Who started both World Wars?

[9/11-investigator]

Oh wait your story has changed again

No it has not; in what way then?

What I am saying is that bolshevism in reality was a system constructed and implemented by Jews.

It is however not explicit Jewish, meaning that Trotzky will never say: "listen folks, this bolshevism is thought out by us, the Jews; would you be so kind to adopt it; oh and now that we are at it, could you please send your donations to the bank account of the Jewish World Congress. If not, our Cheka is going to get it anyway."

Jews are powerful, but not that powerful.

Bolshevism was nevertheless 'good for the Jews' in that it replaced Orthodox Christianity (forbidden under communism), where Jews were rather unceremoniously seen as 'Christ killers' and access to the upper stratums of power was blocked by gentile aristocrats. These aristocrats were as a consequence en masse butchered during the civil war. And this is exactly the reason why until today Russia is such a wasteland without hope. One big hell hole, where people of low blood try to run a society without natural leaders (aristocrats, meaning 'the best'). Such a society is drowned in alcohol and hopelessness. Such is the 'power' of egalitarian values.

Our new USSR in status nascendi, the USA, now subjected to racial egalitarian values, will undergo the same fate as the USSR, caused by the same people. It will be ever more a hell hole of Mexican/African proportions in the near future, unless the Euro-Americans will manage to break away from Washington (what I expect to happen).

This fate of egalitarian death is exactly what Hitler tried to avoid for Germany and his first victory was that he defeated the communists in Germany, led by Jews. And that was the rationale behind the deportations of the Jews. But the 'World Jews', as Chamberlain called them, came back, using their British and American serfs, in alliance with the Soviets, who had already more or less escaped the grip of the Jews in 1941, but nevertheless were on the path to globalisation/Soviet style, inherent in their ideology. This alliance was victorious and carved up Europe and divided the loot amongst them. In order to make it look worth while and make heroes of their own populations, the alllies invented the holocaust story in Nuremberg, to give the war the patina of moral respectability and thus led away from their own war crimes (bombing of cities, mass rape, territorial conquest). The lesser whites (Lilliputians) had conquered Mother Europe (Gulliver) and made the show during the second half of the 20th century. In the end the USSR died as a consequence of the rule of egalitarian values. The waiting is now for letting the Jews in the USA complete their work for us and let the US die/disintegrate as well as a consequence of mass immigration, all in our favor.

But before that happens, nothing can be done in order to prevent a desastrous conflict between Europe and the US. Let the Jews smash America against Iran or the Chinese Wall or Korea or whatever, but not against Europe. Therefor we must keep pretending that we like America. In the mean we should quietly rewrite history, develop relations with post-Soviet Russia/Ukraine, like the North-Stream project and prepare for the switch of value-system after America will vanish from the page of time: aristocratic, archaic, anti-egalitarian, post-feminist, post-industrialist, post-materialist.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ohh this is not about you - it is about the sizable audience looking on. There is roughly 15 views of this thread for every post

It's the only reason I respond to neo-Nasties, to refute their nonsense. I will not let it go unanswered and give people the impression it's correct. I won't convince everybody but I will help the non-stupid minority.

Thanks to everybody else who works for the great good.

 

[Hans]

It's the only reason I respond to neo-Nasties, to refute their nonsense. I will not let it go unanswered and give people the impression it's correct. I won't convince everybody but I will help the non-stupid minority.

Thanks to everybody else who works for the great good.

It would be more interesting if we had a someone even remotely capable of coming up with a plausible alternative history. 9/11 provides a cartoon version of the world that is easy to counter. His biased and kooky rants really remove any creditability he might have.

Yes and a ditto to what Gawdzilla said - responding to such nonsense is necessary.

As the Dutch would say 9/11 he's 'zwakhoofd', LOL

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It would be more interesting if we had a someone even remotely capable of coming up with a plausible alternative history. 9/11 provides a cartoon version of the world that is easy to counter. His biased and kooky rants really remove any creditability he might have.

As the Dutch would say he's 'zwakhoofd', LOL

True, I've had more challenges from a 5th grade class. But the vehicle that gets the information out is not really important in the long run. We could never get this much good history out without him. Roses grow best, etc.

 

[9/11-investigator]

So, bolshevism was initiated by the Jews and was latently anti-semitic?

Anyone fancy going through the thread digging up all the times 911 has referred to Bolshevism as being jewish?

I never said that bolshevism was 'anti-semitic'.
I was discussing with MG why Stalin won the fight with Trotzky for leadership of the communist party. MG seemed to think that Jews are invincible, I don't. My point was that maybe (just maybe, I said I don't know) Stalin was helped by latent antisemitic feelings of allies of Stalin. But that is something completely different from saying that bolshevik ideology was 'antisemitic'. It was not.

 

[Tolls]

I never said that bolshevism was 'anti-semitic'.
I was discussing with MG why Stalin won the fight with Trotzky for leadership of the communist party. MG seemed to think that Jews are invincible, I don't. My point was that maybe (just maybe, I said I don't know) Stalin was helped by latent antisemitic feelings of allies of Stalin. But that is something completely different from saying that bolshevik ideology was 'antisemitic'. It was not.

So the Jews, who created bolshevism and created the revolution and drove it all through, managed to place in positions of power (such that they could affect the outcome of who actually leads the USSR) people who were anti-semitic?

Either they're a bit crap (and therefore no threat) or you're simply twisting and turning in a desperate attempt to reconcile the unreconcilable.

 

[dafydd]

It would be more interesting if we had a someone even remotely capable of coming up with a plausible alternative history. 9/11 provides a cartoon version of the world that is easy to counter. His biased and kooky rants really remove any creditability he might have.

Yes and a ditto to what Gawdzilla said - responding to such nonsense is necessary.

As the Dutch would say 9/11 he's 'zwakhoofd', LOL

There are much better Dutch words for him.

 

[TSR]

There are much better Dutch words for him.

.
Yeah, but they'd likely get infractions once the mods translated them....
.

 

[Hans]

There are much better Dutch words for him.

The best descriptive words would be leugenachtig, onwaarachtig or a leugenaar but schaapachtig applies too and perhaps in an earlier life he was harlekijn! However all of these are just descriptive of his demonstrated behaviour.

LOL

 

[MG1962]

What I am saying is that bolshevism in reality was a system constructed and implemented by Jews.

It is however not explicit Jewish,

Liar

from post #3755

There never was a Russian revolution. The drama that unfolded in Russia was organized by American Jews. It was a Jewish coup d'etat.

Liar


POST #3760
Now that we are at the sensitive subject of Jewish communism, I decided to have a look at the list of American ambassadors to Moscow:

Want me to continue embarrassing you?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Liar

from post #3755

There never was a Russian revolution. The drama that unfolded in Russia was organized by American Jews. It was a Jewish coup d'etat.

Liar


POST #3760
Now that we are at the sensitive subject of Jewish communism, I decided to have a look at the list of American ambassadors to Moscow:

Want me to continue embarrassing you?

You are only embarrassing yourself. I said:

- Bolshevism was ideologically constructed and implemented by Jews
- Bolshevik ideology has in itself no explicit references to Jews

I know you are from former penal colony, but I cannot make it easier for you than this. I am sorry. Stop pretending that you are a member of a chain gang.

 

[Tolls]

So, again, these mythical Jews of yours constructed a system and implemented it and staged a whole revolution around it, and still managed to place in power people who were anti-semitic?

Can you not see the problem there?

 

[9/11-investigator]

So, again, these mythical Jews of yours constructed a system and implemented it and staged a whole revolution around it, and still managed to place in power people who were anti-semitic?

Can you not see the problem there?

I never said that Stalin was 'anti-semitic' before the war. He was possibly even married to a Jewish woman according to these 2 jewish sources:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3450203,00.html
http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/33492/did-stalin-have-a-jewish-wife-and-stepdaughter/

Again, the 'revolution' was a jewish coup, as documented earlier in this thread. The ideology was written by a son of a rabbi (Marx). But that does not garantee that Jews are automatically visibly #1 in their movement. The neoconservative movement in the US, founded by Leo Strauss, is jewish from A to X, but the 'leader' in front was Bush. The Jews prefer to be the 'advisors' in the background and control the system as such, in order not to provoke antisemitic sentiments.

http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/030918_neoconservatism.htm

But it is true, Stalin was not the desired candidate to be the successor of Lenin in Lenin's eyes!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_succeeded_Lenin_as_leader_of_the_Soviet_Union

At first, a troika of Joseph Stalin, Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev. Eventually it was Joseph Stalin alone, but that was not until November 1929.

There was a struggle for control among the top four men in the Central Committee, Leon Trotsky, Grigory Zinoviev, Nikolai Bukharin and Joseph Stalin. Lenin had warned against allowing Stalin to take over, but Stalin allied himself with Zinoviev to oust Trotsky. Then he allied himself with Bukharin to eliminate Zinoviev. By then Stalin was so entrenched in the party that he cut ties with Bukharin and simply assumed power in the absence of meaningful opposition.

 

[Tolls]

I never said that Stalin was 'anti-semitic' before the war.

No, you said Stalin was:
"...helped by latent antisemitism in the movement as well..."
which is clearly absurd since the movement was Jewish, according to your theory.

Of course you need this in order to blame it all on the Joos. Hence the twisting and turning.

 

[9/11-investigator]

No, you said Stalin was:
"...helped by latent antisemitism in the movement as well..."
which is clearly absurd since the movement was Jewish, according to your theory.

Dishonest quoting. I said:

Maybe Stalin was helped by latent antisemitism in the movement as well, I do not know.

The ideological framework was created by the Jews from the point of view 'if it was good for the Jews'. But that does not mean that after installment of Bolshevism the Jews could lean backwards and enjoy the ride.

Kevin MacDonald described the strong points of the Jews:
- strong group cohesion leading to networking ('rightwinger' Sarkozy installs ultra lefty Kouchner as foreign minister, because they are both Jews)
- high IQ, leading to outmaneuvering top gentiles (Germans, Russian aristocrats) using lower group elements (Anglos, Russian Miserables, resp.), with the lower elements being the biggest losers in the end. Britain. America (even Fox News discussing the break-up of the US). Russia.

But potentially it is higher average IQ of the Jews against vastly more fists and pitchforks, historically speaking. I would like it to be different but this is the way it is.

 

[TheRedWorm]

I love the mentality of "if it was good for a group, the group caused the event." By that 'logic,' a wife gives her husband a fatal automobile accident because she gets a large life insurance payout.

 

[Tolls]

Dishonest quoting. I said:

What can I say, I'm boring of the game so I thought I'd try playing it your way.

The ideological framework was created by the Jews from the point of view 'if it was good for the Jews'. But that does not mean that after installment of Bolshevism the Jews could lean backwards and enjoy the ride.

Only you seem to think they did lean back, because they allowed Stalin to get into power.

Of course, you could look at this from the position that socialism as an offshoot of industrialism was nothing to do with the Jews, and was an almost inevitable result of the changes in working practices. The results of which can be seen in 1848, but that in itself is only an echo of 1789, and earlier in 1776. Indeed we could keep going back.

That Russia had its big revolution in 1917 is down to the absurd rate of industrialisation brought about by the war. They had their 1848 70 years late.

Social upheaval results in political upheaval.

And none of this involved the jews. The war wasn't started by them. They didn't sign the treaties that drove the various empires to war. They weren't in charge of munitions in (anti-semitic) Russia, or the army, or industry in general. They weren't in charge of the railways, or the farms. They were, however, part of the disaffected masses, for understandable reasons.

And do you know what? For your scheme to work. For the jews to be the controlling force behind this all (as you seem to believe). That the whole scheme relied on a pair of idiots and one smart cookie in August 1914...none of whom were jews.

 

[9/11-investigator]

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p173_Kent.html
The Roosevelt Legacy and The Kent Case

Discussion of Tyler Kent.

Conclusion: Churchill and Roosevelt were plotting for war while Chamberlain was still in office. We already know this from Scheil's research about the Focus lobby group of the thirties, an AIPAC du jour, but via the Kent story we get independent confirmation of this.

Summary: an American clerk, Tyler Kent, worked at the U.S. embassy in London between October 1939 and 20 May 1940 and found out about secret communications between Roosevelt and Churchill, behind Chamberlain’s back, before Churchill became PM himself. The most incriminating messages were about the passing through of information of the whereabouts of German warships to the British Navy by the Americans, in blatant violation of American neutrality. Attempts were made to portray Kent as a German spy. Kent however acted in loyalty to the US rather than Roosevelt, who illegally conspired to bring the US into war on the side with Britain, where the American population and Congress firmly stood for neutrality. Kent wanted to leak this information to the American people. The British preempted that attempt and put him in prison for 5 years until the war was over, ignoring diplomatic immunity.

 

[Rich_C]

IHR.org. That's a reliable source.

Never heard of the guy. According to wikipedia, he was a spy for the Soviets and then was trying to spy for the Nazis. He also had ties to the Ku Klux Klan, and thought John Kennedy was a Communist. No wonder he's one of Nein-11's heroes.

 

[9/11-investigator]

IHR.org. That's a reliable source.

Never heard of the guy. According to wikipedia, he was a spy for the Soviets and then was trying to spy for the Nazis. He also had ties to the Ku Klux Klan, and thought John Kennedy was a Communist. No wonder he's one of Nein-11's heroes.

Wikipedia is a Zionist editted rag. Very useful if you want to know more about non-political subjects, but not much more.

And you are willfully misquoting Wikipedia:

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

By 1939, he was suspected of engaging in espionage for the Soviet Union, but lacking any solid evidence, the Diplomatic Service decided to transfer him to the embassy in London, where he began working on October 5, 1939.

Ridiculous story. So Kent was suspected to be a spy, next he is transfered to the London embassy where he deals with the most secret communication between Roosevelt and Churchill? Utter ridiculous. Kent hated the USSR. Why should he be a Soviet spy? Wiki-nonsense. Transferred to London he was active in Russian circles indeed, but in those of the anti-communist opposition!

Kent, a graduate from the best universities of America and Europe, understood what was going on. He was in Moscow for years and knew about the horrible truth of the Soviet system. He understood that it were the Jews Roosevelt and Bullitt who wanted the recognition of the most murderous regime in history, the USSR in 1933 (because it was good for the Jews). His loyalties were with the American population and Congress, not with these Jewish conspirers for war. He wanted to prevent American war entry. He was an Assange avant la lettre. He wanted to leak the secret illegal communication, that took place behind the back of Chamberlain, to the American public.

Kent was arrested, against all diplomatic rules, by the Churchill gang as soon as this hooligan and half-American traitor came to power.

Here Wikipedia says the truth:

Meanwhile, Kent was also becoming active in politics. His views are uncertain, but many have assumed that he took an isolationist line, and that he was prepared to help British anti-war campaigns.

I understand very well why Churchill arrrested Kent and why Roosevelt did not give a peep to protest, as he should have in order to protect Kent's diplomatic immunity. Both Churchill and Roosevelt knew they were playing with fire. And the issue here is not where the loyalties of Kent were, the issue is that Roosevelt conspired with Churchill (behind Chamberlain's back) for a future war of the US against Germany.

Rich_C says:

IHR.org. That's a reliable source.

I know that for people like you guys, where demonization is the essence of your existences, that it is difficult to discern between the medium and the message, but what the IHR link does is merely representing a lecture by Kent himself (for the IHR, where else? Fox News?). Kent, a splendid intellect, died in poverty in a trailer park in 1988. That's America for you.