2128
posted ago by jamesvien101x ago by jamesvien101x +2130 / -2

What will it take the sheep to wake up?

They did not wake up when it was revealed that their govt was spying on them.

They did not wake up when the agencies spied on the president

They did not wake up when a well respected general was framed, the doj dropped the case and the left still wanted him in prison

They did not wake up when their businesses was shut down and everyone had to wear a mask for muhh covid.

They did not wake up when the left burnt and looted the cities for months and called to abolish the police

They did not wake up when the left destroyed our heritage.

They did not wake up everytime the time left cancelled someone.

They did not wake up when all the evidence of fraud was produced.

They did not wake up in media's about turn about peaceful protest after the capitol incident.

They did not wake up after big tech cancelled the president.

They did not wake up after big banks started to cancel accounts for wrongthink.

They did not wake up when internet provider service shutdown parler, a tech competitor.

They are not waking up when a supposedly popular president is being installed like a dictator with large force supported by the state(oligarchy media)

So the question is now...

Will they wake up when the govt starts arresting people for wrongthink?

Will they wake up when you loose your job for supporting trump?

Will they wake up when the commies on twitter, reddit etc start to follow up on AOC's list idea?

Will they wake up when the commies start knocking on doors?

Will they wake up when the commies go after anyone who as per the demographic profiling may have voted for trump or may not be a leftist?

These sheeps are just a few steps away from what the germans were in nazi germany or russians in communist ussr.

Either unaware or approving on twitter, facebook etc while their fellow countrymen are shipped to camps or gulags.

Comments (106)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
2
Wexit-Delecto 2 points ago +2 / -0

He hated communists and Slavs, printed tons and tons about them in his publications and the nationalist papers.

So, forget about Deutschland uber alles, forget about the reich of a thousand years, Hitler had some slavs to kill?

It’s nonsense. He took a dive.

Is this even a serious question? Hitler was chancellor of Germany, not "the Vatican, City of London, Switzerland, etc. etc. etc."

He was head of the strongest army in Europe and he let the City of London’s troops go at Dunkirk, then marched past the other two banking centres and into the Russian winter, to certain defeat.

By the way, it's not "my story," it's just historical record. You don't need to substitute everything with a badass occult narrative, you know.

So it is your position that the historical record on Hitler is accurate?

1
You_Aint_Black 1 point ago +1 / -0

So, forget about Deutschland uber alles, forget about the reich of a thousand years, Hitler had some slavs to kill? It’s nonsense. He took a dive.

He wanted colonies in Russia. Yes, it sounds like an insane idea, but HE WROTE ALL ABOUT IT IN ADVANCE. Just read basically anything he wrote like Mein Kampf, you will find it in plain black and white text.

He was head of the strongest army in Europe and he let the City of London’s troops go at Dunkirk, then marched past the other two banking centres and into the Russian winter, to certain defeat.

He let them go because he thought he could make peace with the Brits like he had done so many times before. Yes, again, it was foolish and he was pretty far from being a superb military commander. It happened. It is recorded. He even later expressed regret for his error. The Swiss are neutral, sometimes notoriously so. Half of Germany are Catholic. He merely respected that, it wasn't a huge conspiracy to make his country lose the war and tank Western civilization. That is an insane theory with literally no evidence whatsoever. The historical record, or what is left of it, is most probably accurate, yes. It's frequently contorted by the Western press to confirm bias towards a certain narrative, that is all. But I guess you could convince yourself of practically anything if you don't need evidence and you can just claim that whatever record supports your theories was supplanted millions of "fake" documents.

1
Wexit-Delecto 1 point ago +1 / -0

He wanted colonies in Russia. Yes, it sounds like an insane idea, but HE WROTE ALL ABOUT IT IN ADVANCE. Just read basically anything he wrote like Mein Kampf, you will find it in plain black and white text.

I’m aware, but you are assuming he would smash his empire’s chances just to kill some Slavs. He never wrote about doing that!

He let them go because he thought he could make peace with the Brits like he had done so many times before. Yes, again, it was foolish and he was pretty far from being a superb military commander. It happened. It is recorded. He even later expressed regret for his error.

He also wrote a lot about freemasons, but he didn’t smash his empire’s chances just to kill freemasons. Quite the opposite, he bent over backwards to accommodate their ruler, the British crown.

So why invade Russia? He already had lebensraum to halfway through Poland, and surely recognized that if he cut off the banker funding the Jewish Bolsheviks depended upon, the Jewish Bolsheviks would wither and die.

But, how would ending the war prematurely allow the bankers to maximize their profit by lending to both sides, with the understanding that the winner would pay the loser’s debts?

The Swiss are neutral, sometimes notoriously so. Half of Germany are Catholic. He merely respected that, it wasn't a huge conspiracy to make his country lose the war and tank Western civilization.

The swiss bankers are also zionist jews and freemasons. As is the city of london. In what sense could he have understood them as being neutral?

That is an insane theory with literally no evidence whatsoever.

The victors write the history, not the losers.

The bankers caused the crash of 1929. They had a solution to the crash ready to go, corporate fascism. They built the fascists up with funding at the same time as they built up their enemies, the communists up. They made both sides promise to pay the reparations of the loser (lesson learned post WW1). Then they cut ‘em loose.

How is it more insane than “Hitler the anti zionist ignored all the zionists in his struggle to rid the world of zionists and secure a future for Germany”?

The historical record, or what is left of it, is most probably accurate, yes. It's frequently contorted by the Western press to confirm bias towards a certain narrative, that is all. But I guess you could convince yourself of practically anything if you don't need evidence and you can just claim that whatever record supports your theories was supplanted millions of "fake" documents.

How come history books from the 40s and 50s don’t mention the holocaust? How would we have learned about the camps if they were all on the soviet side of the iron curtain?

1
You_Aint_Black 1 point ago +1 / -0

“The Holocaust” isn’t part of the historical record, they can’t even find a mention of “the final solution” apart from the plan to send Jews to Madagascar. You have a point about “victors writing history,” but many of the contemporary accounts we have are from Hitler and Germany. It’s clear they show that the Germans botched the war effort on many, many fronts (partly because they never wanted it in the first place and you’ll remember they never invaded Russia until the allies declared war). I just don’t think it was a massive conspiracy during the 40s to make Nazis look bad or something, they just used the war victory to do that in the aftermath. Like you said, victors write the history.

1
Wexit-Delecto 1 point ago +1 / -0

You have a point about “victors writing history,” but many of the contemporary accounts we have are from Hitler and Germany.

Most in Germany outside of the SS had no idea what was happening (bankers were funding two incompatible ideals to polarize society and spark another war). They thought fascism was an organic and correct response to the banking crisis and spectre of communism raised by the bankers. But corporate fascism is, from a banker’s perspective, indistinguishable from communism in that it completely subordinates the economy to the government.

It’s clear they show that the Germans botched the war effort on many, many fronts (partly because they never wanted it in the first place and you’ll remember they never invaded Russia until the allies declared war).

Russia would never have managed to force its troops into an invasion of Germany. They’d have revolted. Someone got the message to Hitler, “we need the Germans to come to us.” And so they did.

I just don’t think it was a massive conspiracy during the 40s to make Nazis look bad or something, they just used the war victory to do that in the aftermath.

The globalist zionist bankers did not leave the fate of the world up to a life and death struggle between two roughly equal powers, both of which had theretofore been cultivated by those same bankers. Their modus operandi is “ordo ab chaos”, not “roll the die and see where fate takes us.”