Hitler England & USA. His puppet master, then Who killed the jew?

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The following Corbett video from some years ago provides perhaps the best and most concise, yet fairly comprehensive, presentation of just how much of a puppet Hitler was, including to the British (and wider Euro-monarchy) royalty as well as the wider Western corporate and banking world. In the presentation, Corbett states that the British royals were Nazis, but I don't think this is a valid assessment. The Euro-royals and their ancestors created both our Abrahamic religions and our forms of government, leaving rigged levers for them to profitably manipulate and steer ... behind the veil of Oz. Therefore, there is no valid critiques of such as Democracy or Fascism without the inclusion of a less than abstract Hidden Hand.

I have que'd it to the right time, as the rest of the video is Corbett answering various miscellaneous viewer questions, which it very interesting in their own right, and from the perspective of a few years distance.


Anyone, especially NeoNazis, but even those with mainstream views, who can watch this and still remain in their depths of denial are indeed either blissfully sleep-walking or craven propagandists, or both.
 

Tyrone McCloskey

Active Member
This Corbett video is okay as far as it goes, but the concept of Hitler being double-crossed implies Hitler had some kind of control or opportunity to lead forces in some direction, even if ultimately under orders. I don't think the persona was used that way behind closed doors. He was always a cut-out, IMO.
I also wonder about the death toll. To my mind, the war in the east was to pulverize the rural culture, destroy the infrastructure of the agri-culture and industrialize the east in an accelerated fashion the way only a stage managed "war" can produce. The Germans destroyed those cultures and then retreated so the Russians could occupy and industrialize, with Western capital, of course. This way the new, oppressive Soviet system appears as liberation and not occupation. Being pre-determined, I wonder how many survived trough evacuation well before the show began.
BTW, in an old Dave Emory lecture, he states that Germany's rearmament after WWI was largely manufactured in Russia and that Germany and Russia had a long tradition of collaboration. I wish I could find the direct link but I believe it is buried in his Ant-Fascist archives: http://spitfirelist.com/audio/afa-complete-audio/ (Dave has had some kind of medical issue in recent years and that great voice is gone. Yes, he probably still believes Hitler was a sovereign individual, but I haven't listened much to his newer stuff. He's probably made no progress on JFK at all.)
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
This Corbett video is okay as far as it goes, but the concept of Hitler being double-crossed implies Hitler had some kind of control or opportunity to lead forces in some direction, even if ultimately under orders. I don't think the persona was used that way behind closed doors. He was always a cut-out, IMO.
Good point. He likely understood what was coming, and as possibly opposed to Hess.
 

Tyrone McCloskey

Active Member
Hess is interesting in that he's so close to Hitler he can get overshadowed, though I think he's the one with the opposable thumbs right at ground zero. He's the handler of the Hitler character and the creator, by and large, of the backstory. Why they pulled him out when they did is not so much a mystery if Bormann is understood to be a specific insert at a pivot point of the operation; someone who possesses serious money laundering skills as the 'defeat' phase begins and the purloined treasuries have to be moved abroad.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the interesting links ERC, and welcome to the forum.

I had generally been aware of 'Corporatism', but in my opinion, this Watkins' piece is a much better and concise description than I had seen before. In some regards it makes a hash of superficial interpretations, for instance as the 'Masonic' FDR's 'socialist' New Deal having some Corporatist overlap with Hitler's National Socialism. As Knuth mentions early on in his Empire of the City, we're dealing with heavy doses of Machiavellian geopolitics.

With the Catholic Church's association with Corporatism, somewhere on the forum I have discussed the 19th century Rerum Novarum, which tries, incompletely IMHO, to address, in a context compatible with Corporatism, the relationship of labor with capital in the 'modern' era.

I had not been aware of Empire of the City, and from the first few pages it looks like a great resource. I don't know if he will deal with it or not, but obviously the USA has assumed the mantle, superficially at least, of running the global empire accumulated by the 'City'. And the third war has not yet started with Russia, a continuation of the Great Game ... for the "elect" as Knuth allowed. The "elect" also being a very Biblical and apocalyptic term.

If you have not already noticed, we at Postflaviana like to follow the analytic roadmap, so-to-speak, of the late Tupper Saussy, in his Rulers of Evil, which we have a link for, it being very expensive to find a hard copy these days, if you can find one. In this, such as the City and Washington D.C. become subsumed to an even higher power. And, in my opinion, at least, such as Imperial Russia (and its current 'nationalist' re-awakening) are just more evidence of the larger divide and conquer schema, which is only confrontation actually conducted by those fodder that must bear arms or become weapons, or pedophilic, targets for the sake of their 'elect'.

With the release of the movie Fatima the Roman Church can sit back and pronounce how, contrary to the avarice of the City and Washington D.C. (the latter which it controls the constitutional 3 branches), it has always had the backs of the peeps. But it's all a cynical show in pursuit of the same global goal, as explicit in Revelation, a world of nominal 'nations' answering to one global authority. Like 50 nominal 'states' answering to one federal authority.

Also, it should be noted that Lady Fatima's second prophecy was invoked by the Roman Church to call global Catholics to come to the aid of Hitler in his battle against the 'evil', godless Bolsheviks.

Regards
 
Last edited:

Erc

Member
D.C. is the military arm of the estates of the "realm of Henotheism" (https://theethicalskeptic.com/2015/09/30/the-definition-of-god/ ), or three estates, soon to be taken over by the "Third Rome" with it's new "Military" Cathedral, the Vatican/Masonic/Synagogue/Mosque, the "clergy", for the "Crown" corporation (usury) and it's soon coming "messiah" the old world order anew again as you pointed out: " covertly create the environment for a Robber Baron-esque society of sufficient inequality and enough people will be sufficiently receptive to a truly global new order, and a return of the ' benevolent king’." (aka global Pharoah-Caesarism of the Atenist totalitarian communistic variety) ... for the rest of us to be made Borg's as per "Revelation's" https://web.archive.org/web/20190809113313/https://www.nobeliefs.com/heaven.htm which was actually written in 1489 by the clergy for the Atensits-Flavian Dynasty as Flavio Barbiero pointed out by internal astronomical dating: http://chronologia.org/en/seven/1N03-EN-134-166.pdf
 

Erc

Member
Re: the Rollerball world (1975) : I love all the "predictive" programming :p https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073631/plotsummary https://www.futuristmovies.com/index.php/movies/rollerball-1975/
Society:
Corporations rule the world. Countries united in blocs until only three remained (Orwell's three empires?), but massive corporations commanding whole sectors—energy, transportation, luxury, etc.—replaced them.

The corporations warred against each other, but have come to a modus vivendi, substituting corporate teams for armies. Rollerball matches begin with the announcement, “Ladies and gentlemen, our corporate anthem.”
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Yes, there is strange language about the cube in space, but Rev 4 says that "us" (the Elect?) are made (once again) into kings and priests ... on the Earth. The 144K do seem to be taken up into the Heavenly cube, but perhaps this is the so-called Rapture, where the Elect get a free pass to ride out the 7 years of Tribulation as opposed to all the non-Elect. In Preterist terms the 7 years equate to the Jewish War and the Rapture is the equivalent of the extrabiblical Flight to Pella.

As such, I think the cube is just a fanciful metaphoric description meant to dazzle the rummies. But, yes, otherwise, the Christian Heaven is indeed Hellish. "Be careful what you ask for".

8And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. 9And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; 10And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. (Rev 4 KJV)​

I can't find any mention of "realm of Henotheism" in the Ethical skeptic page, nor can I find a reference to Barbiero in the Fomenko work. Are those the right links or references?

Yes, Rollerball sounds much like Orwell's 1984.
 

Seeker

Active Member
http://chronologia.org/en/seven/1N03-EN-134-166.pdf

From page 161 of the above: "The Apocalypse is thus concerned with the advent of the Judgement Day, expected in 1492 a.d. The first lines of the Apocalypse state explicitly: “Because the time is near” (AP 1:3). That should mean the proximity of the year 1492 a.d., or the year 7000 since Adam. Note that it was in 1492, that Columbus set out to sea, in the age of Doomsday expectations. Therefore, our independent astronomical dating of the Apocalypse to 1486 a.d. – that is, 6994 years from Adam – corresponds ideally with the content of the book. The Apocalypse was written only six years before the expected End of the World in the fifteenth century."

From Wikipedia article on "1486": "February 18 – Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is born in Mayapur in the town of Nadia, West Bengal, India, just after sunset. He is regarded as an incarnation, or avatar, of Lord Krsna, and later comes to inaugurate the sankirtana movement, or the CHANTING OF THE HOLY NAMES OF THE LORD (my emphasis). This chanting, or mantra meditation, is first brought to the United States in 1965, by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami."

Revelation 4: 6-8: "And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind. And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle. And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, WHICH WAS, AND IS , AND IS TO COME."

From Wikipedia article on "1492": "1492 is considered to be a significant year in the history of the West, Europe, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Spain, and the New World, among others, because of the number of significant events to have taken place during it. Some of the events which propelled the year into Western consciousness, include the completion of the Reconquista of Spain, Europe's discovery of the New World, and the expulsion of Jews from Spain." So 1492 would be a real "Doomsday" year for Moors, Native Americans, and Jews, but turn "1492" into "1942" and you will have an even worse Doomsday, from Wikipedia:
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The following excerpt is from pages 14-16 of Empire of The City, which I provide as a background context for the lead up to WWII. Just prior to this was provided a long list of "cyclical wars" conducted by Britain in the aftermath of the Great Napoleonic War, which is also likened to WWII.

A surprise to me (but not really) was that the Japanese had been supported by Britain in Manchuria, at least. Not in the book is that the Japanese would go on to systematically raid all of the Asian territory they occupied of gold and other valuable assets, as did Hitler and the top Nazis. This Golden Lilly project was done under the aegis of the Emperor and ran by his brother. These massive assets were then recovered in the Philippines to a significant extent by the Americans under General MacArthur (and Ferdinand Marcos) and became known as part of the Black Eagle Trust.

So, it appears that the Japanese were 'used' to loot Asia of massive wealth to be tuned over to the American 'seeming' inheritors of the empire after WWII.

...
Of the events which led to the British war with the Chinese Nationalists under Chiang Kai-Shek in 1926-1927, T'ang Leang-Li writes in "China in Revolt" published in London in 1927 that the City of Wanhsien of 750,000 population was bombarded on Sunday evening, Sept. 5, 1926, by a British fleet, causing civilian casualties of 2000 and destruction of a great part of the city. This despite the fact that General Yang Sen had merely detained the British steamer Wanliu to investigate a "river outrage" and negotiations had been in progress a day or two, and despite the fact that bombardment of an unfortified town is forbidden by international law. The bombardment was made the subject of a message of congratulation to the naval authority by H. M. Government.
T'ang Leang-Li further charges that repeated raids on the Kuo Min Tang headquarters in the British Concession at Tientsin, in November and December of the year before, by the British police, resulting in the handing over of numerous Nationalists, including several girl students, for court-martial to their mortal enemies, who are notoriously savage in their dealings with political opponents, cannot but be interpreted as a desire on the part of the British authorities at Tientsin to assist in a plain and deliberate massacre; that British agents in China continue to pursue the traditional policy of blackmail and bully. The British policy of the Iron Hand, far from intimidating the Chinese people, has as its effect the rallying of the Chinese masses to the banner of the anti-Imperialist Chinese National Party. (Page 156.)
T'ang Leang-Li describes in some detail the spider-web of exploitation woven about China by International Finance, and the traditional British policy of promptly attacking and eradicating any Chinese government indicating initiative and growing strength.
Few Americans realize that as late as 1932, Japan was engaged in subduing Manchuria as a British ally, with British support and protection, against the protests of the League of Nations, the United States and China.
Manchuria was awarded to Japan by the British international financial oligarchy for assuming the greater part of the fighting and the expense to overcome the Chinese Nationalist revolution of 1926-1927 under General Chiang Kai-shek against the domination of the British. It is of interest to note that every war listed as a "Revolution," including the "Boxer" War, was a war against foreign imperialists holding the Chinese Government in bondage, a war against the bankers of the City and against the "foreign devils."
The statesmen of the international financial oligarchy made many deceptive and illusory promises to many peoples and many nations before and during World War I to induce them to fight their aggressors and to defeat them in absolute and total victory, and Mr. Woodrow Wilson promised many more things, and these promises were revoked almost without exception after total victory had been won. Mr. Wilson's promises of "New Orders" and "New Freedoms" to the subjects of the British Empire were all retracted and resulted in an immense wave of riot and revolution over a period of years following World War I. The following are some of the most outstanding of these instances of bloodshed:
  • Egyptian Revolution 1919 - 1921
  • Anglo-Irish War Jan, 1919 - May, 1921
  • Ulster War July, 1920 -June, 1922
  • Massacre of Amritsar April 13, 1921
  • Indian Revolution 1921 - 1922
  • Egyptian Revolution 1924 - 1925
In an editorial "A Dwarf Between Giants" in the Chicago Tribune of Sunday February 6, 1944, appears a statement that the British Foreign office generally run America's foreign affairs for fifty years, and that for the eleven years the British have had no difficulty in guiding our policy. this is true is apparent from the following chapters herein in which is a detailed description of the means, the men, and the methods by , this was accomplished.
 
Last edited:

Sgt Pepper

Active Member
Ulster War July, 1920 -June, 1922
As an aside, Ulster War's entry in Wikipedia:

The strike was organised and overseen by the Ulster Workers' Council and Ulster Army Council, which were formed shortly after the Agreement's signing. Both of these groups included Ulster loyalist paramilitaries such as the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) and Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF).[1] These groups helped to enforce the strike by blocking roads and intimidating workers.[1][2][3][4] During the two-week strike, loyalist paramilitaries killed 39 civilians, of whom 33 died in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.



The unofficial flag of the 'Ulster Nation' proposed by Ulster nationalists.


Pass card issued by the Ulster Workers' Council during their 1974 strike.




Original Tudor Crown version of flag based on escutcheon of arms granted royal warrant in 1924


Don't know if the symbology has any deep significance or if there's a play on symbols, but it's interesting nonetheless.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Even more interesting is why the French army (which was the strongest in all of Europe at that time) didn't knock out Germany in Sept. 1939 (after declaring war on Germany in Sept. 3) by advancing into the industrial heart of Germany (marked with the yellow circle in my map) ????
Another piece to complete this puzzle is supplied in an article by Cynthia Chung of Rising Tide Foundation. She says that during March and April of 1939, Stalin was trying to negotiate a mutual defense treaty with Germany and France.

On March 18th 1939 at Stalin’s direction Litvinov, Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs, proposed that France, Britain, Poland, Russia, Romania and Turkey join together at a conference to draw up a treaty to stop Hitler. Chamberlain was strongly against the idea, writing to a friend: “I must confess to the most profound distrust of Russia. I have no belief whatever in her ability to maintain an effective offensive, even if she wanted to. And I distrust her motives.” (2)
On April 14th 1939, Lord Halifax, British Foreign Minister said that Britain would not extend an alliance to Russia in case Germany were to attack. Russia was clearly being told to go at it alone.
On April 16th 1939, Stalin had Litvinov propose to Sir William Seeds the British ambassador, that Russia, France and Britain make a pact that would bind their three countries to declare war on Germany if they or any nation between the Baltic and the Mediterranean were attacked.
Great Britain and France refused.
(2) P 162, Susan Butler’s “Roosevelt and Stalin: Portrait of a Partnership”
Chung thinks that it was as a result of these rebuffs that Stalin went on to negotiate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, temporarily establishing a truce with Germany and facilitating the division of Poland into German and Russian sectors. This all unfolded simultaneously with France's fake assault on the German heartland.

In answer to Suchender's question "why the French army didn't knock out Germany in Sept. 1939", perhaps the answer is that the French wanted to leave Hitler's armies intact so that they could fight the Russians?

Chung goes on to say that Roosevelt's America took a very different path from the French and British, choosing to form an alliance with Russia in spite of their fears that Russia was equally as dangerous to Europe as Hitler. She says:

Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease program was a major factor in Russia’s salvation. The list of goods that Roosevelt committed to send to the Soviet Union was astounding. It included shipments every month of 400 planes, 500 tanks, 5,000 cars, 10,000 trucks and huge quantities of anti-tank guns, anti-aircraft guns, diesel generators, field telephones, radios, motorcycles, wheat, flour, sugar, 200,000 pairs of boots, 500,000 pairs of surgical gloves and 15,000 amputation saws. By the end of October 1941, ships were carrying 100 bombers, 100 fighter planes, 166 tanks all with spare parts and ammunition, plus 5,500 trucks. (5)
(5) p. 165, ibid
I happened to run across this article at strategic-culture.org. And I happened to be surfing at strategic-culture.org, because I was looking for some reply to the US State Department's accusation that Strategic Culture Foundation is a front for Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service. There seems to be no doubt that strategic-culture.org's URL is registered in Moscow. Although the website recruited several columnists to ridicule the claim that they are a front for the Russian government, there is no actual denial to be found. Nor any information about who is running the website, if it isn't Russian intelligence.
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Another piece to complete this puzzle is supplied in an article by Cynthia Chung of Rising Tide Foundation. She says that during March and April of 1939, Stalin was trying to negotiate a mutual defense treaty with Germany and France.
All you write above is no doubt correct, Jerry, because Stalin feared most a joint attack by Nazi Germany and Poland, Poland's alliance with the West ensuring protection of Hitler's western border. Besides, the negotation between Stalin and Hitler was to get the piece of the Soviet Union that Poland had seized in 1920 in violation of the Curzon Line which established the original eastern border of Poland.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Suchender

Active Member
In answer to Suchender's question "why the French army didn't knock out Germany in Sept. 1939", perhaps the answer is that the French wanted to leave Hitler's armies intact so that they could fight the Russians?
Good you put a question mark at the end of your sentence, Jerry :)

Clearly, this is not the ananswer to my question !
Why ?
Not talking about the impossibility for a normal human being (like french politicians) to see into the future (in Sept. 1939) and predict a war between Germany and Soviet Union in June 1941 !

I will mention only one thing why the proposed explanation is absurd : french pride !

Do I really need to explain what the french felt towards the germans after World War 1 ?! :rolleyes:
.
821
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Dear Suchender,

No doubt you have read the works of Docherty and McGregor - Prolonging the Agony and Hidden History which show how Britain prepared WW1 over 15 years before it began. The war could be launched when a suitable French government was voted in - that of Raymond Poincare, whose wretched cousin Henri Poincare invented the nonsense of time dilation, an idiotic ideology incorporated into Einstein's teachings from 1905.

Nevertheless, the massive French losses in WW1 made the politicians reluctant to act by 1939. In the Munich agreement, Czechoslovakia was handed over to Germany without a shot, due to Neville Chamberlain, this meaning that the Nazis now had control over the Skoda munitions works, the armory of former Austria-Hungary. Hence the demoralization of the French Right by 1939. The French Left were then demoralized by the Nazi-Soviet Pact, France rendered totally unenthusiastic for war by September 1939.

This is why Britain declared war first on the 3rd September, France only later because they had to be sure that Perfidious Albion would keep to what they promised.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
This is why Britain declared war first on the 3rd September, France only later because they had to be sure that Perfidious Albion would keep to what they promised.
But actually the UK and France both declared war against Germany on 9/3/1939. Suchender says that France invaded immediately and had some quick successes before abruptly halting their forward march. So your theory would explain why the French stopped their attack, but not why they started it in the first place.

FWIW, the WishyWashyPedia says that this period was known as the "phoney war", based on the comment of US Senator William Borah, who said "There is something phony about this war." A sentiment I'm sure we all can agree with. The editors go on to explain:

The offensive in the Rhine river valley area started on 7 September, four days after France declared war on Germany. Since the Wehrmacht was occupied in the attack on Poland, the French soldiers enjoyed a decisive numerical advantage along their border with Germany. Eleven French divisions advanced along a 32 km (20 miles) line near Saarbrücken against weak German opposition. The attack did not result in the diversion of any German troops. The all-out assault was to have been carried out by roughly 40 divisions, including one armoured, three mechanised divisions, 78 artillery regiments and 40 tank battalions. The French Army had advanced to a depth of 8 km (5.0 miles) and captured about 20 villages evacuated by the German army, without any resistance. The half-hearted offensive was halted after France seized the Warndt Forest, 7.8 km2 (3.0 sq mi) of heavily mined German territory.
On 12 September, the Anglo-French Supreme War Council gathered for the first time at Abbeville. It was decided that all offensive actions were to be halted immediately as the French opted to fight a defensive war, forcing the Germans to come to them. General Maurice Gamelin ordered his troops to stop no closer than 1 km (0.62 miles) from the German positions along the Siegfried Line. Poland was not notified of this decision. Instead, Gamelin informed Marshal Edward Rydz-Śmigły that half of his divisions were in contact with the enemy and that French advances had forced the Wehrmacht to withdraw at least six divisions from Poland. The following day, the commander of the French Military Mission to Poland, General Louis Faury, informed the Polish Chief of Staff—General Wacław Stachiewicz—that the major offensive on the western front planned from 17–20 September had to be postponed. At the same time, French divisions were ordered to withdraw to their barracks along the Maginot Line, beginning the Phoney War.
 
Top