Hitler and JFK make similar speeches.

Conas · 21-10-2013 10:13pm #1

I know both of them didn't name specific names, but I cant help notice how similar both their speeches are. I wonder what they knew, that we didn't, and still don't?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6r_6oZqbRs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1smgz-px1Q

Torakx · 22-10-2013 10:19am

Two epic speeches, but with Hitlers I found it hard to ignore the accusations towards the Jews.
Unless you are saying Hitler thought the Jews were the Illuminatti?
Apparently the Rothchilds are/were Jewish and rumours have been going around the Ct movement that Hitler may have been a bastard child of one of the Rothchilds..But who knows that one for sure!

Is there any other indications you've found regarding Hitlers actions/speeches that might hint more about what he ment?

JFK's speech is a bit more lucid though.
Especially in hindsight, when you can see that Israel seems to call a lot of the shots for Americans and we have witnessed the bankers slowly tearing down societies around the world.

Actually I just found another speech of Hitlers mentioning Freemasons as well so thats secret societies covered.
Oops, societies with secrets

Conas · 22-10-2013 12:33pm

It's well known that Hitler was financed and backed by Wall Street originally, but then he went and turned his back on them, and issued Treasures Certificates. A debt-free currency. As history has proven if you go against the big bankers, and start printing your own money, you and your country will be in big trouble, and war is likely. Look at what Abraham Lincoln did after the civil war, the foreign bankers said they'd help pay for the war BUT charged interest. Lincoln said go f*uck yourself, and went to Congress, and the Greenback was issued to pay for the war effort A DEBT-FREE currency. Low and behold Lincoln was assassinated.

John F Kennedy made a lot of enemies, and a lot of powerful people wanted him dead. He was going to pull out of Vietnam, which was bad for the people who went and made a lot of money off it. He said he'd 'splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces', Imagine having something like Operation Northwoods landed on your desk, shocking to the say the least. With Kennedy out of the way, they got their War. America has never been the same since.

At first I thought the idea of the Illuminati was crazy, but when you look deep into history, such an identity could very well exist, but it's so secretive, it has no face.

Hitlers words are very startling to say the least, you never learn about speeches like that in history class.

"It is a small, rootless, international clique that is turning the people against each other, that does not want them to have peace. It is people who are at home both nowhere and everywhere, who do not have a soil where that have grown up, but who live in Berlin today, in Brussels tomorrow, in Paris the day after that, and then again in Prague, Vienna or London, and who feel at home everywhere. They are the only ones who can can be addressed as international elements, because they conduct their business everywhere'.

Interesting words, scary world we live in to be honest.

King Mob · 22-10-2013 1:18pm

Conas wrote: »

"It is a small, rootless, international clique that is turning the people against each other, that does not want them to have peace. It is people who are at home both nowhere and everywhere, who do not have a soil where that have grown up, but who live in Berlin today, in Brussels tomorrow, in Paris the day after that, and then again in Prague, Vienna or London, and who feel at home everywhere. They are the only ones who can can be addressed as international elements, because they conduct their business everywhere'.

Interesting words, scary world we live in to be honest.

If you look up the context of this speech, it is incredibly clear that Hitler is referring to the Jews.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/genocide/hitler_audio.shtml

Even the words of the speech make this clear.
Lines like "who do not have a soil where that have grown up" only really refer to the Jews. I don't see how this could apply to freemasons or to Illuminati.
The only parts of that speech I see that could apply to them are references to "international cliques", but that is a very tenuous connection.

Conas · 22-10-2013 2:02pm

King Mob wrote: »

If you look up the context of this speech, it is incredibly clear that Hitler is referring to the Jews.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/genocide/hitler_audio.shtml

Even the words of the speech make this clear.
Lines like "who do not have a soil where that have grown up" only really refer to the Jews. I don't see how this could apply to freemasons or to Illuminati.
The only parts of that speech I see that could apply to them are references to "international cliques", but that is a very tenuous connection.

I'd say he's probaly referring to the Jewish bankers or lobby then so. I find it strange that he said 'It is a small, rootless, international clique that is turning the people against each other, that does not want them to have peace'.

The 'does not want them to have peace', is a strange part too. For a man who we learn about as kids, as a mass murdering psychopath. I never thought he mentioned the word peace, ever.

King Mob · 22-10-2013 2:20pm

Conas wrote: »

I'd say he's probaly referring to the Jewish bankers or lobby then so. I find it strange that he said 'It is a small, rootless, international clique that is turning the people against each other, that does not want them to have peace'.

Why is that strange? The conspiracy theory that he and others in Germany where leaping on was that the Jews were responsible for the economic woes they were going through as well as gaining power in Communist Russia (communism being their other boogeyman). It was convenient for him to stir support by using the idea that the Jews were part of an international conspiracy against Germany.

Why if he was referring to illuminati, does he make a big deal about them not having a homeland?
Why does he not refer to them as Illuminati if this is the big speech that he was exposing them with?

Conas · 22-10-2013 7:38pm

King Mob wrote: »

Why is that strange? The conspiracy theory that he and others in Germany where leaping on was that the Jews were responsible for the economic woes they were going through as well as gaining power in Communist Russia (communism being their other boogeyman). It was convenient for him to stir support by using the idea that the Jews were part of an international conspiracy against Germany.

Why if he was referring to illuminati, does he make a big deal about them not having a homeland?
Why does he not refer to them as Illuminati if this is the big speech that he was exposing them with?

You also have to take into consideration Poland. Why didn't he mention that country, if he was referring soley to the Jews? There was a hell of a lot of Jews there too. Also there was the Hungarian Jews in which 600,000 were killed during the War, yet no mention of Hungary.

King Mob · 23-10-2013 12:37am

Conas wrote: »

You also have to take into consideration Poland. Why didn't he mention that country, if he was referring soley to the Jews? There was a hell of a lot of Jews there too. Also there was the Hungarian Jews in which 600,000 were killed during the War, yet no mention of Hungary.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. He wasn't making legislation that he needed to follow to the letter. He didn't mention Poland because he was listing cities, not countries. Why he didn't mention Warsaw? Maybe he felt that the other cities where more important? Maybe he just forgot to add it to the list?

Again, even if these other explanations weren't more likely, the other lines still make it clear that he is referring to Jews.

I don't think him not mentioning Poland is a very convincing clue.

enno99 · 23-10-2013 2:29am

King Mob wrote: »

If you look up the context of this speech, it is incredibly clear that Hitler is referring to the Jews.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/genocide/hitler_audio.shtml

Even the words of the speech make this clear.
Lines like "who do not have a soil where that have grown up" only really refer to the Jews. I don't see how this could apply to freemasons or to Illuminati.
The only parts of that speech I see that could apply to them are references to "international cliques", but that is a very tenuous connection.

Why if he was referring to illuminati, does he make a big deal about them not having a homeland?
Why does he not refer to them as Illuminati if this is the big speech that he was exposing them with?

How do you define the Jewish people as a small international clique ?

and what country does the Freemasons/Illuminati call their homeland
and why does he not mention the Jews by name he clearly had given antisemitic speeches before then

Hitler was discharged from the army in March 1920 and began working full-time for the NSDAP. In February 1921—already highly effective at speaking to large audiences—he spoke to a crowd of over 6,000 in Munich.[83] To publicise the meeting, two truckloads of party supporters drove around town waving swastika flags and throwing leaflets. Hitler soon gained notoriety for his rowdy polemic speeches against the Treaty of Versailles, rival politicians, and especially against Marxists and Jews.[

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

King Mob · 23-10-2013 3:21am

enno99 wrote: »

How do you define the Jewish people as a small international clique ?

I don't. Hitler and others at the time accused them of being so.

enno99 wrote: »

and what country does the Freemasons/Illuminati call their homeland

Whichever place they were born in I guess. But they aren't freemasons/illuminati because they don't have a homeland. And not having a homeland does not have anything to do with freemasonry or Illuminatihood.
I don't understand how that line could have anything to do with those organisations.

enno99 wrote: »

and why does he not mention the Jews by name he clearly had given antisemitic speeches before then

Because it is implicit from his context, as well as from his history of speaking out against the Jewish conspiracy as you point out.
The crowd seemed to get who he was referring to as you can hear someone shout out "the Jews".

What doesn't make sense is why he would suddenly just this once decide to expose the freemasons/illuminati despite never talking about them before, but not actually mention their name.
If he wanted to reveal their existence you'd think he would make it absolutely clear that he was talking about someone other than the Jews. Or at least correct that one guy who shouted.

And I don't get why he would choose a visit to a factory to be the day he decides to blow open the whole conspiracy.

enno99 · 23-10-2013 4:05am

King Mob wrote: »

I don't. Hitler and others at the time accused them of being so.

Whichever place they were born in I guess. But they aren't freemasons/illuminati because they don't have a homeland. And not having a homeland does not have anything to do with freemasonry or Illuminatihood.
I don't understand how that line could have anything to do with those organisations.

Because it is implicit from his context, as well as from his history of speaking out against the Jewish conspiracy as you point out.
The crowd seemed to get who he was referring to as you can hear someone shout out "the Jews".

What doesn't make sense is why he would suddenly just this once decide to expose the freemasons/illuminati despite never talking about them before, but not actually mention their name.
If he wanted to reveal their existence you'd think he would make it absolutely clear that he was talking about someone other than the Jews. Or at least correct that one guy who shouted.

And I don't get why he would choose a visit to a factory to be the day he decides to blow open the whole conspiracy.

Ah come on by no stretch of the imagination can the millions of Jewish people be called a small international clique
perhaps you could point out where Hitler and the others expressed this exact term

someone shouting the Jews tells us nothing maybe they wanted him to start in on the Jews next
and if he was talking about an international cabal/clique he certainly could not pin them down to any one country so the reference to not having a homeland would fit

King Mob · 23-10-2013 7:11am

enno99 wrote: »

Ah come on by no stretch of the imagination can the millions of Jewish people be called a small international clique

Again, I don't. Hitler and others falsely portrayed Jews as this for their own ends.

enno99 wrote: »

perhaps you could point out where Hitler and the others expressed this exact term

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

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion is an antisemitic hoax purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination. It was first published in Russia in 1903, translated into multiple languages, and disseminated internationally in the early part of the 20th century. Henry Ford funded printing of 500,000 copies that were distributed throughout the US in the 1920s.
Adolf Hitler and the Nazis publicized the text as though it were a valid document, although it had already been exposed as fraudulent. After the Nazi Party came to power in 1933, it ordered the text to be studied in German classrooms. The historian Norman Cohn suggested that Hitler used the Protocols as his primary justification for initiating the Holocaust—his "warrant for genocide".[1]
The Protocols purports to document the minutes of a late 19th-century meeting of Jewish leaders discussing their goal of global Jewish hegemony by subverting the morals of Gentiles, and by controlling the press and the world's economies. It is still widely available today and even now sometimes presented as a genuine document, whether on the Internet or in print in numerous languages.

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew

enno99 wrote: »

someone shouting the Jews tells us nothing maybe they wanted him to start in on the Jews next

No, it tells us that the people in the crowd believed he was talking about the Jews.

It makes no sense that he would be talking (and apparently revealing to these people for the first time) about the illuminati and then someone suddenly blurting out "the Jews".

enno99 wrote: »

and if he was talking about an international cabal/clique he certainly could not pin them down to any one country so the reference to not having a homeland would fit

But the freemasons would have a homeland. They would have the homelands they had before becoming freemasons.
Further there's still lines like: "who do not have a soil where that have grown up".

So, if you ignore the context and the content of the speech, some of the phrases and the fact that Hitler never referred to the illuminati by name, or by implication before or after this speech...
Then yea at a stretch he could be referring to them.

Torakx · 23-10-2013 12:18pm

He did mention the freemasons in another speech I stumbled across on youtube after watching the one in the OP...Unless the subtitles lied hehe

An international clique does sound a lot like these societies with secrets, who would have included bankers and business men,judges,police etc.
I think each country/area has it's own grand lodge.There are no headquarters afaik.

enno99 · 23-10-2013 1:55pm

King Mob wrote: »

Again, I don't. Hitler and others falsely portrayed Jews as this for their own ends.

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

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew

No, it tells us that the people in the crowd believed he was talking about the Jews.

It makes no sense that he would be talking (and apparently revealing to these people for the first time) about the illuminati and then someone suddenly blurting out "the Jews"

But the freemasons would have a homeland. They would have the homelands they had before becoming freemasons.
Further there's still lines like: "who do not have a soil where that have grown up".

So, if you ignore the context and the content of the speech, some of the phrases and the fact that Hitler never referred to the illuminati by name, or by implication before or after this speech...
Then yea at a stretch he could be referring to them.

From your link

In 1901, I succeeded through an acquaintance of mine (the late Court Marshal Alexei Nikolayevich Sukotin of Chernigov) in getting a manuscript that exposed with unusual perfection and clarity the course and development of the secret Jewish Freemasonic conspiracy, which would bring this wicked world to its inevitable end. The person who gave me this manuscript guaranteed it to be a faithful translation of the original documents that were stolen by a woman from one of the highest and most influential leaders of the Freemasons at a secret meeting somewhere in France—the beloved nest of Freemasonic conspiracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion#cite_note-Kominsky1970-37

So as early as 1901 the protocols were thought in some circles to be a Jewish Freemason conspiracy

So would you agree when he is talking about a small international clique and his previous rhetoric about the protocols of Zion that this is exactly who he was talking about
And the cry of the Jews would also be apt in this instance

Reekwind · 23-10-2013 2:22pm

Conas wrote:

Hitlers words are very startling to say the least, you never learn about speeches like that in history class.

We do. It's covered under the rise of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany. The speech, as has been pointed out, was an oblique reference to the Jews. Hitler consistently blamed the Jews for instigating both world wars. Witness this speech (from 1941) in which he lays out the perverse chronology:

It was clear to me that, ultimately, behind [WWII] was that incendiary who has always lived off the quarrels of nations: the international Jew. I would no longer have been a National Socialist had I ever distanced myself from this realization.

In this Reich, probably for the first time, we scientifically resolved this problem for all time... and really understood... that the racial question was the key to world history. Therefore, we knew quite well... that the driving force behind these occurrences was the Jew....I have come to know these Jews as the incendiaries of the world.

After all, in the previous years, you saw how they slowly poisoned the people via the press, radio, film, and theater. You saw how this poisoning continued. You saw how their finances, their money transactions, had to work in this sense...

We once came to know this danger as the driving force in our domestic struggle. We had this black-red-golden coalition in front of us; this mixture of hypocrisy and abuse of religion on the one hand, and financial interests on the other; and, finally, their truly Jewish-Marxist goals. We completely finished off this coalition at home in a hard struggle. Now, we stand facing this enemy abroad. He inspired this international coalition against the German Volk and the German Reich.

First, he used Poland as a dummy, and later pressed France, Belgium, Holland, and Norway to serve him. From the start, England was a driving force here. Understandably, the power which would one day confront us is most clearly ruled by this Jewish spirit: the Soviet Union. It happens to be the greatest servant of Jewry.

Time meanwhile has proved what we National Socialists maintained for many years: it is truly a state in which the whole national intelligentsia has been slaughtered, and where only spiritless, forcibly proletarianized subhumans remain. Above them, there is the gigantic organization of the Jewish commissars, that is, established slaveowners....

...in the end, the man who temporarily became the ruler of this state, is nothing other than an instrument in the hands of this almighty Jewry. If Stalin is on stage and steps in front of the curtain, then Kaganovich and all those Jews stand behind him, Jews who, in ten-thousandfold ramifications, control this mighty empire.

And so on and so on. This was not a novel theme for Hitler. The same anti-Semitic sentiment was heard countless times in his speeches, both public and private. Suggesting that all this was a ruse and that he was actually talking about the Masons, or some other small group, is bizarre given the context

euroboom13 · 23-10-2013 2:29pm

We have a bank controled democratic world (money owns democracy through media)

It is a very good system,much better than the opposite ,a world goverment controlled banking system,which the axis would have achieved,but never held on too.

History is writin by the victor,hence the extreme hatred of once popular world leaders.

Dictators in open control get assasinated,but dictators hidden behind democracy rule freely,make mistakes but live to correct them.

If you changed the word "jew" into "banker" in all prewar speeches and repeated them today ,you would be elected in every democracy.

King Mob · 23-10-2013 2:34pm

enno99 wrote: »

So as early as 1901 the protocols were thought in some circles to be a Jewish Freemason conspiracy

Some circles yes. I have not seen anything to make me think this was what Hitler thought and it does not at all mesh with his previous and later stances and total lack of referring to freemasons in anything else.

enno99 wrote: »

So would you agree when he is talking about a small international clique and his previous rhetoric about the protocols of Zion that this is exactly who he was talking about
And the cry of the Jews would also be apt in this instance

Yes, but again, I would not agree that he is referring to freemasons.
He believed that it was a conspiracy by Jews for the benefit for Jews because they were Jews. There is nothing to suggest that he believed it had anything to do with freemasonry.

Not all freemasons are Jews and not all Jews are freemasons. Screaming "the Jews" when someone is talking about freemasons does not make sense.

This is not what most people who believe in freemason conspiracies nowadays (or people who believe there's something to that conspiracy like the OP) believe.

But if you are agreeing that the basis for Hitler's belief in the conspiracy is from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, doesn't that make the whole thing moot? If he is talking about a fictional conspiracy from a book that has been shown to be a racist hoax and propaganda tool, then what is he exposing in his speech?

Corkfeen · 23-10-2013 4:36pm

Conas wrote: »

I'd say he's probaly referring to the Jewish bankers or lobby then so. I find it strange that he said 'It is a small, rootless, international clique that is turning the people against each other, that does not want them to have peace'.

The 'does not want them to have peace', is a strange part too. For a man who we learn about as kids, as a mass murdering psychopath. I never thought he mentioned the word peace, ever.

You seem to be implying that Hitler was setup because he turned his back on the banking system? Hitler was referring to the Jews, he regularly described them as manipulators and villains. This was part of his propaganda. Look at all the propaganda pieces the Nazi government financed. The Eternal Jew etc, they all use pretty much the same language of Hitler's speeches.

If you pick any quote out of context, it can throw a person in a new light but a dishonest light. Hitler's idea of 'peace' was successfully culling the world of people that he viewed to be lesser in contrast to the so called 'Aryan' race. Hitler's use of 'peace' was very much so propaganda. You're also required to ignore the fact that he was without a doubt a mass murdering psychopath.

Can find mentions of 'peace' in pretty much every totalitarian leader's speeches, using such terms is unifying to the people who aren't the significant casualties of the leader.

enno99 · 23-10-2013 4:55pm

King Mob wrote: »

Some circles yes. I have not seen anything to make me think this was what Hitler thought and it does not at all mesh with his previous and later stances and total lack of referring to freemasons in anything else.

In some circles I was referring to antisemites im sure you would agree Hitler fits the bill
@ 0.43

Jews and freemasons armament industrialists and war profiteers international traders and stock jobbers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONkRvrogt30

Yes, but again, I would not agree that he is referring to freemasons.
He believed that it was a conspiracy by Jews for the benefit for Jews because they were Jews. There is nothing to suggest that he believed it had anything to do with freemasonry.

Not all freemasons are Jews and not all Jews are freemasons. Screaming "the Jews" when someone is talking about freemasons does not make sense.

It makes perfect sense if you think he was talking about a masonic /Jewish conspiracy

This is not what most people who believe in freemason conspiracies nowadays (or people who believe there's something to that conspiracy like the OP) believe

.

cant see the relevance of that statement I thought we were trying to ascertain what Hitler believed

But if you are agreeing that the basis for Hitler's belief in the conspiracy is from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, doesn't that make the whole thing moot? If he is talking about a fictional conspiracy from a book that has been shown to be a racist hoax and propaganda tool, then what is he exposing in his speech?

No Im not agreeing with anything of the sort
You brought up the protocols when asked for evidence of Hitler and others referring to the Jews as a small international clique
Do you have another instance for this exact terminology ?

Which is really the part of the speech that tells you who he is referring to an estimated 15.3 million Jews world wide approx 9 million in europe is not a small clique

Admittedly I havent watched many of his speeches but from what I have seen he seemed a powerful speaker and I would hazzard a guess that he choose his words carefully to gain maximum effect

Reekwind · 23-10-2013 7:41pm

enno99 wrote: »

You brought up the protocols when asked for evidence of Hitler and others referring to the Jews as a small international clique

I suppose that you think that when Hitler spoke of "the International Jew" in the singular he was referring to some guy called Avi in New York?

Or is it really too much to expect precise language from a man who believed that it was the Jews who had started WWII? Perhaps you'd prefer: "it is a rootless clique comprised of members of an ethic group that comprises approximately 16m people globally, depending on how one measures it, that is turning people against each other"?

Do you have another instance for this exact terminology?

Let me see... how about this speech in 1941:

"And yet to speak today of England's World Power or of England as the master of the world, is nothing but an illusion. To begin with her internal situation: England, in spite of her world conquests is perhaps socially the most backward State in Europe. Socially backward-that is, a State orientated entirely in the interests of a comparatively small and thin upper stratum and the Jewish clique with which it is allied."

"It would never have been possible to begin this armament race unless others had wanted it. I made proposals to them. However, every proposal, coming as it did from me, was sufficient to cause excitement among a certain Jewish-international-capitalist clique, just as it used to happen formerly in Germany when every reasonable proposal was rejected only because it was made by National Socialists"

"If the war continues this will prove a great misfortune for England, and you will have ample opportunity to gain further experience. The English will make up their minds to send a commission which is to take over our soldiers. It is this social Germany which is hated most by this clique, a conglomeration of Jews, their financiers and profiteers"

Bafflingly, he failed to mention the Masons at all in that speech. How strange

Torakx · 23-10-2013 8:16pm

I don't think he was targeting just masons.He only mentioned them as an aside it seems to me.More of a coupling with other groups from the speech I saw.
I'm curious why he found the jewish race such a threat though.I would love to read mein campf, but its 28 euro in easons and I hate reading long pdf's.
Will buy it at a later date though.I'm genuinely curious what he was getting at overall.
I am currently reading Neitzsche's Thus Spoke zarathustra.
Some great writing there, a lot of it is stuff I have said or decided to myself, but I need to read mein campf or however its spelled to find Hitlers interpretation and motivations.

enno99 · 23-10-2013 10:08pm

Reekwind wrote: »

I suppose that you think that when Hitler spoke of "the International Jew" in the singular he was referring to some guy called Avi in New York?

You can suppose what you like but it adds nothing to the conversation

Or is it really too much to expect precise language from a man who believed that it was the Jews who had started WWII? Perhaps you'd prefer: "it is a rootless clique comprised of members of an ethic group that comprises approximately 16m people globally, depending on how one measures it, that is turning people against each other"?

And again it is not what I prefer that matters
as I stated earlier he seemed very calculating in his speeches

"And yet to speak today of England's World Power or of England as the master of the world, is nothing but an illusion. To begin with her internal situation: England, in spite of her world conquests is perhaps socially the most backward State in Europe. Socially backward-that is, a State orientated entirely in the interests of a comparatively small and thin upper stratum and the Jewish clique with which it is allied."

"It would never have been possible to begin this armament race unless others had wanted it. I made proposals to them. However, every proposal, coming as it did from me, was sufficient to cause excitement among a certain Jewish-international-capitalist clique, just as it used to happen formerly in Germany when every reasonable proposal was rejected only because it was made by National Socialists"

"If the war continues this will prove a great misfortune for England, and you will have ample opportunity to gain further experience. The English will make up their minds to send a commission which is to take over our soldiers. It is this social Germany which is hated most by this clique, a conglomeration of Jews, their financiers and profiteers"

Bafflingly, he failed to mention the Masons at all in that speech. How strange

again he seems to be singling out a small cohort of Jews and others not all the Jewish people

Do you think he is talking about ordinary Jewish families from the east end or the wealthy Jewish families in cahoots with Royalty and government who were entrenched in Freemasonry

Ill put this here

clique (klk, klk)
n.
A small exclusive group of friends or associates.
intr.v. cliqued, cliqu·ing, cliques Informal
To form, associate in, or act as a clique.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/clique

Brown Bomber · 23-10-2013 10:36pm

think a more interesting comparison to Hitler's speech is the words of his WWII nemesis Winston Churchill.

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/ish.htm

Churchill was himself a Mason so unsurprisingly doesn't mention them, but he raises the same points as Hitler i.e. Jews, Illuminism, Communism, destruction of morality and revolution .

[FONT=Georgia,Arial,Helvetica]Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia,Arial,Helvetica]Winston Churchill[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia,Arial,Helvetica]Some people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia,Arial,Helvetica]And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia,Arial,Helvetica]The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honourable and successful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia's economic resources, and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organisations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholders of friendship with France and Great Britain.[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia,Arial,Helvetica]International Jews[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia,Arial,Helvetica]In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia,Arial,Helvetica]Terrorist Jews[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia,Arial,Helvetica]There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses.[/FONT] [FONT=Georgia,Arial,Helvetica]The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia,Arial,Helvetica]"Protector of the Jews"[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia,Arial,Helvetica]Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people. Wherever General Denikin's authority could reach, protection was always accorded to the Jewish population, and strenuous efforts were made by his officers to prevent reprisals and to punish those guilty of them. So much was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda against General Denikin denounced him as the Protector of the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, relating their personal experiences in Kieff, have declared that to their knowledge on more than one occasion officers who committed offences against Jews were reduced to the ranks and sent out of the city to the front. But the hordes of brigands by whom the whole vast expanse of the Russian Empire is becoming infested do not hesitate to gratify their lust for blood and for revenge at the expense of the innocent Jewish population whenever an opportunity occurs. The brigand Makhno, the hordes of Petlura and of Gregorieff, who signalised their every success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found among the half-stupefied, half-infuriated population an eager response to anti-Semitism in its worst and foulest forms. The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies which are now being perpetrated.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia,Arial,Helvetica]A Home for the Jews[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia,Arial,Helvetica]Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism.[/FONT] [FONT=Georgia,Arial,Helvetica]Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia,Arial,Helvetica]Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920, page 5.[/FONT]

Like Churchill Hitler was an early supporter of Zionism. Hitler collaborated with the Zionists. This is a comemmerative coin minted by the Nazis featuring the Star of David.

+++++++++++++

The last point is that Churchill's position is not based on the protocols but on his observations as a journalist. Hitler considered the Protocols as genuine in part because real world events that were predicted in the protocols were coming to pass - in his eyes at least.

People can decide for themselves the text is here: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion3.htm#Protocol%20No.%204

For an example people should also read the authenthic Alta Vendita written by the Carbonari/Freemasons. It details a Masonic plan to infiltrate and destroy the Catholic Church - just as the Communists did later. The Jews of Italy had allied themselves with the Carbonari in this quest.

The document is here: http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/dillon/text.htm#14

Brown Bomber · 23-10-2013 10:42pm

Just to correct Churchill on this:

With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews.

Lenin hid his Jewish heritage.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4073133,00.html

Reekwind · 23-10-2013 10:51pm

enno99 wrote: »

And again it is not what I prefer that matters
as I stated earlier he seemed very calculating in his speeches

These would be his rambling polemics laden with pathos and light on facts or reality? Yet you believe that every word, every turn of phrase was perfectly calibrated? Enough to drag us into the morass of semantics? Really?

The truth is of course nothing of the sorts. Hitler generally spoke largely off the cuff with only rough notes to guide him. His language, particularly in the early days, was coarse, the subject matter repetitive and the actual language secondary to the effect on the audience

Do you think he is talking about ordinary Jewish families from the east end or the wealthy Jewish families in cahoots with Royalty and government who were entrenched in Freemasonry

He was talking about them all. Hitler saw the Jews as the key threat to Germany. Not 'the elite Jews' but the Jews as a race. That was his obsession. When the Nazis set out to exterminate the Jews they didn't focus the wealthy Jews but sought to wipe out the entire ethnic group - including millions of peasants in Poland and Russia

In Nazi eyes behind every opponent lay a shadowy Jewish clique - from financiers in the US through to commissars in the USSR - coordinating the downfall of Germany. But every Jew was working at some level to undermine Germany. Hitler didn't go to his deathbed moaning about Masons or secret societies or elite bankers, his last written words concerned the Jews

Why you seem to be suggesting that Hitler's bête noire was actually Freemasonry, I do not know

Brown Bomber wrote:

People can decide for themselves the text is here:

What's there to decide? The Protocols were exposed, rather conclusively, as a forgery almost a century ago

Brown Bomber · 23-10-2013 10:57pm

re above, read again. The context gives meaning.

The last point is that Churchill's position is not based on the protocols but on his observations as a journalist. Hitler considered the Protocols as genuine in part because real world events that were predicted in the protocols were coming to pass - in his eyes at least.

People can decide for themselves the text is here: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/prz...ocol%20No.%204

EDIT: This is a tactic of war suggested in the Protocols

Brown Bomber · 23-10-2013 11:00pm

Reekwind wrote: »

In Nazi eyes behind every opponent lay a shadowy Jewish clique - from financiers in the US through to commissars in the USSR

Jewish and gentile financiers in the US tended to be rather generous to the fuhrer.

Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler

King Mob · 24-10-2013 1:20am

enno99 wrote: »

In some circles I was referring to antisemites im sure you would agree Hitler fits the bill
@ 0.43

Jews and freemasons armament industrialists and war profiteers international traders and stock jobbers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONkRvrogt30

Two problems with this. First it's a translation from a youtube video, so I trust it about as far as I can throw it, you'll need to post a more credible transcript.
Second, even though he mentions freemasons (assuming it is correctly translated), he doesn't say they are part of the same conspiracy as the Jews.

enno99 wrote: »

It makes perfect sense if you think he was talking about a masonic /Jewish conspiracy

Still no. The guy blurting out "Jews" means he thinks that Hitler is refering to Jews. If he thought he was referring to freemasons, why didn't he shout "freemasons"? If he was taking about a Jewish/freemason conspiracy then your point is moot.

But it doesn't make sense to think he was given the target of all his other rhetoric.

enno99 wrote: »

cant see the relevance of that statement I thought we were trying to ascertain what Hitler believed

My objection to the claim that Hitler was referring to freemasons is that it is a misrepresentation and that Hitlers views of a Jewish conspiracy (or even a Jewish/freemason conspiracy) are not the same views of most of those who currently believe in a freemason conspiracy.

enno99 wrote: »

No Im not agreeing with anything of the sort
You brought up the protocols when asked for evidence of Hitler and others referring to the Jews as a small international clique
Do you have another instance for this exact terminology ?

I don't see why I would need to. The basis of his conspiracy directly and clearly states them as such. Other posters have pointed to other examples.

My point is that since the Protocols are a fake, and Hitler's speech is based in part on them, then he is not actually revealing anything about an actual conspiracy either past or current. That is because the conspiracy he was talking about was the result of racist propaganda.

enno99 wrote: »

Which is really the part of the speech that tells you who he is referring to an estimated 15.3 million Jews world wide approx 9 million in europe is not a small clique

Yes that's true. But Hitler wrongly believed or claimed that they were also a international clique because of propaganda like the Protocols.

enno99 · 24-10-2013 2:36am

King Mob wrote: »

Two problems with this. First it's a translation from a youtube video, so I trust it about as far as I can throw it, you'll need to post a more credible transcript.
Second, even though he mentions freemasons (assuming it is correctly translated), he doesn't say they are part of the same conspiracy as the Jews.

In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler wrote that Freemasonry has succumbed to the Jews and has become an excellent instrument to fight for their aims and to use their strings to pull the upper strata of society into their designs. He continued, "The general pacifistic paralysis of the national instinct of self-preservation begun by Freemasonry" is then transmitted to the masses of society by the press.[7]

On August 8, 1935, as Führer and Chancellor, Adolf Hitler announced in the Nazi Party newspaper, Voelkischer Beobachter, the final dissolution of all Masonic Lodges in Germany. The article accused a conspiracy of the Fraternity and World Jewry of seeking to create a World Republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Freemasonry#cite_note-12

now if you want to put the speech in context

here is the transcript from the link you put up

The struggle between the people and the hatred amongst them is being nurtured by very specific interested parties. It is a small, rootless, international clique that is turning the people against each other, that does not want them to have peace ... It is the people who are at home both nowhere and everywhere, who do not have anywhere a soil on which they have grown up, but who live in Berlin today, in Brussels tomorrow, Paris the day after that, and then again in Prague or Vienna or London, and who feel at home everywhere. [Man in audience shouts 'The Jews!'] They are the only ones who can be addressed as international, because they conduct their business everywhere, but the people cannot follow them.'

maybe he was paving the way for this

The Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz in German) was passed by Germany's parliament (the Reichstag) on March 23, 1933. Using the Act, on January 8, 1934, the German Ministry of the Interior ordered the disbandment of Freemasonry, and confiscation of the property of all Lodges; stating that those who had been members of Lodges when Hitler came to power, in January 1933, were prohibited from holding office in the Nazi party or its paramilitary arms, and were ineligible for appointment in public service.[9] Consistently considered an ideological foe of Nazism in their world perception (Weltauffassung), special sections of the Security Service (SD) and later the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) were established to deal with Freemasonry.[10] Freemasonic concentration camp inmates were graded as political prisoners, and wore an inverted (point down) red triangle

@Reekwind

Why you seem to be suggesting that Hitler's bête noire was actually Freemasonry, I do not know

Had to look up that (bête noire) thought it was an icecream

Im 100% sure Hitler was a total nutter He thought Jews/Gays/Gypsies and so on even down to smokers were sub human and yes he even included Freemasons

The preserved records of the RSHA—i.e., Reichssicherheitshauptamt or the Office of the High Command of Security Service, which pursued the racial objectives of the SS through the Race and Resettlement Office—document the persecution of Freemasons.[10] The number of Freemasons from Nazi occupied countries who were killed is not accurately known, but it is estimated that between 80,000 and 200,000 Freemasons were murdered under the Nazi regime.[

As for the off the cuff speeches
have a read of this one seems pretty well thought out to me

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE GERMAN REICHSTAG ON JANUARY 30TH 1937

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/hitler1.htm

And for the speech in the OP

This was the first speech that Hitler broadcast live on all German radio stations, and took place only nine months after his take-over as Chancellor of the German Reich

Im sure he put more than a little thought into it

King Mob · 24-10-2013 2:52am

enno99 wrote: »

In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler wrote that Freemasonry has succumbed to the Jews and has become an excellent instrument to fight for their aims and to use their strings to pull the upper strata of society into their designs. He continued, "The general pacifistic paralysis of the national instinct of self-preservation begun by Freemasonry" is then transmitted to the masses of society by the press.[7]

Again, not because of anything to do with freemasonry, but because he believed that they were controlled by the Jews.

Do you believe that the freemasons are controlled by the Jews? Do you think that most people who believe in the freemason conspiracies or believe that there is something to them believe that they are controlled or succumbed to the Jews?
If not, then you agree that Hitler's views are different to the conspiracy most people are talking about these days. Which is the point I am making.

Further if you agree that the Protocols are a hoax, then you agree that Hitler's basis for his conspiracy is false, meaning that his speeches aren't revealing anything since they are talking about a conspiracy that did not exist.

enno99 · 24-10-2013 3:44am

King Mob wrote: »

Again, not because of anything to do with freemasonry, but because he believed that they were controlled by the Jews.

Do you believe that the freemasons are controlled by the Jews? Do you think that most people who believe in the freemason conspiracies or believe that there is something to them believe that they are controlled or succumbed to the Jews?
If not, then you agree that Hitler's views are different to the conspiracy most people are talking about these days. Which is the point I am making.

Further if you agree that the Protocols are a hoax, then you agree that Hitler's basis for his conspiracy is false, meaning that his speeches aren't revealing anything since they are talking about a conspiracy that did not exist.

Im done
you said Hitler never mentioned freemasons you were wrong I linked to a video
you had problems you didnt believe the transcript he doesn't say they are part of the same conspiracy as the Jews.

excerpt from Mein Kampf solved that

you and others rattled on about context and content of the transcript and then added your own words like homeland meaning (Jewish homeland) which the text didnt contain
omitted words like small from the qoute when talking about the small international clique

Did Hitler really believe his own propaganda or was the protocols of Zion just to stir up antisemitism

King Mob · 24-10-2013 4:32am

enno99 wrote: »

Im done
you said Hitler never mentioned freemasons you were wrong I linked to a video
you had problems you didnt believe the transcript he doesn't say they are part of the same conspiracy as the Jews.

excerpt from Mein Kampf solved that

I did not say any such thing.

Edit: scratch that. I did say that he never mentioned the illuminati by name, this being shorthand for the Illuminati/freemasons. I was indeed wrong in this regard.

However this part still stands:

I said he never talked about them. Naming them (twice) does not equate to him talking about them being part of the conspiracy.

The video you linked, if accurate does not detail how he believed the freemasons were involved with anything. He just says their name.
Your quote from Mein Kampf sates that he believed that they were being controlled by the Jews, not that they were involved or responsible for the conspiracy.

If he believed that the freemasons were involved or in anyway significant, then why does he only mention them twice compared to all of the times he referred to the Jews?

enno99 wrote: »

you and others rattled on about context and content of the transcript and then added your own words like homeland meaning (Jewish homeland) which the text didnt contain
omitted words like small from the qoute when talking about the small international clique

I did not add any words. I was refering to the line: "who do not have a soil where that have grown up".
If you have another interpretation for this line beyond "homeland" or similar and one that applies to freemasons, but not Jews, please detail this.

Nor did I drop any words. I have repeatedly explained that Hitler was operating under a false belief.
It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people were a small clique. Hitler was wrong.

enno99 wrote: »

Did Hitler really believe his own propaganda or was the protocols of Zion just to stir up antisemitism

Whether he genuinely believed it or not, it was still the basis for his claims and for the claims he made in his speech.

Do you believe that Hitler's claims were accurate even though they were based on the Protocols?

Conas · 24-10-2013 4:36am

Corkfeen wrote: »

If you pick any quote out of context, it can throw a person in a new light but a dishonest light. Hitler's idea of 'peace' was successfully culling the world of people that he viewed to be lesser in contrast to the so called 'Aryan' race. Hitler's use of 'peace' was very much so propaganda. You're also required to ignore the fact that he was without a doubt a mass murdering psychopath.

Oh he was, but the Nazi Philosophy didn't die with the end of WW2, If anything it moved to America, and what the CIA do around the world is no different to what the Nazi's did. Nazism still exists to this very day. The CIA is one of the most evil agencies ever to exist in history.

George W Bush is arguably more evil than Hitler. He lied to an entire nation to send them to war, is responsible for the deaths of over 1 million innocent men, women, and children in Iraq, not the mention the countless horrific injuries that people will have for a life time, and he launched those wars illegally too. Then he set up these black sites, and countless people were tortured, some of it was so horrific that the CIA destroyed the tapes, and evidence, no one has yet to be held accountable for that, and no one has been put on trial yet.

The point I'm trying to make is what went on during the 2000's by the American goverment, is identical to what Hitler and the Nazi's did. I'm also 100% sure that people behind the scenes told Bush exactly what to do, and when. So there's every indication that this same clique could have told Hitler what to do, and when. Hence maybe WW2 itself was actually a conspiracy.

King Mob · 24-10-2013 4:52am

Conas wrote: »

So there's every indication that this same clique could have told Hitler what to do, and when. Hence maybe WW2 itself was actually a conspiracy.

Why would we be exposing this clique if he was taking orders from them? Why did he say that the clique you are referring to is controlling everyone else except Germany?

I thought the conspiracy you were suggesting was that Hitler was the only person they couldn't give orders to, hence they caused the Allies to destroy Germany?

Conas · 24-10-2013 7:27am

King Mob wrote: »

Why would we be exposing this clique if he was taking orders from them? Why did he say that the clique you are referring to is controlling everyone else except Germany?

I thought the conspiracy you were suggesting was that Hitler was the only person they couldn't give orders to, hence they caused the Allies to destroy Germany?

When JFK came into the office in 1961, the CIA had planned and plotted the invasion of Cuba, in what was known as the Bay of Pigs. They were ordering Kennedy around, but when the operation failed, he felt that the CIA had lied to him, and famously said 'I'll splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces, and scatter it to the wind'. It wasn't long after that he made that secret societies speech. Also the Military Industrial Complex wanted him to commit to Vietnam, he in the end wanted to pull out.

So what I'm saying is, JFK and Hitler could very well have been taking orders from a shadow goverment, but wanted to expose them.

"Why would we be exposing this clique if he was taking orders from them?"

Well that's the problem isn't it. Maybe they didn't want to take orders from these people, and that's why they exposed them, or made attempts to expose them, so the people would know and be alerted.

I thought the conspiracy you were suggesting was that Hitler was the only person they couldn't give orders to, hence they caused the Allies to destroy Germany?

Yes that's technically what I was implying. At first he did take orders from them though, and was funded by America. The same way Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, were funded and armed by Ronald Reagan and his goverment during the 1980s. Hitler though wanted to get rid of the private bankers, hence he printed the Treasury Certificates debt-free, which means that there would have been every effort made to have him removed from power.

But this happens even today, Saddam wanted to trade his oil in Euros not dollars anymore, sanctions and a war followed. Gaddafi in Libya wanted a United African currency to rival the dollar, and wanted to sell his oil and other resources only for the gold dinar, guess what happened to him? his palace was bombed, he was beaten, bloodied, and executed.

King Mob · 24-10-2013 8:57am

Conas wrote: »

Well that's the problem isn't it. Maybe they didn't want to take orders from these people, and that's why they exposed them, or made attempts to expose them, so the people would know and be alerted.

So why didn't he just say this clearly? Why never actually say he was being controlled? Why make it about the Jews?

Conas wrote: »

Yes that's technically what I was implying. At first he did take orders from them though, and was funded by America.

But the speech you linked which you believe might be him exposing them was in 1933. The war didn't start for many years after that.

Why would he follow their orders to start a war 6 years after her decided to stop following orders and expose them?

Why would they have to start a war to kill him when they could just assassinate him?

alastair · 24-10-2013 9:49am

JFK is talking about the threat/conspiracy of Communism, and the terms of censorship/press freedom that should apply in the US while countering that perceived threat. The speech was given to the American Newspaper Publishers Association, and framed in that context.

Hitler is talking about the threat of the Jewish people - the standard grab-bag of their sinister control of banking, international corporations, and the devious nature of a scattered diaspora that doesn't gel with German society. The same guff is evident all over Nazi propaganda.

Neither is referring to Freemasons.

enno99 · 24-10-2013 2:58pm

King Mob wrote: »

If you look up the context of this speech, it is incredibly clear that Hitler is referring to the Jews.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/genocide/hitler_audio.shtml

The only parts of that speech I see that could apply to them are references to "international cliques", but that is a very tenuous connection.

Nor did I drop any words. I have repeatedly explained that Hitler was operating under a false belief.
It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people were a small clique. Hitler was wrong.

where is the word small which if we are talking about context and content is rather an important word to omit

and the use of the word homeland smacks of this type of bollocks

A homeland for the Jewish people was an idea that rose to the fore in the 19th century in the wake of growing anti-Semitism and Jewish assimilation, with many competing proposals considered. Jewish emancipation in Europe paved the way for two ideological solutions to the Jewish Question: cultural assimilation, as envisaged by Moses Mendelssohn, and Zionism, promoted by Theodore Herzl.[1]

whats up with the word country

King Mob · 24-10-2013 3:21pm

enno99 wrote: »

where is the word small which if we are talking about context and content is rather an important word to omit

And again, as I have repeatedly explained, I explained that Hitler was wrong in his belief in the claim that Jews were a small international clique. I have shown this was a popular belief at the time and one Hitler supported.

Focusing on that quote as if I was purposefully leaving out the word is pedantry. Please address the point I am actually making.

enno99 wrote: »

and the use of the word homeland smacks of this type of bollocks

Then please explain what was meant by the line "who do not have a soil where that have grown up" means and how it refers to freemasons.

BloodBath · 24-10-2013 6:02pm

And again, as I have repeatedly explained, I explained that Hitler was wrong in his belief in the claim that Jews were a small international clique. I have shown this was a popular belief at the time and one Hitler supported.

He's not talking about all Jews though. Rather the small number of them, especially European and American Jews at the time, that controlled most of the media and corporations much like they do today. They have a history of subversion and infiltration of the highest offices and positions internationally.

This same clique controls the worlds central banks controlling the currency for most of the world privately with no accountability to anyone. That gives them massive political power over the entire world. This isn't some wild conspiracy. This is a fact and it's something they have been doing for a long time.

While in history they controlled people by loaning money with interest they now control entire nations by loaning money with interest. Worthless money is exchanged for things with actual value. This clique amasses power and wealth in exchange for printing worthless money with interest. It's amazing really.

You can write this off as anti-semitism or realise it's an actual fact that has been ongoing for hundreds of years. Instead of listening to Jewish propaganda let's look at what some famous leaders had to say about the Jews.

WASHINGTON, GEORGE, in Maxims of George Washington by A. A. Appleton & Co. "They (the Jews) work more effectively against us, than the enemy's armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in... It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America."

This prophecy, by Benjamin Franklin, was made in a "CHIT CHAT AROUND THE TABLE DURING INTERMISSION," at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787. This statement was recorded in the dairy of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina. "I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. The menace, gentlemen, is the Jews. In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal. For over 1,700 years, the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in that they have been exiled from their homeland, as they call Palestine. But gentlemen, did the world give it to them in fee simple, they would at once find some reason for not returning. Why? Because they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires. They cannot live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other people not of their race. If you do not exclude them from these United States, in their Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land and change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives our substance and jeopardized our liberty. If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves. Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will nor how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American's, and will not even thou they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention.

JEFFERSON, THOMAS. 18th century American statesman. "Dispersed as the Jews are, they still form one nation, foreign to the land they live in." (D. Boorstin, THE AMERICANS) "Those who labor in the earth are the Chosen People of God, if ever he had a chosen people." (NOTES ON VIRGINIA)

WILHELM II. German Kaiser. "A Jew cannot be a true patriot. He is something different, like a bad insect. He must be kept apart, out of a place where he can do mischief - even by pogroms, if necessary. The Jews are responsible for Bolshevism in Russia, and Germany too. I was far too indulgent with them during my reign, and I bitterly regret the favors I showed the prominent Jewish bankers." (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, July 2, 1922)

BONAPARTE, NAPOLEON. French statesman, general. "The Jews provided troops for my campaign in Poland, but they ought to reimburse me: I soon found that they are no good for anything but selling old clothes . . ." "Legislating must be put in effect everywhere that the general well-being is in danger. The government cannot look with indifference on the way a despicable nation takes possession of all the provinces of France. The Jews are the master robbers of the modern age; they are the carrion birds of humanity . . . "They must be treated with political justice, not with civil justice. They are surely not real citizens."

"The Jews have practiced usury since the time of Moses, and oppressed the other peoples. Meanwhile, the Christians were only rarely usurers, falling into disgrace when they did so. We ought to ban the Jews from commerce because they abuse it . . . The evils of the Jews do not stem from individuals but from the fundamental nature of this people." (From Napoleon's Reflections, and from speeches before the Council of State on April 30 and May 7, 1806.)

"Nothing more contemptible could be done than the reception of the Jews by you. I decided to improve the Jews. But I do not want more of them in my kingdom. Indeed, I have done all to prove my scorn of the most vile nation in the world." (Letter to his brother Jerome, King of Westphalia, March 6, 1808)

1). Every big and small Jew in the peddling trade must renew his license every year.

2). Checks and other obligations are only redeemable if the Jew can prove that he has obtained the money without cheating. (Ordinance of March 17, 1808. Napoleonic Code.)

DE GAULLE, CHARLES. 20th century French politician. Addressing the Zionist imbroglio in the Mideast in a news conference of November 27, 1967, he observed: "The Jews remain what they have been at all times: an elite people, self-confident and domineering."

ADRIEN ARCAND, Canadian political leader of the 1930s "Through their (Jew's) international news agencies, they mold your minds and have you see the world not as it is, but as they want you to see it. Through their cinema, they are the educators of our youth -- and with just one film in two hours, can wipe out of a child's brain what he has learned in six months in the home, the church or the school."

WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYANT, three times the Democratic Party candidate for President said: "New York is the city of privilege. Here is the seat of the Invisible Power represented by the allied forces of finance and industry. This Invisible Government is reactionary, sinister, unscrupulous, mercenary, and sordid. It is wanting in national ideals and devoid of conscience . . . This kind of government must be scourged and destroyed."

General Patton
"Evidently the virus started by Morgenthau and Baruch of a Semitic revenge against all Germans is still working. Harrison (a U.S. State Department official) and his associates indicate that they feel German civilians should be removed from houses for the purpose of housing Displaced Persons. There are two errors in this assumption. First, when we remove an individual German we punish an individual German, while the punishment is -- not intended for the individual but for the race. Furthermore, it is against my Anglo-Saxon conscience to remove a person from a house, which is a punishment, without due process of law. In the second place, Harrison and his ilk believe that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews, who are lower than animals."

Ulysses S. Grant
"The Jews, as a class, violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department, and also Department orders, are hereby expelled from the Department (comprising areas of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky)."

The list could go on and on. It's also no surprise that operation Northwoods was drafted by a Jew. Lyman Lemnitzer. Only for Kennedy it would have passed. Who's to say a similar operation hasn't been put into effect since.

Corkfeen · 24-10-2013 8:03pm

Just because a person is historically a fantastic individual. Does not mean he can't have illogical and highly prejudicial opinions. The statements are basically reiterating anti-semitic stereotypes, doesn't mean that they're anything more than bigoted statements. The vast majority of the people you quoted also firmly believed themselves to be superior to black people, should that also be considered to be a rational opinion?

Reekwind · 24-10-2013 8:40pm

enno99 wrote: »

Im 100% sure Hitler was a total nutter He thought Jews/Gays/Gypsies and so on even down to smokers were sub human and yes he even included Freemasons

Of course. But Hitler opposed Masons, like communists and homosexuals, because he considered them tools of the Jews. In the great Nazi pantheon of hatred, everything negative stemmed from Jewish plots. Wall Street? A Jewish front. The Comintern? A Jewish front. The Masons? A Jewish front. Jazz bands? A Jewish front. And so on and so on

So when Hitler refers to shadowy forces plotting war, he's talking about the Jews. Not their front men

The number of Freemasons from Nazi occupied countries who were killed is not accurately known, but it is estimated that between 80,000 and 200,000 Freemasons were murdered under the Nazi regime

So wait, now an organisation that numbers in the millions worldwide now qualifies as a "small clique"? Really?

and the use of the word homeland smacks of this type of bollocks

Has anyone ever, in the entire history of Masonry, made a deal about the lodges lacking "who do not have a soil where they have grown up"? Is that a thing with Masonry? That it lacks a home nation? I don't know

What I do know is that the idea of the Jews as an essentially homeless race of 'rootless cosmopolitans, is a prominent feature of antisemitism. It's something that Hitler himself referred to many time. And I see absolutely no reason not to assume that this case in question was not one of them

BloodBath wrote:

You can write this off as anti-semitism

I think I will. What with it being antisemitic garbage

EDIT:

How did I miss this?

Conas wrote:

If anything it moved to America, and what the CIA do around the world is no different to what the Nazi's did...

Yes, it moved to America. Where today millions of Jews and communists are worked to death in forced labour camps as part of an industrial-strength campaign of extermination. Well known fact, that

George W Bush is arguably more evil than Hitler. He... is responsible for the deaths of over 1 million innocent men, women, and children in Iraq

That really is something. I mean, to top Iraq you'd really have to do something really atrocious. Like... oh I don't know, murder almost twenty million civilians as part of a state-led campaign of genocide. Plus tens of millions more war dead in a war of aggression to conquer Europe. But that's unlikely to ever happen, right?

The point I'm trying to make is what went on during the 2000's by the American goverment, is identical to what Hitler and the Nazi's did

History is not your strong suit, is it?

enno99 · 24-10-2013 9:12pm

Reekwind wrote: »

So wait, now an organisation that numbers in the millions worldwide now qualifies as a "small clique"? Really?

I know cant get my head around that one either

Guess he wasnt talking about the Jews then there were 15.3 million of them at the time

Torakx · 24-10-2013 9:49pm

Yes we know Hitler was a madman and was responsible for the murder of millions.
That he has credit for world wide.
Bush does not, yet credit where its due I say.

So where are we at now?
Since these Elite Jewish families have run the monies of the western world for centuries, are we all agreed that this is the reason for Hitlers percieved need to destroy them and weed them out of "his" society?

I can't argue against the idea that they were behind the secret societies as well as the banking issues.
It could well be true. Secret societies started in the same area more or less from my memory.

What about the idea that these same Elites funded Hitler and drove him to the state of mind he ended up at, then used his war as a way to forever have a scapegoat and free pass in the future and even take over Palestine.
It seems that even a hint of using the J word and you will be stomped on so hard you wish you had said the N word, because hey they don't rule the world yet and there aren't many white guys in power who get that offensive over their race or clique being mentioned as responsible for something.

On a personal note now, I don't give a toss where anyone is from, what they look like etc.
But this kind of global behaviour makes me suspicious.And when something doesn't seem as everyone else thinks, I start to get curious and question things, as the other people here questioning this issue with Hitler.
I mean If I start going on about Gypsies in a blog and how they are a pain and trouble to society or something along those lines, will I get in trouble anywhere?
Will I be stopped from entering the United States of America?
I don't think so.

I am pretty sure if I alternatively if I write a blog about some of the issues here, I WILL be on a no fly list for the USA.

Thats if I am not already. To be honest I know back during Obama's visit that these forums and all my posts where monitored.
My email has been hacked and left as it was sometime before that with no apparent consequences.
I'm guessing I am on a no fly list already, but since I would not be paid to go there, it's ok

Theres a reason for these things. And it might not be because Hitler was wrong, what if it is because he was right and just went way too far trying to get a hold of something he could not catch so easily.
Causing him to try and exterminate all within his reach and then hope to carry that on across the globe.

I can't argue against the fact that it is a jewish family of bankers who are responsible for so much grief and sorrow on a large portion of this planet.
It is these people Hitler should have targeted. the rest I believe are as neurotic as the Muslims,Catholics,Prodestants,JW's

special favourite of mine hehe, etc etc

BloodBath · 24-10-2013 11:57pm

Just because a person is historically a fantastic individual. Does not mean he can't have illogical and highly prejudicial opinions. The statements are basically reiterating anti-semitic stereotypes, doesn't mean that they're anything more than bigoted statements. The vast majority of the people you quoted also firmly believed themselves to be superior to black people, should that also be considered to be a rational opinion?

You might have a point if the list of prominent people in History was a small one but the list of people saying the same things for hundreds of years and the evidence for it is overwhelming. Are they all anti-semites? You know all this anti semite spiel was propagated by the Jews themselves right. Why can nobody criticise their actions or question their intentions without being labeled an anti semite?

I think I will. What with it being antisemitic garbage

Fair enough. Believe what you will.

That really is something. I mean, to top Iraq you'd really have to do something really atrocious. Like... oh I don't know, murder almost twenty million civilians as part of a state-led campaign of genocide. Plus tens of millions more war dead in a war of aggression to conquer Europe. But that's unlikely to ever happen, right?

How about 20-30 million casualties, the majority of which were civilians, caused by American wars since after WW2?

alastair · 25-10-2013 12:09am

Glad to see the normal symbiosis of conspiracy theorists and anti-semitism is at play. It just wouldn't be the same otherwise.

Carry on.

Mod: Banned

BloodBath · 25-10-2013 12:23am

Well it's bollocks. Anti-Semitism is defined as hatred or discrimination towards Jews because of their religion or ethnicity and it is definitely neither of those.

I couldn't give a crap what race or religion anybody is. It has nothing to do with it. So stop throwing the anti semite bs out there. It makes no sense.

King Mob · 25-10-2013 12:49am

BloodBath wrote: »

You might have a point if the list of prominent people in History was a small one but the list of people saying the same things for hundreds of years and the evidence for it is overwhelming. Are they all anti-semites?

I'm sure we can find a long long list of famous historical figures saying the same thing going back centuries: telling us how black people are naturally slaves and that slavery is good for them.

Should we accept that as fact?

BloodBath wrote: »

You know all this anti semite spiel was propagated by the Jews themselves right. Why can nobody criticise their actions or question their intentions without being labeled an anti semite?

There's a difference between criticising some one who is Jewish and accusing people of being involved in a centuries old conspiracy because they are Jewish.

It's funny how this anti-anti semetic spiel about "not being able to critise Jews" was proagated by anti-semeties...

Like this comment for instance:

The list could go on and on. It's also no surprise that operation Northwoods was drafted by a Jew. Lyman Lemnitzer. Only for Kennedy it would have passed. Who's to say a similar operation hasn't been put into effect since.

Why was it no surprise that it was created by a Jew exactly?

Conas · 25-10-2013 1:05am

Reekwind wrote: »

Yes, it moved to America. Where today millions of Jews and communists are worked to death in forced labour camps as part of an industrial-strength campaign of extermination. Well known fact, that

Give all of us a break will you. The Israeli/Jewish goverment get billions of dollars in foreign aid every single year. They get more than anyone. It's disturbing the amount of influence they have on the American goverment. Their Prime-Minister is one of the most dangerous men in the world. Look at the amount of dead Palestinians he has on his hands. His warmongering against Iran is shocking. He's dying for a war against them, and is doing everything he can to get America involved. He's on about them having Nuclear Weapons, it always makes me laugh, because every one in the world knows Israel has Nuclear Weapons, that their cunningly able to hide, and no one except President Kennedy had the nerve to question them on. If anything Israel could wipe Iran off the face of the earth, with their Nuclear weapons. Just remember the Israeli Prime Minister went to America in 2002, and he said 'there is no question, no question whatsoever that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction'. and he's doesn't have to be held accountable for anything. It's very, very suspicious.

Reekwind wrote: »

That really is something. I mean, to top Iraq you'd really have to do something really atrocious. Like... oh I don't know, murder almost twenty million civilians as part of a state-led campaign of genocide. Plus tens of millions more war dead in a war of aggression to conquer Europe. But that's unlikely to ever happen, right?

Powerful people, in very powerful positions want war to happen. It doesn't matter how many people have to die. In the world of currency, oil, and war people make huge profits. Freedom and democracy is the last thing they want to spread. But Americans are so brain washed at this stage by the carefully controlled main stream media, they will believe anything.

So many people have been labeled anti-semitic these days, it's scary. Two Irish presidents, Michael D Higgins and Mary Robinson, have been victims of it. Notice the way even today in America if you question the Jews, or question Israel, you get attacked, insulted, you could lose your job, and your reputation is destroyed, like it was with Helen Thomas, and Mel Gibson. It's just so suspiciously strange.

Us Irish Catholics suffered more than the Jews, we were persecuted for 800 years, During the Irish Famine we were left to die through starvation and disease, In the 1798 rebellion when we sought independence, countless people were massacred. Irish people that were injured in hospitals were burnt alive. People were tortured through pitching capping and half hanging. Look at the suffering we've had to endure.

BloodBath · 25-10-2013 2:50am

I'm sure we can find a long long list of famous historical figures saying the same thing going back centuries: telling us how black people are naturally slaves and that slavery is good for them.

Should we accept that as fact?

Maybe. But we can only decode the present and potential future by looking at the past. It's a complicated history that i don't even pretend to fully understand but I don't believe the history of persecution and expulsion of Jews in and from Europe was simply down to the fact that they were Jews. I know the catholic church has a lot of blood on their hands in this regard though.

There's a difference between criticising some one who is Jewish and accusing people of being involved in a centuries old conspiracy because they are Jewish.

It's funny how this anti-anti semetic spiel about "not being able to critise Jews" was proagated by anti-semeties...

Maybe you're right. I just find it strange that they have suffered hundreds of years of persecution practically anywhere they went. Is it simply because they were Jews or was there an underlying cause for this hatred. Surely all of these highly intelligent men had more reason to be wary of Jews simply because they were Jews? I honestly don't know the answer.

Why was it no surprise that it was created by a Jew exactly?

It's exactly the kind of subversive tactics used by Israel to gain support for their actions. The same kind of subversion and lies that lead people to believe the 6 day war was a pre-emptive strike and not in fact an illegal war. You can label me an anti semite but I'm an anti Zionist.

King Mob · 25-10-2013 3:11am

BloodBath wrote: »

Maybe. But we can only decode the present and potential future by looking at the past. It's a complicated history that i don't even pretend to fully understand but I don't believe the history of persecution and expulsion of Jews in and from Europe was simply down to the fact that they were Jews. I know the catholic church has a lot of blood on their hands in this regard though.

Maybe you're right. I just find it strange that they have suffered hundreds of years of persecution practically anywhere they went. Is it simply because they were Jews or was there an underlying cause for this hatred. Surely all of these highly intelligent men had more reason to be wary of Jews simply because they were Jews? I honestly don't know the answer.

And black people were enslaved and denied rights for hundreds of years. Do you think that there could be an underlying cause for this as well?

BloodBath wrote: »

It's exactly the kind of subversive tactics used by Israel to gain support for their actions. The same kind of subversion and lies that lead people to believe the 6 day war was a pre-emptive strike and not in fact an illegal war. You can label me an anti semite but I'm an anti Zionist.

So because he is a Jew he is more likely to suggest subversive, sneaky and evil acts?

You didn't state that he would suggest this because he was Israeli or because he supported Zionism or any other factor. You stated this because he was a Jew.
That's simply and clearly racist.

Accusing someone of being something because of their heritage is racism.
Disguising this behind "anti-Zionism" is another common tactic propagated by anti-semites.

Hitler and JFK make similar speeches.

Comments