SPEAK THE TRUTH! And Redeem This World From Hell

[x-ray peat]

Some of those Antony Sutton books can be found for free in .pdf form.

Sutton, Antony C. "Wall Street and the rise of Hitler." Clairview Books (2010)​

I had read around half of this book over a year ago, before I had switched to reading science exclusively. This is a serious book, and Antony Sutton is a serious historian. All of what he says is supported by telegraphs and documents; the financiers did leave a paper trail.

In another weird synchronicity I had intended on mentioning that this was the last history book that I'd read a few weeks ago to the very same person who'd brought it up, but hadn't simply because I couldn't remember the name of the book or the author.

But David Irving also seems like a serious historian and I think he had made a good point that the the Holocaust—most specifically the 'seven million' figure—could have been exaggerated by the Jews merely for sympathy points, with perhaps a bit of post‐war propaganda thrown in by the winning party; emphasizing the crimes of the enemy mitigates those of the 'winning' side both by comparison and through diverting attention. There's a sect of historians who believe that the 'gas chambers' were simply delousing chambers, and that the notorious concentration camps are probably better seen primarily as labor camps—not extermination camps. But these are physical structures, so the evidence still stands for anyone interested; there's been chemical analysis of the brickwork and other scientific arguments put forth against many aspects of 'Holocaust textbook history. I don't think anyone who necessarily takes a different historical line here is necessarily 'racist,' as some might accuse them of being, especially if they follow the course laid‐out by the documented evidence. Besides Antony Sutton and David Irving, the historian Michael Parenti is also serious—and he's funny!

It's very easy to distort history in a convincing manner and certainly our history has been distorted. You can be a serious Historian, using only credible eye witness testimony, government documents, personal letters etc and still be lying through your teeth. It's called lying by omission. The only way to get at the truth is to read all possible sides and not just the "official" story or the "official alternative" story.

In the case of these Holocaust deniers, they completely ignore thousands and thousands of eyewitness testimony of both victims and guards of the death camps who report in horrifying detail the numbers of deaths happening everyday on an industrial scale. They ignore the records of deaths that the Nazis kept of their victims through the help of IBM who supplied the machines to help process the data. They ignore the millions of survivor testimony and all the missing family members at the end of the war. They ignore all the mass killing fields that are still being found throughout Europe where according to eyewitness accounts the Nazis rounded up all the village Jews and murdered them.

In the case of the Official World War II story, they completely ignore who funded both the Soviets and the Nazis. They ignore why US and British Bombers purposely avoided bombing Nazi weapons plants especially those owned by Western companies like Rockefeller affiliated IG Farben. They ignore why we never bombed the railroad tracks to the death camps. They ignore why Hitler continually made seemingly insane decisions that purposely kept Germany from winning the war like allowing the British to escape at Dunkirk and then opening a second front against his ally Stalin. They ignore why did the Allies waste so many years fighting in the far away Middle East instead of landing in Holland and marching straight into Berlin from the beginning, like the Generals wanted.

We are always being divided into two groups and neither are given the truth.

These books would be a good starting point to better understand some of the key truths left out of today's discussion on World War II or all of world history for that matter.

Behind the Dictators : L.H.Lehmann : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive by Former Catholic Priest and Historian Leo Lehmann
http://www.spirituallysmart.com/Paris-The_Secret_History_of_Jesuits_1975.pdf by Former Catholic Priest and Historian Edmund Paris
The Vatican's holocaust : the sensational account of the most horrifying religious massacre of the 20th century : Avro Manhattan : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive by Historian Baron Avro Manhattan
The Vatican in World Politics : Avro Manhattan : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive also by Historian Baron Avro Manhattan

 

[Badger]

No, I'm in the US, living in Washington, DC metro area. Have been to Europe many times over the years and Istanbul (which I hope to visit again soon), My comments concern US Muslim communities.

 

[Badger]

-

 

[Travis]

But there are people who think the 'seven million' figure is an exaggeration, and that there weren't even that many Jews in Europe at the time. If someone takes the records and uses simple math to arrive at a figure of around 'three million,' I don't think they should be labeled a 'holocaust denier'—especially if they freely admit that it did happen and are just striving for historical accuracy.

But perhaps its better to focus on other things, like the actual collusion between the warring factions. This is too very interesting, and could represent one of the most important aspects of WWII.

 

[Tarmander]

Who tells us what the mosque goers are doing? The MSM, unless you check it for yourself. There is as much diversity among mosque goers as there is among Christian church goers. Among Muslims, they range from screaming, angry Wahabi imams to whispering, prayerful Sufi-influenced Muslim communities, and everything in between. Cherry-picking the worst examples as representive of the "mainstream" and ignoring the good ones as peripheral, as is typical of the MSM and ignornant pundits, utterly distorts what's going on.

Badger, do you think at the level of root philosophy, Islam and Christianity are compatible? There is definitely a range of beliefs by the people, but I wonder about what is written.

 

[x-ray peat]

But there are people who think the 'seven million' figure is an exaggeration, and that there weren't even that many Jews in Europe at the time. If someone takes the records and uses simple math to arrive at a figure of around 'three million,' I don't think they should be labeled a 'holocaust denier'—especially if they freely admit that it did happen and are just striving for historical accuracy.

But perhaps its better to focus on other things, like the actual collusion between the warring factions. This is too very interesting, and could represent one of the most important aspects of WWII.

I agree that whether or not the real number of Jews killed was 6 million isn't that important. The number 6 has significant occult meaning so I can see them using that even if the real number was 3,4, 5or 7. After doing a bit of looking into these so called alternative Historians like Irving, they do not fight over such details of how many millions died but rather make the claim that the death camps never happened and it was all a lie. Or that at most a few tens of thousands died in the camps mainly from natural causes. Irving also tries to make the ridiculous claim that the top Nazis including Hitler didn't know what was going on in the camps. It's just bad and false history. Zundel, the other denier posted, claimed that the Nazis are hiding out in the hollow earth at Antarctica. They may be in Antarctica but the Earth is not hollow and he has to be an idiot to think so.

I do agree with them when they say that the gas chambers were not used to kill the Jews. They were only used to knock them unconscious. The truth is that once unconscious they were burned alive in the crematoria in a ritual sacrifice. The word Holocaust means burnt offering after all. The elite always hide the truth in plain sight.

But again the truth is also not what we have been taught in school. Read any of those books I posted and you will get a bit further down the rabbit hole in finding out why the major powers all colluded and who was behind them.

 

[Badger]

Tarmander, great question! Yes, I do, absolutely. Except for one weighty item: the doctrine of the Trinity, that Jesus is God. That's a non-negotiable for Christians and Muslims. The latter could not accept this and former could not give it up. Otherwise, no other real differences and much compatibility. I know plenty of Muslims, BTW, who agree on these points. Related to this is, I think the phrase "Judaeo-Christian," so beloved of our politicians, is an oxymoron, as the differences between Judaism and Christianity are much bigger than those between Islam and Christianity. The basis of this is that the former is much more ethnic, particular and regional while latter is universal and pretty much devoid of ethnic and regional elements. Jesus' blood is universalized and Israel is universalized in Christianity, while for Jews, blood has to be Jewish and land has to be Israel. For Muslims, it's so universalized - while remaining monotheistic, as the other two - that blood and land are unneeded and thus omitted.

Badger, do you think at the level of root philosophy, Islam and Christianity are compatible? There is definitely a range of beliefs by the people, but I wonder about what is written.

 

[Travis]

I agree that whether or not the real number of Jews killed was 6 million isn't that important. The number 6 has significant occult meaning so I can see them using that even if the real number was 3,4, 5or 7. After doing a bit of looking into these so called alternative Historians like Irving, they do not fight over such details of how many millions died but rather make the claim that the death camps never happened and it was all a lie. Or that at most a few tens of thousands died in the camps mainly from natural causes. Irving also tries to make the ridiculous claim that the top Nazis including Hitler didn't know what was going on in the camps. It's just bad and false history. Zundel, the other denier posted, claimed that the Nazis are hiding out in the hollow earth at Antarctica. They may be in Antarctica but the Earth is not hollow and he has to be an idiot to think so.

I do agree with them when they say that the gas chambers were not used to kill the Jews. They were only used to knock them unconscious. The truth is that once unconscious they were burned alive in the crematoria in a ritual sacrifice. The word Holocaust means burnt offering after all. The elite always hide the truth in plain sight.

But again the truth is also not what we have been taught in school. Read any of those books I posted and you will get a bit further down the rabbit hole in finding out why the major powers all colluded and who was behind them.

Well, many people think that Zyklon B™ was merely a delousing agent. This is not to say that Jews weren't brutally murdered in other ways, or that Zyklon B™ wasn't later co‐opted to become a euthenasiac,* but merely stating that the air‐tight chambers could originally have been constructed under less‐macabre intentions. How much Aushwitz mythology is overblown to sell tourist tickets, gain sympathy points to justify the state of Israel (a historically contentious tract of land), and to divert and distract from Allied crimes is certainly a difficult matter. I think most people would be happy thinking that the 'lampshade' myth is just that, and that 'Jew soap' had never been produced (which would have been, of course, a high‐PUFA soap).⁽¹⁾

[1] Dubnov, Gal. "Omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio: the Israeli paradox." Omega-6/omega-3 essential fatty acid ratio: the scientific evidence. (2003)
[*] Is that even a word?​

 

[Tarmander]

Tarmander, great question! Yes, I do, absolutely. Except for one weighty item: the doctrine of the Trinity, that Jesus is God. That's a non-negotiable for Christians and Muslims. The latter could not accept this and former could not give it up. Otherwise, no other real differences and much compatibility. I know plenty of Muslims, BTW, who agree on these points. Related to this is, I think the phrase "Judaeo-Christian," so beloved of our politicians, is an oxymoron, as the differences between Judaism and Christianity are much bigger than those between Islam and Christianity. The basis of this is that the former is much more ethnic, particular and regional while latter is universal and pretty much devoid of ethnic and regional elements. Jesus' blood is universalized and Israel is universalized in Christianity, while for Jews, blood has to be Jewish and land has to be Israel. For Muslims, it's so universalized - while remaining monotheistic, as the other two - that blood and land are unneeded and thus omitted.

I did not think of the holy trinity as a large barrier, so it is interesting that you bring it up. I have come across some things that seem insurmountable. Let me know what you think ,as you seem very knowledgeable on it.

What I am not sure about:

-Do you think Allah and the God from Christianity are the same? There is an idea floating around that they are actually not quite the same.

-Comparing Jesus to Mohammed. Mohammed was a warlord for the last part of his life. Jesus was the exact opposite, sacrificing himself. Would Muslims be willing to denounce the violent aspects of Mohammed? I doubt Christians would be willing to move much towards Islam in this.

-Islam is a political system and religious system combined, where as Christianity has "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" Do you think Islam would be willing to adopt a separation of church and state?

-Islam seems to be dualistic with a rule set for Muslims, and a rule set for Kafir. The kafir seems to be a large sticking point as Muslims are banned from praying with Kafir, and the long list of things that Muslims can do to Kafir without moral reprisal would make me very hesitant to ever trust a Muslim who said they were devout. Further, Islam seems to reject the Golden Rule..."do unto others." I read a statistic that the Koran spends 64% of its time dealing with Kafir, and what you are allowed to do to them. You can find similar things in the bible, but at much smaller amounts. In Christianity, there is a consensus that the bits in the bible about stoning people who wear different fabrics etc is not morally correct, and is more about the times around when the bible was written. There are some crazies of course, but anyone following these extreme scriptures would be denounced. I have not seen any Islamic scholar come out and denounce the writings in the koran, or jihad in the Sira, or aspects of the Hadith. In fact usually when asked about terrorism or these more extreme aspects of Islam, they say that those things are not Islam, and that Islam is about Peace. When asked point blank if these extremists are going to hell, they avoid avoid avoid. That worries me a bit. Do you think there is a chance that Islam would ever reform itself ito denounce those things? Do you think they would ever do away with Dualism and grant all humanity the same value, Muslims or not?

-When you say that Islam and Christianity can get along, do you mean as equals under the law, or would those Christians have to be Dhimmis?

-Mohammed kept slaves. Most of Christianity denounces slavery as an evil, and has done work to try and rectify the past. I have not seen muslims come out and apologize for the Trans Sahara slave trade, and the centuries of taking slaves before that. Do you think Islamic scholars would ever denounce this practice?

These are just some of the things I worry about when bringing Christians and Islamic belief together.

 

[x-ray peat]

Tarmander, great question! Yes, I do, absolutely. Except for one weighty item: the doctrine of the Trinity, that Jesus is God. That's a non-negotiable for Christians and Muslims. The latter could not accept this and former could not give it up. Otherwise, no other real differences and much compatibility. I know plenty of Muslims, BTW, who agree on these points. Related to this is, I think the phrase "Judaeo-Christian," so beloved of our politicians, is an oxymoron, as the differences between Judaism and Christianity are much bigger than those between Islam and Christianity. The basis of this is that the former is much more ethnic, particular and regional while latter is universal and pretty much devoid of ethnic and regional elements. Jesus' blood is universalized and Israel is universalized in Christianity, while for Jews, blood has to be Jewish and land has to be Israel. For Muslims, it's so universalized - while remaining monotheistic, as the other two - that blood and land are unneeded and thus omitted.

This couldn't be further from the truth. The reason we have the term Judaeo-Christian is because all of Jesus's teachings were taken directly out of the old testament. The greatest teaching in both religions is to love your neighbor as yourself is straight out of Leviticus. The Koran by contrast calls for its followers to conquer the world and convert the unbelievers.

I suggest you do some research on the Jewish roots of the Gospel. Jesus was Jewish after all and throughout the Bible asks for his followers to obey the Torah and that he didn't come to create a new religion. Do you really think that God is so fickle that he would completely change his mind about his religion? Jesus is the promised Messiah to the world but what he taught has already been taught before.

You really think that only the Jews want to have their land as a religious state? After the break up of the Ottoman Empire the Arabs got far more land than what their numbers would justify and the Jews far less. Tiny little Israel was the result. The Arabs kicked out the vast majority of Jews from their lands as they ethnically cleansed their countries. Only Israel allows non coreligionists to be full citizens in their country and to serve in leadership roles in government. Do you really think Saudi Arabia or Iran or any of the Arab countries would allow their land to be shared with non-believers in an equal manner?

 

[x-ray peat]

I did not think of the holy trinity as a large barrier, so it is interesting that you bring it up. I have come across some things that seem insurmountable. Let me know what you think ,as you seem very knowledgeable on it.

What I am not sure about:

-Do you think Allah and the God from Christianity are the same? There is an idea floating around that they are actually not quite the same.

-Comparing Jesus to Mohammed. Mohammed was a warlord for the last part of his life. Jesus was the exact opposite, sacrificing himself. Would Muslims be willing to denounce the violent aspects of Mohammed? I doubt Christians would be willing to move much towards Islam in this.

-Islam is a political system and religious system combined, where as Christianity has "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" Do you think Islam would be willing to adopt a separation of church and state?

-Islam seems to be dualistic with a rule set for Muslims, and a rule set for Kafir. The kafir seems to be a large sticking point as Muslims are banned from praying with Kafir, and the long list of things that Muslims can do to Kafir without moral reprisal would make me very hesitant to ever trust a Muslim who said they were devout. Further, Islam seems to reject the Golden Rule..."do unto others." I read a statistic that the Koran spends 64% of its time dealing with Kafir, and what you are allowed to do to them. You can find similar things in the bible, but at much smaller amounts. In Christianity, there is a consensus that the bits in the bible about stoning people who wear different fabrics etc is not morally correct, and is more about the times around when the bible was written. There are some crazies of course, but anyone following these extreme scriptures would be denounced. I have not seen any Islamic scholar come out and denounce the writings in the koran, or jihad in the Sira, or aspects of the Hadith. In fact usually when asked about terrorism or these more extreme aspects of Islam, they say that those things are not Islam, and that Islam is about Peace. When asked point blank if these extremists are going to hell, they avoid avoid avoid. That worries me a bit. Do you think there is a chance that Islam would ever reform itself ito denounce those things? Do you think they would ever do away with Dualism and grant all humanity the same value, Muslims or not?

-When you say that Islam and Christianity can get along, do you mean as equals under the law, or would those Christians have to be Dhimmis?

-Mohammed kept slaves. Most of Christianity denounces slavery as an evil, and has done work to try and rectify the past. I have not seen muslims come out and apologize for the Trans Sahara slave trade, and the centuries of taking slaves before that. Do you think Islamic scholars would ever denounce this practice?

These are just some of the things I worry about when bringing Christians and Islamic belief together.

I think you know far more about Islam than @Badger does.

 

[Tarmander]

I think you know far more about Islam than @Badger does.

I respect badger. I am sure he has some reasons for thinking what he does, I am curious to know them.

 

[x-ray peat]

Well, many people think that Zyklon B™ was merely a delousing agent. This is not to say that Jews weren't brutally murdered in other ways, or that Zyklon B™ wasn't later co‐opted to become a euthenasiac,* but merely stating that the air‐tight chambers could originally have been constructed under less‐macabre intentions. How much Aushwitz mythology is overblown to sell tourist tickets, gain sympathy points to justify the state of Israel (a historically contentious tract of land), and to divert and distract from Allied crimes is certainly a difficult matter. I think most people would be happy thinking that the 'lampshade' myth is just that, and that 'Jew soap' had never been produced (which would have been, of course, a high‐PUFA soap).⁽¹⁾

[1] Dubnov, Gal. "Omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio: the Israeli paradox." Omega-6/omega-3 essential fatty acid ratio: the scientific evidence. (2003)
[*] Is that even a word?​

I think people get lost in the details and are distracted from the bigger picture. Does it really matter whether or not the Nazis made human lampshades or not. Based on this reporter's research, the human lampshades did exist and Eisenhower reported seeing many human sourced artifacts but it was probably not a common product coming out of the death camps. http://www.historynet.com/a-human-s...a-journey-into-the-heart-of-the-holocaust.htm

The main point is that the evidence of millions of Jews and other killed in the death camps and elsewhere is overwhelming. Like I said before you can paint a completely different version of reality by just focusing on certain aspects of the truth and ignoring others. As for Zyklon B , here is the counter point.

Zyklon-B

Zyklon-B is a powerful insecticide. It releases HCN, Hydrocyanic acid, a gas - Zyklon-B is the carrier, a material soaked with the gas; usually it comes in the shape of small pellets or disks. HCN is what causes death. While interacting with iron and concrete, it creates compounds ("Hydrocyanic compounds"). Leuchter concedes that these compounds were found in the ruins of the gas chambers in Auschwitz (as reaffirmed by the findings of the Polish government institute, which completely rejects Leuchter's conclusions - see Section 2.01).

HCN is extremely poisonous to humans. It is used in execution gas chambers in the US; the first such was built in Arizona in 1920. It is absurd to claim (as the deniers do), that Germany in the 1940's could not handle "technical difficulties" in using HCN for execution - "difficulties" that were easily solved in 1920. Moreover, the Germans had a lot of experience with HCN, as it was extensively used for delousing.

There were two types of gas chambers in Auschwitz: those used for delousing clothes ("delousing gas chambers") and those used for killing people on a massive scale ("extermination gas chambers"). The delousing gas chambers were a standard feature, and were left intact by the SS (as opposed to the extermination gas chambers, which were dynamited in an effort to conceal criminal activity from the rapidly approaching Soviet Army). The deniers try to confuse the issue by mixing the two types of chambers. For instance, they show pictures of the doors for the delousing chambers, and note that they are too weak to withstand the pressure of people trying to escape. Of course, the doors for the extermination chambers were completely different, but that fact is quietly overlooked (see 2.06)."

Holocaust Denial & The Big Lie

 

[Travis]

I think people get lost in the details and are distracted from the bigger picture. Does it really matter whether or not the Nazis made human lampshades or not. Based on this reporter's research, the human lampshades did exist and Eisenhower reported seeing many human sourced artifacts but it was probably not a common product coming out of the death camps. http://www.historynet.com/a-human-s...a-journey-into-the-heart-of-the-holocaust.htm

The main point is that the evidence of millions of Jews and other killed in the death camps and elsewhere is overwhelming. Like I said before you can paint a completely different version of reality by just focusing on certain aspects of the truth and ignoring others. As for Zyklon B , here is the counter point.

Zyklon-B

Zyklon-B is a powerful insecticide. It releases HCN, Hydrocyanic acid, a gas - Zyklon-B is the carrier, a material soaked with the gas; usually it comes in the shape of small pellets or disks. HCN is what causes death. While interacting with iron and concrete, it creates compounds ("Hydrocyanic compounds"). Leuchter concedes that these compounds were found in the ruins of the gas chambers in Auschwitz (as reaffirmed by the findings of the Polish government institute, which completely rejects Leuchter's conclusions - see Section 2.01).

HCN is extremely poisonous to humans. It is used in execution gas chambers in the US; the first such was built in Arizona in 1920. It is absurd to claim (as the deniers do), that Germany in the 1940's could not handle "technical difficulties" in using HCN for execution - "difficulties" that were easily solved in 1920. Moreover, the Germans had a lot of experience with HCN, as it was extensively used for delousing.

There were two types of gas chambers in Auschwitz: those used for delousing clothes ("delousing gas chambers") and those used for killing people on a massive scale ("extermination gas chambers"). The delousing gas chambers were a standard feature, and were left intact by the SS (as opposed to the extermination gas chambers, which were dynamited in an effort to conceal criminal activity from the rapidly approaching Soviet Army). The deniers try to confuse the issue by mixing the two types of chambers. For instance, they show pictures of the doors for the delousing chambers, and note that they are too weak to withstand the pressure of people trying to escape. Of course, the doors for the extermination chambers were completely different, but that fact is quietly overlooked (see 2.06)."

Holocaust Denial & The Big Lie

This sets up a strawman, and overuses the term 'denier' in a way similar to how the term 'antivaxxer' is applied to anyone just wanting safer vaccines. In this area, anyone striving for historical accuracy just gets the label 'antisemite' or 'holocaust denier' applied to them; and this makes me want to investigate further just out of spite.

It is absurd to claim (as the deniers do), that Germany in the 1940's could not handle "technical difficulties" in using HCN for execution - "difficulties" that were easily solved in 1920.

This is outrageous. I don't think anyone past middle school would think that NAZI Germany—which had created Panzer tanks, U‐boats, and the V‐2 rocket—didn't have a handle on gaseous cyanide. The Germans had historically been the greatest chemists and containing a gas inside a room presents no special challenges.

There were two types of gas chambers in Auschwitz: those used for delousing clothes ("delousing gas chambers") and those used for killing people on a massive scale ("extermination gas chambers"). The delousing gas chambers were a standard feature, and were left intact by the SS (as opposed to the extermination gas chambers, which were dynamited in an effort to conceal criminal activity from the rapidly approaching Soviet Army).

A few researchers had made a case that a popular 'extermination chamber' wasn't constructed in a way you'd expect for an extermination chamber. And now, it appears as if they are tacitly admitting this while stating that the real ones had been conveniently 'dynamited.' Perhaps they were, but I think some revisionists make a good case. When reading about history, I think one nearly always finds things which differ from the 'mass media' and 'US schoolroom' narratives and I wouldn't expect this area of history to be excluded from this trend.

 

[x-ray peat]

When reading about history, I think one nearly always finds things which differ from the 'mass media' and 'US schoolroom' narratives and I wouldn't expect this area of history to be excluded from this trend.

That we can agree on.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

How long before Travis realizes he's being trolled

 

[Such_Saturation]

But what if Jesuits... are Jews all along

 

[x-ray peat]

How long before Travis realizes he's being trolled

I'm sure he realizes that you're the only one trolling the thread.

 

[DaveFoster]

@x-ray peat You know I guess I was wrong to expect that all people on the Ray Peat Forum would stray from beliefs and be scientifically minded. Every single word you wrote in your last post about WWII, were your beliefs.

My definition of belief:
Something you pretend is true but don't actually know is true. Aka a lie that you tell yourself.

Why? Because it's history, meaning before your time - so you weren't there. It is illogical to fully commit to either side of history because you never saw any of it with your own eyes. And it's dangerous because it makes possible the scenario that you're being manipulated and completely oblivious to it. The antidote to belief is aggressively pursuing a thorough understanding of both sides of history through books, videos and other information sources. When you seek truth, you will eventually find it. The determining factor is whether or not you're willing to stop lying to yourself.

The media - owned by 3 corporations last time I checked - uses buzzwords to discredit anybody simply asking questions about World War II. Some questions you might want to ask yourself regarding that blatant tactic to control public perception:

• Why do they get to decide what is true?
  
• And should I unquestioningly believe a version of World War II that is taught to Americans essentially by Hollywood?
• How about an open discussion and mutual attention to the information on both sides?
• If the mainstream version is true, then persecuting people so heavily simply for questioning it seems a bit weird, doesn't it?

The Cure to Your Swiss Cheese 'Logic'
The only way to guarantee you can never be manipulated in this world is through adherence to the philosophy that only the things you've seen or experienced yourself are true and all other things are equally possible possibilities. Instead of choosing one side of the arguement and rejecting the other, one: stop lying to yourself and pretending that you know something you don't, and two: learn all the perspectives you can find. Thinking this way makes learning opposing viewpoints exciting instead of a battle. The Canadian and American public school systems have been doing a great job for decades at training people to believe what authority figures tell them even over their own experiences and ensuring people don't know how to think for themselves in the way I've just described.

Instead people are indoctrinated to respond to any conflicting information with anger and suppression - the precise way that the angry mob of SJWs at McMaster University in March 2017 did in their attempt to silence Dr. Peterson.

"It's best to let the unreasonable opposition speak, because they manifest themselves as unreasonable."
- Dr. Jordan Peterson
​

New Possible Truths: 'The unreasonable opposition' speaks
Those who don't know the official story well can easily learn it by watching any of the 100+ Hollywood WWII films that have been made since the war.
And for the other side of the scale, here is some evidence that you can use to help you determine - not what you believe - but what you think is most likely true about World War II based on your research.

• Hitler Allegedly Liberated Germany from debt/slavery, like JFK and Lincoln did in America before being assassinated. (So did Andrew Jackson, and he had two murder attempts on him but both shots misfired.) Hitler freed Germany from the control of the international banking cartels by issuing a national currency - that's currency produced by the government, not loaned to it at interest. Because the country was no longer indebted, Germany went from highly unemployed to highly prosperous in just one year. Today, the US government and governments of all but a few countries are loaned their currency, putting their people needlessly in debt, and thus financially enslaved by these interests.

"Give me control of a nation's money supply and I care not who makes its laws."
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild, [Mayer Amschel Bauer](1744-1812), Godfather of the Rothschild Banking Cartel of Europe.​

• David Irving is a WWII revisionist who essentially 'started from scratch' and interviewed the people that worked directly with Hitler while they were all still alive. This method of investigation seems to paint a very different picture of the events that took place during the war and those responsible for it. Irving doesn't deny Jews were killed but he has made it clear that he doesn't believe Hitler was responsible for it. Is that really so hard to consider? Do you really believe Trump is the one making the decisions in American right now? To top things off, Irving has been beaten and jailed simply for speaking the conclusions he has derived from his research. If someone is simply wrong, there's no reason to beat them, is there? Here's one of Irving's talks:

​

• Ernst Zundel is another fascinating character. Those who are legitimately seeking truth will enjoy listening to him. In the following video, he pulls out a book about every 10 seconds to reference where he got the information from. While his concepts and ideas about WWII may be partially true, entirely true, or not true at all, he is clearly very well read and worth listening to.

​

• Charlie Chaplin tried to tell the world what he believe to be true about WWII in a creative way that was absolutely brilliant. In 1952, after a trip to Europe to promote his new film at the time called Limelight, Chaplin was banned by the United States government from returning home. That must be because of his extreme views, like "I believe in liberty - that is all my politics," or for being a man "who wants nothing more for humanity than a roof over every man's head," wouldn't you agree?

​

Andrew Jackson was one of the few presidents who explicitly advocated on behalf of Caucasian European-Americans.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

But what if Jesuits... are Jews all along

They literally are.

Andrew Jackson was one of the few presidents who explicitly advocated on behalf of Caucasian European-Americans.

Lots of presidents were ethnonationalists. Wasn't it a rule that only land owning white men could vote.