply.

[Agape]

Missing link ... why missing, perhaps because it's too dangerous .. even in your 'civilised society' to have a closer look at the world of neo-nazis , racial puritans , purists and 'aryans' .

Mind you the word 'Arya' comes from old Sanskrit and still older Persian root and means 'noble' , as in cultured, cultivated .. in opposition to barbarian , crude and illiterate .

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=bcPine685fI

Mo Asumang is the daughter of a black Ghanaian father and a white German mother.

As a well-known TV presenter in Germany she became the target of racist extreme right-wingers and neo-Nazis, who based their attacks on Asumang's "non-Aryan" background.

So she decided to look into the racist ideology and to find out more about those who consider themselves "Aryan".

In her new documentary, The Aryans, she confronts racists, both in Germany and among the Ku Klux Klan in America.

Mo Asumang spoke to BBC News about her experiences making the film.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=tbmNDLW5-Ug

It's an excellent documentary but if you happen to encounter one with English subtitles please repost it . It's all I found ..

[Andrew]

Agape where is it that Germans are racist? from what I've gathered they were not. From what i've gathered they just didn't want the white man watered down or interacial, not that they despised coloured people.

And was it not Albert Pike who created the KKK who was nothing to do with Germany and he was a Freemason who Hitler was against??

[Agape]

Posted by Andrew (here)
Agape where is it that Germans are racist? from what I've gathered they were not. From what i've gathered they just didn't want the white man watered down or interacial, not that they despised coloured people.

And was it not Albert Pike who created the KKK who was nothing to do with Germany and he was a Freemason who Hitler was against??

Nowhere .. that would be indeed very bad definition of racism . If you care to watch the documentary you will understand ( most of the second part was filmed in the US and is therefor in English, a part was filmed in Iran ) . It's about questioning people a lot and what way do they define themselves .
The 'aryan' legacy - coming from those old pre-war theosophical circles in Europe that was furthered by so called 'Nazi ideology' about their Aryan origin is still alive ,

in groups all over the world .


Yes they seem to stress that they are against racial interbreeding . I think the idea is as old as mankind itself and practised by many nations till now .

[Andrew]

Why wouldn't it be?

[Agape]

Posted by Andrew (here)
Why wouldn't it be?

I don't know what are you precisely asking about , right now ...

Some people do feel defined by their country , tribe , if we use the word tribe - and broaden it - we will soon arrive at the term race or nation , though nations are mostly collection of many tribes nowadays ,
others not .
I think that this sort of self-definition depends on individual and whether they are open to meet , or even bond with members of other tribes , groups and nations .. but it should not be enforced .

For example in India, caste system ensured some sort of 'gene purity' for generations now . It's not ( and never been ) absolute system yet its influence on people and their lives happened to be enormous .

You can't refute it exists .

[Agape]

From biological perspective .. we are all relatives, distant cousins , branches of the same tree .

You may find your 'close to perfect' match - biological and psychological - at Papua New Guinea and have bunch of healthy and happy offspring with them , no matter how improbable it seems .
The sad fact about 'racial purity' is that gene pool within any particular group who keep mating each other too long becomes exhausted and starts showing number of vulnerabilities and previously unknown disorders .

I don't see any particular advantage in such kind of 'gene maintenance' based on families .

There are many hidden laws to the 'interbreeding' process that are not only difficult to keep - we are not animals to be 'bred' after all . In India for example , high caste man could marry lower caste woman but not vice versa, it means .. woman should not descend bellow her caste . If she does, their children will be seen as 'lower caste' , according to their fathers descent .

It's not a good topic I guess.

[Milneman]

Andrew,

I bet you thought I wasn't going to post here again, didn't you?

Nein, Leipzig. Das ist falsch!

I'm going to deal with the notion that Hitler was elected democratically by the majority of the German Nation, and attempt to demonstrate that the notion Hitler came to power via free and fair election is actually a farcical notion.

February 27, a fires is started in the Reichstag. "That is was a crime, a Communist crime, they proclaimed at once on arrival at the fire. Goering, sweating and puffing and quite beside himself with excitement, was already there ahead of them declaiming to heaven, as Papen later recalled, that 'this is a Communist crime against the new government.' To the new Gestapo chief, Rudolf Diels, Goering shouted, 'This is the beginning of the Communist revolution! We must not wait a minute. We will show no mercy. Every Communist deputy must this very night be strung up.'" (Shirer, 192)

"From Goering's Reichstag President's Palace an underground passage, built to carry the central heating system, ran to the Reichstag building. Through this tunnel Karl Ernst, a former hotel bellhop who had become the Berlin S.A. leader, led a small detachment of storm troopers on the night of February 27 to the Reichstag, where they scattered gasoline and self-igniting chemicals and then made their way quickly back to the palace the way they had come. At the same time a half-witted Dutch Communist with a passion for arson, Marinus van der Lubbe, had made his way into the huge, darkened and to him unfamiliar building to set some small fires of his own. This feeble-minded pyromaniac was a godsend to the Nazis. He and been picked up by the S.A. a few days before after having been overheard in a bar boasting that he had attempted to set fire to several public buildings and that he was going to try the Reichstag next." (192)

"Rudolf Diels, the Gestapo chief, added in an affidavit that 'Goering knew exactly how the fire was to be started' and had ordered him 'to prepare, prior to the fire, a list of people who were to be arrested immediately after it.' General Franz Halder, Chief of the German General Staff during the early part of World War II, recalled...how Goering had boasted of his deed. 'At a luncheon on the birthday of the Feuhrer in 1942 the conversation turned to the topic of the Reichstag building and its artistic value. I heard with my own ears when Goering interrupted the conversation and shouted: The only one who really knows about the Reichstag is I, because I set it on fire! Wht that he slapped his thigh with the flat of his hand." (193)

"On the day following the fire, February 28, he (Hitler) prevailed on President Hindenburg to sign a decree 'for the Protection of the People and the State' suspending the seven sections of the constitution which guaranteed individual and civil liberties. Described as a 'defensive measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the state', the decree laid down that: Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications; and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed. In addition, the decree authorized the Reich government to take complete power int he federal states when necessary and imposed the death sentence for a number of crimes, including 'serious disturbances of the peace' by armed persons. Thus with one stroke Hiter was able not only to legally gag his opponents and arrest them at his will but, by making the trumped-up Commnist threat 'official', as it were, to throw millions of the middle class and the peasantry into a frenzy of fear that unless they voted for National Socialism at the elections a week hence, the Bolsheviks might take over. Some four thousand Communist officials and a great many Social Democrat and liberal leaders were arrested, including members of the Reichstag, who, according to the law, were immune from arrest. This was the first experience Germans had had with Nazi terror backed up by the government. Truckloads of storm troopers roared through the streets all over Germany, breaking into homes, rounding up victims and carting them off to S.A. barracks, where they were tortured and beaten. The Communist press and political meetings were suppressed; the Social Democrat newspapers and many liberal journals were suspended and the meetings of the democratic parties either banned or broken up. Only the Nazis and their Nationalist allies were permitted to campaign unmolested." (194)

"Despite all the terror and intimidation, the majority of them rejected Hitler. The Nazis led the polling with 17, 277, 180 votes--an increase of some five and a half million, but it comprised only 44 percent of the total vote. A clear majority still eluded Hitler. All the persecution and suppression of the previous weeks did not prevent the Center Party from actually increasing its vote from 4, 230, 600 to 4, 424, 900; with its ally, the Catholic Bavarian People's Party, it obtained a total of five and a half million votes. Even the Social Democrats held their position as the second largest party, polling 7, 181, 629 votes, a drop of only 70, 000. The Communists lost a million supporters but still polled 4, 848, 058. The Nationalists, led by Papen and Hugenberg, were bitterly disappointed with their own showing, a vote of 3, 136, 760, a mere 8 per cent o the votes cast and a gain of less that 200, 000." (195-196)

Gleichschaltung: The 'Co-Ordination' of the Reich

"The Plan was deceptively simple and had the advantage of cloaking the seizure of absolute power in legality. The Reichstag would be asked to pass an 'enabling act' conferring on Hitler's cabinet exclusive legislative powers for four years. Put even more simply, the German Parliament would be requested to turn over its constitutional functions to hitler and take a long vacation. But since this necessitated a change in the constitution, a two-thirds majority was needed to approve it. How to obtain that majority was the main order of business at a cabinet meeting on March 15, 1933, the minutes of which were produced at Nuremberg. Part o the problem would be resolved by the 'absence' of the eight-one Communist members of the Reichstag. Goering felt sure that the rest of the problem could be easily disposed of 'by refusing admittance f a few Social Democrats.' Hitler was in a breezy, confident mood. After all, by the decree of February 28, which he had induced Hindenburg to sign the day after the Reichstag fire, he could arrest as many opposition deputies as were necessary to assure his two-thirds majority. There was some question about the Catholic Center, which was demanding guarantees, but the Chancellor was certain that this party would go along with him." (196)

"Thus was parliamentary democracy finally interred in Germany. Except for the arrests of the Communists and some of the Social Democratic deputies, it was all done quite legally, through accompanied by terror. Parliament had turned over its constitutional authority to Hitler and thereby committed suicide, though its body lingered on in an embalmed state to the very end of the Third Reich, serving infrequently as a sounding board for some of Hitler's thunderous pronunciamentos, its members henceforth hand-picked by the Nazi Party, for there were to be no more real elections. It was this Enabling Act alone which formed the legal basis for Hitler's dictatorship. From March 23, 1933, on, Hitler was the dictator of the Reich, freed of any restraint by Parliament or, for all practical purposes, by the weary old President. To be sure, much remained to be done to bring the entire nation and all its institutions completely under the Nazi heel... , this also was accomplished with breathless speed and with crudeness, trickery, and brutality." (199-200)

So you see, Andrew, your assumption that the German people elected Hitler to power is in fact a false assumption. I believe, without malice, that your misunderstanding of the facts not only extends to this point, but I suspect to other key points in the historical account of the Third Reich. As such, I'm very skeptical to any information you may bring forward that is not properly documented and/or peer reviewed.

Busted, bub. Nice try, but if we want to carry any weight on ANY theory we have about any situation, you have to play by the rules to back up what you believe. Anyone, as I've said, can make a video. I suggest you read the book that I've sighted, and read several times, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany" by William L. Shirer, one of the greatest historical accounts to date. Read all 1184 pages, as I've done 3-4 times now, and then attempt to incorporate your theories into the actual history. See if your theories (given that they have documentable historical content that you can sight) line up, and then I'll give them consideration. I'm very, very lax at the idea of watching a video. It takes very little work to do, and there is a laziness about it that makes me loathe in most circumstances to do it. There's a reason why documented academic history and papers/books require effort, and end up getting more credibility: if you have to take the time to do the work, it demonstrates you have the desire and motivation to back up what you believe.

As of yet? I've not seen that from you. Which isn't to say I don't believe you're not capable. I just don't believe you want to.

Ergo, your evidence really means nothing to me. It's not factual, and it clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of the true facts.

Which is, I might add, why this thread is still open and active: it should serve as a warning to people to not take literally what youtube tells them.

Your milage etc etc etc

Auf Wiedersehen!

[Agape]

Posted by Agape (here)
From biological perspective .. we are all relatives, distant cousins , branches of the same tree .

You may find your 'close to perfect' match - biological and psychological - at Papua New Guinea and have bunch of healthy and happy offspring with them , no matter how improbable it seems .
The sad fact about 'racial purity' is that gene pool within any particular group who keep mating each other too long becomes exhausted and starts showing number of vulnerabilities and previously unknown disorders .

I don't see any particular advantage in such kind of 'gene maintenance' based on families .

There are many hidden laws to the 'interbreeding' process that are not only difficult to keep - we are not animals to be 'bred' after all . In India for example , high caste man could marry lower caste woman but not vice versa, it means .. woman should not descend bellow her caste . If she does, their children will be seen as 'lower caste' , according to their fathers descent .

It's not a good topic I guess.

From biological perspective again ... if you want to consider the main criterium for 'human race' function and its survival , it is its adaptability to environment .

People lived scattered all around the globe for millions of years so they evolved different tactics and advantages of coping with environment, better than others .

For example ..the 'white skin' that can be easily maintained in northern latitudes is no advantage if you move to the south and vice versa, termoregulation - the way how your organism handles low or high temperatures, requirements for oxygen , acidity- alkalinity of environment , amount of water you retain naturally, not to speak about nutrition, it all evolves over very long time but is not a static factor because the planet keeps evolving as well and forces people to adjust to it, rather than vice versa .

Now one of the main objectives of the ideology behind every form of 'racial purity' is to create a 'master race' ,
people with specific features , above average physical and intellectual prowess who will act as keepers and leaders for the rest of the globe . Is that practical idea ?
I don't think so .

First of all .. it's a 'divide and conquer' type of situation being promoted by any such ideology , that itself implies cultivating living standards of certain part of populace with accelerated speed , preferably unexposed to others influence .

We are not living 'that far' from each other here so this would become feasible option ,

to breed race with 'cone heads and long necks' on one part of globe , and 'blond hair and blue eyes' on the other part , and what is the rest .. the most of so called 'hybrid populace' going to do in the meantime ? Serve the 2 ?

The next factor is even more important .. the survival factor . While there would be certain genetic traits isolated and cultivated on behalf of other factors ,
'cone heads and long necks' for example together with particular shade of suntan , and how high can you jump ,
there will be plenty of factors never counted in or with , given the fact that your destined 'race' does best in certain environments but not others .

Believing that man with white skin and blue eyes can be master of this planet is particularly foolish idea for which tons of sun lotions had already been sacrificed , with little success .

The evolution of genetic features goes hand in hand with evolution of planetary environment . If there comes next ice age .. or in case of big local cataclysms , people would be forced to move out of the most developed countries .. to south or to the north , away from critical latitudes . Migration is inevitable and part of the bigger picture on Earth .

People lived here for millions of years and survived a lot, how , because they could move .

Every next generation who have to survive in different climatic zone from the previous one start looking different and evolve differently . And they will have to accept different sources of nutrition and make friends with locals, and in turn , both ethnical group co-evolve together and form a new genetic make-up and so forth .

The legend of 'noble race' that goes back to our ET predecessors and back to Stars and our distant home in Stars, faraway from here .. never dies but I can assure you it's not any particular 'human breed' that would be closer to the origins than 'another breed' .

The advantage of sharing .. among ethnics has to do with acquiring healthy survival skills, abilities and inherent memories of the genes and what they've been through .

[Tony]

Gene pool down the toilet….

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-a8LnLjI7sY

[loungelizard]

@ Andrew

...they just didn't want the white man watered down or interacial, not that they despised coloured people.

An evocative choice of words there Andrew.
Watering down: you're actually saying that the addition of other genetic material would lessen the potency, the power of the white man? Do you personally support that ideology? Isn't it possible that the widening of the gene pool would actually enrich and enhance?

As for "despising coloured people": there is a reason why people adhere to the belief that mixing races would adversely affect the "master race". It's all about contamination by a group that is held to be inferior. If it was thought that the other race was superior, wouldn't the "master race" be falling over themselves to interbreed?

Incidentally, Neo Nazi ideology is not restricted to white supremacist groups such as those in the video I'm posting below. Such people are found across the world unfortunately, from Malaysia to Brazil.

Racial Purity? Too late mate! We should all be proud to be composites…. The human race has been around for quite a while, and there have always been groups and sub groups - and there has been a mixing and a mingling within those groups…so who on earth could be said to have "purity"?

And even if it were possible, could you suggest how such an ideal be achieved without causing immense suffering? Is there any example - from history or in modern times - where a group has managed to keep itself "pure" without
a) suffering the consequences of limiting the gene pool
b) persecuting other groups
c) adhering to a belief in superiority, and a plan to rule the world…

There would have to be state legislation controlling human reproduction, and a systematic and carefully controlled eugenics programme to maintain racial hygiene, together with ethnic cleansing on an industrial scale.

Hang on a sec …we're talking about Nazi Germany…



Here is the wonderful Louis Theroux's look at such an ideology.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=dq9WYfgTf6U

[loungelizard]

I've just been reading about the largest piece of research ever carried out into global anti semitism that has just been published - 53,100 people were polled, in 102 countries
http://www.adl.org/press-center/pres...-100-poll.html

46% of people say they've never heard of the holocaust.
32% of those who have say that it's either a myth, or greatly exaggerated.



http://global100.adl.org/info/holocaust_info