The Rabbit Hole

North Korea versus the United States: Who are the Demons? North Korea Lost 30% of Its Population as a Result of US Bombings in the 1950s (http://www.globalresearch.ca/north-korea-versus-the-united-states-who-are-the-demons/28342)

Another reason for the Ukraine overthrow

Murakhovsky: New US base notwithstanding, the Black Sea can no longer be turned into a NATO Lake (http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/08/murakhovsky-new-us-base-notwithstanding.html)

Two times I commented on possible trade sanctions and both times I get kettle, pot, black. My interpretation of that is you think it's equal and it is not. That is being lazy in my book. Whatever. I am willing to let this issue go as I see no reason to argue with you since I agree with much of what you say.

The current Ukraine government is not legit as they illegally ousted their elected president. Because of that Russia, and rightfully so, took Crimea back. NATO is longer valid as it has become a money pit for the US to defend a mostly EU block that will do anything and everything they can to thwart the US.

So a self confessed 'pro-Israel' lobby groups who pays for senators to come to Israel means that 1) senators are 'bought and paid for', and 2) they are 'they are the main driver behind MIC/immigration/world wars/Ukraine/Syria/Libya'.

How do we get from that link to points 1 + 2 which you have made, join those dots for me?

Here is a quote from Wikipedia about other foreign lobbies:

"Foreign-funded lobbying efforts include those of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Libya, and China lobbies. In 2010, foreign governments spent approximately $460 million on lobbying Congress and the U.S. Government.[149] Between 20152017, the Saudi Arabia paid $18 million to 145 registered lobbyists to influence the U.S. government"

Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Libya, and China - all of which have different and in many cases competing interests : does mean anyone those lobby groups interact with is 1) bought and paid for, 2) they are 'they are the main driver behind MIC/immigration/world wars/Ukraine/Syria/Libya'... because it would be fairly tenuous to imply that was the case.

Every time the Norks were paid off to stop their nuke program they just started again. The chick who wrote this fails to see the big picture as most do. The Nork nuke program could be shut down now if China so chose. But they do not. A laughable part was the Norks will stop their nuke program if the US and ROK will stop war hames. That does not come from the Norks. That comes from the Chinese in their attempt to get the US away from the area. Sorry ChiComs, but as long as ROK and Japan are partners we will be in the area.

Was not the British government, in co-operation with the French, the responsible initiating parties to the Libyan debacle.

North Korea started the war.

About 1 million South Koreans died, and 1.5 million North Koreans.

In what situation can the West be considered the aggressor when North Korea backed by its commie proxies started the war by invading the South?

Totally bizarre that you think it is OK to expunge that important historical context.

Are you a Russian disinformation plant lol?

Sure what ever you say, just that you are purposely being obtuse by being all over the map with your discussions and your responses thereof!

Now who is calling one out for being illiterate and having no sense of reading comprehension? I already told you I am not well versed with Israel, and it's policies so that wasn't good enough for you? Geeze man give it a rest!

Why should I answer any of your questions when you completely ignore my responses? Doesn't seem like a fair equitable exchange in our so called debate. Try engaging with a balanced approach, you might surprise yourself!

Facts don't matter to some when their minds are made up in how they choose to hold certain views. What is that called? Confirmation bias?

Disinformation
"The current Russian approach to propaganda builds on Soviet Cold Warera techniques, with an emphasis on obfuscation and on getting targets to act in the interests of the propagandist without realizing that they have done so. In other ways, it is completely new and driven by the characteristics of the contemporary information environment. Russia has taken advantage of technology and available media in ways that would have been inconceivable during the Cold War. Its tools and channels now include the Internet, social media, and the evolving landscape of professional and amateur journalism and media outlets. We characterize the contemporary Russian model for propaganda as the firehose of falsehood because of two of its distinctive features: high numbers of channels and messages and a shameless willingness to disseminate partial truths or outright fictions. In the words of one observer, New Russian propaganda entertains, confuses and overwhelms the audience. Contemporary Russian propaganda has at least two other distinctive features. It is also rapid, continuous, and repetitive, and it lacks commitment to consistency"
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE100/PE198/RAND_PE198.pdf


Example: AIDs was made in American labs.
The CIA claim (and I believe them) that this is just one example of a conspiracy theory that has Russia origins serving as part of an anti-West propaganda campaign. The intention is to make Western public distrust the West and their governments to sow discontent:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol53no4/pdf/U-%20Boghardt-AIDS-Made%20in%20the%20USA-17Dec.pdf

^ This kind of anti-west disinformation is everywhere now.

Doc there are certain things I was absolutely no compromise on but I do believe we have been deceived to such an extent it may destroy history as we know it.
I share this on the basis of encouraging discussion. I think it's time we accept that our respective governments will go to extreme lengths to paint a particular picture. It's uncomfortable but let's discuss ?

https://youtu.be/yhI0rBY9ikI

The evidence is mounting but I am totally confused as to the end game.

Everyone knows Hitler deeply admired Great Britain, what part of this is new information? He considered the British of the same stock of Germans, again not new information. All sides ran propaganda campaigns, not new.

None of this challenges any established facts about WWII or its chronology, instead it chooses just to omit those facts. WWII was started when Germany in a pact with Russia annexed Poland crossing allied red lines. Red lines that Germany thought they could cross without consequences.

The video says:

- "being unable to land troops on the continent, Churchill decided to terror bomb German towns and cities". Forgetting that these terror bombings were started by the Germany's nightly Blitz of UK cities.

- Hitler says "I did not allow battles to be waged against civilian populations in this war". The Blitz, the extermination camps, the massacres by the SS, they don't count?

- Hitler says "In the war with Poland I did not order nightly raids on Polish cities. At night you can't aim very well at given targets"... when were the Blitz carried out, oh yes at nighttime lol.

- Hitler says "They threw bombs on the civilians living near the Rhine, they threw bombs on civilians in Westphalia"... the RAF bombed the industrialized Rhineland, and the railway lines of Westphalia. So Hitler decided to Blitz the UK at night, despite admitting you can't really identify targets at night.

- Hitler then talks about the hand of friendship and extending that to England:

1. The same hand that signed the Mnunchin agreement to transfer the only the Sudetenland to Germany and to avoid a war... and the he proceeded to break that agreement by annexing the rest of Czechoslovakia anyway.
2. The same hand the signed the German–Polish Non-Aggression Pac (under Hitlers watch)... and then invaded Poland anyway.
3. The same hand that signed a Germany - Russian non aggression pact... and then invaded Russia anyway.

Yeh this Hitler chap was TOTALLY trustworthy and would NEVER lie about anything.

That video is anti-West revisionist disinformation.

Verv I didn't think the post warranted sarcasm. I didn't say Hitler was a spiffing chap but equally I don't believe he was the monster that convenient history portrays. I have said here already that the jury is out for me and have been trying to read around this subject last couple of months. The point I have made is that the history we can all call upon is what is fed to us and there are other versions of events. I am deeply distrusting of all governments. We are consistently lied to, 911, vaccinations, high profile accidents/suicides, Gaddafi, Sadam Hussein, space etc etc...

I posted a vid last week sometime which highlighted a Jewish lady who has told blatant lies about her time at Auschwitz and even wrote a book about her experiences. Records show she was only there for couple of days and couldn't possibly have had the experiences she claims. There are definite inconsistencies about how the so called extermination camp operated. The official explanations have changed over time too and let's not forget Auschwitz is a business. Even the 6 million figure has been revised. To be so sure and then later revise the figure when people started to question the numbers, why would they do that ?

Actually yes! I find this to be an interesting topic. I totally agree with your disposition and point of view in regards to what governments will do to sell the public on what is truth.

I for one hold certain views. I don't discuss them very often due to it being taboo to do so, and for fear of being labeled something that is unsavory to the norm of being acceptable. However, if I use covert inferences you will understand why.

The way I view the many arguments in which the video you prescribed points out are indeed poignant, controversial, and is meant to be neutral in it's commentary. I have certain beliefs but can not be substantiated and then their are facts in which can be questioned as well being what the truth is, and somewhere in the middle between these two dichotomies is the actual truth. But as the saying goes history is written by the victors, and this much I know as a fact, as questions still remain to this day in which we, coming from a different generation look at this from a different perspective. Let me provide you an example before delving further in this specific topic.

This example is a different topic and we can discuss this but my intention is not to go off topic by bringing up the US civil war, but it is important to mention for creating context for this discussion. My belief as it relates to the US civil war was that is wasn't about slavery, but a convenient means to justify Northern aggression against the south because the central issue was the South's objection of paying exorbitant taxes being levied against them by the elitists of the North. Many historical facts when later revisited in the subsequent years that followed after the war has ended, corroborate this point of view. Yet many in today's academia refuse to acknowledge this point of view insisting that the war was fought and started because of slavery. The reason I mention this is because most of those scholars who are in academia that hold onto such views were brought up educated believing a certain perspective (such as Slavery being the central issue of the cause and the reason why the war was fought) as being truthful representation of historical facts. This is simply not true and thus my earlier point that history is written by the victors holds for me a clear example of this phenomenon. Also any opinions that contradict or are contrary to what these scholars insist on being as facts might label people who hold such contrary views as being racist. I would be digressing in order to argue this contrarian point of view.

The irony that many overlooked and is regard as fact, is that is was the German bankers who instigated the civil war in the US, because 25 years prior to Lincoln being elected as president, Andrew Jackson ( the only US president to have paid off the national debt in it's entirety) ousted the central banks for what he characterized as being nothing more than vipers wanting to undermine America's sovereignty! Jackson's vision and temerity to foresee what the banks represented is both uncanny and remains to this day an astounding revelation. Regardless how one views Andrew Jackson, (as I view him as a murdering thug) he was correct in his poignant stance against the central banking system, and thus was going to have none of it by protecting America's sovereignty. The importance of bringing this up is ten fold. For the next 25 years following Andrew Jackson's abolishment of the European central banks, America was economically prospering at levels surpassing most countries of the world who would envy in duplicating it's output. With no debt, no wars following the years of gaining their independence from Britain, commerce was flowing like a well oiled machine. The German bankers including other European entities viewed America's prosperity as a major threat to their economic interests, and feared that America would be the most powerful country in the world as a result. In comes the Civil War, a war in which they sought to instigate in many unseen ways behind the scenes negotiations with quid pro quo agreements with certain US private entities that represented the elite powerful aristocrats of that time to influence a conflict of interest within the political landscape of America's ruling class. Yes it was even more corrupt then than it is today, and therefore the seeds of conflict was being sowed and concocted with a certain specific strategy by the European Central banks, namely German ones in order to get a foot hold into America and weaken or slow down it's economic trajectory of progress.

When the war finally started, Lincoln had no money to finance the war, as the central bankers of Europe knew that Lincoln would come calling for a loan in order to pay for his war with the south only to ultimately rebuffed his requests. Lincoln in his brilliance, (regardless of the fact that I view Lincoln as a war monger and another murdering thug, Charles Dickens wrote that the civil war was nothing more than a desire for empire and conquest) decided in order to pay for the war that the US treasury would issue a currency with no debt, what is often referred to as "the Greenback". As a result, not only did the US economy flourish by using debt free money, but Lincoln himself was able to finance his campaign of death and destruction on the south as business was booming with debt free money. By the time the war ended, Lincoln was assassinated by what many believed to be a pro southern nationalist named John Wilkes Booth who acted in vein and justified his actions as a revenge for what Lincoln did to the south during the war. The convenient or lets say coincidental event that followed was the reintroduction of the central banking apparatus into the American finance system. By the time the early 1870's arrived, money, and it's circulation of it became scarce once again, rendering many Americans and especially hit hardest was the farmer who were losing their homes to the banks at alarming rates thus reducing them to a mere pittance to struggle for survival. Frank L Baum's Children story book titled "The Wizard of OZ" was such commentary about this very issue and the lamenting views of the demise of the debt free currency of the Greenback was something that many, including myself feel is one of the greatest travesties of America of all time!

Ok so now that I just shared with you a little bit of historical context, lets fast forward to Germany and their conflicts leading into the 20th century. Why this information is relevant in so many ways, is going back to the central banks and their need to create wars under false narratives.

I am a firm believer of Karma, and Cause and effect, and I ask you to look at this with an open mind with consideration to this aspect.

What caused WWI? Surely nobody believes that it was because the Assassination of the Arch Duke Ferdinand in Sarajevo right? Although history is very equivocal about this being a fact, but when examining this on a deeper level, Austria and their willingness to go to war was really a front in which they despised France for, at the time when France's economic dominance was the topic among the ruling class of both Austria and Germany and wanted a war in order to re-balance or shift the power of the European map when it came to commerce. In comes Britain who also conflicted on what position to take, as they were almost married to the Germans ie: House of Windsor? (they changed their name in order to distance themselves with the anti German sentiment) But were also determined to not be left behind by wanting to preserve their own spoils of their past colonization of Empire and conquest.

Again, further context, and Now on to WWII

"H" was a different animal to all of Europe and was a populist to many that gave credence to his rise. Which is why many from the left compare Trump to him based on this particular paradigm. "H" didn't belong to the current narrative of the European central banks, and thus sought to change that by reforming Germany's entire financial system based on socialism. He did so at alarming rates in a short period of time, which in turn threatened the status quo of most of the European banking Cartel, including Great Britain. The start of WWII is also another topic that is often disputed and debated upon with no real consensus in justification for all sides who got involved in the war. The German perspective in the reason that they invaded Danzing (sorry spelling) was because German citizens residing within polish territory were systematically being slaughtered, or according to some accounts genocide was being perpetuated by the Polish nationals and thus "H" used that as justification for invading Poland. IMO, it was Germany's biggest mistake, because technically they were still obligated to follow the terms that were negotiated under the Versailles treaty (which BTW was viewed by many as a grave injustice imposed on Germany) and stilled owed a substantial amount of reparations in which "H" rendered it as being null and void once military operations were under way! The central banks took exception to this and thus vowed to make Germany pay for their violation of this treaty. Invasion of Poland, was yet another convenient ruse by Allied nations to declare war on Germany.

My questions on this, and of course is in hindsight but still begs me to ask is this: If Germany paid it's war debts, would the allied nations ire be raised with the invasion of Poland? What about the Versailles treaty? Had it been written and agreed upon with more equitable terms would Germany have been so hell bent on industrialization and building the monster war machine that they created in the first place? These questions of course are speculative, but remain topics of debate to this day. My point is as I earlier referred to "karma" and why I brought up the Civil War for context, is what the German people suffered was not because the German people themselves were seeking world domination, as what is true and not true is sold on the alter on what to believe as being true. A better future awaits, a better life, a better world, etc., etc.,. It was the bankers in the end who decided what was going to be the truth, and thus Karma exacted it's justice for it's meddling years prior in what many viewed as immoral and based on greed when it came to the German bankers interfering with America's sovereignty some 80 years prior. "H" was not part of the ruling class, and had his own ideas in which he envisioned for Germany, and that didn't include being subservient to the bankers cabal; and thus sealed his own fate from the beginning by essentially waging war against a entity that was far more powerful than a single nation could ever imagine defeating. "H" almost succeeded had it not been for some mass gross miscalculations such as invading Poland, or Russia (fighting a war on two fronts) for that matter, but by then he already lost the war and was only prolonging the inevitable at such a great cost no only to his own people, but most of Europe paid an even bigger price as a result of his fight. Germany lost the war due to karma retribution, the past doesn't forget nor does it forgive.

Ok I will stop for now as I have many views on this and would like to give you the opportunity to respond Stu. Please excuse my grammar as this was a lot for me to articulate in one setting, but I hope you get the gist in what I am trying to articulate.