Hitler and the Big Lie - the magic trick explained

In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler explained the Big Lie. Paraphrasing now - regular people tell lots of little lies and expect to hear little lies in turn: but the concept of a huge lie, a really monstrous lie, a lie bigger than Ben Hur (ha ha ha), is something so alien to regular punters that it's effectively beyond their ken, and thus they are unable to dismiss it as a falsehood. The logic is: it's unimaginable that anyone, or any group, would tell a lie that big, therefore it must be true.


It seems there's a curious logic going on here. Let's imagine Hitler as a magician - a magician who explains the trick before he does it. "Ladies and Gentlemen, for my next trick I shall perform the 'Floating Phantom'. In this trick I shall, with great flourish, drape a cloth over a black felt-covered steel frame that will be lowered in as my lovely assistant drops into the box you see here. The frame was always there but you couldn't see it what with the black curtains and dim lighting, and not forgetting me and my lovely assistant doing our best to distract you. I next proceed with a bit of hoop-la - with a hoop! - and then for the big finale, I shall whip the cloth off and, believe it or not, the frame will be right there in front of you! But since you expect the girl, and she's not there, and what is there is impossible to see, you will be 'delighted and amazed', ha ha! And now on with the show! Ladies and Gentlemen! For your delight and amazement I shall now perform the wondrous Floating Phantom!"

And there you have Hitler as the creator of the Big Lie - the mad, where's-the-sense-in-it magician who tells you how he's going to trick you. Absurdly, no one ever wonders at this. Yes, we get the concept of the Big Lie, and yes, Hitler told us about it. But why do we imagine that it's his gig he's talking about? How does that make sense? And what was his big lie exactly? In any discussion of Hitler and the Big Lie, madly, no one ever does the obvious thing and cites an example of one of Hitler's Big Lies.

Okay, why don't I do it for them? How about the burning of the Reichstag? This was a false-flag attack blamed on 'terrorists' for the purpose of implementing a fascist roll-out. Um... perhaps we ought not to mention that? Shades of 911, with the Reichstag fire looking like the runt of the litter. In fact, purely in terms of casualties, and desired outcome (the nuking of Cairo), even the attack on the USS Liberty has it beat hands down. Sure enough in any public discussion of the Big Lie, the Reichstag fire will not be cited. Perish the thought! God forbid we end up in a broad Big Lie discussion about a government faking a terror attack to trick the population into accepting a variation of totalitarian rule. Thus we may discuss the Reichstag fire as false, and we may discuss Hitler as the proponent of the Big Lie, but we may not connect the two. Hitler may only be discussed as the epitome of evil one step below satan and the thought of him as an also-ran may not be countenanced.


But let's stop beating around the bush - Hitler, sure enough, was not that impossible creature, the magician who ruined his own trick. Rather he was the mythbuster of his day exploding the technique of those other tricksters, the people who owned the banks, the media, and most of commerce; who declared war on Germany in 1933; who ran the weimar printing presses; who backed and otherwise comprised the Bolsheviks; for whom the opium wars were fought; who ran and then commodified the slave trade; who posited God as supplicant under their own talmud; and who were, way back when, the only people Jesus ever got angry with. In case anyone missed it, that would be the Jews and specifically the dozen families who control international banking.

That was then, this is now, and the more things change, the more they stay the same. The media, which is to say, the place where all public discussions take place, is still entirely in the hands of Jews. If anyone wants to argue this, take it up with the gleeful-to-the-point-of-intoxicated Joel Stein. (Poor old Joel! Imagine the size of the shut-the-fuck-up he'd have been on the receiving end of! Ha ha ha, suffer in your jocks, Joel!).

Along those bracketed lines, it should come as no surprise that any discussion about the Big Lie, by the people who were accused of it, should posit the accuser as its inventor and chief practitioner. It's blame-the-victim meets shoot-the-messenger. If you think about it, this irony-free circularity is pretty much inevitable. It's QED territory - as if anyone given to the Big Lie, and who lie like they breathe, is going to throw their hands up in the air and say, 'We confess, it's true!' Ha ha ha ha - an abject impossibility.

Hmmm... an interesting thought, that. Let me have a cig on the balcony whilst I think about it.

---

For me, everything comes down to the continuum of selfishness and selflessness. The people for whom the phrase the Big Lie was coined are upside-down paragons of selfishness - they're anti-Buddhas, the opposite of 'at one with the universe' who embrace utterly the collective mindset of 'us and them' with its individual expression of 'me uber alles'. Again, if you want to argue, include me out of any parlour games. Just go read the talmud.

Whilst the Big Lie is a thing worth discussing, obviously it's subordinate to this anti-Buddha mindset. Or to put it another way, given the mindset, and the degree of it, the Big Lie is inevitable. Keeping in mind that 'selfish behaviour' equals 'sin' (with 'selfless behaviour' equalling 'virtue'), a lie, whether small, medium, or big (or as they say in America - medium, large, and extra large, ha ha) is just another sin, one amongst many. For the anti-Buddhas at the furthest end of the continuum, all of their sins are 'Big', Lies included.

The problem with sins this great is that they cannot be walked away from. Sure enough, this is Shakespeare territory, specifically Macbeth:

By the worst means, the worst. For mine own good,
All causes shall give way: I am in blood
Stepp’d in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o’er


Onya Bill! Like he said, as sins increase in magnitude, indeed to epic proportions, the sinner can no longer return to the embrace of those sinned against. Put mathematically, let's just call sin 'desire' (for the self) and plot it on an xy graph. As desire increases, 'fear' (of retribution) will inevitably climb in an identical fashion. Ha! Euclidean proof that Buddha was right in declaring fear and desire to be the same thing. Hats off to the Buddha and Euclid both.

Anyway, bare-headed now, let's just say that under this logic, the Big Lie can never be admitted, walked away from, or any other thing. Lies will follow lies, one on top of another, until an absurd unsustainable edifice is constructed that can only have one future - collapse. Hmm... it seems I'm in Les Visible territory here. Back to the specifics.

---

There's been more shit said about Hitler than any other man in history. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might have copped a lot of shit but he's got a long way to go to match the sins that have been concocted for Hitler. The bloc-media has perpetually depicted him as a villain whose only rival is Satan. BTW, I don't want anyone confused about me being an apologist for Hitler - best I can make out he was a crypto-gay paedophile racist, and probably a satanist to boot. Even on a purely technical realpolitik basis, Hitler is the guy to look to if you want a lesson in how to fail. (*And he was a vegetarian! This is ipso facto proof that vegetarians are clearly very wicked people. Hi John!)


But that being said, Hitler did a single extraordinary thing - he named and described the Big Lie. Has anyone else done this? Best I can see, everyone plays within the rules of the Big Lie parlour game, with no one ever calling a halt to things by simply naming the game. The game by the way is 'usury'. Even JFK, who followed Hitler in trying to retake control of his nation's money, did so in silence. What? Was he hoping the owners of the Fed wouldn't notice? Either way, he explained nothing and unsurprisingly no one has heard of executive order 11110.

Meanwhile on the telly, God knows how many discussions I've sat through with politicians pleading with the Reserve Bank not to raise rates, and never once have any of them wondered at its 'independence'. Likewise, the opposition will attack the government for getting into deficit by way of borrowing money from the Reserve, but never mention that the Reserve just pulled the money out of thin air. Even Ron Paul, the US's chief opponent of the Fed, will discuss inflation, the gold standard, all manner of things, but will never bag out usury as crap from the get-go. Not forgetting the left, where everyone from John Pilger to Naomi Klein will heap shit on the IMF and the World bank as wicked institutions but never wonder who owns them or whether the whole thing is a con.

And yes, I do get it that there are sundry other Big Lies entirely unconnected to banking, but for mine, none of them seem to be possessed of banking's ancient voodoo power. The central core to the banking Big Lie is the absurdly simple, and yet ultimately daft, idea that money is possessed of some kind of planet-like gravity and that merely by existing should attract more money as interest. For mine this is the heart of the matter stripped down to its rawest, most impenetrable kernel. From this flows everything else - fractional banking, reserve banking, monetary policy - and upon which such perfectly vicious entities as the IMF and the World Bank are then constructed.


Let's not forget that these other Big Lies are arguably connected to banking as well. Why did the world jewry declare war on Germany in 1933? 1933 was pre-Kristalnacht, pre-yellow stars, pre-Wannsee conference, pre-everything except Hitler's discussion of the Big Lie and his wresting of Germany's monetary policy from the Rothschilds and their very good friends. If we're prepared to acknowledge Judea's declaration of war on Germany, who but a fool wouldn't include follow-the-money in explaining it?

Following that, it's only a short step to viewing the current War On Terror in the same terms. We all know that the stories about Saudis and 911, Iran and nukes, the Taleban and opium, Pakistan and the Mumbai bombings, etc. etc. ad nauseam, are lies. And they're pretty big sure, but might they have something in common? A single, really Big Lie that explains all of them? Okay, how about the fact that all of these countries declare usury sinful and otherwise do not submit to a privately owned reserve banking system? It works for me.

Whatever you might think of Hitler, you'd have to admit that at the very least he did one worthy thing - he gave name to the Big Lie and explained the means by which it functions. But on this topic we can also fault him for not having explained clearly enough quite how big the Big Lie can be. Perhaps we can put that down to chaos theory (and its ideas on the infinite nature of scale) not having been invented yet? Regardless, in much the same way that 'big' is a concept that has no end, the Big Lie, under the auspices of its chief magicians, will always be greater than we who are used to little lies can imagine. Even as we shift our sense of scale and come to terms with the enormity of any given Big Lie, above it will be another.

Sure enough, the high priests of banking would have this seen as the ultimate voodoo spell, invested with numerological occult power. But this is arse-about. The fact that a Big Lie of this magnitude can be rendered hidden-profane-occult isn't proof of it's magical power. Quite the opposite, it's proof of its pathetic frailty - if it weren't hidden it would collapse in a screaming heap.


Back to our magician now - the easiest way to ruin his trick would be to turn the house lights on. 'Occult' means hidden - unhide what's hidden and the magic evaporates. Suddenly everything changes: the magician frozen on stage with a horrified expression on his face; the crowd's 'delight and amazement' gone like a puff of smoke; the whole tableau as un-magical as can be.

'Boo! Get Off!' says the crowd, as the well-deserved tomatoes fly.

Australia sucks Israel's cock

The headline in Murdoch's Australian was perfectly marvellous - 'Israel slur fear forces boycott'. We thank that sub-editor for a salutary lesson in loaded writing. Shall I translate it? 'Due to our shock and horror at the possible unwarranted denigration of Israel we have no choice but to stay away [from the upcoming UN sponsored anti-racism conference in Geneva]'.


The headline is emphatically not - 'Australia - racism is bad unless it's Israel's' or 'Australia supports world's #1 apartheid state' or 'Israel cracks whip, we jump'. And God forbid - 'Australia sucks Israel's cock', with the sub-head - 'And keeps fingers crossed they leave ten dollars on the dresser on the way out'. Dreadful! What kind of sick freak would write a headline like that?!

I have no idea what this UN backed anti-racism conference is meant to achieve precisely. But I don't really care. For mine, it's a thing worth having just to see who boycotts it. Anyone who signs up for this boycott is declaring that they are a cheap whore who've utterly dispensed with dignity and are happy to take it up the arse, or swallow, or 'anything you like, Israel honey.'


If this country had some pretence at dignity, we'd attend the conference and abstain from whatever vote it is. The whole thing is symbolic after all. But we ain't even going to go through the motions. In whore terms, we've dispensed with wearing regular clothes when we go out in public. Fuck it, we're so hell-bent we'll not only tramp up and down Main Street in lingerie and high-heels, we even have 'WHORE' tattooed on our forehead.

Who's joining the tattooed whore gang? Oh look, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Italy, and Poland all happy to publicly declare that they're whores and they're proud. Apparently Denmark, the Czech Republic, and Sweden got a tattoo but hid it under their panty lines. Hee hee, a little shy it seems. And where's the UK? Where's France? Surely they're not shy are they? C'mon Gordon Brown-Note! C'mon Nicolas Sukkosily! Declare your whoredom! You're big boys now, just stand up and say it.

---

And where do we go from here? Our flagrancy at kowtowing to Israel is matched only by the flagrancy of their slaughter in Palestine. The most sickening massacre of civilians anyone has seen for decades and we in Oz have no words of condemnation. Instead we defend the indefensible. And the US and Canada is worse. No one is even pretending any more. A slaughter rate of 100 women and children for every Israeli soldier. Not forgetting that half the Israelis were shot by their own troops. Hmm... let's make that 200 to 1. Amongst all this blood we merely channel Debbie from Dallas, 'Ooh Mr Greenfeld, what a big cock you have!'

It seems we're in the run up to an exponential curve here. It's a single curve charting two things. One is of Israel's flagrant racist slaughter-fest and the other is our ever more transparent obsequiousness to that shitty little country. As this dual curve climbs into a near vertical orgasm of blood and degradation, something has to give. There's no future in it.


Certainly no future that makes sense. Unless of course the purpose of the exercise is Israel's own destruction, with the non-pedophocracy majority of the world giving a sotto voce cheer. It will necessarily be muted because, as ever, the reality will be one thing and its depiction in the media and the history books will be another. In this imagined reality, Israel will have been a tiny spark of hope for a hard done by people who valiantly went down fighting against a world of racists that hated them for no reason. Don't think they can't convince us of their innocence and our villainy. Honestly, are there any German nationals that don't view themselves as the greatest mass murderers in the history of the world? Bolsheviks or no? There probably are, but me, I never met one.

Regardless of what we think now, I reckon our lot in the future is to view ourselves with the same self-loathing that the Germans currently have. Honestly, right now, right this minute, we are madly declaring that the most racist people in the world are the greatest victims of racism. But that ain't nothing! The two global religions of this world, Christianity and Islam, somehow imagine that they're not Jewish sects. Ha ha ha, madness! Truthfully, there is no end to our ability to believe what we are told.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves. First comes Israel's inevitable destruction. The country created out of whole cloth by a handful of banking families, (who've curiously chosen not to live there themselves) will be gone. And we'll all sigh in relief. 'Surely this is the beginning of the end to all that shit!' we'll say. As much as I hate to be a party-pooper, I have it pegged as nothing more that the end of the beginning.

Burn in Hell you deniers of the Holocausts!

Ha! Call me a sell-out if you like, but I've decided to join with those who demand that history not be questioned. I now condemn all those who deny the Holocaust. And as a man not given to half measures I'm upping the ante. It is no longer good enough to condemn those who question the Holocaust. Since there were two Holocausts, both of them must be sacrosanct. Both of them demand that anyone who questions any aspect of either of them deserves to be jailed, broken, and have their life ruined. One is not good enough. It's both or nothing.

What two Holocausts you say? Fact is, there was a Holocaust in each of the World Wars. Before the Holocaust of WWII was the Holocaust of WWI. If you're wondering why you've never heard of it, you need merely look to the anti-Semitic media. As we all know, Jews never get an even break in the media. If only they had a voice! A means to tell us of their suffering!

Never fear, I shall be their voice!


To dwell on the Holocaust of WWII alone is not enough. Any right thinking person must also acknowledge the Holocaust of WWI. To not do so is to dishonour the memory of the victims of a Holocaust. Every aspect of German wickedness delivered upon the innocent Jewish victims was present in both events. Both had gas chambers. Both had soap rendered from human victims. Both had lampshades made from human skin. And crucially both had six million victims. 6,000,000! To not scream in shrill indignation over both of these events is the absolute height of moral depravity.

Consider the enormity of those who only discuss one of these two Holocausts. For mine, it's the moral equivalent of a Palestinian mother who had ten children shot by the Israelis but only wants to talk about the five that she liked. Admit the truth you dreadful woman! The Israelis shot all ten of your children and all that rubbish about choosing five is just embroidery to, a) slur the good name of the Israelis and, b) save you acknowledging the five children you never liked anyway. Honestly, was there ever a people more deserving of their genocide than the Palestinians? The media is right to perpetually paint them as villains. How dare they resist their righteous Jewish masters!? Bloody untermenschen!


Where was I? Oh yes - as in all topics deserving of shrill moral condemnation, silence equals complicity. I'll say it again - Silence Equals Complicity. Anyone who wants to pretend that the first Holocaust isn't the equal of the second may as well just lather up with human soap, settle down in bed next to a human-skin lamp, and read AJP Taylor's History Of The First World War. I read this hateful tome and it appallingly failed to contain a single mention of gas chambers or 6,000,000 Jewish victims. Taylor is a denier pure and simple, and if he isn't dead already, he certainly deserves to be.

And for those who want to start bleating about any other Holocausts, I spit in your face. I have no time for such piss weak 'moral equivalency' arguments. Fuck the massacre of the Armenians under the Donmeh Turks. Fuck the mass starvation of the Kulaks under the Bolsheviks. Were Jews involved in any of these? As victims, that is? NO. As we all know it's only genocides directed at Jews that are worthy of shrill condemnation. And since here we have two Jewish Holocausts with identical features it follows that the shrillness must be doubled. Subsequently those who deny that two Holocausts took place are twice as condemnable as those who only deny one. Don't argue, the logic is bullet proof.


It's always a beautiful thing to have the moral high ground. I am now one up on those who only ever seem to bang on about the Holocaust, as if there was only one of them. Their moral unimpeachability is now laid bare as a sham, a hollow thing of no substance. Anything they say in their defence, ie: it never happened; the numbers don't add up; there's no evidence etc etc, falls at the first hurdle. As they've said themselves in their one-Holocaust campaign, to argue the point is to be a denier - the Worst Thing In The World! Shrillness is all they deserve. Don't argue with them. Just scream '6,000,000 Victims!' How dare they dishonour Their memory! Sickening.

And besides, anyone who disputes this, instantly disappears up their own clacker. What does it mean if one Holocaust is true and the other isn't? That the Jews merely imagined the first one? That they just made it up? What mad inhuman creatures would do this? What possible reason could Jews have for marching around America telling people that they'd been victims of an unparalleled injustice? Why would they do that? I can't think of a single reason. To even suggest that such a thing is possible is a tremendous slur against Jews. A clear case of anti-Semitism. Me - I reject anti-Semitism, I reject Holocaust denial, I embrace all that I am meant to.


Anyone who objects to the 'facts' of the first Holocaust, whether they like it or not, legitimises the questioning of the 'facts' of the second one. Both Holocausts carry nearly identical features - both were conducted against the Jews by the Germans, both had six million victims, both involved the same monstrous atrocities of lampshades, soap, and gas chambers. Between the two alternatives: that Jews recycled the same story to paint themselves as the world's greatest victims; or that Germans are the world's greatest monsters who pull the same shit over and over, only one of these is permissible.

As anyone who's been to the cinema knows, Jews are always victims and Germans are always villains. We cannot flip this coin and reverse these descriptions. To do so would be to say that all those Holocaust movies were a load of shit. Perish the thought! Jews cannot be fraudulent villains who've tricked the world. Germans cannot be the victims of a colossal hoax. The very idea is monstrous. Thus we have no choice but to double the charges. Therefore Jewish victimhood climbs to ever greater Olympian heights (of the God-like variety not the sporting one) and German villainy doubles again, plunging to a whole new nadir.

Is Dante still alive? Someone should get in touch with him and tell him to rewrite his Inferno with an added 34th circle of hell reserved just for Germans. God knows they deserve it.


So! I stake out my territory. I take the highest of high moral ground. I refuse, unlike all those other people who question unquestionable orthodoxies, to deny anything. It's all or nothing. Either both are true, or both are questionable. And I reject the latter. No fence sitting! Silence Equals Complicity. And so, I point my finger - J'Accuse! Acknowledge both Holocausts or be hoist on your own petard of Holocaust denial. Ignorance is no excuse! Anything other than accepting the truth of both Holocausts is no different to pushing that gas chamber button. Twice!

Burn in Hell you deniers of the Holocausts!

The joys of running amok

It's all John's fault. I should have known better than to take his recommendation that we visit Craig Murray's blog. Craig Murray is really something. He was once ambassador to Uzbekistan and was rather good at it except for one small shortcoming. He called things as he saw them. Well that's him fucked. You won't get very far in the Foreign Service doing foolish things like that. Time to find a new career, sure enough. But it's all there on his blog and you can have a read. It's brilliant and Murray has instantly shot into my list of 'People Who Aren't Bullshit'. As John pointed out, Murray's suppressed book about English mercenaries in Sierra Leone, "The Catholic Orangemen of Togo and Other Conflicts I Have Known" is there in pdf form as a free download. I look forward to reading it


But never mind that. What with Murray having a blog, wondering at the world, and not being bullshit, it wasn't long before the usual suspects were piling in and giving him a hard time for the unspeakable crime of anti-Semitism! Not that he'd said anything anti-Semitic of course. It was some other fellow in his comments section who was the guilty party. As we all know too well, it didn't matter that what the fellow had said was true, nor that he'd failed to mention Jews and had in fact referred solely to 'zionists'. Anti-Semitism is the universal Wonder-Tool of accusations. It's whatever the accuser wants it to be and demands not only that you not do it, but that you must stop everyone else doing it too. The charge of anti-Semitism is basically a demand that one kowtow and otherwise concede the rightness of everything the accuser says.

I searched for an analogy just now and the ever-useful Nazi Germany popped into my head. Anyone in Nazi Germany who didn't object to the Nazis was guilty of being a Nazi. Except for the Zionists of course who were tremendous admirers of the National Socialist ideals of racial purity. No really, they said so, and even struck a commemorative medal with a swastika on one side and a star of David on the other. Racists of the world unite!


Best we pretend that that never happened and we all just carry on. In which case you need to know that the rule with all things Jewish is that one only has two choices: sing their praises, or be guilty of anti-Semitism. Take your pick.

Anyway, there I was in amongst a crowd of people, half of whom were attempting to have a rational discussion about an idiotic subject. As I learnt from hard experience, if the topic is idiotic to begin with, the only answer is to be the most idiotic person in the room. If I can make myself laugh then it's all good. And if anyone else has a giggle, so much the better. The following are my comments -

---

Oh dear, it's just like the bad old days on indymedia. Nazihunter is that really you? By his endless ad hominems ye shall know him.

I'm reminded by this debate of the school debating club. There, the greatest sin was to have the whole thing end up as a definitions debate. This being due to the fact that no debate could take place since no one would be able to agree on what it was we were talking about. Which is bad if the point is to have a debate. But it's good if the point is to kill the debate and just turn the whole thing into a pointless shit-slinging blatherfest. And since the Zionists could never win any debate on facts, it's blatherfest here we come. Every time. Always the same.

But why don't we do the definitions thing anyway? It passes the time. Mr Bronstein above is perfectly correct. Pretty much the whole Levant qualifies as Semitic. And, (with the irony running rampant) the only people of the Levant who aren't Semitic are the Ashkenazi Johnny-come-lately's all of whom came originally from Khazaria in the Caucasus (by way of Russia, Poland, Germany etc). Which is to say, they're Caucasian. Oh alright, arguably they're Turkic since that's where they started out. But either way they're no more Semitic than I am.

So - Between a Palestinian shooting one of his Caucasian Ashkenazi occupiers, and an Ashkenazi lobbing white phosphorus into the Gazan concentration camp (Biggest in the world! Bigger even than the Warsaw Ghetto!), where does the anti-Semitism lay?

So - Between the Ashkenazi authorities of the 50's who dragged Sephardim kids (and only Sephardim kids) out of school on the pretext of ringworm and blasted them with insane doses of radiation, (no really, google 'israel ringworm scandal'), and the adult Sephardim survivors who had lots of uncomplimentary things to say about the refusal of the Israeli government to compensate for, or even acknowledge, what was done to them, who was the anti-Semite?

So - Between the Ashkenazi Israeli government failing to pay the Ashkenazi Holocaust survivors in Israel any of the monies put into various Israeli banks by Germany as compensation, and the survivors who, sick of their penury and of being ignored for decades, complained that the Holocaust survivors in Germany were treated better than they were and shame on the Israeli government, who was the most anti-Semitic?

First correct answer gets a free ticket to Gaza. And for the runner up - two free tickets! Good luck!

-

PS. If anyone wants to get huffy and accuse me of anti-Semitism I offer the following perfectly valid reasons -
1 - I didn't do it and no such thing happened. (Just quietly, they probably did it themselves. They do that doncha know)
2 - I didn't do it, but they were shooting at me so I had no choice.
3 - I did do it but since the UN failed to tell me otherwise I had to shell that building with forty civilians in it.
4 - Well not that building. I was actually shelling another building where they most certainly were shooting at me (and I defy anyone to prove otherwise) and it was all a big accident.
5 - Anyway, I'm the victim and as the aggrieved party I can do no wrong. And besides, as a Caucasian, I assert my right to reject all criticism of me as anti-Semitism.

-

PPS Actually Ehud Olmert told me to say it. I was in the middle of a speech in Philadelphia and he called me mid-speech and of course I quit whatever I was doing and rushed over and he told me to tell Condoleeza Rice to tell the UN that it's not true that Zionists run America. So clearly Zionists do not run America or any other thing. And anyone who says otherwise like whoever it was that said, "The Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." are obviously anti-Semites. Oh now I remember, it was Ariel Sharon. Bloody anti-Semite!

Annexing the Sudetenland

Perhaps we were all blind-sided? Perhaps the Middle East is a distraction? And a penny-ante one at that. Perhaps the main game is elsewhere, and we've all been taken for fools.


Only hardcore Monty Python fans would remember the sketch where a caller phones in to the programme and, apropos nothing, says, "Yes, I'd like to ask the panel what they would do if they were Hitler?" Graeme Chapman, as stentorian intellectual, says, "I should annexe the Sudetenland." Applause follows and Terry Jones leaps in, dressed as a woman and screams, "Liberal rubbish!" Cut to the next scene.

---

Here's a history no one cares for. Germany was just another participant in WWI. Like every other country they were trapped in the mindset of empire - Napoleonic, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Hapsburg, that kind of thing. But against the hard reality of the machine-gun, the old ways were finished. And by 1915, all the states of Europe were exhausted and ready to call it quits. The war was going nowhere. But the bankers knew that they could push things further. Their propaganda machine went into hysterical mode with absurd stories: lampshades and soap made from humans; six million Jewish victims (yes, in WWI); and unambiguous depictions of Germans as befanged, slavering, baby-eating Hun. It was all nonsense of course. Finally by way of the Lusitania scam, the US was brought into the war and Germany was crushed. (Not forgetting of course that Woodrow Wilson had sold his own country out on the eve of the war by way of the shiny, new, family owned Federal Reserve.)

The war ended with Germany broken. Actually, every European state was broken. An entire generation lost (even in Australia, believe it or not). Finally it was time to divide up the spoils at the Versailles Conference. The invisible but outsize participant at Versailles was, of course, the bankers. They ensured Germany was cut up, with swathes of its population the subjects of other countries, these being the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia and the Silesian Germans in Poland. The bankers now owned Germany and ran the printing presses night and day. In amongst hyper-inflation, they stole whatever wealth was left by way of 'reparations'. The Germans starved. And those of Silesia and the Sudetenland got it worst.

Finally, the Germans freed themselves of the yoke of the bankers. And sure enough, ten years later were strong enough to unite the German people. Well, that's them fucked. It didn't help that Hitler was such a caricature, nor that he was a Social Darwinist motherfucker. But then again, is it possible to throw off the bankers and be a nice guy at the same time? If anyone knows how to do this, I'd love to hear it. I suspect it's the equivalent of finding the question to which '42' is the answer (for those who know their Douglas Adams).

---

In retrospect, Germany was always going to be crushed. Anyone asserting their independence from the bankers will be shown what happens to smart guys. The Romanovs learnt that lesson in the woods of Yekaterinburg - likewise Presidents Jackson, Lincoln, and Kennedy. And then there's Putin. If the Bolshivik revolution was designed to install Jewish control of Russia and WWII was designed to restore control in Germany (and as a twofer, impose it on that powerhouse of Asia, Japan) what might be in store for Putin? Why not a war between the US/NATO and Russia, with everyone else piling in? Just like a World War. The bankers wouldn't even bat an eyelid. The more dead the better. One hundred million - no problems.

Sure enough Russia has been painted as an enemy by the Jewish media ever since Putin got in and threw out the Jewish oligarchs. Think of the farcical nature of the Litvinenko poisoning. He was killed (with the most absurd poison in history) so that we might hate Russia. And then the Jewish catspaw Georgia trashes the ethnic Russian city of Tskhinvili. This attack was never meant to achieve anything apart from provoking Russia. There was no purpose to it otherwise. Tskhinvili had no strategic or tactical value. The Georgians turned tail and ran instantly. Well, you would, wouldn't you, if the point of the exercise was to have the Russians attack you.

Let's imagine we're bankers and we want to kick off a world war with Russia as the villain. Don't forget we control the bloc-media and can ignore our own provocations and can depict the response in isolation. How might we frighten everyone with the bogeyman of a rampaging Russia? Why don't we attack ethnic Russians and then act surprised and horrified when Russia responds? Can you dig it?

And now NATO is coincidentally having naval exercises in the Black Sea. Yeah right! Ha ha ha ha ha. Good timing! Are they that obvious? And honestly, what the fuck is the 'North Atlantic Treaty Organisation' doing in the Black Sea? I redub them NABSTO. 'BS' stands for 'Black Sea'. Or something else if you'd rather.

Think of the beauty of a world war for the bankers. Crushing what remains of the independent Muslim states becomes far easier. With Europe plunged into war who would even notice when Tehran got bombed? How easy would it be to declare martial law in the US? Those internment camps would make a lot of sense. Internment is what you do with enemies in time of war. Ask the Nisei Japanese of fifty years ago. Even China's destruction enters the realms of possibility. And then there's the CFR's stated desire to have a world population of less than a tenth of what it is now. (Let's scratch that 'hundred million' I mentioned earlier.)

Think also of the inexplicable kowtowing of every single figure of authority in the US and Europe. They all know something is coming. Whatever it is has to be big. How about world war big? Would that do it? Would that explain a few things? Remember - The Bankers Think Big. Their ambition is greater than God's. And it's not like they haven't done it before. It worked a treat last time. Why not a Take Two?


"Yes, I'd like to ask the panel what they would do if they were Putin?"
"I should annexe South Ossetia."