What started WW2

[goldmonkey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OzWAghxB3w

[EE_]

http://questionabletopic.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/jewjitsu.jpg

[Saul Mine]

http://i38.tinypic.com/6nt34j.jpg

[philo beddoe]

http://i38.tinypic.com/6nt34j.jpg
Can there be any doubt where your loyalties lie? As there is no refutation of the video.........

[steyr_m]

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Hartley-Ezra-Pound-on-Money.html

Pertinent info -

<blockquote>
Pound recognized two very important threats to the international banking community that arose out of the Third Reich. First, Hitler abandoned the gold standard, meaning that Nazi Germany suddenly had the power to prevent defaulting on its future debt simply by printing money — a power that the U.S. copied from Germany just as it copied the autobahns. Second, and much more important, the Reich took back the power of central banks by financing infrastructure projects directly, issuing notes in payment to the laborers, contractors, and suppliers rather than first borrowing the money from a central bank at interest. (See here and here.) If this practice had spread, bankers would be no more powerful than plumbers.

Furthermore, as long as the supply of this newly printed money in the form of notes matched the increase in GNP and future productivity from these new highways, rails, and factories, the printing of money would not necessarily produce inflation. The Reich also issued debt directly to German citizens and businesses to finance Hitler’s economic miracle, but the central banks lost control over the money supply and lost the ability to trigger banking panics and depressions inside the Reich. It was a mortal threat, and it had to be stopped. Pound was right.

Hitler’s experiment in freedom from banking was broken, and the finance/government partnership was preserved at the cost of millions of lives in World War II.</blockquote>

[Joe King]

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Hartley-Ezra-Pound-on-Money.html

Pertinent info -

<blockquote>
Pound recognized two very important threats to the international banking community that arose out of the Third Reich. First, Hitler abandoned the gold standard, meaning that Nazi Germany suddenly had the power to prevent defaulting on its future debt simply by printing money — a power that the U.S. copied from Germany just as it copied the autobahns. Second, and much more important, the Reich took back the power of central banks by financing infrastructure projects directly, issuing notes in payment to the laborers, contractors, and suppliers rather than first borrowing the money from a central bank at interest. (See here and here.) If this practice had spread, bankers would be no more powerful than plumbers.

Furthermore, as long as the supply of this newly printed money in the form of notes matched the increase in GNP and future productivity from these new highways, rails, and factories, the printing of money would not necessarily produce inflation. The Reich also issued debt directly to German citizens and businesses to finance Hitler’s economic miracle, but the central banks lost control over the money supply and lost the ability to trigger banking panics and depressions inside the Reich. It was a mortal threat, and it had to be stopped. Pound was right.

Hitler’s experiment in freedom from banking was broken, and the finance/government partnership was preserved at the cost of millions of lives in World War II.</blockquote>
Based upon what you quoted, it's obvious that Pound did not understand as much as he thought he did.

[steyr_m]

Based upon what you quoted, it's obvious that Pound did not understand as much as he thought he did.


Please clarify. Turning your back on Intl. Bankers seems like a motive to me.

[etc]

"Icebreaker" by Suvorov, the best book about WWII ever written.

[Joe King]

Based upon what you quoted, it's obvious that Pound did not understand as much as he thought he did.


Please clarify. Turning your back on Intl. Bankers seems like a motive to me.

The first paragraph has a glaring contradiction in it.

First, we did not "copy" the printing of money from Nazi Germany.
Secondly, the US gov certainly does not simply print "money".

If you think the US gov does not borrow money at interest, you haven't done your homework too well.
I'd think anyone here on this forum would know that every FRN in existence is nothing more than evidence of debt.

If anything, the Nazis copied Lincoln and his "greenbacks".


Even the idiot Pete Stark knows the gov borrows at interest. In fact, according to him the gov borrows every dollar they spend.
Which I tend to agree with as the facts I've seen say the same thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjbPZAMked0


So IMHO, if Ezra can't understand the simple distinction between debt encumbered "money" and debt-free "money", I'd have to seriously question his other conclusions as well.
As should you.

[steyr_m]

So IMHO, if Ezra can't understand the simple distinction between debt encumbered "money" and debt-free "money", I'd have to seriously question his other conclusions as well.
As should you.


I think you should think before you speak, and don't try to insult me. The most important parts of what I was trying to get across was...

the Reich took back the power of central banks by financing infrastructure projects directly, issuing notes in payment to the laborers, contractors, and suppliers rather than first borrowing the money from a central bank at interest. (See here and here.) If this practice had spread, bankers would be no more powerful than plumbers.

and

the central banks lost control over the money supply and lost the ability to trigger banking panics and depressions inside the Reich

plus

Hitler’s experiment in freedom from banking was broken, and the finance/government partnership was preserved at the cost of millions of lives in World War II.

[Joe King]

So IMHO, if Ezra can't understand the simple distinction between debt encumbered "money" and debt-free "money", I'd have to seriously question his other conclusions as well.
As should you.


I think you should think before you speak, and don't try to insult me. The most important parts of what I was trying to get across was...

the Reich took back the power of central banks by financing infrastructure projects directly, issuing notes in payment to the laborers, contractors, and suppliers rather than first borrowing the money from a central bank at interest. (See here and here.) If this practice had spread, bankers would be no more powerful than plumbers.

and

the central banks lost control over the money supply and lost the ability to trigger banking panics and depressions inside the Reich

plus

Hitler’s experiment in freedom from banking was broken, and the finance/government partnership was preserved at the cost of millions of lives in World War II.




Those aren't his points that I'm disputing.

Rather, it's the simple fact that he obviously didn't understand the difference between a debt based monetary system and one not based on debt.
It's in his own words.

If he couldn't comprehend something as obvious as that, his other conclusions need to be seriously examined before being accepted at face value.


Also, there was no insult intended towards you. I just stated the truth.
i.e. if you think the US gov does not borrow at interest you need to re-do your homework so you can see that Ezras conclusions need to be examined more thoroughly.

[Fortyone]

I dont believe the monetary system was Germany's moves. I believe it was more that the end of WWI was so harsh for them. I think that the Germans were getting so hosed by the allies and picked apart by countries like Poland they felt the need to reassert themselves. I dont believe it was ever the German's intent to fight a major war with Britain or France again,but had little choice caused by a growing Zionist Soviet state and the allies never wavering support of an expansionist Poland.

[Jersey Thursday]

Help me out with this subject.

Why didn’t Hitler simply assign massive special force teams (along with whole armies) to take out as many individuals he felt were the key players for Central Banks and then develop Germany’s economic policies as he saw fit?
It’s not like he wasn’t ruthless enough.

[ShortJohnSilver]

I thought these two Wikipedia articles were interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game

Germany was not involved in Fraud and Coercion, as Britain and Russia were, but in honest trade.


In the run-up to World War I, both empires were alarmed by Germany's increasing activity in the Middle East, notably the German project of the Baghdad Railway, which would open up Iraq and Iran to German trade and technology. The ministers Alexander Izvolsky and Edward Grey agreed to resolve their long-standing conflicts in Asia in order to make an effective stand against the German advance into the region.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Railway

The Germans won the concession to build a 900-mile railway between Germany and Baghdad, which would have led to Germany increasing in economic might as they no longer had to pay the British shipping companies to move goods to/from the Ottoman Empire.

So their oil imports would have been cheaper and their ability to export to new markets at a competitive price would have been increased.

Interesting isn't it that the timelines of WWI and WWII fits precisely over the dates of construction?

[steyr_m]

Those aren't his points that I'm disputing.


The other points were irrelevant to the subject of the topic in this post.

[Joe King]

Those aren't his points that I'm disputing.


The other points were irrelevant to the subject of the topic in this post.

They are relevent to the point of determining his level of cognitive ability.

Which as I said, if he couldn't tell the difference between two things that are so simple to understand that most children could tell the difference between them, I have to question his cognitive abilities in general.

However, that's not to say that each and every word the guy said is dead wrong, just that you have to be extra careful when taking what he said/wrote at face value.

[Neuro]

It seems quite likely that the reason for war, was the abandonment of the central bank. As I understand it Iraq and Afghanistan had broken their relationships with BIS (Bank of International Settlements). Remaining outside this network of criminal bankers today is North Korea and Iran. I don't think it is a coincidence that these countries were termed the axis of evil. They just rehashed the term from WWII...

[skid]

Joe, I didn't read the whole article, but from the quote, you seem to be the one lacking reading comprehension. Pount stated (I'm paraphrasing) that Germany abandoned the gold standard, and printed money at will and that the US copied that. Well that is true don't you think? The US did abandon the gold standard and printed money at will in the 70's (although paying interest to a central bank).

In the next paragraph he stated the important difference is that Germany printed the money and did NOT pay interest to a central bank. Seems like he is correct, No??

[Joe King]

Joe, I didn't read the whole article, but from the quote, you seem to be the one lacking reading comprehension. Pount stated (I'm paraphrasing) that Germany abandoned the gold standard, and printed money at will and that the US copied that. Well that is true don't you think? The US did abandon the gold standard and printed money at will in the 70's (although paying interest to a central bank).
Yes, both Nations abandoned the gold standard, but our "money" is still lent into circulation at interest.
Lincoln "just printed money" when he authorized a thing called greenbacks that were debt-free.

The point is, you've got people here trumpting Hitler for causing the quick re-bound of Germany because he supposedly used debt free money to do so.
Or did German Marks represent physical evidence of debt just like our FRNs have since 1913?

Which is it? Did Germany use debt as money, or not?
Because we certainly do, and have since 1913.
Which, btw, predates the nazis by a just a couple of decades.
If they used debt as money they copied us, if anything.



In the next paragraph he stated the important difference is that Germany printed the money and did NOT pay interest to a central bank. Seems like he is correct, No??

What you're saying then is that Hitler just chose to encumber the people for his own gain?
If so, and relative to freedom for the people, he's no better than the jews he tried getting rid of.
Which lends evidence that he himself may have been one.
I look at this issue as debt based money = bad no matter who gets the interest, as either way it saddles the people and robs them of their wealth.

[Neuro]

"What you're saying then is that Hitler just chose to encumber the people for his own gain?"

I can't see how you can draw that conclusion? If you have a public works project that needs to be done. Either you finance it with taxes. Or you print money and pay with it. Or you let a central bank print the money and put the government on the hook for the interest.

Hitler choose to print the money I can't see how that gives him a personal gain. I can see though how the bankers lose and the German taxpayers won, with this arrangement, since the interest part of the equation went out of the door.

[Saul Mine]

In general, nobody ever figures out the underlying reason for a war. WW2 was an extension of WW1, which was an extension of the Franco-Prussian War, ... I think Kondratieff got the best answer with his cycles of war theory: it was time for a war, so one happened. (The bible hints at the same thing, in 2 Samuel 11:1.)

[Joe King]

"What you're saying then is that Hitler just chose to encumber the people for his own gain?"

I can't see how you can draw that conclusion? If you have a public works project that needs to be done. Either you finance it with taxes. Or you print money and pay with it. Or you let a central bank print the money and put the government on the hook for the interest.

Hitler choose to print the money I can't see how that gives him a personal gain. I can see though how the bankers lose and the German taxpayers won, with this arrangement, since the interest part of the equation went out of the door.

If Hitler's the one charging usary, it's still debt based "money".

I like the idea of just printing what the gov needs and spending it into circulation.
As long as the people accept it and the gov doesn't print too much of it, it shouldn't be a problem.
If that's what Hitler did then I'm ok with that, as it merely provides a means of exchange for the people that never has to be paid back at some point.
...but that's certainly not how the us gov does it, so how did we copy Hitler?

However, if he printed the peoples "money" in order to loan it himself, he's no better than the bankers.
Which is exactly how our FRNs have worked since 1913.
Which also means we didn't copy him.


Now the autobahn? Sure. We copied that.

[Neuro]

Hitler didn't charge interest, it was money printed and spent into circulation. He didn't gain anything by it personally.

The US copied Hitlers Germany, abandoning the goldstandard in the 70's, along with every other country, but didn't copy ditching the central bank.

Germany did go on a silver standard though. The two and five Reichsmark coins were silver. If Hitler had spent to much into circulation, the silver would go out of circulation...

Axis of evil countries are typically a country without a central bank controlled by the Rothschields.

[Joe King]

Hitler didn't charge interest, it was money printed and spent into circulation. He didn't gain anything by it personally.
I'm cool with that. Makes it where the gov neither needs taxes nor interest.
i.e. it's good for the people.


The US copied Hitlers Germany, abandoning the goldstandard in the 70's, along with every other country, but didn't copy ditching the central bank.We went off the real gold standard in 1933. If gold's either not in circulation or avaliabvle for the people via redemption of notes, then it's not much of a gold standard.
Bretton Woods was a a joke meant to lend the appearance of credibility and not much more.

But even in '71 they weren't "copying" Nazi Germany, but rather reacting to the monetary inflation they'd created.

As long as interest is being charged on the use of our own money, I don't see how it truly resembles anything like what you're saying Hitler did.
IMHO, our monetary system and his are on completely opposite ends of the spectrum.
i.e. debt based vs non-debt based.


Germany did go on a silver standard though. The two and five Reichsmark coins were silver. If Hitler had spent to much into circulation, the silver would go out of circulation...Again, that's a good thing. We should copy that.


Axis of evil countries are typically a country without a central bank controlled by the Rothschields.
I gotta agree with you here.
But the fact Hitler chose to attack first is what makes him ultimately be wrong.
Same as we're in the wrong for having invaded Iraq with no provocation on their part.

[Neuro]

True Joe King, the US went off the gold standard for all practical purposes in 1933. Though the currency was valued in relation to gold until early 70's. But since owning and trading gold for private people were forbidden a true market value was difficult to get, and probably this was the reason why gold rose from 35 to 800 in just a decade or so when it was made legal to trade...

Anyhow Hitler and Germany wanted back what was lost in WWI, with a bit extra (Lebensraum). But I doubt he would have gotten nearly the opposition he got from the "free" world, unless he had pissed off the bankers... Besides there was a lot of bickering between Germany and France, Britain, Poland etc during the 30's. Also Germany was not alone in invading Poland, Soviet and Slovakia were there too. I don't recall them getting the treatment Germany got later in the war...

[Book]

Hitler didn't charge interest, it was money printed and spent into circulation. He didn't gain anything by it personally.
I'm cool with that. Makes it where the gov neither needs taxes nor interest.
i.e. it's good for the people.


The US copied Hitlers Germany, abandoning the goldstandard in the 70's, along with every other country, but didn't copy ditching the central bank.We went off the real gold standard in 1933. If gold's either not in circulation or avaliabvle for the people via redemption of notes, then it's not much of a gold standard.
Bretton Woods was a a joke meant to lend the appearance of credibility and not much more.

But even in '71 they weren't "copying" Nazi Germany, but rather reacting to the monetary inflation they'd created.

As long as interest is being charged on the use of our own money, I don't see how it truly resembles anything like what you're saying Hitler did.
IMHO, our monetary system and his are on completely opposite ends of the spectrum.
i.e. debt based vs non-debt based.


Germany did go on a silver standard though. The two and five Reichsmark coins were silver. If Hitler had spent to much into circulation, the silver would go out of circulation...Again, that's a good thing. We should copy that.


Axis of evil countries are typically a country without a central bank controlled by the Rothschields.


I gotta agree with you here. But the fact Hitler chose to attack first is what makes him ultimately be wrong. Same as we're in the wrong for having invaded Iraq with no provocation on their part.



http://100777.com/images/judeadeclares800.jpg

Barefaced bullshit Joe. Jew Bankers declared international war on Germany in 1933 using boycotts and import/export blockades. Read the newspaper headline dated 1933. Just like ZOG is doing to Iran today. Boycotts and blockades are an act of war.

:oo-->

[steyr_m]

Joe, I didn't read the whole article, but from the quote, you seem to be the one lacking reading comprehension. Pount stated (I'm paraphrasing) that Germany abandoned the gold standard, and printed money at will and that the US copied that. Well that is true don't you think? The US did abandon the gold standard and printed money at will in the 70's (although paying interest to a central bank).

In the next paragraph he stated the important difference is that Germany printed the money and did NOT pay interest to a central bank. Seems like he is correct, No??


It wasn't written by Pound, it was written about Pound. Ezra Pound worked with E. Mullins to write The Secrets of The Federal Reserve.

[steyr_m]

Axis of evil countries are typically a country without a central bank controlled by the Rothschields.


Hey, good one. I'll be putting that in my list of quotes if you don't mind ;D

[steyr_m]

But the fact Hitler chose to attack first is what makes him ultimately be wrong.


No, AH wanted to absorb ethnically German areas that was taken from Germany in the Versailles Treaty, I believe this was mentioned in Mein Kampf He wanted this, set up by a precedent made by the forming of the Czech Rep. Poland refused to allow Danzig, Memel, etc. (that was 95%+ ethnic German) to re-unite with Germany with a corridor though Poland. When Poland didn't allow the re-unification, emboldened by a war guarantee from the UK, Germany took it. As was mentioned in an earlier post, the USSR also invaded Poland; but they ended up being our allies (go figure).

[Joe King]

True Joe King, the US went off the gold standard for all practical purposes in 1933. Though the currency was valued in relation to gold until early 70's. But since owning and trading gold for private people were forbidden a true market value was difficult to get, and probably this was the reason why gold rose from 35 to 800 in just a decade or so when it was made legal to trade...Exactly. The price was held down by what amounts to accounting tricks.


Anyhow Hitler and Germany wanted back what was lost in WWI, with a bit extra (Lebensraum). But I doubt he would have gotten nearly the opposition he got from the "free" world, unless he had pissed off the bankers... Besides there was a lot of bickering between Germany and France, Britain, Poland etc during the 30's. Also Germany was not alone in invading Poland, Soviet and Slovakia were there too. I don't recall them getting the treatment Germany got later in the war...
The way I see it, it comes down to spoils of war. If germany lost WWI and lost territory in doing so, oh well. Tough cookies for them.
To say Germany has the Right to take back what they lost is to say Mexico should be able to take back the SW US. Or that it's ok for Isreal to take back land. Or that of any country that ever lost terrtiory in the past.
As they say, if you don't hold it....you don't own it.
...and if you take what you don't own, it's called stealing from your neighbors.

It's no different than if we decided to invade Canada to "reclaim" land that at one time was US territory.
i.e. Canada and her allies would be justified in anything they needed to do in order to repel the attack. Including the fire bombing of any/all of our cities.
Or if we chose to invade Iran and ended up getting our ships sunk for our trouble. Oh well. That's what might happen when choosing war. Deal with it.

As for Russia, they should have gotten the same treatment.
They certainly are not what I'd have considered an ally.

I still say that had Hitler chose not to invade any other Nation, nazi Germany would've been just fine.
Who knows? Perhaps if they stayed inside their own borders they could have ended up showing the rest of the World how to get away from the central bankers for good.
...but they were too he!!-bent on re-gaining territory as well as taking new territory.
They should have stuck to fighting a "cold war" as opposed to having started a hot one.
Just imagine what might have happened if Germany had started a technological race with the rest of the World as opposed to war.


In my book, ALL aggressors should get what they so generously deserve.
No matter if that aggressor is a Nation, or a bully on a street corner. Smash 'em!

[Joe King]

But the fact Hitler chose to attack first is what makes him ultimately be wrong.


No, AH wanted to absorb ethnically German areas that was taken from Germany in the Versailles Treaty, I believe this was mentioned in Mein Kampf He wanted this, set up by a precedent made by the forming of the Czech Rep. Poland refused to allow Danzig, Memel, etc. (that was 95%+ ethnic German) to re-unite with Germany with a corridor though Poland. When Poland didn't allow the re-unification, emboldened by a war guarantee from the UK, Germany took it. As was mentioned in an earlier post, the USSR also invaded Poland; but they ended up being our allies (go figure).
When you lose territory in a war, you no longer get a say in what happens to that territory. Sorry 4, but they should've just gotten over it by licking their wounds and moving on.

[philo beddoe]

But the fact Hitler chose to attack first is what makes him ultimately be wrong.


No, AH wanted to absorb ethnically German areas that was taken from Germany in the Versailles Treaty, I believe this was mentioned in Mein Kampf He wanted this, set up by a precedent made by the forming of the Czech Rep. Poland refused to allow Danzig, Memel, etc. (that was 95%+ ethnic German) to re-unite with Germany with a corridor though Poland. When Poland didn't allow the re-unification, emboldened by a war guarantee from the UK, Germany took it. As was mentioned in an earlier post, the USSR also invaded Poland; but they ended up being our allies (go figure).
When you lose territory in a war, you no longer get a say in what happens to that territory. Sorry 4, but they should've just gotten over it by licking their wounds and moving on.

Why are you here anyways Mr joke? So if somebody takes your house with bullets and hand grenades, you never get a say so to take it back? HA! You either know very little about WWII, or you have an agenda. I am going with the latter theory. Russia conceded vast territories to Germany in WWI, Why didn't they just lick their wounds and move on?

[Joe King]

But the fact Hitler chose to attack first is what makes him ultimately be wrong.


No, AH wanted to absorb ethnically German areas that was taken from Germany in the Versailles Treaty, I believe this was mentioned in Mein Kampf He wanted this, set up by a precedent made by the forming of the Czech Rep. Poland refused to allow Danzig, Memel, etc. (that was 95%+ ethnic German) to re-unite with Germany with a corridor though Poland. When Poland didn't allow the re-unification, emboldened by a war guarantee from the UK, Germany took it. As was mentioned in an earlier post, the USSR also invaded Poland; but they ended up being our allies (go figure).
When you lose territory in a war, you no longer get a say in what happens to that territory. Sorry 4, but they should've just gotten over it by licking their wounds and moving on.

Why are you here anyways Mr joke? So if somebody takes your house with bullets and hand grenades, you never get a say so to take it back?If they get it due to you having fought them with bullets and hand gernades first, sure.


HA! You either know very little about WWII, or you have an agenda. I am going with the latter theory. Russia conceded vast territories to Germany in WWI, Why didn't they just lick their wounds and move on?
You're right, they should have licked their wounds and moved on.

My question to that is, why say/sign that you agree to something if in fact you really don't? Where I come from that's called telling a lie.

[Joe King]

BTW, here's another of Hitlers blunders.

Becoming a dope fiend and encouraging his troops and the German people to do the same without regard to the negative effects.
i.e. it was like a big medical experiment upon virtually the entire population.

http://www.amphetamines.com/nazi.html
http://www.amphetamines.com/adolf-hitler.html

[Joe King]

Why are you here anyways Mr joke?

I was here just to read, and would have continued doing so if it hadn't been for Phoenix.
So you can thank Phoenix for actually pushing me over the edge to start posting.
{Phoenix, where are ya buddy?} ;D

To be honest Quantum almost did the same, but the very day I was actually going to respond to him he deleted his account. So I didn't.


Disclaimer: This post is a representation of the facts and is not intended to insinuate that the two posters mentioned above are one in the same.

[Neuro]

Axis of evil countries are typically a country without a central bank controlled by the Rothschields.


Hey, good one. I'll be putting that in my list of quotes if you don't mind ;D
Thanks I'll be honored.

[steyr_m]

But the fact Hitler chose to attack first is what makes him ultimately be wrong.


No, AH wanted to absorb ethnically German areas that was taken from Germany in the Versailles Treaty, I believe this was mentioned in Mein Kampf He wanted this, set up by a precedent made by the forming of the Czech Rep. Poland refused to allow Danzig, Memel, etc. (that was 95%+ ethnic German) to re-unite with Germany with a corridor though Poland. When Poland didn't allow the re-unification, emboldened by a war guarantee from the UK, Germany took it. As was mentioned in an earlier post, the USSR also invaded Poland; but they ended up being our allies (go figure).
When you lose territory in a war, you no longer get a say in what happens to that territory. Sorry 4, but they should've just gotten over it by licking their wounds and moving on.



Well, as I said in my first post. The reason why the Czech was made that a group of people should have self-determination. The areas I enumerated were ethnic German and wanted to reunify with Germany. The ethnic Poles did not treat them well. If they wanted to re-join Germany, and Germany wanted them back... why not. No different than if there was an area in Laos that was 95% ethnic Chinese and they wanted to become a part of China. Why not? Shouldn't the will of the people prevail?

[steyr_m]

BTW, here's another of Hitlers blunders.

Becoming a dope fiend and encouraging his troops and the German people to do the same without regard to the negative effects.
i.e. it was like a big medical experiment upon virtually the entire population.

http://www.amphetamines.com/nazi.html
http://www.amphetamines.com/adolf-hitler.html


That's all Joo influenced info. He probably had Parkinson's and his Dr. prescribed it.

[Joe King]

But the fact Hitler chose to attack first is what makes him ultimately be wrong.


No, AH wanted to absorb ethnically German areas that was taken from Germany in the Versailles Treaty, I believe this was mentioned in Mein Kampf He wanted this, set up by a precedent made by the forming of the Czech Rep. Poland refused to allow Danzig, Memel, etc. (that was 95%+ ethnic German) to re-unite with Germany with a corridor though Poland. When Poland didn't allow the re-unification, emboldened by a war guarantee from the UK, Germany took it. As was mentioned in an earlier post, the USSR also invaded Poland; but they ended up being our allies (go figure).
When you lose territory in a war, you no longer get a say in what happens to that territory. Sorry 4, but they should've just gotten over it by licking their wounds and moving on.



Well, as I said in my first post. The reason why the Czech was made that a group of people should have self-determination. The areas I enumerated were ethnic German and wanted to reunify with Germany. The ethnic Poles did not treat them well. If they wanted to re-join Germany, and Germany wanted them back... why not. No different than if there was an area in Laos that was 95% ethnic Chinese and they wanted to become a part of China. Why not? Shouldn't the will of the people prevail?
I'd say the same thing that people here tend to say to the Mexicans wanting the SW US back.
i.e. if you like your home country so much, there's the border. Don't let the door hit you in the you-know-where.

Germany was one of the big losers in WWI. Don't want to lose territory in war? It's real simple. Don't start fighting one to begin with.

It's as though some people expect Germany to be able to take a Mulligan on it or something. ::)

Did Hitler mention anything in mein kampf about him wanting to become a drug fiend too?

[Joe King]

BTW, here's another of Hitlers blunders.

Becoming a dope fiend and encouraging his troops and the German people to do the same without regard to the negative effects.
i.e. it was like a big medical experiment upon virtually the entire population.

http://www.amphetamines.com/nazi.html
http://www.amphetamines.com/adolf-hitler.html


That's all Joo influenced info. He probably had Parkinson's and his Dr. prescribed it.
I don't think so.
Just by you saying "probably" about it, makes it sound as though you're just trying to make excuses for his well known habit simply because you seem to like the guy. That's called "enabling".

Also, just because a Dr. may have prescribed it doesn't mean anything.
Remember, Rush Limbaugh Michael Jackson and countless other addicts throughout history also used a Dr. to get their "fix".

Besides, what Dr in his right mind would have denied Hitler anything? If he refuses, it's off to the concentration camp for him.
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/4948/wavingsmiley.gif <--- Hitler waving by! by! as the non-prescribing Dr is hauled away.

[skid]

I'm not seeing logic in your answers Joe. Only hypocracy... You just don't like Germans or Hitler, right?

[Joe King]

I'm not seeing logic in your answers Joe. Only hypocracy... You just don't like Germans or Hitler, right?
It's not a question of not liking. I'm of German descent myself, so without Germans, I wouldn't even be here.
So I have no problem with the German people at all. Can't hardly beat anything that's been engineered by them.

I just have a hard time seeing how anyone could support and/or think America needs someone like Hitler who at the least, stole lied and pushed hard drugs on his Nations population {meth} while leading the Nation to absolute ruin before taking the cowards way out.

Why couldn't he just stay within German borders and take care of Germanys own business?

Germany lost WWI and had no right to any territory lost. None. {spoils of war}
Same as Mexico can't claim Texas back, no matter how much they might want to.
I also don't like what Israel has done to their neighbors either.


As bad as what we have now is, the last thing we need is another Hitler running things. Because if we really do have a bad crash in the economy, conditions will be similar to those that allowed Hitler to rise to power.
And if that happens, I can only hope that enough people will be smart enough to keep it from happening, but that won't happen if we allow Hitler to be glorified in peoples eyes.

[philo beddoe]

I'm not seeing logic in your answers Joe. Only hypocracy... You just don't like Germans or Hitler, right?
It's not a question of not liking. I'm of German descent myself, so without Germans, I wouldn't even be here.
So I have no problem with the German people at all. Can't hardly beat anything that's been engineered by them.

I just have a hard time seeing how anyone could support and/or think America needs someone like Hitler who at the least, stole lied and pushed hard drugs on his Nations population {meth} while leading the Nation to absolute ruin before taking the cowards way out.

Why couldn't he just stay within German borders and take care of Germanys own business?

Germany lost WWI and had no right to any territory lost. None. {spoils of war}
Same as Mexico can't claim Texas back, no matter how much they might want to.
I also don't like what Israel has done to their neighbors either.


As bad as what we have now is, the last thing we need is another Hitler running things. Because if we really do have a bad crash in the economy, conditions will be similar to those that allowed Hitler to rise to power.
And if that happens, I can only hope that enough people will be smart enough to keep it from happening, but that won't happen if we allow Hitler to be glorified in peoples eyes.
You might as well be quoting the History Channel. You would support Hitler if he fired took Obamas job, fired the jew chief of staff, and gave you the job.

[Joe King]

I'm not seeing logic in your answers Joe. Only hypocracy... You just don't like Germans or Hitler, right?
It's not a question of not liking. I'm of German descent myself, so without Germans, I wouldn't even be here.
So I have no problem with the German people at all. Can't hardly beat anything that's been engineered by them.

I just have a hard time seeing how anyone could support and/or think America needs someone like Hitler who at the least, stole lied and pushed hard drugs on his Nations population {meth} while leading the Nation to absolute ruin before taking the cowards way out.

Why couldn't he just stay within German borders and take care of Germanys own business?

Germany lost WWI and had no right to any territory lost. None. {spoils of war}
Same as Mexico can't claim Texas back, no matter how much they might want to.
I also don't like what Israel has done to their neighbors either.


As bad as what we have now is, the last thing we need is another Hitler running things. Because if we really do have a bad crash in the economy, conditions will be similar to those that allowed Hitler to rise to power.
And if that happens, I can only hope that enough people will be smart enough to keep it from happening, but that won't happen if we allow Hitler to be glorified in peoples eyes.
You might as well be quoting the History Channel. You would support Hitler if he fired took Obamas job, fired the jew chief of staff, and gave you the job.
So Germany didn't lose WWI?

If it's ok for Germany to re-claim previously lost territory, then it's ok for Israel to do so too.
As well as every other Nation that ever lost territory.

Can you justify taking from your neighbors just because they don't give you their stuff? That's called stealing and it's wrong. It's what Hitler did.

Keep in mind that I'm approaching this issue from the standpoint of right and wrong being of an absolute nature.
Others seem to be approaching it from the standpoint of it's ok to do bad things if you think that you have a good enough reason to.

[steyr_m]

I'd say the same thing that people here tend to say to the Mexicans wanting the SW US back.
i.e. if you like your home country so much, there's the border. Don't let the door hit you in the you-know-where.

Germany was one of the big losers in WWI. Don't want to lose territory in war? It's real simple. Don't start fighting one to begin with.

It's as though some people expect Germany to be able to take a Mulligan on it or something. ::)

Did Hitler mention anything in mein kampf about him wanting to become a drug fiend too?



I think you need to knock the dust off of your history books. The territory they "lost" was taken from them in the Treaty of Versailles, not by a conquering army. They would have won if the US wasn't suckered into joining the war.

Mein Kampf, drug fiend, huh?

I'm starting to lose interest in this discussion because I'm wondering if you're looking at this objectively.

[steyr_m]

Help me out with this subject.

Why didn’t Hitler simply assign massive special force teams (along with whole armies) to take out as many individuals he felt were the key players for Central Banks and then develop Germany’s economic policies as he saw fit?
It’s not like he wasn’t ruthless enough.


Why didn't he take out key players for Central Banks.... that will open the door for conspiracy theories for eons. Many think he was a crypto-jew because he didn't do that.

In comparison to people like...... hmmmm, Stalin. Hitler wasn't ruthless at all. The MSM want you to think he's the most ruthless of them all.

[Joe King]

I'd say the same thing that people here tend to say to the Mexicans wanting the SW US back.
i.e. if you like your home country so much, there's the border. Don't let the door hit you in the you-know-where.

Germany was one of the big losers in WWI. Don't want to lose territory in war? It's real simple. Don't start fighting one to begin with.

It's as though some people expect Germany to be able to take a Mulligan on it or something. ::)

Did Hitler mention anything in mein kampf about him wanting to become a drug fiend too?



I think you need to knock the dust off of your history books. The territory they "lost" was taken from them in the Treaty of Versailles, not by a conquering army. They would have won if the US wasn't suckered into joining the war.You shouldn't sign something you don't agree with. Same applies for a Nation.


Mein Kampf, drug fiend, huh?I asked if he wrote in there about wanting to become a drug addict too.


I'm starting to lose interest in this discussion because I'm wondering if you're looking at this objectively.
I am looking at from a standpoint of right and wrong.
It's wrong to steal from your neighbors and it's wrong to agree to things you have no intention of honoring.
Hitler did both and it led his Nation to ruin.

If Germany was still so powerful in WWI, why did they quit fighting the war? Usually when you give up a fight it means that you lose.

[Joe King]

Help me out with this subject.

Why didn’t Hitler simply assign massive special force teams (along with whole armies) to take out as many individuals he felt were the key players for Central Banks and then develop Germany’s economic policies as he saw fit?
It’s not like he wasn’t ruthless enough.


Why didn't he take out key players for Central Banks.... that will open the door for conspiracy theories for eons. Many think he was a crypto-jew because he didn't do that.

In comparison to people like...... hmmmm, Stalin. Hitler wasn't ruthless at all. The MSM want you to think he's the most ruthless of them all.
In that regard you're talkin' about degrees of bad.
And just for the record, I think Stalin was a fag too.

[goldmonkey]

This video has been removed due to terms of use violation.

[Book]

As bad as what we have now is, the last thing we need is another Hitler running things. Because if we really do have a bad crash in the economy, conditions will be similar to those that allowed Hitler to rise to power. And if that happens, I can only hope that enough people will be smart enough to keep it from happening, but that won't happen if we allow Hitler to be glorified in peoples eyes.



http://www.euro-webonline.com/world_cultures/images/NaziRally.jpg

http://insignificances.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/nazi_rally.jpg

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/askville/3778322_9966074_mywrite/nazi_rally.jpg

Yeah...Whitey America needs to quietly go away and make room for the Kosher NWO Affirmative-Action Melting Pot Of Goyim.

:oo-->

A report in August 2008[40] from the U.S. Census Bureau projects that non-Hispanic whites will no longer make up the majority of the population by 2042, but will remain the largest race. This is a revision of earlier projections that this would occur in 2050. Today, non-Hispanic White Americans make up about 66% of the population. This percentage is expected to fall to 46% in 2050. The report foresees the Hispanic and Latino population rising from 15% today to 30% by 2050. Today, African Americans make up 14% of the population, in 2050 they are projected to comprise 15%. Asian Americans make up 5% of the population and are expected to make up 9% in 2050. The U.S. has 308 million people today, and is projected to reach 400 million by 2039 and 439 million in 2050.[17]

[Neuro]

Germany got a very bad deal out of WWI. When that happens and the spirit of the people is not broken, the natural response is revenge. That is why Hitler came to power, and the spirit of the Germans were broken post WWII. Hitlers drug addiction was IMO a contributing factor to Germany losing WWII... Martin Bormann was probably the ruler more than Hitler was from 1943 onwards, and that was when he was prescribed narcotics on a daily basis. He had another doctor who opposed the doctor who prescribed the narcotics, and he wasn't executed for it, Hitler just choose to listen to the one who gave him the injections.

[steyr_m]

I am looking at from a standpoint of right and wrong.
It's wrong to steal from your neighbors and it's wrong to agree to things you have no intention of honoring.
Hitler did both and it led his Nation to ruin.

If Germany was still so powerful in WWI, why did they quit fighting the war? Usually when you give up a fight it means that you lose.


OK, so please tell me why when Germany invaded Poland they were our enemies; but The USSR, who also invaded Poland were our allies? Why did we allow the USSR to occupy Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Czech Rep., etc. after WW2?

[ShortJohnSilver]

OK, so please tell me why when Germany invaded Poland they were our enemies; but The USSR, who also invaded Poland were our allies? Why did we allow the USSR to occupy Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Czech Rep., etc. after WW2?


Excellent question, part of it was that FDR's staff was riddled through and through with Communist sympathizers.

[philo beddoe]

OK, so please tell me why when Germany invaded Poland they were our enemies; but The USSR, who also invaded Poland were our allies? Why did we allow the USSR to occupy Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Czech Rep., etc. after WW2?


Excellent question, part of it was that FDR's staff was riddled through and through with Communist sympathizers.
Communist: code word for kite

[Joe King]

I am looking at from a standpoint of right and wrong.
It's wrong to steal from your neighbors and it's wrong to agree to things you have no intention of honoring.
Hitler did both and it led his Nation to ruin.

If Germany was still so powerful in WWI, why did they quit fighting the war? Usually when you give up a fight it means that you lose.


OK, so please tell me why when Germany invaded Poland they were our enemies; but The USSR, who also invaded Poland were our allies? Why did we allow the USSR to occupy Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Czech Rep., etc. after WW2?
I'm not saying that those actions were right, either. You seem to think that if I'm against one side that I must be in favor of the other. Wrong.
IMHO, if Germany hadn't been so stupid as to invade Russia, they would have been seen as an enemy. But because Hitler chose to attack his ally, Russia was then seen as helping to defeat our enemy.
i.e. right or wrong, it came down to an enemy of my enemy is my ally.

Which as we both see now, was not the case.

As for why wasn't the Soviet Union invaded after the defeat of Nazi Germany? I'd say that it was because it would have been a fight we didn't want at the time, as our only reason for entering the war in Europe was Germanys declaration of war against the US.
i.e. at the time we only fought wars against those who decalared war on us first. As is the only way a war should be fought.


Besides, I personally believe that Resistance has to come from within.
i.e. if those people weren't willing to attempt to fight their occupiers themselves, I'm not going to go do it for them.

[Joe King]

Germany got a very bad deal out of WWI.I agree. Germany did get the short end of the stick as all losers of war do.


When that happens and the spirit of the people is not broken, the natural response is revenge.Now wait a minute. The story I got about WWI was that the will of the German people to fight the war was not there any more. Which was a big reason for them to cease hostilities.
i.e. that was the excuse for coming up with the stabbed in the back theory.

So which was it? Did the German people support the troops in WWI? If so, they should have kept fighting. Who knows? They might have won.
Or is it true that support at home evaporated? Sorta like how support for our govs BS war in Vietnam evaporated and culminated in withdrawing our troops.


That is why Hitler came to power, and the spirit of the Germans were broken post WWII.Hitler told the people what they liked hearing in order to build up support for his goal of Fascism.
...and yes, after WWII the German people really were broken, as they deservered to be for allowing a Hitler into power in the first place.



Hitlers drug addiction was IMO a contributing factor to Germany losing WWII... Martin Bormann was probably the ruler more than Hitler was from 1943 onwards, and that was when he was prescribed narcotics on a daily basis.So up until that point he was just a recreational user?


He had another doctor who opposed the doctor who prescribed the narcotics, and he wasn't executed for it, Hitler just choose to listen to the one who gave him the injections.Right. He still got what he wanted. What would have happened if no Dr would have?

[Joe King]

As bad as what we have now is, the last thing we need is another Hitler running things. Because if we really do have a bad crash in the economy, conditions will be similar to those that allowed Hitler to rise to power. And if that happens, I can only hope that enough people will be smart enough to keep it from happening, but that won't happen if we allow Hitler to be glorified in peoples eyes.



http://www.euro-webonline.com/world_cultures/images/NaziRally.jpg

http://insignificances.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/nazi_rally.jpg

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/askville/3778322_9966074_mywrite/nazi_rally.jpg

Yeah...Whitey America needs to quietly go away and make room for the Kosher NWO Affirmative-Action Melting Pot Of Goyim.

:oo-->

A report in August 2008[40] from the U.S. Census Bureau projects that non-Hispanic whites will no longer make up the majority of the population by 2042, but will remain the largest race. This is a revision of earlier projections that this would occur in 2050. Today, non-Hispanic White Americans make up about 66% of the population. This percentage is expected to fall to 46% in 2050. The report foresees the Hispanic and Latino population rising from 15% today to 30% by 2050. Today, African Americans make up 14% of the population, in 2050 they are projected to comprise 15%. Asian Americans make up 5% of the population and are expected to make up 9% in 2050. The U.S. has 308 million people today, and is projected to reach 400 million by 2039 and 439 million in 2050.[17]
What's your point here? Are you actually attempting to make a case for genocide, or what? ???

Your pics show nothing but dead zombies walking.

[willie pete]

Wasn't Goering hooked on morphine in the end too? seems like I read that somewhere...

[Joe King]

Germany would have been so much better off if only Hitler had listened to the two guys on the right, as opposed to being he!! bent on starting a war of aggression without regard to the risks it posed.


http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/1481/bundesarchivbild1020181.jpg

[sirgonzo420]

OK, so please tell me why when Germany invaded Poland they were our enemies; but The USSR, who also invaded Poland were our allies? Why did we allow the USSR to occupy Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Czech Rep., etc. after WW2?


Excellent question, part of it was that FDR's staff was riddled through and through with Communist sympathizers.
Communist: code word for kite


What do kites have to do with anything?

[steyr_m]

What's your point here? Are you actually attempting to make a case for genocide, or what? ???

Your pics show nothing but dead zombies walking.


Now I know why it's almost point-less to debate with you. You think the Holocaust (as portrayed by the MSM) is real.

What about another genocide most people have never heard about. The Holomodor, done by good ole Uncle Joe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

[Joe King]

What's your point here? Are you actually attempting to make a case for genocide, or what? ???

Your pics show nothing but dead zombies walking.


Now I know why it's almost point-less to debate with you. You think the Holocaust (as portrayed by the MSM) is real.

What about another genocide most people have never heard about. The Holomodor, done by good ole Uncle Joe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
No, what I was implying is that he seemed to be making a case for us {white people} to commit genocide today.

Nowhere in my opposition to Hitler in these threads will you find me saying that it is because of the jewish holocaust.
That's a whole 'nother issue.

I've simply been stating my opinion of Hitler when measured against the principle of right&wrong being absolutes. Nothing more.

[steyr_m]

]I'm not saying that those actions were right, either. You seem to think that if I'm against one side that I must be in favor of the other. Wrong.
IMHO, if Germany hadn't been so stupid as to invade Russia, they would have been seen as an enemy. But because Hitler chose to attack his ally, Russia was then seen as helping to defeat our enemy.
i.e. right or wrong, it came down to an enemy of my enemy is my ally.

Which as we both see now, was not the case.

As for why wasn't the Soviet Union invaded after the defeat of Nazi Germany? I'd say that it was because it would have been a fight we didn't want at the time, as our only reason for entering the war in Europe was Germanys declaration of war against the US.
i.e. at the time we only fought wars against those who decalared war on us first. As is the only way a war should be fought.

Besides, I personally believe that Resistance has to come from within.
i.e. if those people weren't willing to attempt to fight their occupiers themselves, I'm not going to go do it for them.


The thing I think that you're not seeing is that the victors of wars are the writers of history books. If Germany had won WW2, the world would probably be a better place. The Jews would probably still have a home-land, since AH was deporting them prior to WW2, but not one where foreign govts. support it via their tax dollars or fighting proxy wars. GB would probably still have her empire. The US would still be a non-expansionist govt. We wouldn't have massive 3rd-world immigration to our countries. We would have gotten rid of Intl bankers, the true evil people in this world.

Nazi Germany and the USSR were not allies. They did have a non-aggression pact. There's lots of evidence that Barbarossa was a pre-emptive strike. Again, the victors of wars are the writers of history books.

Again, you missed what I wrote. You said:

<blockquote>Russia was then seen as helping to defeat our enemy.</blockquote>

Why was Germany labeled as our enemy, when the USSR also invaded Poland in Sept. '39; and they were our ally? It would make more sense if GB also declared war against the USSR, but it only gave Poland a war guarantee only against Germany. Once again, AH was only trying to reclaim the parts of Germany that was taken from it in the extremely punitive Treaty of Versailles.

[steyr_m]

No, what I was implying is that he seemed to be making a case for us {white people} to commit genocide today.


I wasn't seeing that. What I saw was a case of social homogeneity, and pride in one's self.

What I also saw was, his observation that what's happening now is a 3rd world invasion in European home-lands with Judaic social-engineers frantically trying to get us to: 1. View this as a Utopian ideal 2. Get us to miscegenate ourselves out of existence.

[goldmonkey]

"Icebreaker" by Suvorov, the best book about WWII ever written.

Found it @ JR's Rare Books and Commentary (http://www.jrbooksonline.com/):

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/icebreaker.pdf

[philo beddoe]

No, what I was implying is that he seemed to be making a case for us {white people} to commit genocide today.


I wasn't seeing that. What I saw was a case of social homogeneity, and pride in one's self.

what I saw was his observation that what's happening now is a 3rd world invasion in European home-lands with Judaic social-engineers frantically trying to get us to: 1. View this as a Utopian ideal 2. Get us to miscegenate ourselves out of existence.


Joeking is just here to waste your time and my time. He will say whatever it takes to foul up any discussion or sidetrack the issue.

[philo beddoe]

OK, so please tell me why when Germany invaded Poland they were our enemies; but The USSR, who also invaded Poland were our allies? Why did we allow the USSR to occupy Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Czech Rep., etc. after WW2?


Excellent question, part of it was that FDR's staff was riddled through and through with Communist sympathizers.
Communist: code word for kite


What do kites have to do with anything?
you're a smart guy. Go figure it out.

[steyr_m]

No, what I was implying is that he seemed to be making a case for us {white people} to commit genocide today.


I wasn't seeing that. What I saw was a case of social homogeneity, and pride in one's self.

what I saw was his observation that what's happening now is a 3rd world invasion in European home-lands with Judaic social-engineers frantically trying to get us to: 1. View this as a Utopian ideal 2. Get us to miscegenate ourselves out of existence.


Joeking is just here to waste your time and my time. He will say whatever it takes to foul up any discussion or sidetrack the issue.


I think you're right. I mentioned on a post yesterday, that I was questioning is objectivity. Now, I'm sure he's being either subjective, or being a time waster. I'm willing to continue debating the subject, but not with him anymore.

[Joe King]

]I'm not saying that those actions were right, either. You seem to think that if I'm against one side that I must be in favor of the other. Wrong.
IMHO, if Germany hadn't been so stupid as to invade Russia, they would have been seen as an enemy. But because Hitler chose to attack his ally, Russia was then seen as helping to defeat our enemy.
i.e. right or wrong, it came down to an enemy of my enemy is my ally.

Which as we both see now, was not the case.

As for why wasn't the Soviet Union invaded after the defeat of Nazi Germany? I'd say that it was because it would have been a fight we didn't want at the time, as our only reason for entering the war in Europe was Germanys declaration of war against the US.
i.e. at the time we only fought wars against those who decalared war on us first. As is the only way a war should be fought.

Besides, I personally believe that Resistance has to come from within.
i.e. if those people weren't willing to attempt to fight their occupiers themselves, I'm not going to go do it for them.


The thing I think that you're not seeing is that the victors of wars are the writers of history books. If Germany had won WW2, the world would probably be a better place. The Jews would probably still have a home-land, since AH was deporting them prior to WW2, but not one where foreign govts. support it via their tax dollars or fighting proxy wars. GB would probably still have her empire. The US would still be a non-expansionist govt. We wouldn't have massive 3rd-world immigration to our countries. We would have gotten rid of Intl bankers, the true evil people in this world.

Nazi Germany and the USSR were not allies. They did have a non-aggression pact. There's lots of evidence that Barbarossa was a pre-emptive strike. Again, the victors of wars are the writers of history books.

Again, you missed what I wrote. You said:

<blockquote>Russia was then seen as helping to defeat our enemy.</blockquote>

Why was Germany labeled as our enemy, when the USSR also invaded Poland in Sept. '39; and they were our ally? It would make more sense if GB also declared war against the USSR, but it only gave Poland a war guarantee only against Germany. Once again, AH was only trying to reclaim the parts of Germany that was taken from it in the extremely punitive Treaty of Versailles.
They were our enemy first and foremost due to Hitler having declared war on us. That was another of his big blunders. That being him thinking he could take on the World. Which was probably the speed talking as meth heads do tend to think they are invincible.

And yes, I realize that the victors get to write the history, but that's also part of the spoils of war.

Germany and Russia had an agreement relative to war and trade. That sounds to me more like allys than not.

[philo beddoe]

No, what I was implying is that he seemed to be making a case for us {white people} to commit genocide today.


I wasn't seeing that. What I saw was a case of social homogeneity, and pride in one's self.

what I saw was his observation that what's happening now is a 3rd world invasion in European home-lands with Judaic social-engineers frantically trying to get us to: 1. View this as a Utopian ideal 2. Get us to miscegenate ourselves out of existence.


Joeking is just here to waste your time and my time. He will say whatever it takes to foul up any discussion or sidetrack the issue.


I think you're right. I mentioned on a post yesterday, that I was questioning is objectivity. Now, I'm sure he's being either subjective, or being a time waster. I'm willing to continue debating the subject, but not with him anymore.
We are both here for the truth. Hitler is used by the NWO to vilify anyone who speaks up for the truth or for their own race. Getting it right is of the utmost importance. I don't know what Hitler would of done if he too Moscow, but I am sure he would of reopened the Orthodox church to the masses.

[Joe King]

No, what I was implying is that he seemed to be making a case for us {white people} to commit genocide today.


I wasn't seeing that. What I saw was a case of social homogeneity, and pride in one's self.

What I also saw was, his observation that what's happening now is a 3rd world invasion in European home-lands with Judaic social-engineers frantically trying to get us to: 1. View this as a Utopian ideal 2. Get us to miscegenate ourselves out of existence.

What exactly do you propse we do to "fix" the problem then?
The only options I see to what he pointed out would be, they go, they stay, or they die. Pick one.

Or do you think it'd be a good idea to assign various ethnic groups to their own States of the Union? lol

[Joe King]

No, what I was implying is that he seemed to be making a case for us {white people} to commit genocide today.


I wasn't seeing that. What I saw was a case of social homogeneity, and pride in one's self.

what I saw was his observation that what's happening now is a 3rd world invasion in European home-lands with Judaic social-engineers frantically trying to get us to: 1. View this as a Utopian ideal 2. Get us to miscegenate ourselves out of existence.


Joeking is just here to waste your time and my time. He will say whatever it takes to foul up any discussion or sidetrack the issue.


I think you're right. I mentioned on a post yesterday, that I was questioning is objectivity. Now, I'm sure he's being either subjective, or being a time waster. I'm willing to continue debating the subject, but not with him anymore.
We are both here for the truth. Hitler is used by the NWO to vilify anyone who speaks up for the truth or for their own race. Getting it right is of the utmost importance. I don't know what Hitler would of done if he too Moscow, but I am sure he would of reopened the Orthodox church to the masses.

Why do you have a problem with applying the simple principle of right & wrong in an objective way?

The end does not always justify the means.

[steyr_m]

They were our enemy first and foremost due to Hitler having declared war on us.


Once again, knock the dust off of your history books. What I was talking about was in Sept '39. Hitler declared war on "us" (I'm assuming you're referring to the US) in late '41

/ignore

[Joe King]

They were our enemy first and foremost due to Hitler having declared war on us.


Once again, knock the dust off of your history books. What I was talking about was in Sept '39. Hitler declared war on "us" (I'm assuming you're referring to the US) in late '41

/ignore

My point is that we were not involved in any hostilities until we were declared war on.

We did not run to Polands aid due to Germany or Russia invading.
IMO, had Hitler chose not to declare war on us, we would have concentrated on the Japenese and mostly left Europe alone.

[philo beddoe]

No, what I was implying is that he seemed to be making a case for us {white people} to commit genocide today.


I wasn't seeing that. What I saw was a case of social homogeneity, and pride in one's self.

what I saw was his observation that what's happening now is a 3rd world invasion in European home-lands with Judaic social-engineers frantically trying to get us to: 1. View this as a Utopian ideal 2. Get us to miscegenate ourselves out of existence.


Joeking is just here to waste your time and my time. He will say whatever it takes to foul up any discussion or sidetrack the issue.


I think you're right. I mentioned on a post yesterday, that I was questioning is objectivity. Now, I'm sure he's being either subjective, or being a time waster. I'm willing to continue debating the subject, but not with him anymore.
We are both here for the truth. Hitler is used by the NWO to vilify anyone who speaks up for the truth or for their own race. Getting it right is of the utmost importance. I don't know what Hitler would of done if he too Moscow, but I am sure he would of reopened the Orthodox church to the masses.

Why do you have a problem with applying the simple principle of right & wrong in an objective way?

The end does not always justify the means.
I don't believe in your value system, which was taught to you by our propaganda public school syustem. My value system says that there should be separate rules favoring whites. What about that do you not get? Call it apartheid, I don't care.

[philo beddoe]

They were our enemy first and foremost due to Hitler having declared war on us.


Once again, knock the dust off of your history books. What I was talking about was in Sept '39. Hitler declared war on "us" (I'm assuming you're referring to the US) in late '41

/ignore

My point is that we were not involved in any hostilities until we were declared war on.

We did not run to Polands aid due to Germany or Russia invading.
IMO, had Hitler chose not to declare war on us, we would have concentrated on the Japenese and mostly left Europe alone.
I see you don't even take the few seconds to google your facts before you write. I commend that. Most people would google something and pretend like they knew it all along. Roosevelt was as much as war as you could be with Germany, minus the troops. He sent ships and supplies to England. He helped blockade germany. he sent Boeing technicians over to Russia to build military DC-3's. I could go on, but if you post any more amateur views, I will just ignore.............

[Joe King]

They were our enemy first and foremost due to Hitler having declared war on us.


Once again, knock the dust off of your history books. What I was talking about was in Sept '39. Hitler declared war on "us" (I'm assuming you're referring to the US) in late '41

/ignore

My point is that we were not involved in any hostilities until we were declared war on.

We did not run to Polands aid due to Germany or Russia invading.
IMO, had Hitler chose not to declare war on us, we would have concentrated on the Japenese and mostly left Europe alone.
I see you don't even take the few seconds to google your facts before you write. I commend that. Most people would google something and pretend like they knew it all along. Roosevelt was as much as war as you could be with Germany, minus the troops. He sent ships and supplies to England. He helped blockade germany. he sent Boeing technicians over to Russia to build military DC-3's. I could go on, but if you post any more amateur views, I will just ignore.............
I'm no FDR fan either. He was as big a fag as Hitler was and took action that served to help lead our Nation to its eventual ruin as much as Hitlers actions led to Germanys.
And yes, I agree that he wanted America in the war. But you know what? You can thank the zombies alive at the time for allowing him to do so.

But the fact still remains that we weren't in a shooting war until we had war declared on us.

[steyr_m]

I see you don't even take the few seconds to google your facts before you write. I commend that. Most people would google something and pretend like they knew it all along. Roosevelt was as much as war as you could be with Germany, minus the troops. He sent ships and supplies to England. He helped blockade germany. he sent Boeing technicians over to Russia to build military DC-3's. I could go on, but if you post any more amateur views, I will just ignore.............


yep, part of the plan was to bankrupt the British empire so the US could take over the world (hegemony). Unfortunately, it worked like a charm.

...and we're taught in school/MSM that AH wanted to take over the world, even though he didn't have a Navy capable of doing so, no long-range bombers/fighters, no amphibious assault water-craft.

[Joe King]

No, what I was implying is that he seemed to be making a case for us {white people} to commit genocide today.


I wasn't seeing that. What I saw was a case of social homogeneity, and pride in one's self.

what I saw was his observation that what's happening now is a 3rd world invasion in European home-lands with Judaic social-engineers frantically trying to get us to: 1. View this as a Utopian ideal 2. Get us to miscegenate ourselves out of existence.


Joeking is just here to waste your time and my time. He will say whatever it takes to foul up any discussion or sidetrack the issue.


I think you're right. I mentioned on a post yesterday, that I was questioning is objectivity. Now, I'm sure he's being either subjective, or being a time waster. I'm willing to continue debating the subject, but not with him anymore.
We are both here for the truth. Hitler is used by the NWO to vilify anyone who speaks up for the truth or for their own race. Getting it right is of the utmost importance. I don't know what Hitler would of done if he too Moscow, but I am sure he would of reopened the Orthodox church to the masses.

Why do you have a problem with applying the simple principle of right & wrong in an objective way?

The end does not always justify the means.
I don't believe in your value system, which was taught to you by our propaganda public school syustem. My value system says that there should be separate rules favoring whites. What about that do you not get? Call it apartheid, I don't care.
My value system is based upon a sense of right and wrong and without regard to Nationalism or race. The World would be sooo much better off if there were more who thought the same.

AFAIK, your attitude of superiority is no better than that of the Jews or Muslims or any one else thinking in some twisted way that they are better than everyone else simply because of nationality or race.

That IS the basis of the Worlds problems.
i.e. the attitude of my group is better, and by God we're gonna show you why we're better even if it kills you. ::)

[skid]

They were our enemy first and foremost due to Hitler having declared war on us.


Once again, knock the dust off of your history books. What I was talking about was in Sept '39. Hitler declared war on "us" (I'm assuming you're referring to the US) in late '41

/ignore

My point is that we were not involved in any hostilities until we were declared war on.

We did not run to Polands aid due to Germany or Russia invading.
IMO, had Hitler chose not to declare war on us, we would have concentrated on the Japenese and mostly left Europe alone.


You have a poor grasp of history (which is obvious in this thread). The US, although not declaring war on Germany, was none the less involved in almost a full war effort minus ground fighting troops. The US supplied England and Allies with weaponry, ammunition, food, logistics, etc. The US was so involved in the war effort that germany declaring war was an afterthought.

[steyr_m]

But you know what? You can thank the zombies alive at the time for allowing him to do so.


But remember that there was a tighter control of the media then. The people hadn't been screwed over as much, and weren't as skeptical. If the Brits, Canadians, and the US soldiers could see what would become of their countries a short 20-30 years later, they could have turned around and went back home; or would have joined with Germany and destroy the Communist menace (that has been with us since) right then and there.

The Germans in the inter-wars era were not zombies (that's only what school books and MSM say). They were more aware than any group of people before or since. If you get your info from school, "The History Channel", and movies, I believe you are sadly misinformed.

[skid]

They were our enemy first and foremost due to Hitler having declared war on us.


Once again, knock the dust off of your history books. What I was talking about was in Sept '39. Hitler declared war on "us" (I'm assuming you're referring to the US) in late '41

/ignore

My point is that we were not involved in any hostilities until we were declared war on.

We did not run to Polands aid due to Germany or Russia invading.
IMO, had Hitler chose not to declare war on us, we would have concentrated on the Japenese and mostly left Europe alone.
I see you don't even take the few seconds to google your facts before you write. I commend that. Most people would google something and pretend like they knew it all along. Roosevelt was as much as war as you could be with Germany, minus the troops. He sent ships and supplies to England. He helped blockade germany. he sent Boeing technicians over to Russia to build military DC-3's. I could go on, but if you post any more amateur views, I will just ignore.............


Beat me to it Philo....

[Joe King]

I see you don't even take the few seconds to google your facts before you write. I commend that. Most people would google something and pretend like they knew it all along. Roosevelt was as much as war as you could be with Germany, minus the troops. He sent ships and supplies to England. He helped blockade germany. he sent Boeing technicians over to Russia to build military DC-3's. I could go on, but if you post any more amateur views, I will just ignore.............


yep, part of the plan was to bankrupt the British empire so the US could take over the world (hegemony). Unfortunately, it worked like a charm.

...and we're taught in school/MSM that AH wanted to take over the world, even though he didn't have a Navy capable of doing so, no long-range bombers/fighters, no amphibious assault water-craft.
For not wanting to take over the World he sure did take it on.

You know, no matter how big I was, if I walked into a bar full of people and was looking for a fight I sure wouldn't try fighting all of them at once.
Had Hitler not invaded Russia and instead concentrated on his Western Front, there's a real good chance he might have won.
i.e. he picked too many of the wrong battles at the same time while thinking that speed would make his soldiers unstopable.

[steyr_m]

My value system is based upon a sense of right and wrong and without regard to Nationalism or race. The World would be sooo much better off if there were more who thought the same.

AFAIK, your attitude of superiority is no better than that of the Jews or Muslims or any one else thinking in some twisted way that they are better than everyone else simply because of nationality or race.

That IS the basis of the Worlds problems.
i.e. the attitude of my group is better, and by God we're gonna show you why we're better even if it kills you. ::)


Listening to Boasian Anthropology again? That explains quite a bit.

Denmark will never be like Liberia, and Liberia will never be like Denmark. The reason is demographics. The only way it would change if you displaced the Danes with Africans and vise-versa. Same can be said for Bismarck, ND and E. St. Louis, IL. or (insert white any white & black community here) You can look at any black neighbourhood, city, province, country and they all look the same. Crime ridden, dilapidated buildings, etc.

Been posted here before, but a picture is worth a thousand words.

[Joe King]

My value system is based upon a sense of right and wrong and without regard to Nationalism or race. The World would be sooo much better off if there were more who thought the same.

AFAIK, your attitude of superiority is no better than that of the Jews or Muslims or any one else thinking in some twisted way that they are better than everyone else simply because of nationality or race.

That IS the basis of the Worlds problems.
i.e. the attitude of my group is better, and by God we're gonna show you why we're better even if it kills you. ::)


Listening to Boasian Anthropology again? That explains quite a bit.

Denmark will never be like Liberia, and Liberia will never be like Denmark. The reason is demographics. The only way it would change if you displaced the Danes with Africans and vise-versa. Same can be said for Bismarck, ND and E. St. Louis, IL. or (insert white any white & black community here) You can look at any black neighbourhood, city, province, country and they all look the same. Crime ridden, dilapidated buildings, etc.
So why can't the people of Denmark live as they see fit and the people of Liberia live as they see fit without either one claiming superiority over the other?
Or for that matter, any other nations on the planet.

Those neighborhoods you mention are that way due to poverty. Also, have you never heard of something known as "white trash"? They can be just as bad IMO.

[steyr_m]

AFAIK, your attitude of superiority is no better than that of the Jews or Muslims or any one else thinking in some twisted way that they are better than everyone else simply because of nationality or race.



The Jews do believe they are superior. Who do you think is the greatest scientist? I'm willing to bet it's the fraud known as Einstein. Greatest psychologist? Freud... etc. Remember Super-Jew in the movie Independence Day? The guy who saved the world... What if the character replaced Jew with White or Aryan? Yeah, never gonna happen. Because that's racist.

[Book]

No, what I was implying is that he seemed to be making a case for us {white people} to commit genocide today.


I wasn't seeing that. What I saw was a case of social homogeneity, and pride in one's self.

What I also saw was, his observation that what's happening now is a 3rd world invasion in European home-lands with Judaic social-engineers frantically trying to get us to: 1. View this as a Utopian ideal 2. Get us to miscegenate ourselves out of existence.



http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/WolfBlitz/boratPromo.jpg

http://hollywoodprophets.com/wp-content/uploads/HLIC/2999e77512cb8ea42d94909077473de9.jpg

http://studentlife.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54ee965f588340133f2789ba8970b-800wi

:oo-->



Yeah...while the jews TODAY destroy our America, here Joe King wants us all distracted instead with World War Two nonsense. He doesn't want us noticing that the ACLU and ADL and SPLC and Hollywood and their jew lawyers have intentionally caused this destruction.

[Joe King]

AFAIK, your attitude of superiority is no better than that of the Jews or Muslims or any one else thinking in some twisted way that they are better than everyone else simply because of nationality or race.



The Jews do believe they are superior. Who do you think is the greatest scientist? I'm willing to bet it's the fraud known as Einstein. Greatest psychologist? Freud... etc. Remember Super-Jew in the movie Independence Day? The guy who saved the world... What if the character replaced Jew with White or Aryan? Yeah, never gonna happen. Because that's racist.
I hope you don't think that I support their sh!t either.
As I said earlier, it's not an "either or" position that I take.

I care more about basic things like right and wrong, than I do about nationalism or race.

[steyr_m]

So why can't the people of Denmark live as they see fit and the people of Liberia live as they see fit without either one claiming superiority over the other?
Or for that matter, any other nations on the planet.

Those neighborhoods you mention are that way due to poverty. Also, have you never heard of something known as "white trash"? They can be just as bad IMO.


The thing is that they don't. Third-world immigration has been pushed on the West with-out regard to the wishes of the people and with-out consent. There is no claim of superiority; but black nations will never rise to the level of white nations and white ones will never be like black ones. If it were possible, places like Haiti, Liberia, S. Africa.... Detroit would look like white countries/cities by now.

There will always be poor people. It's a matter of proportion relative to the whole.

[Joe King]

Yeah...while the jews TODAY destroy our America, here Joe King wants us all distracted instead with World War Two nonsense. He doesn't want us noticing that the ACLU and ADL and SPLC and Hollywood and their jew lawyers have intentionally caused this destruction.

You seem to want to distract with the fabrication that Hitler was a wonderful and loving dude.

[Book]

My value system is based upon a sense of right and wrong and without regard to Nationalism or race.



http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/06/28/nyregion/hasidim.span_cityroom.jpg

Yeah...if your own family or tribe was in danger and drowning and some other folks were also in danger and drowning you would, of course, immediately save whoever was closest...that being the "right" thing to do...lol.

:D

[steyr_m]

Yeah...while the jews TODAY destroy our America, here Joe King wants us all distracted instead with World War Two nonsense. He doesn't want us noticing that the ACLU and ADL and SPLC and Hollywood and their jew lawyers have intentionally caused this destruction.

You seem to want to distract with the fabrication that Hitler was a wonderful and loving dude.


I'm saying that I'm not going to base my opinions on what I see/hear at school/MSM. If you were to look at the war objectively at both sides, you might see that AH was trying to do the best he could for his people. Everything he warned us about has come to fruition.

[Book]

I care more about basic things like right and wrong, than I do about nationalism or race.



http://www.seniorark.com/Humor/Double%20Takes/Next%20Page/fox%20among%20dogs.gif

Translation: I am here to fool you into opening your borders for our invasion.

:oo-->

[Joe King]

So why can't the people of Denmark live as they see fit and the people of Liberia live as they see fit without either one claiming superiority over the other?
Or for that matter, any other nations on the planet.

Those neighborhoods you mention are that way due to poverty. Also, have you never heard of something known as "white trash"? They can be just as bad IMO.


The thing is that they don't. Third-world immigration has been pushed on the West with-out regard to the wishes of the people and with-out consent. There is no claim of superiority; but black nations will never rise to the level of white nations and white ones will never be like black ones. If it were possible, places like Haiti, Liberia, S. Africa.... Detroit would look like white countries/cities by now.They don't have to rise to the same level of engineering to be equal as human beings.
As far as immigration, you can blame the zombies of the past for allowing that to happen, and then they voted along party lines next time too and wondered again, "what happened?"


There will always be poor people. It's a matter of proportion relative to the whole.
Yes. You are correct. But if a group of people want to live that way, I say let them. If you don't like it, don't choose to live there. Make something better for yourself. If they then come to take what you've made better for yourself, you use your gun to turn 'em into a pin cuishion.

[Joe King]

Yeah...if your own family or tribe was in danger and drowning and some other folks were also in danger and drowning you would, of course, immediately save whoever was closest...that being the "right" thing to do...lol.
:D
If both you and one of my loved ones were drowning, I'd stick out an arm for both of you. I've got two of them.

However, if it were Hitler and FDR who were drowning, I'd probably stand there and watch while claiming not to know how to swim. lol

[Liquid]

Joeking is just here to waste your time and my time. He will say whatever it takes to foul up any discussion or sidetrack the issue.


This is what someone says when they've lost an argument.

Joe, you've really held your own in this thread. Your logic is infallible, imo. Your posts are right on the mark. Hopefully, by saying this I'm one of the silent majority reading this thread. ;)

[Joe King]

Translation: I am here to fool you into opening your borders for our invasion.

:oo-->


I never said I'm for open borders. On the contrary, I've posted that the entire border should be one big military base. What better way is there to guard against invasion than that?

[Joe King]

Joeking is just here to waste your time and my time. He will say whatever it takes to foul up any discussion or sidetrack the issue.


This is what someone says when they've lost an argument.


Joe, you've really held your own in this thread. Your logic is infallible, imo. You posts are right on the mark. Hopefully, by saying this I'm one of the silent majority reading this thread. ;)

I'd also like to point out, that perhaps some here would support "change" if Obama was white, and a white supremicist.
I'm sure they would.
Oh, and thanks for the kind words. :)

[Liquid]

I'm sure they would.
Oh, and thanks for the kind words. :)


Oh..you quoted me before I deleted that line in my post. ;D

[steyr_m]

They don't have to rise to the same level of engineering to be equal as human beings.
As far as immigration, you can blame the zombies of the past for allowing that to happen, and then they voted along party lines next time too and wondered again, "what happened?"


There will always be poor people. It's a matter of proportion relative to the whole.
Yes. You are correct. But if a group of people want to live that way, I say let them. If you don't like it, don't choose to live there. Make something better for yourself. If they then come to take what you've made better for yourself, you use your gun to turn 'em into a pin cuishion.


I think when immigration first started happening in the West, the people never would have imagined that it would become to the levels it became. Opposer's were shouted down as being racists or Nationalists

I don't care about how they live over there. I just don't want them coming over here (facilitated by the financial elite) and f'ing up my country. The elite want divisions on our societies. I don't want to have to pick up a rifle. I want to live with other people like myself.

I'm not discussing anything else with you in regards to WW2, I'm coming close to doing the same with anything, I don't know if you're trying to be an ass, or you're clue-less (or need to look at things from both sides), or you just need to find a Liberal forum to feel more at home or you're involved with this http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/idblog/2009/01/21/israel-to-fund-army-of-bloggers/ or.....

[Joe King]

I'm sure they would.
Oh, and thanks for the kind words. :)


Oh..you quoted me before I deleted that line in my post. ;D


You gotta be quicker next time. :D

[Book]

If both you and one of my loved ones were drowning, I'd stick out an arm for both of you.



Real people who refuse/fail to favor their own family and tribe have none. You now claiming you have "loved ones" exposes the lie of what you wrote previously. I imagine you love your own family and tribe and nation and are here to fool the stupid goyim into forsaking their own by selling high-minded bullshit like this:

I care more about basic things like right and wrong, than I do about nationalism or race.

You were posting this same ADL nonsense psy-ops at GIM1 under the user name Ulysses...lol.

:D

[Book]

Joe, you've really held your own in this thread. Your logic is infallible, imo. Your posts are right on the mark. Hopefully, by saying this I'm one of the silent majority reading this thread. ;)



http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/tcr/lowres/tcrn160l.jpg

Megaphone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaphone_desktop_tool). Immanti regularly tooted Ulysses' posts just like this at GIM1...lol.

:ROFL:

[Joe King]

They don't have to rise to the same level of engineering to be equal as human beings.
As far as immigration, you can blame the zombies of the past for allowing that to happen, and then they voted along party lines next time too and wondered again, "what happened?"


There will always be poor people. It's a matter of proportion relative to the whole.
Yes. You are correct. But if a group of people want to live that way, I say let them. If you don't like it, don't choose to live there. Make something better for yourself. If they then come to take what you've made better for yourself, you use your gun to turn 'em into a pin cuishion.


I think when immigration first started happening in the West, the people never would have imagined that it would become to the levels it became. Opposer's were shouted down as being racists or Nationalists

I don't care about how they live over there. I just don't want them coming over here (facilitated by the financial elite) and f'ing up my country. The elite want divisions on our societies. I don't want to have to pick up a rifle. I want to live with other people like myself.

I'm not discussing anything else with you in regards to WW2, I'm coming close to doing the same with anything, I don't know if you're trying to be an ass, or your clue-less, or you just need to find a Liberal forum to feel more at home or you're involved with this http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/idblog/2009/01/21/israel-to-fund-army-of-bloggers/ or.....
Look, I don't agree with the gov opening up immigration to the levels they have in the past 40 or so years anymore than you do, but the only reason they did is to attempt to help prop up the ponzi-scheme of a monetary system we've got going, as well as the SS ponzi-scheme.

Because Americans have been having smaller families and they needed the extra people to help grow the base of the pyramid.

That's also a big reason they only pay lip service to illegal immigration.
They know that they will mostly all be working on a "borrowed" SS# and thereby contribute to the scheme without drawing on it.
i.e. they need all the contributors they can get, and don't care where they come from.

The whole thing is a huge problem.

[Joe King]

If both you and one of my loved ones were drowning, I'd stick out an arm for both of you.



Real people who refuse/fail to favor their own family and tribe have none. You now claiming you have "loved ones" exposes the lie of what you wrote previously. I imagine you love your own family and tribe and nation and are here to fool the stupid goyim into forsaking their own by selling high-minded bullsh*t like this:

I care more about basic things like right and wrong, than I do about nationalism or race.

You were posting this same ADL nonsense psy-ops at GIM1 under the user name Ulysses...lol.

:D


Sorry, I've never been anyone on any forum you'd be familiar with as anything other than Joe King.