by Moe Santana
When researching who is behind the obvious control of governments and economies, you run into many groups, which groups usually lead to other groups. The Jews, Jesuits, rich families, and Masons, in descending order, being the most prominent in my opinion.
To try and find out who the 'powers that be', I have tried to see what all have in common with each other. One thing I find is that although one may call himself a mason, a catholic, or a jew, they typically do not follow or act as a true catholic, mason, or jew would. The religion or group seems to be a cover for something else, and also serves to confuse, and appear as though one group is superior, or that they fight each other, when in fact they are all working for the same goal, and plot together behind closed doors.
At the top, I believe they are all 'black magicians' or that they all are part of a certain cult, judging by thier similiar symbolism, and rituals, and beliefs, and gods. The 'synagogue of satan' puts it in words fairly well.
I believe that they all follow the same twisted 'religion' behind close doors and behind thier labels of jews, catholics, or masons. However I also believe that many twisted catholic and jews help to push along thier plan, and legitimally are jews or catholics, more so the jews due the nature of thier religion (they are the chosen the rest are goy, to be treated as goy). However I believe the leaders of each of these cults and religions are part of the 'synagogue of satan', and use the beliefs of these devout jews and catholics to thier advantage, and as front groups.
Basically I think both jews and jesuits/catholics control much of the world, but I also believe the zionists and hardcore catholics (probably controlled by jews), are in turn controlled by a group over them, who practice black magic (rituals, sacrifices, symbols, etc) and worship some god or gods such as lucifer, baal, isis, horus, etc.
You will only consider this idea if you are familiar with the occult, which 'the powers that be' are very familiar with, which is evident in all thier symbolism and thier ability to control the masses.
I believe the top few 'powers that be', could be partially controlled and/or guided by 'evil' spirits, since they seem to worship several and may communicate with them in rituals.
'In the occult', black magic refers to use of occult power in selfish ways or to hurt others, were as white magic is the use of occult power to better oneself without hurting others, or to help others. There is also karma, what comes around goes around, and reincarnation. There is also the astral plane, which is simply another 'plane' or 'state', which consists of finer matter, and interpenetrates the physical world. If you think this is not possible, then consider how sound, light, radiation, electricity, etc all pass through physical matter, and consider all the empty space above and below the spectrums of colour (light), sound, etc. Light, sound, and matter are all just different vibrations, science will tell you the same thing.
On this astral plane are many 'levels', From very dense continuing on to finer levels. When you die, you inhabit your 'astral body' for a time, which is identical to your physical body, only of finer matter, and is your vehicle on the astral plane, while your physical body is your vehicle on earth. The denser you go, the more negative and either less developed or degenerated you get, and the higher you go, the more developed you get. One can go lower, but cannot rise higher in the astral thier density permits. Also, black magic, being negative, cannot effect positive people. However the majority of the masses are negative, and so are influenced by black magic. I think this 'black magic' is mostly just to influence people, and to assist in manifesting events, however due to the occult (hidden) forces it sets in motion it has a great impact.
The reason I believe that the powers that be are influenced by spirits on the astral plane, is due to the well laid plans, and how generation after generation carries them out, and how they have stuck to one goal and for the most part stayed united enough to accomplish what they have.
Of course without a behind the scenes look it is near impossible to know %100 percent what power struggles and infighting goes on, however it is possible to get a blurry picture by correlating events and other evidence/events.
The occult takes many pages to fully explain, and to aquire the basics, especially with all the false info, but i've tried to explain were my logical belief in entities from other planes of life influencing entities on earth comes from. Most people would ridicule the idea of black magic, or thought waves, but most people ridicule the idea of there being 'the powers that be' as well.
Of course there is alot of bullst out about the occult and other topics as well, making people more prone to be skeptical and/or close minded.
Thought i'd also mention about the nazis, and how they were close with the roman catholics, and mainly how him and certain of his close men were highly into the occult.
The occult is written all over the place, like the kabbahla, symbols everywere, catholic masses and decorations and uniforms, rituals, pagan dates and numerology that some people go nuts about and say the illuminati strike on those days.
Then there are the large faction of zionists, but when 'TheSHitsTheFan' they will be some of the first to go, due to the large anti-jewish sentiment. In my opinion, old religions will be wiped out, things will go into anarchy and chaos, and due to the conditioning of people going on right now, they will attempt to save the day and create thier new world order.
This can be seen in things like the french revolution, were once the old government was broken down they succsesfully manipulated them, or like the arab springs.
I believe some variation of this will take place, depending on the end goal (which I believe is control), and what methods they use to get there (war, famine, disease, government, religion, etc).
In the end though, I believe they will fail, and the world, after all the chaos and destruction, will enter a new era, with the lessons they learned hopefully putting us on the right track.
I don't have time to do my own report, but I think it would be a good idea to figure out how all the conspiracies fit together.
Ignoring who is perpetrating them all (while keeping it in the back of the mind, as one group probably will keep popping up, most think jews, personally I think a type of pagan cult), so as to focus on the actions themselves, how they all fit together, which should give a good idea of the end goal of the actions, and also what to expect in the future.
How do chemtrials, vaccines, poisoning of food and water, civil wars and revolutions (each considered individually, as each would effect different people, resources, areas, countries, etc), spys, agents, intelligence agencies, religion, propaganda, movies, terrorist attacks, economy, money, banks, stock market, gmos, suppressed technology, depleted uranium and the disposal of other waste and petroleum byproducts (often sold and reused) , etc, etc, etc there are hundreds. How do they interconnect.
(would like to mention General Electric runs the nuclear plants Depleted Uranium comes from, and sell it as ammo for the 30mm cannon they designed and sell for the A-10, not to mention fracking and the disposal of waste that way, and the mixing of waste into food as additives or colouring, or flouride from the aluminum and fertilizer industry)
Of course control of money, food, governments, corporations, resources, etc are all things virtually neccesary to have to control of the world.
Some like poisoning of food is a good way to dump chemicals, weaken and kill population, make money in medical industry, control food supply (neccesary to do the poisoning in the first place).
While others like propaganda and religion can control peoples thoughts and influence them and thier culture, and likes dislikes of other people.
The above actions give clues as to motives, and other things, and show that thier is a conspiracy not in the best interest of the common man.
Using things like wars (1,2, countless others), revolutions, massacres, politics, economic moves, attacks like 9-11 and religious violence, anything to do with resources, and all put together on a 'geopolitical chessboard', and there effects and outcomes studied, we can determine the overall plan, and discern such things as ww3, and why certain conflicts are happening or why that is happening, and with enough understanding predict events before they occur.
I would start with a timeline, going back several hundred years or more, of significant events, thier causes and effects, and then fill in with more events, uncovered through the first step, and study thier causes and effects. As you were doing this and once compiled, you would see how all these events combine to form one big picture.
Eventually, if you were unbiased and triple or more times checked your facts (not always possible but things can be infered from other events), you would have a great understanding of how and why the world is in its present condition.
It would take me a year or two of full time research to create this, but it would make a great book. Perhaps much would be boring, but i'm sure as you saw the connections it would become much more interesting as you would start to reckognize the power/s behind the events in the world.
Basically there is such a spiderweb of things that is enough to overwelm the mind, and to go further it needs to be gathered, and put in proper relation to the other things, so as to form a clear picture and not a tangled contradictory mess.
Wednesday, 24 October 2018
Tuesday, 23 October 2018
Moe Santana's 2012 predictions on the Arab Spring
by Moe Santana
The scenario which seems most likely to me, is that the arab spring (all the revolutions going on in middle eastern countries), is designed to put the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of all the middle eastern countries. From my limited research, it appears that this is what is happening.
The purpose of this, I believe, is to spark world war 3. How this would be done, is that all these muslim brotherhood countries would attack Israel, and they would mutually destroy each other, and it would drag most of the rest of the world to war, due to alliances on either side.
I'm sure you've all heard of Albert Pikes predictions for 3 world wars.
http://www.threeworldwars.com/albert-pike2.htm
"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."
Of course these predictions could be made up. However, this does describe what is going on in the middle east quite well. Islam is taking control, and we all know how much they hate Israel, and all remember the 6-days war between Israel and several middle east nations. This gives a small scale idea, but if it were to happen after Islam takes over the middle east, the arabs would have a much stronger force and better organization.
Some of the variables will be the EU, and wether they are united militarily and whos side they are on, and wether that alliance includes the UK. There are the African countries, South American and Central American, and the South Pacific Asian countries, Japan, and other small countries who will fall to either side, remain nuetral, or be involved in civil wars or other disturbances. Also Saudi Arabia will be interesting, as currently they are allied with the US, however they will most likely join thier Islamic brothers if the above scenario plays out.
If I missed any other factors (thier are dozens if not hundreds or thousands), or critical information please share.
The scenario which seems most likely to me, is that the arab spring (all the revolutions going on in middle eastern countries), is designed to put the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of all the middle eastern countries. From my limited research, it appears that this is what is happening.
The purpose of this, I believe, is to spark world war 3. How this would be done, is that all these muslim brotherhood countries would attack Israel, and they would mutually destroy each other, and it would drag most of the rest of the world to war, due to alliances on either side.
I'm sure you've all heard of Albert Pikes predictions for 3 world wars.
http://www.threeworldwars.com/albert-pike2.htm
"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."
Of course these predictions could be made up. However, this does describe what is going on in the middle east quite well. Islam is taking control, and we all know how much they hate Israel, and all remember the 6-days war between Israel and several middle east nations. This gives a small scale idea, but if it were to happen after Islam takes over the middle east, the arabs would have a much stronger force and better organization.
Some of the variables will be the EU, and wether they are united militarily and whos side they are on, and wether that alliance includes the UK. There are the African countries, South American and Central American, and the South Pacific Asian countries, Japan, and other small countries who will fall to either side, remain nuetral, or be involved in civil wars or other disturbances. Also Saudi Arabia will be interesting, as currently they are allied with the US, however they will most likely join thier Islamic brothers if the above scenario plays out.
If I missed any other factors (thier are dozens if not hundreds or thousands), or critical information please share.
Monday, 22 October 2018
Jim & Remo Williams on Muad'Dib
by Jim
Dear Friends,
I hope this finds everyone well and having good days.
For anyone who may not be familiar with Muad'Dib and the 7/7 Ripple Effect film, the following article may be of interest:
Muad`Dib aka Anthony John Hill... Not Guilty.
This article has been reprinted in Namaste Magazine with insertions from Muad Dib.
The imprisonment and trial of Anthony John Hill aka Muad'Dib (meaning "Teacher of Righteousness" and a character from the Frank Herbert novel Dune) has been round the world in the alternative media and featured on many websites but has been largely ignored by the mainstream media.
A. J. Hill 63, who was originally from Sheffield and moved to County Meath in Ireland made the film 7/7 Ripple Effect about the July 2005 London Tube and bus bombings. In 2008, those accused of conspiring with the alleged 7/7 bombers were sent for trial and A J Hill sent copies of his film addressed to the judge and the jury at Kingston Crown Court. He also sent the film to John Hyman, the father of Myriam Hyman and many others. Full story at
http://terroronthetube.co.uk/?s=miriam+hyman
The videos sent to the court were not seen by the judge or jury as the packages of dvds were intercepted by the court's administration staff.
In 1997 Muad Dib put together a massive work entitled "The King of kings' Bible". It contains his work "The Way home or face The Fire", the Bible, plus other texts such as "The Book Of Enoch", the "Gospel of Thomas" The Koran was included along with his understanding and interpretations of these works. There were also references to many other philosophical and religious works. His objective was to bring all this together into a unified whole “for world peace”.
It is this strong philosophical conviction which seems to have sustained him throughout his 157 days in prison. He was never lost for words at the trial and when asked why he had gone to Ireland replied, it was to do research as to the whereabouts of the Lost Ark of The Covenant. This response was to any accusation he may have been trying to avoid the authorities in the UK. His historical and religious research for the trial was backed up by his clear and considered response when being questioned.
It was the three 7/7 alleged conspirators second trial which coincided with the arrest of Muad'Dib and his first imprisonment for 10 days. The first trial of the three accused of conspiring with the alleged bombers to cause explosions had ended with the jury unable to reach a verdict. They were retried on the same charge and two of the three on a further charge of planning to attend a terrorist training camp in Pakistan. See http://www.terroronthetube.co.uk.
His extradition from Ireland was done with a European arrest warrant as he was not accused of committing any crime in the Republic of Ireland, where he resided at the time. This hearing was held in the High Court in Dublin.
He was released on bail upon condition he would not talk about the film or trial to anyone in England or Wales. He did an interview with Richard D Hall of Richplanet.net from Scotland. http://www.richplanet.net/detail.php?dbindex=256
His barrister told the judge the DVDs were being distributed by many people and were in the public domain. The film had been widely circulated on Google Video, You Tube and on many other video sharing sites. To date it's had over a million views.
Along with 7/7 Ripple Effect other film makers had questioned the official story of 7/7 including "Mind the Gap" and "Ludicrous Diversion".
Ripple effect differs from the other films on 7/7 in that it does not deconstruct the official story but pieces together what was the most likely story given the events. For instance the news that three men had been shot at Canary Wharf (This story which was reported on 7/7 soon disappeared from the official narrative) was from news sources around the world.
This from Terroronthetube.co.uk:
It’s the opinion of Sheffield University social-sciences professor Ridley-Duff, that Mr Hill’s Ripple Effect’s narrative of what happened on that day, is more plausible and better fits the facts than did the BBC’s 7/7 ‘Conspiracy Files‘ program. His well-referenced study focussed very much on what happened at Canary Wharf on that morning, seeing the Ripple narrative, whereby the young alleged bombers had been inveigled into a terror drill that morning, then fled to Canary wharf where they were shot – as the best account yet.
The BBC had asked Muad'Dib for an interview, but he had agreed only under condition they broadcast Ripple Effect. A regional newspaper had also published an unbiased story on Muad'Dib.
The most important point in the whole narrative is that the alleged bombers could not have been at the destinations where the bombs were detonated. The official train times stated that the train the alleged bombers were supposed to have got, was the Luton to King Cross Thames Link 7.40. This train was cancelled, therefore the bombers could not be placed at the scene of the crime with any certainty .
The Ripple Effect narrative states that they must have realised they had been set up and went to Canary Wharf where Reuters and daily Newspapers were based, to tell the press. This would have been their only hope as they obviously could not be seen alive again.
http://terroronthetube.co.uk/latest-77- ... nd-ripple/
On 29th November 2010 his first case management and plea hearing was scheduled. He was not in court as he had got lost in the prison system. There were seven attempts to get him to court but only two succeeded. On one occasion he could not be found on the prison register for a court hearing but was nevertheless located at 8am the next morning for a randon drug test. A judge had demanded that he was brought to court after so much apparent incompetence. Muad'Dib states the whole episode was “Designed to punish me for making the film”.
During the official inquest into 7/7 Muad'Dib was again kept out of the public eye and was on strict curfew restrictions as part of his bail conditions.
The inquiry made it clear there would be no deviation from the official story and that there was no question the four were guilty. There were no post mortems into the deaths of the victims even though a makeshift morgue had been set up at an army base the day before the bombings. http://terroronthetube.co.uk/?s=7+7+morgue+at+army+base
The Trial started on May 9th at Southwark Crown Court. He was accused of attempting to pervert the course of justice and had altogether spent 157 days in jail.
There were many supporters and the public gallery overflowed into seating next to the jury box. The attending public had to sit through a case management hearing of another trial before Muad'Dib appeared in the court.
Muad'Dib's defence which had been painstakingly researched and prepared was not a straight forward "Not Guilty". His argument centred around the sovereignty of The Queen and The Crown.
His fascinating defence was that the Queen had knowingly been Crowned and taken her Oath on a fake Stone of Destiny aka Jacob's Pillow which had been removed on 25/12/1950, before the coronation and replaced with a fake stone. Full story and challenge to the Crown by Muad'Dib at:
http://jahtruth.net/britmon.htm
He explained to the judge that he could not be tried by the court as it had no jurisdiction over him. The Queen had summonsed him to the court and she had no lawful right to do so being illegitimate and having knowingly committed treason.
The Skeleton defence of Muad'Dib had been acknowledged by the judge but his papers had not been received by the court. The prosecution barrister maintained that the reply to Muad'Dib's argument had been sent to his barrister “weeks ago”.
The prosecution barrister maintained that the issue of sovereignty was not relevent to the trial as the coronation was a “matter of ceremony”. Muad'Dib quoted the “Prosecution of Offences Act” of 1985, “No bill can be given law without Crown consent” and that the Crown “had no authority to put me on trial”. He also asked whether the judge was an agent of the Crown to which the judge acknowledged he was.
Muad'Dib stated that the Queen had broken the law “thousands of times” and had breached her oath and contract with the British People. The judge stated that Muad'Dib had put up an “articulate argument”.
The judge then called for a break in proceedings and asked the people not in the public gallery to leave as a jury “may be sworn in”. This was not however the case as the jury were not sworn in until Tuesday. The large crowd of around 30 people along the jury and swearng in benches remained in their seats until the security were called. So as not to prejudice the opening of the trial they eventually left. When the proceedings recommenced as many as possible squashed into the overflowing public gallery.
The film "A Queen is Crowned" was shown, the volume remained down for the whole 18 minutes of the film, despite the Clerk being asked to turn it up. The only audible part being the sound of distant heraldic trumpets.
The film made on Coronation day at Westminster Abbey in 1953 showed only two camera angles of The Queen, one from around 30 feet in front of the throne and one thirty feet to the Queen's left. Muad'Diib had alleged this was because the Coronation Stone was replaced with the fake stone. There were to be no close ups which may to the trained eye reveal that the stone could have been replaced with a fake.
When the film finished the judge who had watched it intently on his monitor said, “Thank you very much Mr. Hill.” Muad'Dib said, “I hope you can see the importance of the oath and why The Queen has sworn to uphold God's law”. He also stated the oath had been sworn on a Special Edition Sovereign King James Bible and that the first time she broke the law she was no longer the Monarch. The judge said, “I follow that point”.
When it was stated that the coronation was a religious ceremony, otherwise it would have been held in Buckingham Palace instead of Westminster Abbey, the House of God, the judge had confirmed that this was “certainly the case”.
Muad'Dib stated that any act The Queen had fraudulently given Royal Assent to was not valid and that The CPS got their authority from her, therefore there was no authority to put him on trial.
The judge then said, “I want to look at it overnight, I will give a ruling tomorrow morning at 10 a.m.” The implications of this were truly huge yet the issue was not brought up after the jury had been sworn in.
The jury was shown the whole of 7/7 Ripple Effect and heard Muad'Dib's information on both 9/11 and 7/7. At 4pm on Thursday 12th May the jury found Muad'Dib aka Anthony John Hill "Not Guilty" of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Muad'Dib states that the judge ignored all his evidence on the matter of sovereignty and should not have given himself jurisdiction. He also added that the judge had “perverted the meaning of the word pervert” and that the judge had stated to the jury that perverting the course of justice meant to “influence”. Muad` Dib states the judge had emphasised the word “influence” several times to the jury.
The judge had stated that the coronation stone was only “ceremonial” and the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice under common law was valid as was the jurisdiction of the court.
On a more profound level this information could go further to explain why the sovereignty of the British Isles and its population has been willingly and mercilessly destroyed. It gives insight into where we are now, and why every unalienable right has now been taken away. All this of course without any intervention from and with full complicity of The Queen and state.
Muad'Dib maintained he was trying to prevent the course of justice being perverted. The sending of evidence to a court if in the public interest is not an offence.
The sergeant who was in charge of the investigation and who also extradited Muad'Dib from Ireland said, “I'm sorry,” to Muad'Dib after the "Not Guilty" verdict was announced. The forewoman of the jury smiled after announcing the verdict and said to a member of the public gallery that she was familiar with the Ripple Effect film before the trial.
Muad'Dib remained calm and centred throughout the whole of his trial. He thought before answering questions and always had an answer. After the trial he stated, “If we can wake up 10 out of 12 in court (the jury) thats 80 percent of the population”.
The jury were given a standing ovation from the public gallery. Muad Dib has stated he has no regrets.
“Insanity is believing a lie is true and the truth is a lie” Muad'Dib
Recent interview by Muad'Dib with Jim Fetzer on http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05 ... -2011.html
Article Courtesy of http://www.landofthefree.co.uk
Additional information: http://www.terroronthetube.co.uk / http://www.jahtruth.net
Source: http://landofthefree.co.uk/site/compone ... rown-court
Links to recordings of interviews, and a bunch of others, can be found at http://mtrial.org and they are all well worth a listen.
Peace be upon you.
Related post by Remo Williams:
Broadcast on Critical Mass Radio
Absolutely brilliant show, 7 parts on youtube:
Dear Friends,
I hope this finds everyone well and having good days.
For anyone who may not be familiar with Muad'Dib and the 7/7 Ripple Effect film, the following article may be of interest:
Muad`Dib aka Anthony John Hill... Not Guilty.
This article has been reprinted in Namaste Magazine with insertions from Muad Dib.
The imprisonment and trial of Anthony John Hill aka Muad'Dib (meaning "Teacher of Righteousness" and a character from the Frank Herbert novel Dune) has been round the world in the alternative media and featured on many websites but has been largely ignored by the mainstream media.
A. J. Hill 63, who was originally from Sheffield and moved to County Meath in Ireland made the film 7/7 Ripple Effect about the July 2005 London Tube and bus bombings. In 2008, those accused of conspiring with the alleged 7/7 bombers were sent for trial and A J Hill sent copies of his film addressed to the judge and the jury at Kingston Crown Court. He also sent the film to John Hyman, the father of Myriam Hyman and many others. Full story at
http://terroronthetube.co.uk/?s=miriam+hyman
The videos sent to the court were not seen by the judge or jury as the packages of dvds were intercepted by the court's administration staff.
In 1997 Muad Dib put together a massive work entitled "The King of kings' Bible". It contains his work "The Way home or face The Fire", the Bible, plus other texts such as "The Book Of Enoch", the "Gospel of Thomas" The Koran was included along with his understanding and interpretations of these works. There were also references to many other philosophical and religious works. His objective was to bring all this together into a unified whole “for world peace”.
It is this strong philosophical conviction which seems to have sustained him throughout his 157 days in prison. He was never lost for words at the trial and when asked why he had gone to Ireland replied, it was to do research as to the whereabouts of the Lost Ark of The Covenant. This response was to any accusation he may have been trying to avoid the authorities in the UK. His historical and religious research for the trial was backed up by his clear and considered response when being questioned.
It was the three 7/7 alleged conspirators second trial which coincided with the arrest of Muad'Dib and his first imprisonment for 10 days. The first trial of the three accused of conspiring with the alleged bombers to cause explosions had ended with the jury unable to reach a verdict. They were retried on the same charge and two of the three on a further charge of planning to attend a terrorist training camp in Pakistan. See http://www.terroronthetube.co.uk.
His extradition from Ireland was done with a European arrest warrant as he was not accused of committing any crime in the Republic of Ireland, where he resided at the time. This hearing was held in the High Court in Dublin.
He was released on bail upon condition he would not talk about the film or trial to anyone in England or Wales. He did an interview with Richard D Hall of Richplanet.net from Scotland. http://www.richplanet.net/detail.php?dbindex=256
His barrister told the judge the DVDs were being distributed by many people and were in the public domain. The film had been widely circulated on Google Video, You Tube and on many other video sharing sites. To date it's had over a million views.
Along with 7/7 Ripple Effect other film makers had questioned the official story of 7/7 including "Mind the Gap" and "Ludicrous Diversion".
Ripple effect differs from the other films on 7/7 in that it does not deconstruct the official story but pieces together what was the most likely story given the events. For instance the news that three men had been shot at Canary Wharf (This story which was reported on 7/7 soon disappeared from the official narrative) was from news sources around the world.
This from Terroronthetube.co.uk:
It’s the opinion of Sheffield University social-sciences professor Ridley-Duff, that Mr Hill’s Ripple Effect’s narrative of what happened on that day, is more plausible and better fits the facts than did the BBC’s 7/7 ‘Conspiracy Files‘ program. His well-referenced study focussed very much on what happened at Canary Wharf on that morning, seeing the Ripple narrative, whereby the young alleged bombers had been inveigled into a terror drill that morning, then fled to Canary wharf where they were shot – as the best account yet.
The BBC had asked Muad'Dib for an interview, but he had agreed only under condition they broadcast Ripple Effect. A regional newspaper had also published an unbiased story on Muad'Dib.
The most important point in the whole narrative is that the alleged bombers could not have been at the destinations where the bombs were detonated. The official train times stated that the train the alleged bombers were supposed to have got, was the Luton to King Cross Thames Link 7.40. This train was cancelled, therefore the bombers could not be placed at the scene of the crime with any certainty .
The Ripple Effect narrative states that they must have realised they had been set up and went to Canary Wharf where Reuters and daily Newspapers were based, to tell the press. This would have been their only hope as they obviously could not be seen alive again.
http://terroronthetube.co.uk/latest-77- ... nd-ripple/
On 29th November 2010 his first case management and plea hearing was scheduled. He was not in court as he had got lost in the prison system. There were seven attempts to get him to court but only two succeeded. On one occasion he could not be found on the prison register for a court hearing but was nevertheless located at 8am the next morning for a randon drug test. A judge had demanded that he was brought to court after so much apparent incompetence. Muad'Dib states the whole episode was “Designed to punish me for making the film”.
During the official inquest into 7/7 Muad'Dib was again kept out of the public eye and was on strict curfew restrictions as part of his bail conditions.
The inquiry made it clear there would be no deviation from the official story and that there was no question the four were guilty. There were no post mortems into the deaths of the victims even though a makeshift morgue had been set up at an army base the day before the bombings. http://terroronthetube.co.uk/?s=7+7+morgue+at+army+base
The Trial started on May 9th at Southwark Crown Court. He was accused of attempting to pervert the course of justice and had altogether spent 157 days in jail.
There were many supporters and the public gallery overflowed into seating next to the jury box. The attending public had to sit through a case management hearing of another trial before Muad'Dib appeared in the court.
Muad'Dib's defence which had been painstakingly researched and prepared was not a straight forward "Not Guilty". His argument centred around the sovereignty of The Queen and The Crown.
His fascinating defence was that the Queen had knowingly been Crowned and taken her Oath on a fake Stone of Destiny aka Jacob's Pillow which had been removed on 25/12/1950, before the coronation and replaced with a fake stone. Full story and challenge to the Crown by Muad'Dib at:
http://jahtruth.net/britmon.htm
He explained to the judge that he could not be tried by the court as it had no jurisdiction over him. The Queen had summonsed him to the court and she had no lawful right to do so being illegitimate and having knowingly committed treason.
The Skeleton defence of Muad'Dib had been acknowledged by the judge but his papers had not been received by the court. The prosecution barrister maintained that the reply to Muad'Dib's argument had been sent to his barrister “weeks ago”.
The prosecution barrister maintained that the issue of sovereignty was not relevent to the trial as the coronation was a “matter of ceremony”. Muad'Dib quoted the “Prosecution of Offences Act” of 1985, “No bill can be given law without Crown consent” and that the Crown “had no authority to put me on trial”. He also asked whether the judge was an agent of the Crown to which the judge acknowledged he was.
Muad'Dib stated that the Queen had broken the law “thousands of times” and had breached her oath and contract with the British People. The judge stated that Muad'Dib had put up an “articulate argument”.
The judge then called for a break in proceedings and asked the people not in the public gallery to leave as a jury “may be sworn in”. This was not however the case as the jury were not sworn in until Tuesday. The large crowd of around 30 people along the jury and swearng in benches remained in their seats until the security were called. So as not to prejudice the opening of the trial they eventually left. When the proceedings recommenced as many as possible squashed into the overflowing public gallery.
The film "A Queen is Crowned" was shown, the volume remained down for the whole 18 minutes of the film, despite the Clerk being asked to turn it up. The only audible part being the sound of distant heraldic trumpets.
The film made on Coronation day at Westminster Abbey in 1953 showed only two camera angles of The Queen, one from around 30 feet in front of the throne and one thirty feet to the Queen's left. Muad'Diib had alleged this was because the Coronation Stone was replaced with the fake stone. There were to be no close ups which may to the trained eye reveal that the stone could have been replaced with a fake.
When the film finished the judge who had watched it intently on his monitor said, “Thank you very much Mr. Hill.” Muad'Dib said, “I hope you can see the importance of the oath and why The Queen has sworn to uphold God's law”. He also stated the oath had been sworn on a Special Edition Sovereign King James Bible and that the first time she broke the law she was no longer the Monarch. The judge said, “I follow that point”.
When it was stated that the coronation was a religious ceremony, otherwise it would have been held in Buckingham Palace instead of Westminster Abbey, the House of God, the judge had confirmed that this was “certainly the case”.
Muad'Dib stated that any act The Queen had fraudulently given Royal Assent to was not valid and that The CPS got their authority from her, therefore there was no authority to put him on trial.
The judge then said, “I want to look at it overnight, I will give a ruling tomorrow morning at 10 a.m.” The implications of this were truly huge yet the issue was not brought up after the jury had been sworn in.
The jury was shown the whole of 7/7 Ripple Effect and heard Muad'Dib's information on both 9/11 and 7/7. At 4pm on Thursday 12th May the jury found Muad'Dib aka Anthony John Hill "Not Guilty" of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Muad'Dib states that the judge ignored all his evidence on the matter of sovereignty and should not have given himself jurisdiction. He also added that the judge had “perverted the meaning of the word pervert” and that the judge had stated to the jury that perverting the course of justice meant to “influence”. Muad` Dib states the judge had emphasised the word “influence” several times to the jury.
The judge had stated that the coronation stone was only “ceremonial” and the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice under common law was valid as was the jurisdiction of the court.
On a more profound level this information could go further to explain why the sovereignty of the British Isles and its population has been willingly and mercilessly destroyed. It gives insight into where we are now, and why every unalienable right has now been taken away. All this of course without any intervention from and with full complicity of The Queen and state.
Muad'Dib maintained he was trying to prevent the course of justice being perverted. The sending of evidence to a court if in the public interest is not an offence.
The sergeant who was in charge of the investigation and who also extradited Muad'Dib from Ireland said, “I'm sorry,” to Muad'Dib after the "Not Guilty" verdict was announced. The forewoman of the jury smiled after announcing the verdict and said to a member of the public gallery that she was familiar with the Ripple Effect film before the trial.
Muad'Dib remained calm and centred throughout the whole of his trial. He thought before answering questions and always had an answer. After the trial he stated, “If we can wake up 10 out of 12 in court (the jury) thats 80 percent of the population”.
The jury were given a standing ovation from the public gallery. Muad Dib has stated he has no regrets.
“Insanity is believing a lie is true and the truth is a lie” Muad'Dib
Recent interview by Muad'Dib with Jim Fetzer on http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05 ... -2011.html
Article Courtesy of http://www.landofthefree.co.uk
Additional information: http://www.terroronthetube.co.uk / http://www.jahtruth.net
Source: http://landofthefree.co.uk/site/compone ... rown-court
Links to recordings of interviews, and a bunch of others, can be found at http://mtrial.org and they are all well worth a listen.
Peace be upon you.
Related post by Remo Williams:
Broadcast on Critical Mass Radio
Absolutely brilliant show, 7 parts on youtube:
Tuesday, 16 October 2018
Hexane on Hitler the jew and the faked world war II - More kosher nazis
by Hexane
I think it puts the final nail in the coffin.
I have this one about Artur Nebe.
Jewish nose and very jewish face indeed. Clearly a jew.
Nebe was at the head of the Criminal Police Department (for the entire Reich) between 1936 and 1944. On the English Wikipedia, it is said that "In 1941, just prior to Operation Barbarossa, Heinrich Himmler selected Nebe to command Einsatzgruppe B behind Army Group Center in the east. Nebe, with technical assistance of Albert Widmann, experimented with several different methods as a means to kill patients".
On the French Wikipedia, it is said that when Nebe left the Einsatzgruppe B, on November the 14 1941, it had already killed 45 000 people, mostly jews.
So, how could a jew be put at the head of the Reich Criminal Police Department ?
It doesn't make any sense. It only makes sense if Hitler was a jew put in power by greater Jewish leaders to gather European jews, to threaten them, and to take their wealth in order to push them to go to Israel after the war.
And if he was given the command of Einsatzgruppe B, it was to stalk jews in order to put them into camps, but not to kill them of course.
And, of course, he wasn't hanged in jail in 1944. He was probably sent to South America or even to Israel after the war.
PS : I suppose that Jewish sayanims will say that in fact there was absolutely no doubt about his origins, and that this is why Hitler accepted to give him the command of the Reich Criminal Police Department, despite his Jewish face. But no. Hitler was very well placed to know that jews try to infiltrate every movements to neutralize them. So, even if Nebe was pure as snow regarding his official origins, Hitler and other nazis would have necessarily chosen someone with a very German face (and with parents having a very German face also) instead of him.
I have just that (found on French Wikipedia) :
"The decrease of the air defense (of Stalingrad) will be even more felt in November, when a part of air squadrons will be sent to the army group center, to North Africa, and also for bombing missions on Soviets troops found at bridgeheads of Kletskaia and Serafimovitch"
Reply by Ashuraya Plasha:
Hitler was created by Zionists as a voice for German Nationalism to pressure Jews out of Europe, to immigrate the people to what is today Modern Israel, in fact this plan was planned in the late 1800's by the Rothschild to displace the Jews from Europe into Palestine to create the Israel-Zionist State but the Jews in Europe refused which lead to one other option and that is to build uncomfortable environment and prejudism all across Europe, especially Germany, to make the Jews feel unfit to live in these lands to be forced to live in Palestine, it was a dirty plan but a plan that worked and that is why they had to use Hitler (who was a a Jew)
It was a master-plan, that is why they rounded up the Jews in Camps to gather them together so they wont kill major population of Jews in areas of other countries in Europe, that is why they took the Jews from Croatia into these Camps Croatia itself was an ally with Nazi-Germany which created the Ustasa.
So while rounding the people up in these camps which the Germans knew it was the safest thing to do for the Jews to keep most of them alive, when the war was over, the Jews decided it would be best to flea to Palestine and create a state called Israel so they can live in "Peace" under Israeli law without being "Suppressed"
Quotebv
I think it puts the final nail in the coffin.
I have this one about Artur Nebe.
Jewish nose and very jewish face indeed. Clearly a jew.
Nebe was at the head of the Criminal Police Department (for the entire Reich) between 1936 and 1944. On the English Wikipedia, it is said that "In 1941, just prior to Operation Barbarossa, Heinrich Himmler selected Nebe to command Einsatzgruppe B behind Army Group Center in the east. Nebe, with technical assistance of Albert Widmann, experimented with several different methods as a means to kill patients".
On the French Wikipedia, it is said that when Nebe left the Einsatzgruppe B, on November the 14 1941, it had already killed 45 000 people, mostly jews.
So, how could a jew be put at the head of the Reich Criminal Police Department ?
It doesn't make any sense. It only makes sense if Hitler was a jew put in power by greater Jewish leaders to gather European jews, to threaten them, and to take their wealth in order to push them to go to Israel after the war.
And if he was given the command of Einsatzgruppe B, it was to stalk jews in order to put them into camps, but not to kill them of course.
And, of course, he wasn't hanged in jail in 1944. He was probably sent to South America or even to Israel after the war.
PS : I suppose that Jewish sayanims will say that in fact there was absolutely no doubt about his origins, and that this is why Hitler accepted to give him the command of the Reich Criminal Police Department, despite his Jewish face. But no. Hitler was very well placed to know that jews try to infiltrate every movements to neutralize them. So, even if Nebe was pure as snow regarding his official origins, Hitler and other nazis would have necessarily chosen someone with a very German face (and with parents having a very German face also) instead of him.
I have just that (found on French Wikipedia) :
"The decrease of the air defense (of Stalingrad) will be even more felt in November, when a part of air squadrons will be sent to the army group center, to North Africa, and also for bombing missions on Soviets troops found at bridgeheads of Kletskaia and Serafimovitch"
Reply by Ashuraya Plasha:
Hitler was created by Zionists as a voice for German Nationalism to pressure Jews out of Europe, to immigrate the people to what is today Modern Israel, in fact this plan was planned in the late 1800's by the Rothschild to displace the Jews from Europe into Palestine to create the Israel-Zionist State but the Jews in Europe refused which lead to one other option and that is to build uncomfortable environment and prejudism all across Europe, especially Germany, to make the Jews feel unfit to live in these lands to be forced to live in Palestine, it was a dirty plan but a plan that worked and that is why they had to use Hitler (who was a a Jew)
It was a master-plan, that is why they rounded up the Jews in Camps to gather them together so they wont kill major population of Jews in areas of other countries in Europe, that is why they took the Jews from Croatia into these Camps Croatia itself was an ally with Nazi-Germany which created the Ustasa.
So while rounding the people up in these camps which the Germans knew it was the safest thing to do for the Jews to keep most of them alive, when the war was over, the Jews decided it would be best to flea to Palestine and create a state called Israel so they can live in "Peace" under Israeli law without being "Suppressed"
Quotebv
Monday, 15 October 2018
Hexane on Hitler the jew and the faked world war II - onto Operation Barbarossa
by Hexane
Let's talk about operation Barbarossa.
So we have already those incoherences :
7) "The Jew Hitler (against the advice of all his generals) single-handedly saves Moscow by ordering army group "Center" to stop its advance on Moscow".
8) "The Jew Hitler tells the Soviets an attack will occur at Kursk. The Jew Hitler delays the attack for more than four months, until the Soviets have built defensive lines eight deep. The Soviets concentrate 1,300,000 soldiers with 3,600 tanks, 20,000 artillery pieces, including 6,000 76mm anti-tank guns, and 2,400 aircraft in and around Kursk. An attack anywhere other than Kursk would be fatal for the Soviets, but the Soviets seem to know that the attack will come only at Kursk."
They knew it because the war was a fake one, planned by the jewish leaders.
9) "The Jew Hitler orders German troops to attack the most heavily defended lines ever constructed, at Kursk".
"The Jew Hitler is amazed by the supermen of the elite SS Panzer Korps Liebstandarte, who, in the south, break through all eight defensive lines and take on the Soviet reserve tank battalions".
"Less than two weeks into the offensive, worried that the Liebstandarte might win the battle for the Germans, the Jew Hitler strips this elite group of their tanks and ships them to Northern Italy, where they sit on their hands for some months before returning to the eastern front. The pretext of the Sicily invasion is used".
As there was enough jews in the concentration camps, Hitler's mission was over, and then, he had to loose the war. And the unexpected success of the SS Panzer Korps Liebstandarte was not at all a part of the plan. So, he sent them far away.
And, of course, it was not because he was caring for his troops. In many other occasions, orders were to be killed rather than retreating.
This stupid strategy of being killed rather than retreating was also a part of the jewish plan. With an elastic defense, the war could have last two or three more years. But jewish leaders didn't need the war anymore. So, Hitler had to choose a stupid strategy which would accelerate the end of the war.
On the French Wikipedia page about Kursk, you find this :
"It appeared quickly, with the aerial scoutings, that the Soviet General staff had anticipated this attack and considerably reinforced his defenses. The attack was transforming into an assault against fortified positions. The state of invasion forces didn't allow the success of such an operation and it was decided to postpone it's beginning to reinforce units. First planned for the 1st of May, it was postpone until the 12t, and then finally until the 4th of July, in order to get more weapons come from Germany, especially the new Tiger and Panther16 tanks.
... To the contrary of previous offensives, the surprise effect, even at the tactical level, is nor searched anymore, which contradicts the basis of Blitzkrieg, Stavka knowing the place of the assault and preparing to it. Zitadel operation, planned by the OKW, was the antithesis of this concept. The attack point was very easily predictable for every person in possession of a map, and was reflecting a thought coming from WWI."
So, it confirms clearly this. The attack was so obvious that it was as if Hitler had told them that he would attack there with the biggest part of his forces.
Such a behavior is clearly sabotage.
They also talk about the for months of delay of the attack :
"During the for months of delay given by the lateness of Germans, the Red army installed more than 400.000 mines, and dug nearly 5.000 km of trenches, with position sometimes distant of 175 km. Accent emphasis is put on antitank fight, with the creation at every levels of decision of units specialized into this task..."
So, we have a confirmation there that it was indeed 4 months of delay.
And when the guy says that if Hitler had attacked anywhere else, he would have won the war, it's very probably true. Hitler should have planned another attack elsewhere. If he didn't do that, it's because he was in fact a traitor, a Jewish sayanim.
There is also the fact that Stalin seemed to know that Hitler would attack only there. Otherwise, Stalin wouldn't have concentrated the biggest part of his forces there. As said by the guy, if Hitler had attacked anywhere else, it would have been a catastrophe for the Soviet army. The fact that Stalin seemed to know that Hitler would attack there and only there, shows us that the battle was completely staged, and that the winner was known till the beginning.
When you think about it, the very fact of suddenly attacking cities instead of continuing the attacks in the countryside is abnormal. Why not by-passing cities ? They just had to avoid a counter attack and then, attack elsewhere, in places where the Soviet army was weak. It was the principle of the Blitzkrieg. With all the space there was on the Russian territory, it was a paradise for surprise attacks, for a war of movement. And Germans were the best at this game (well..., they were supposed to). And they had the aerial superiority at this moment. After that, the cities would have fallen without fighting.
When they attacked France, Germans didn't do that (giant attacks of cities). They attacked in the countryside. This change in their strategy is another clue about Hitler's treason.
But being a Jewish traitor, Hitler had to do this. Otherwise, German army would have won easily. With this change of strategy, Hitler could let Soviet armies know he would attack at point X, and then reinforce their defenses.
In fact, Germans didn't use such a strategy at the beginning of the war against USSR. They used then the blitzkrieg strategy. So, it's even clearer there. When they needed to win quickly according to the Jewish leaders plan, Germans used the blitzkrieg. And when they needed to loose, they began suddenly to make stupid attacks against cities.
If they had used the blitzkrieg strategy on France or Poland alone, but never during the war against Soviets, maybe official historians could have given (phony) arguments sustaining such a strategy. But as they have used the blitzkrieg against Russians at the beginning, it becomes harder to find reasons explaining why they didn't use it anymore.
About the fact that Stalin was on the point of attacking Germany when the Hitler attacked USSR, here is another argument.
This is on the French Wikipedia page about operation Barbarossa :
"Ground attack is preceded by the biggest aerial attack of all times, with the main part of the 2770 airplanes being engaged in support of this front. This attack begins without a declaration of war, at 3h30, and aims at 66 Soviet airports. It had disastrous results on the Soviet army, since it gives to the Luftwaffe the absolute control of the Soviet sky during several weeks. German bombers find Soviet airplanes aligned close together, usually without camouflage or protection. Most of the time, the alert wasn't even raised and few airplanes are able to take off. The VVS's losses are terrible : attacked on 66 airports, at 12 PM, they have lost 1200 airplanes, of which 800 on the ground. The night, 1489 airplanes have been destroyed on the ground and 389 in the air."
Without the aerial superiority, the quick victory of Hitler during the two first months of the attack would have been more difficult to explain. And even if all was stagged, it could have thwarted the plan of Jewish leaders.
Anyway, it shows us once again that this story of Stalin being on the verge of attacking Germany is bullshit.
I have found informations about the SS Panzer Korps Liebstandarte. At Kursk, it was part of 2e SS-Panzerkorps, of SS-Obergruppenführer Paul Hausser (itself being part of the 4th panzer army of Generaloberst Hoth).
On this site, (http://secondeguerremondiale.centerblog.net/2-1-SS-Panzerdivision-Leibstandarte-SS-Adolf-Hitler) we have this :
"Launching his attacks the 5th of July, the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler progresses well at the beginning, reaching the second defense line at the end of the first day...
.... The 11th of July, the division reaches the Psel river, the last main obstacle before Kursk itself."
We have a map here (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3nF13nBudU4/Tjvu4QCNE_I/AAAAAAAABWs/bxaZYEyFryI/s1600/stabswache_de_euros.jpg ) about the lines of defense of the Soviet Army. Maybe there was a total of 7 or 8 defense lines. But for the immediate operation about Kursk, it seems that there was only three to cross. And the 12th of July, only 7 days after the beginning of the battle, the German army had crossed the third one. So, as the guy said, the 4th army had crossed all the defensive lines of the Soviet army (except that it was not 8 but 3). July the 12, Germans were at Prokhorovka, so behind the third defense line. Soviets launched a counter attack with an army located behind the front line. But it wasn't well organized. And they lost a lot of tanks.
So, if the German army had received reinforcements, they would have most probably won the battle, as the guy said. With some reinforcements, there was nearly nothing able to stop them to join the German forces on the north.
But Hitler came the 13th of July, and although Von Manstein begged him to give him reinforcements, Hitler refused. He decided to even stop the entire attack and to pass in defensive mode. The reason why he did that was that there was elsewhere two counter-attacks from Soviets (Kutuzov operation at the north and Polkovodets Roumiantsev operation at the south), and that Sicily had been invaded. So, it was not only the SS Panzer Korps Liebstandarte which was sent elsewhere, but it was the entire attack itself which was stopped whereas it was on the point of being won.
About the fact that Hitler didn't mobilized all German population for the war, if it's true, it's maybe to justify deportations. The reason presented would then be that he wanted to preserve Germans. Thus, it would give another (official) explanation for the deportation of jews.
The author needs to edit his text because the "I SS Panzer Corps Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler" and "II SS Panzer Corps" were two different forces. I think he was confused because the II SS Panzer Corps was renamed so, before it was called "I SS Panzer Corps". During the battle of Kursk there was the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler (the personal bodyguard force of Hitler) and the author was confused.
Yes, you are right. The guy was in fact talking about the "II SS Panzer Corps".
In fact the "II SS Panzer Corps" wasn't called "I SS Panzer Corps" before. It was called "SS-Panzer-Generalkommando". But in June or July 1943, it seems that new names were given to some Panzer corps. Thus, "SS-Panzer-Generalkommando" became "II SS Panzer Corps".
What is confusing is that in the "II SS Panzer Corps", there was the "1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler". So, when the guy talks about the "I SS Panzer Corps Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler", and you see there wasn't any corps with this name at Kursk, you can make the confusion and think that he was in fact talking about the "1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler". Which then becomes odd, since you don't see very well how just a division could have had such an impact on a battle.
And when you learn that, indeed, the "1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler" was sent to Italy (and not the other divisions of the "II SS Panzer Corps". They were supposed to go there, but finally they stayed in Russia), it reinforces this idea that he was indeed talking about the 1st division and not the corp.
However, the guy was right about the fact that the "I SS Panzer Corps" was sent to Italy. In fact, this corp was created the 26 of July (1943) in Germany, at Lichterfelde. And it contained among other divisions, the "1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler" (which had been disconnected from "II SS Panzer Corps" just after Kursk). Of course, it adds to the confusion.
So, we can resume the case like this.
The guy was talking in fact about the "II SS Panzer Corps". So, the supermen of the "II SS Panzer Corps" broke through the three defensive lines (not height) of the Soviet army and were on the verge of succeeding into winning the battle. Then Hitler came, and although Von Manstein begged him to give him reinforcements, he decided to stop the assault. He then disconnected the "1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler" from the "II SS Panzer Corps" and sent it to Italy after having incorporated it into the newly created "I SS Panzer Corps". But the other divisions of the "II SS Panzer Corps" stayed in Russia.
So, the fact that the "1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler" was sent in Italy isn't very important (and a part of it came back in Russia after nov 1943). What is important is the fact that Hitler stopped the assault. Then it didn't matter anymore that this or that division was still in Russia or not. And what is important is the fact that he stopped the assault whereas with some reinforcement, the "II SS Panzer Corps" was on the point of winning the battle.
And the other important fact is that Hitler decided then to pass in defensive mode. Thus, of course Germany couldn't win anymore. And such a fact (a corp being able to win the battle against the will of Hitler, and of the Jewish leaders) couldn't happen anymore also.
On the French page of Wikipedia about the battle of Kursk. It says :
"Von Manstein asks Hitler for reinforcements to pursue the operation...
...Despite his supplications to continue, Hitler decides to stop the Citadel operation on July the 13. A decisive turn is then crossed, Hitler passing then in defensive mode on the East front."
On the English version of Wikipedia about Kursk, the words are not as strong, but it let understand that Von Manstein wanted sorely to continue the battle and believed in its chances of success.
"Von Manstein attempted to dissuade him, arguing that Zitadelle was on the brink of victory: "on no account should we let go of the enemy until the mobile reserves which he had committed were decisively beaten". In an unusual reversal of their roles, Hitler gave von Manstein a few more days to continue the offensive, but on 17 July, he ordered a withdrawal and canceled the operation."
Of course, this what is said by official historians. Von Manstein was most probably a Mason or a Jew himself (his face is Jewish and his real name was Erich von Lewinski, a Jewish name). So, maybe all this was never really said by Manstein. Or if it was said, it was just for the facade.
Von Manstein was also the strategist of Hitler for the French campaign, with, what a hazard, Blumentritt (another Jewish name) and a certain Von Tresckow.
hat we can also think, is that winning all the initial battles in less than one or two months was probably made to prevent people and thus jews to flee. If Germans had advanced more slowly, jews could have fled toward the back of the front and so could have escaped the Germans. But by taking Yugoslavia in ten days, Poland in one month (plus with Soviets attacking them on the east and Slovakia on the south), France in one month, a large part of the Soviet territory (they lost 40 % of their population) in one or two months, the jews were trapped in places then controlled by Germans. Thus, Germans could gather many of them into camps. As there was probably a certain number of jews in the Soviet army, the enormous quantity of Soviet prisoners made at the beginning of the war also allowed Germans to capture many of them.
So, the idea of the blitzkrieg was probably not invented by military minds, but by Jewish leaders in order to justify the very quick victories of Hitler at the beginning. And when they didn't need anymore that Hitler wins, suddenly, it was said that the blitzkrieg was not efficient anymore.
Then we can also think that the stupid attacks at the beginning of the WWI by French generals were a part of the Jewish plan and thus were made on purpose (the position of French generals was not far from "attack at all cost", which led to enormous losses). With all the losses in the French army, because of this stupid strategy, it was possible to justify after the war that the French government and so the French army would then adopt the opposite one : a purely defensive strategy. A purely defensive strategy which would explain why the powerful French army wouldn't be able to invade quickly Germany during the war against Poland. And this would explain also the quick defeat of France against Germany (France strategy being presented as outdated compared with the blitzkrieg strategy). This strategy, and the trauma of WWI (giving peace movements an important influence), also explained a big part of the passiveness of France about the remilitarization of Germany by Hitler.
About the Blue plan (or Case blue, ie. the German battle plan of 1942), the fact that Hitler chose to attack in the south was stupid. As said in Wikipédia, USSR couldn't retreat anymore. Another retreat of 300 or 400 km in the center or in the north would have been catastrophic. So, the logical decision was to attack in the center of the front, or in the North. But not in the south. There was nothing of importance in the south except oil.
If Hitler's troops had advanced as much in the center that they have done in the south, USSR was beaten.
But as the war was of course stagged, attacking in the south allowed to justify another victory from Germans (Jewish leaders needed the war to continue two years more in order to gather enough jews. Another thing is that if Soviets had been able to win as soon as mid-1942, it would have been very strange, since they were almost defeated 6 months before). But another victory without any strategic importance. If they had advanced in the center, or in the north, it would have been difficult to explain why the USSR didn't fall. But with a victory in the south, it was easy. So, the assault couldn't take place anywhere else than in the south.
They didn't just attack in the south. During the battle, they went toward the south. Although they should have gone to the north, in order to be able to menace Soviets on their flank (in the center of the front).
[Hitler split up his forces in two: One for Stalingrad, the other for the Caucasus. ]
If he hadn't split his forces, he would have probably been able to defeat the Soviets in the south. Imagine then the German army going to the north and menacing the flank of the armies of the center.
So, he had to make the three mistakes :
1) Attacking in the south (so, in the part of the front which had the least importance). So, even if German forces had been able to advance 300 or 400 km, it wouldn't have been catastrophic.
2) Going to the south instead of going to the north during the battle. Same thing, advancing 300 or 400 km was then not a vital problem for Soviets.
3) Splitting his forces in two. Thus, it avoided a complete victory in any of both assaults. Otherwise, German forces could have been able to win in one place (Caucasus or Stalingrad) and then in the other place. Then, the south could have been lost.
We can also apply what the guy has said about Kursk to all the big battles in cities. In such a kind of war, concentrating a lot of forces in one place was very dangerous. Because it meant then that other parts of the front were almost empty of troops. So, concentrating tons of forces in Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad, or Kursk should have been a great opportunity for the German army to attack in weaker parts of the front, and then to advance 200 or 300 km further, or eventually to trap the Soviet armies massed in the city by surrounding them.
Maybe Soviets could have deceived Germans one time. But after that, the Germans should have understood the strategy of the Soviets (to defend certain towns at all costs). Then they should have let them amass tons of troops and weapons in one place, before attacking elsewhere.
Let's talk about operation Barbarossa.
So we have already those incoherences :
7) "The Jew Hitler (against the advice of all his generals) single-handedly saves Moscow by ordering army group "Center" to stop its advance on Moscow".
8) "The Jew Hitler tells the Soviets an attack will occur at Kursk. The Jew Hitler delays the attack for more than four months, until the Soviets have built defensive lines eight deep. The Soviets concentrate 1,300,000 soldiers with 3,600 tanks, 20,000 artillery pieces, including 6,000 76mm anti-tank guns, and 2,400 aircraft in and around Kursk. An attack anywhere other than Kursk would be fatal for the Soviets, but the Soviets seem to know that the attack will come only at Kursk."
They knew it because the war was a fake one, planned by the jewish leaders.
9) "The Jew Hitler orders German troops to attack the most heavily defended lines ever constructed, at Kursk".
"The Jew Hitler is amazed by the supermen of the elite SS Panzer Korps Liebstandarte, who, in the south, break through all eight defensive lines and take on the Soviet reserve tank battalions".
"Less than two weeks into the offensive, worried that the Liebstandarte might win the battle for the Germans, the Jew Hitler strips this elite group of their tanks and ships them to Northern Italy, where they sit on their hands for some months before returning to the eastern front. The pretext of the Sicily invasion is used".
As there was enough jews in the concentration camps, Hitler's mission was over, and then, he had to loose the war. And the unexpected success of the SS Panzer Korps Liebstandarte was not at all a part of the plan. So, he sent them far away.
And, of course, it was not because he was caring for his troops. In many other occasions, orders were to be killed rather than retreating.
This stupid strategy of being killed rather than retreating was also a part of the jewish plan. With an elastic defense, the war could have last two or three more years. But jewish leaders didn't need the war anymore. So, Hitler had to choose a stupid strategy which would accelerate the end of the war.
On the French Wikipedia page about Kursk, you find this :
"It appeared quickly, with the aerial scoutings, that the Soviet General staff had anticipated this attack and considerably reinforced his defenses. The attack was transforming into an assault against fortified positions. The state of invasion forces didn't allow the success of such an operation and it was decided to postpone it's beginning to reinforce units. First planned for the 1st of May, it was postpone until the 12t, and then finally until the 4th of July, in order to get more weapons come from Germany, especially the new Tiger and Panther16 tanks.
... To the contrary of previous offensives, the surprise effect, even at the tactical level, is nor searched anymore, which contradicts the basis of Blitzkrieg, Stavka knowing the place of the assault and preparing to it. Zitadel operation, planned by the OKW, was the antithesis of this concept. The attack point was very easily predictable for every person in possession of a map, and was reflecting a thought coming from WWI."
So, it confirms clearly this. The attack was so obvious that it was as if Hitler had told them that he would attack there with the biggest part of his forces.
Such a behavior is clearly sabotage.
They also talk about the for months of delay of the attack :
"During the for months of delay given by the lateness of Germans, the Red army installed more than 400.000 mines, and dug nearly 5.000 km of trenches, with position sometimes distant of 175 km. Accent emphasis is put on antitank fight, with the creation at every levels of decision of units specialized into this task..."
So, we have a confirmation there that it was indeed 4 months of delay.
And when the guy says that if Hitler had attacked anywhere else, he would have won the war, it's very probably true. Hitler should have planned another attack elsewhere. If he didn't do that, it's because he was in fact a traitor, a Jewish sayanim.
There is also the fact that Stalin seemed to know that Hitler would attack only there. Otherwise, Stalin wouldn't have concentrated the biggest part of his forces there. As said by the guy, if Hitler had attacked anywhere else, it would have been a catastrophe for the Soviet army. The fact that Stalin seemed to know that Hitler would attack there and only there, shows us that the battle was completely staged, and that the winner was known till the beginning.
When you think about it, the very fact of suddenly attacking cities instead of continuing the attacks in the countryside is abnormal. Why not by-passing cities ? They just had to avoid a counter attack and then, attack elsewhere, in places where the Soviet army was weak. It was the principle of the Blitzkrieg. With all the space there was on the Russian territory, it was a paradise for surprise attacks, for a war of movement. And Germans were the best at this game (well..., they were supposed to). And they had the aerial superiority at this moment. After that, the cities would have fallen without fighting.
When they attacked France, Germans didn't do that (giant attacks of cities). They attacked in the countryside. This change in their strategy is another clue about Hitler's treason.
But being a Jewish traitor, Hitler had to do this. Otherwise, German army would have won easily. With this change of strategy, Hitler could let Soviet armies know he would attack at point X, and then reinforce their defenses.
In fact, Germans didn't use such a strategy at the beginning of the war against USSR. They used then the blitzkrieg strategy. So, it's even clearer there. When they needed to win quickly according to the Jewish leaders plan, Germans used the blitzkrieg. And when they needed to loose, they began suddenly to make stupid attacks against cities.
If they had used the blitzkrieg strategy on France or Poland alone, but never during the war against Soviets, maybe official historians could have given (phony) arguments sustaining such a strategy. But as they have used the blitzkrieg against Russians at the beginning, it becomes harder to find reasons explaining why they didn't use it anymore.
About the fact that Stalin was on the point of attacking Germany when the Hitler attacked USSR, here is another argument.
This is on the French Wikipedia page about operation Barbarossa :
"Ground attack is preceded by the biggest aerial attack of all times, with the main part of the 2770 airplanes being engaged in support of this front. This attack begins without a declaration of war, at 3h30, and aims at 66 Soviet airports. It had disastrous results on the Soviet army, since it gives to the Luftwaffe the absolute control of the Soviet sky during several weeks. German bombers find Soviet airplanes aligned close together, usually without camouflage or protection. Most of the time, the alert wasn't even raised and few airplanes are able to take off. The VVS's losses are terrible : attacked on 66 airports, at 12 PM, they have lost 1200 airplanes, of which 800 on the ground. The night, 1489 airplanes have been destroyed on the ground and 389 in the air."
Without the aerial superiority, the quick victory of Hitler during the two first months of the attack would have been more difficult to explain. And even if all was stagged, it could have thwarted the plan of Jewish leaders.
Anyway, it shows us once again that this story of Stalin being on the verge of attacking Germany is bullshit.
I have found informations about the SS Panzer Korps Liebstandarte. At Kursk, it was part of 2e SS-Panzerkorps, of SS-Obergruppenführer Paul Hausser (itself being part of the 4th panzer army of Generaloberst Hoth).
On this site, (http://secondeguerremondiale.centerblog.net/2-1-SS-Panzerdivision-Leibstandarte-SS-Adolf-Hitler) we have this :
"Launching his attacks the 5th of July, the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler progresses well at the beginning, reaching the second defense line at the end of the first day...
.... The 11th of July, the division reaches the Psel river, the last main obstacle before Kursk itself."
We have a map here (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3nF13nBudU4/Tjvu4QCNE_I/AAAAAAAABWs/bxaZYEyFryI/s1600/stabswache_de_euros.jpg ) about the lines of defense of the Soviet Army. Maybe there was a total of 7 or 8 defense lines. But for the immediate operation about Kursk, it seems that there was only three to cross. And the 12th of July, only 7 days after the beginning of the battle, the German army had crossed the third one. So, as the guy said, the 4th army had crossed all the defensive lines of the Soviet army (except that it was not 8 but 3). July the 12, Germans were at Prokhorovka, so behind the third defense line. Soviets launched a counter attack with an army located behind the front line. But it wasn't well organized. And they lost a lot of tanks.
So, if the German army had received reinforcements, they would have most probably won the battle, as the guy said. With some reinforcements, there was nearly nothing able to stop them to join the German forces on the north.
But Hitler came the 13th of July, and although Von Manstein begged him to give him reinforcements, Hitler refused. He decided to even stop the entire attack and to pass in defensive mode. The reason why he did that was that there was elsewhere two counter-attacks from Soviets (Kutuzov operation at the north and Polkovodets Roumiantsev operation at the south), and that Sicily had been invaded. So, it was not only the SS Panzer Korps Liebstandarte which was sent elsewhere, but it was the entire attack itself which was stopped whereas it was on the point of being won.
About the fact that Hitler didn't mobilized all German population for the war, if it's true, it's maybe to justify deportations. The reason presented would then be that he wanted to preserve Germans. Thus, it would give another (official) explanation for the deportation of jews.
The author needs to edit his text because the "I SS Panzer Corps Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler" and "II SS Panzer Corps" were two different forces. I think he was confused because the II SS Panzer Corps was renamed so, before it was called "I SS Panzer Corps". During the battle of Kursk there was the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler (the personal bodyguard force of Hitler) and the author was confused.
Yes, you are right. The guy was in fact talking about the "II SS Panzer Corps".
In fact the "II SS Panzer Corps" wasn't called "I SS Panzer Corps" before. It was called "SS-Panzer-Generalkommando". But in June or July 1943, it seems that new names were given to some Panzer corps. Thus, "SS-Panzer-Generalkommando" became "II SS Panzer Corps".
What is confusing is that in the "II SS Panzer Corps", there was the "1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler". So, when the guy talks about the "I SS Panzer Corps Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler", and you see there wasn't any corps with this name at Kursk, you can make the confusion and think that he was in fact talking about the "1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler". Which then becomes odd, since you don't see very well how just a division could have had such an impact on a battle.
And when you learn that, indeed, the "1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler" was sent to Italy (and not the other divisions of the "II SS Panzer Corps". They were supposed to go there, but finally they stayed in Russia), it reinforces this idea that he was indeed talking about the 1st division and not the corp.
However, the guy was right about the fact that the "I SS Panzer Corps" was sent to Italy. In fact, this corp was created the 26 of July (1943) in Germany, at Lichterfelde. And it contained among other divisions, the "1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler" (which had been disconnected from "II SS Panzer Corps" just after Kursk). Of course, it adds to the confusion.
So, we can resume the case like this.
The guy was talking in fact about the "II SS Panzer Corps". So, the supermen of the "II SS Panzer Corps" broke through the three defensive lines (not height) of the Soviet army and were on the verge of succeeding into winning the battle. Then Hitler came, and although Von Manstein begged him to give him reinforcements, he decided to stop the assault. He then disconnected the "1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler" from the "II SS Panzer Corps" and sent it to Italy after having incorporated it into the newly created "I SS Panzer Corps". But the other divisions of the "II SS Panzer Corps" stayed in Russia.
So, the fact that the "1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler" was sent in Italy isn't very important (and a part of it came back in Russia after nov 1943). What is important is the fact that Hitler stopped the assault. Then it didn't matter anymore that this or that division was still in Russia or not. And what is important is the fact that he stopped the assault whereas with some reinforcement, the "II SS Panzer Corps" was on the point of winning the battle.
And the other important fact is that Hitler decided then to pass in defensive mode. Thus, of course Germany couldn't win anymore. And such a fact (a corp being able to win the battle against the will of Hitler, and of the Jewish leaders) couldn't happen anymore also.
On the French page of Wikipedia about the battle of Kursk. It says :
"Von Manstein asks Hitler for reinforcements to pursue the operation...
...Despite his supplications to continue, Hitler decides to stop the Citadel operation on July the 13. A decisive turn is then crossed, Hitler passing then in defensive mode on the East front."
On the English version of Wikipedia about Kursk, the words are not as strong, but it let understand that Von Manstein wanted sorely to continue the battle and believed in its chances of success.
"Von Manstein attempted to dissuade him, arguing that Zitadelle was on the brink of victory: "on no account should we let go of the enemy until the mobile reserves which he had committed were decisively beaten". In an unusual reversal of their roles, Hitler gave von Manstein a few more days to continue the offensive, but on 17 July, he ordered a withdrawal and canceled the operation."
Of course, this what is said by official historians. Von Manstein was most probably a Mason or a Jew himself (his face is Jewish and his real name was Erich von Lewinski, a Jewish name). So, maybe all this was never really said by Manstein. Or if it was said, it was just for the facade.
Von Manstein was also the strategist of Hitler for the French campaign, with, what a hazard, Blumentritt (another Jewish name) and a certain Von Tresckow.
hat we can also think, is that winning all the initial battles in less than one or two months was probably made to prevent people and thus jews to flee. If Germans had advanced more slowly, jews could have fled toward the back of the front and so could have escaped the Germans. But by taking Yugoslavia in ten days, Poland in one month (plus with Soviets attacking them on the east and Slovakia on the south), France in one month, a large part of the Soviet territory (they lost 40 % of their population) in one or two months, the jews were trapped in places then controlled by Germans. Thus, Germans could gather many of them into camps. As there was probably a certain number of jews in the Soviet army, the enormous quantity of Soviet prisoners made at the beginning of the war also allowed Germans to capture many of them.
So, the idea of the blitzkrieg was probably not invented by military minds, but by Jewish leaders in order to justify the very quick victories of Hitler at the beginning. And when they didn't need anymore that Hitler wins, suddenly, it was said that the blitzkrieg was not efficient anymore.
Then we can also think that the stupid attacks at the beginning of the WWI by French generals were a part of the Jewish plan and thus were made on purpose (the position of French generals was not far from "attack at all cost", which led to enormous losses). With all the losses in the French army, because of this stupid strategy, it was possible to justify after the war that the French government and so the French army would then adopt the opposite one : a purely defensive strategy. A purely defensive strategy which would explain why the powerful French army wouldn't be able to invade quickly Germany during the war against Poland. And this would explain also the quick defeat of France against Germany (France strategy being presented as outdated compared with the blitzkrieg strategy). This strategy, and the trauma of WWI (giving peace movements an important influence), also explained a big part of the passiveness of France about the remilitarization of Germany by Hitler.
About the Blue plan (or Case blue, ie. the German battle plan of 1942), the fact that Hitler chose to attack in the south was stupid. As said in Wikipédia, USSR couldn't retreat anymore. Another retreat of 300 or 400 km in the center or in the north would have been catastrophic. So, the logical decision was to attack in the center of the front, or in the North. But not in the south. There was nothing of importance in the south except oil.
If Hitler's troops had advanced as much in the center that they have done in the south, USSR was beaten.
But as the war was of course stagged, attacking in the south allowed to justify another victory from Germans (Jewish leaders needed the war to continue two years more in order to gather enough jews. Another thing is that if Soviets had been able to win as soon as mid-1942, it would have been very strange, since they were almost defeated 6 months before). But another victory without any strategic importance. If they had advanced in the center, or in the north, it would have been difficult to explain why the USSR didn't fall. But with a victory in the south, it was easy. So, the assault couldn't take place anywhere else than in the south.
They didn't just attack in the south. During the battle, they went toward the south. Although they should have gone to the north, in order to be able to menace Soviets on their flank (in the center of the front).
[Hitler split up his forces in two: One for Stalingrad, the other for the Caucasus. ]
If he hadn't split his forces, he would have probably been able to defeat the Soviets in the south. Imagine then the German army going to the north and menacing the flank of the armies of the center.
So, he had to make the three mistakes :
1) Attacking in the south (so, in the part of the front which had the least importance). So, even if German forces had been able to advance 300 or 400 km, it wouldn't have been catastrophic.
2) Going to the south instead of going to the north during the battle. Same thing, advancing 300 or 400 km was then not a vital problem for Soviets.
3) Splitting his forces in two. Thus, it avoided a complete victory in any of both assaults. Otherwise, German forces could have been able to win in one place (Caucasus or Stalingrad) and then in the other place. Then, the south could have been lost.
We can also apply what the guy has said about Kursk to all the big battles in cities. In such a kind of war, concentrating a lot of forces in one place was very dangerous. Because it meant then that other parts of the front were almost empty of troops. So, concentrating tons of forces in Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad, or Kursk should have been a great opportunity for the German army to attack in weaker parts of the front, and then to advance 200 or 300 km further, or eventually to trap the Soviet armies massed in the city by surrounding them.
Maybe Soviets could have deceived Germans one time. But after that, the Germans should have understood the strategy of the Soviets (to defend certain towns at all costs). Then they should have let them amass tons of troops and weapons in one place, before attacking elsewhere.
Sunday, 14 October 2018
Hexane on Hitler the jew and the faked world war II - and more: Japan in the Jewish grip
by Hexane
[How can Japan be controlled by Jews? Jews can't play Asians, somebody (a member of this forum) told me that Mao was a (half-)Jew. It's possible that there are Japanese Masons, but the Japanese were always aggressive in wars, they were even brutal to each other (civil wars between several Japanese kingdoms). While Japan attacked China and other countries, Soviet Union wasn't touched. During the Russian-Japanese war (1905) the Jewish bankers (especially Jacob Schiff) financed the Japanese for the struggle against Russia. Most strange thing is that Hitler still declared war on USA after the Pearl Harbor attack. I think that Hitler ordered the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor and to invade other Asiatic countries because of the stationed British troops there. I read somewhere that Japan didn't attack Soviet Union because they feared a two-front war. Very strange, they PROVOKED already a two-front war. I think that Hitler ordered the Japanese to do these blunders.]
I also thought that about Japan. But there are too many and too big discrepancies from them. It can mean only one thing. They were infiltrated too.
Jews are able to play Asians through race mixing. I had read a long time ago in an official French newspaper that during the 1930's, 30.000 jews migrated to China. So, they were certainly able to go to Japan and to marry Japanese girls. And after two or three generations, they would have been similar enough to Asians to be considered as such. Then with their capacity to infiltrate circles of power, it would have been easy as pie for them to get the power. And of course, they certainly introduced Masonry into Japan. So, not only were they able to infiltrate the power by themselves, but also by their Mason puppets.
I think that they didn't do that before the 18th or 19th century. Before that, Japan was most probably ruled by Gentiles. But during the 20th century, it's obvious that Japan was infiltrated.
This is why I think their strange behavior during WWII didn't come from obedience to Hitler, or from being financed by Jewish money. Attacking the USA was so absurd that even Hitler wouldn't have been able to push Japan to do it. No, the government of Japan was already under control. So, they didn't need advices or orders, or money anymore. They followed the plan from Jewish leaders simply because they were jews and Masons. Stories of money can eventually be true. But it's a smokescreen for the real reason of the actions of those leaders. The real reason being they were jews and Masons.
Jews have been in China since a long time. They were called Zhu-hu, or Zhu-hu-du (it's in Wikipedia). So, adaptations of this name like Tzu, Zhou, Tchou, Ze, Tse, are probably used by jews. This means that famous people with that kinds of name are very probably jews. So, Mao was very probably a jew. His complete name was Mao Zedong or Mao Tse-Tung. Mao could also be an adaptation of Gao, which is also a jewish name in China (adaptation of Cohen). And his prime minister Zhou Enlai or Chou En-Lai, was most probably a jew also. Li (and thus Lai) being also a jewish name in China (an adaptation of Levy. The levy's being the most powerful families, with the Cohen, in the jewish world). So, most probably were they jews.
About the ability from jews to be considered as Asians, I remember having seen two or three year ago a Chinese music producer at the TV. He was loosing his hairs precociously, like jews. He had a jewish nose. And the look of his face, while very Asian, had a kind of jewish look. He didn't totally look like other Asian. Since he was a music producer (a profession hold by jews in western countries), he was very probably a jew. But he was considered as an Asian. And probably that nobody in China suspected the he was a jew.
PS : and to go beyond WWII, we can study other famous Asian politicians. Wikipedia tells us that Ai, Shi, Gao, Jin, Li, Zhang, and Zhao are jewish names in China. They are sinofications of the original seven Jewish clan's family names: Ezra, Shimon, Cohen, Gilbert, Levy, Joshua, and Jonathan, respectively.
Thus, Zhao Ziyang, prime minister of China between 1980 and 1987 was also a jew. Li Peng, prime minister of China between 1988 and 1998, was one of them. Deng Xiaoping or Teng Hsiao-Ping, said to be the de facto ruler of China between 1978 and 1992 was a jew also (Hsiao being an adaptation of Zhao). Ho Chí Minh (also named Nguyên Aï Quoc and Nguyen Sinh Cung), prime minister (1945–1955) and president (1945–1969) of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, was probably a jew too.
The Lebensraum policy justifies only the invasion itself, but not the timing of the events. Same thing for the material help from Soviets. Hitler could have invaded Poland after having invaded France. But, being the aggressor of France, it would have been more difficult to explain why USSR didn't declare war on Germany (even with the pact between Germany and USSR). Whereas with France and England being the aggressors, it was easier.
Anyway, very interesting information about the supply of raw material from USSR to Germany. I didn't know that.
[How can Japan be controlled by Jews? Jews can't play Asians, somebody (a member of this forum) told me that Mao was a (half-)Jew. It's possible that there are Japanese Masons, but the Japanese were always aggressive in wars, they were even brutal to each other (civil wars between several Japanese kingdoms). While Japan attacked China and other countries, Soviet Union wasn't touched. During the Russian-Japanese war (1905) the Jewish bankers (especially Jacob Schiff) financed the Japanese for the struggle against Russia. Most strange thing is that Hitler still declared war on USA after the Pearl Harbor attack. I think that Hitler ordered the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor and to invade other Asiatic countries because of the stationed British troops there. I read somewhere that Japan didn't attack Soviet Union because they feared a two-front war. Very strange, they PROVOKED already a two-front war. I think that Hitler ordered the Japanese to do these blunders.]
I also thought that about Japan. But there are too many and too big discrepancies from them. It can mean only one thing. They were infiltrated too.
Jews are able to play Asians through race mixing. I had read a long time ago in an official French newspaper that during the 1930's, 30.000 jews migrated to China. So, they were certainly able to go to Japan and to marry Japanese girls. And after two or three generations, they would have been similar enough to Asians to be considered as such. Then with their capacity to infiltrate circles of power, it would have been easy as pie for them to get the power. And of course, they certainly introduced Masonry into Japan. So, not only were they able to infiltrate the power by themselves, but also by their Mason puppets.
I think that they didn't do that before the 18th or 19th century. Before that, Japan was most probably ruled by Gentiles. But during the 20th century, it's obvious that Japan was infiltrated.
This is why I think their strange behavior during WWII didn't come from obedience to Hitler, or from being financed by Jewish money. Attacking the USA was so absurd that even Hitler wouldn't have been able to push Japan to do it. No, the government of Japan was already under control. So, they didn't need advices or orders, or money anymore. They followed the plan from Jewish leaders simply because they were jews and Masons. Stories of money can eventually be true. But it's a smokescreen for the real reason of the actions of those leaders. The real reason being they were jews and Masons.
Jews have been in China since a long time. They were called Zhu-hu, or Zhu-hu-du (it's in Wikipedia). So, adaptations of this name like Tzu, Zhou, Tchou, Ze, Tse, are probably used by jews. This means that famous people with that kinds of name are very probably jews. So, Mao was very probably a jew. His complete name was Mao Zedong or Mao Tse-Tung. Mao could also be an adaptation of Gao, which is also a jewish name in China (adaptation of Cohen). And his prime minister Zhou Enlai or Chou En-Lai, was most probably a jew also. Li (and thus Lai) being also a jewish name in China (an adaptation of Levy. The levy's being the most powerful families, with the Cohen, in the jewish world). So, most probably were they jews.
About the ability from jews to be considered as Asians, I remember having seen two or three year ago a Chinese music producer at the TV. He was loosing his hairs precociously, like jews. He had a jewish nose. And the look of his face, while very Asian, had a kind of jewish look. He didn't totally look like other Asian. Since he was a music producer (a profession hold by jews in western countries), he was very probably a jew. But he was considered as an Asian. And probably that nobody in China suspected the he was a jew.
PS : and to go beyond WWII, we can study other famous Asian politicians. Wikipedia tells us that Ai, Shi, Gao, Jin, Li, Zhang, and Zhao are jewish names in China. They are sinofications of the original seven Jewish clan's family names: Ezra, Shimon, Cohen, Gilbert, Levy, Joshua, and Jonathan, respectively.
Thus, Zhao Ziyang, prime minister of China between 1980 and 1987 was also a jew. Li Peng, prime minister of China between 1988 and 1998, was one of them. Deng Xiaoping or Teng Hsiao-Ping, said to be the de facto ruler of China between 1978 and 1992 was a jew also (Hsiao being an adaptation of Zhao). Ho Chí Minh (also named Nguyên Aï Quoc and Nguyen Sinh Cung), prime minister (1945–1955) and president (1945–1969) of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, was probably a jew too.
The Lebensraum policy justifies only the invasion itself, but not the timing of the events. Same thing for the material help from Soviets. Hitler could have invaded Poland after having invaded France. But, being the aggressor of France, it would have been more difficult to explain why USSR didn't declare war on Germany (even with the pact between Germany and USSR). Whereas with France and England being the aggressors, it was easier.
Anyway, very interesting information about the supply of raw material from USSR to Germany. I didn't know that.
Saturday, 13 October 2018
Hexane on Hitler the jew and the faked world war II - further continued: The War
by Hexane
About Operation Barbarossa, we can make these first observations.
Of course, Hitler had to make it quick. Otherwise, logically, England would have been destroyed. If not, it would have been very strange.
And he had to make USSR retreat a lot and in a short time, in order to be able to collect many jews.
And, of course, there are many discrepancies about the strategic an tactic choices of Hitler.
[The Japanese war made no sense. Attacking China through Manchuria, and driving into Korea and Russia would have been the logical course for Japanese 'lebensraum'. Attacking the jUSA brought in a whole new supply of men and materials to sustain the Talmudists in London and Moscow. The ludicrous propaganda that the Axis nations sought to invade the continental USA can easily be dismissed when one considers that Canada was subservient to the British Empire, and would have thrown its full weight behind the USA if any part of North America was attacked. Only the enfeebled minds of those who have succumbed to the post-war media and mis-education systems could believe that Japan seriously posed a threat to the USA. Attacking the pacific outposts of the USA in preference to concentrating on the Asian mainland was suicide - and this was by design. The whole Second World War, was a well-orchestrated pantomime, albeit one with very real casualties.]
About point 3 in the third message of this topic :
3) Hitler knew a two-front war was something he had to avoid at all costs. He told many times that it was that which had lead to the defeat during WWI. But what does he do ? He attacks USSR before having destroyed England, thus creating a... two-front war.
We could add that Hitler had to know that the USA would very probably get involved quite soon on the English side. They had already intervened during WWI, there was no reason that they wouldn't do it during WWII. And it was obvious that England would serve as a base to invade France. It was the only place where they could do it. So, invading England was an absolute necessity in order to be sure that the USA would be completely neutralized.
Without England, they couldn't do anything against Germany. With England still alive, it was sure that they would come and try to invade France and then Germany.
We use to think that there was only England involved on the west side, and so that there wasn't such a threat for Hitler there. But no. There was an enormous threat. And Hitler had to know that.
So, by opening a second front against the very powerful USSR, without trying anymore to invade England, Hitler had to know that it was nearly suicide.
We can also understand why the USA didn't declared war to Germany just after the English/French defeat, when the possibility of an invasion of England was very possible. Which is a very strange thing when you think about it. It was an obvious decision for the USA the decide to get involved. Especially when you think that it wasn't Gentile, but jews, who were at the head of these two countries (England an the USA). How could jews let Europe threaten to get lost and get back to a Goyim leader ? Impossible.
But if the USA had made that, the opening of a second front would have been a very strange decision from Hitler. He couldn't have made that with such a threat on his west side. But then, he wouldn't have been able to invade the east of Europe, and the USSR. Thus, he wouldn't have been able to gather jews, destroy their houses, steal their wealth, etc... And the war would have also lasted much longer.
So the USA had to wait. They had to wait that Hitler decides to make war to the USSR, and advances a lot into the Russian territory. And as the capture and the gathering of European jews is not something which could be done in only one year, they had to wait before invading Europe.
And as it wasn't Hitler who could force the USA to enter the war, it had to be Japan. This is why they attacked at Pearl Arbour.
And this is why Germany had to make an alliance with Japan. Without the Alliance, there was no reason for Germany to declare war on the USA.
Germany attacked. One month after, they had taken 500 km of the USSR territory ; 6 months after, they had taken nearly 1000 km. So, it's obvious that the Soviet armies had retreated. This doesn't mean that they had only retreated, since there was a lot of prisoners made. But still, they had retreated.
[Also is strange that Japan didn't attack Soviet Union from east, so that it would be a two-front war. When the USA declared war on USA, Hitler declared war on USA. But Japan didn't declare war on Soviet Union, not even Hitler ordered the Japanese to do that.]
Yes, very true. Hitler could have asked his allied to invade Soviet Union from the east. It would have been normal to ask this. And Japon was already in China. So, it wasn't so difficult for them to try to do that.
[Do you know that Hitler postponed Operation Barbarossa by one month? He launched the Balkans campaign in order to invade the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Greece. Fascist Italy started its conquests in the Balkans before the WW2 started, Albania was conquered but the invasion of Greece failed. Prince Pavle of Yugoslavia was pressured by Hitler in 1939 to give (separatist) Croats more rights and to create "Banovina Croatia" (which happened with the so-called Cvetković-Maček agreement). Vlatko Maček, the leader of the HSS (Croatian Peasant Party), signed a secret agreement with Italian minister Galeazzo Ciano. That agreement contained the organization of 300.000 militant Croats (by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany) who belonged to the HSS-party. According to the agreement, these Croatian paramilitary troops would be used to support Nazi Germany's invasion of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. In 1941, Hitler put pressure on the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to join the Tripartite pact. When the Kingdom of Yugoslavia joined the Tripartite pact, a military coup was performed in Belgrade that was supported by Great Britain. Prince Pavle of Yugoslavia was overthrown and Peter II was replaced on the throne. Hitler considered the military coup in Yugoslavia and the failure of the invasion of Greece as argument to launch an invasion against both countries. Great Britain supported the military coup in order to draw the Kingdom of Yugoslavia into a trap that justifies Hitler's plan to launch the Balkans campaign. King Peter II wanted to re-negotiate about the accession of the Tripartite Pact (after the military coup), but Hitler refused and prepared the invasion.When Nazi Germany and other Axis powers invaded the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the Croatian paramilitary forces attacked the Yugoslav army. During the bombing of Belgrade, 10.000 - 20.000 Serbs were killed. When the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was defeated and divided into pieces, the Nazis ordered a law that for every one of their soldiers who was killed they would execute 100 Serbs and for every wounded soldier, 50 Serbs. The Nazis collaborated with the Yugoslav communists and signed even agreements with them for the common struggle against the royal Chetniks.]
Interesting. But for the moment, I don't see a lot of discrepancies here regarding the official history.
Maybe the organization of 300.000 Croatian militants is shady. How could they know that they would need 300.000 guys ? But maybe official historians could answer that it was to control the country once invaded.
However, it shows the importance of having with us people of specific areas involved during the war. Without you, we wouldn't have those kinds of information. I hope we will have people from Germany, Finland, Russia or Japan joining, in order to have specific informations about those countries.
...but, of course, the fact that Hitler helped the communist against the Chetnik is a discrepancy.
There is another discrepancy about the reactions of the USSR. You have a country totally controlled by jews (USSR). Another country totally controlled by jews (France). So, we are talking about merciless guys who will do anything in order to keep the power. France is attacked by an antisemitic leader (Hitler). This leader could then control the biggest part of Europe and then destroy the Jewish influence there. USSR could destroy German armies by forcing them to defend a second front. And what does the USSR do ? Nothing.
It's impossible. But once again, it makes perfectly sense if the war was staged by Jewish leaders themselves.
Even with the orthodox version of history, the behavior of USSR is very suspicious. Stalin had to know what Hitler had said about Slavs and what were his intentions about Slavic countries. He had to know that Hitler would attack the USSR once the French army defeated. So the decision of doing nothing is still very strange.
Thinking about that, I think we can understand why Germany attacked Poland before attacking France. The attack of Poland before France was very dangerous. France and England could have attacked Hitler in the back. So, logically, Hitler should have attacked France by surprise before attacking Poland. France and England were the main threat, not Poland.
But then, the non intervention of USSR would have been very strange. So, Jewish leaders had to explain why the USSR wouldn't intervene. With the soviet-German pact (a treaty of Non-Aggression), they could explain that. So, Germany had to make a treaty with USSR. And the treaty had to be based on an important goal. This is the reason of the invasion of Poland by both countries. But then, Jewish leader could have reversed the order of the two invasions without creating too much discrepancies. USSR could have waited that Hitler destroys the English-French armies before attacking Poland with Germany. But attacking Poland first could allow to explain better the non intervention of Stalin during the war against France. Because then, this is France and England which have declared war on Germany, not the opposite. So with Germany being the attacked, Jewish leaders could justify the non intervention of USSR.
So because of that, Jewish leaders were obliged to have Hitler making war on Poland before making it on France.
About the war on France, I remember a suspicious thing I have read some times ago. When German armies broke through the French lines, everything wasn't lost for the French army. Two armies which were located behind the front line were coming to stop the Germans. But what is very strange and suspicious, is that allegedly because of organizational problems, those two armies were almost completely lost during their journey toward the German armies. Equipment were sent somewhere, soldiers elsewhere. Some soldier were sent by train, many others afoot. Finally, they almost disappeared in the air.
Quite incredible. But not so incredible if everything was stagged by Jewish leaders in order to make France and England lose this battle. These armies were lost on purpose.
About Operation Barbarossa, we can make these first observations.
Of course, Hitler had to make it quick. Otherwise, logically, England would have been destroyed. If not, it would have been very strange.
And he had to make USSR retreat a lot and in a short time, in order to be able to collect many jews.
And, of course, there are many discrepancies about the strategic an tactic choices of Hitler.
[The Japanese war made no sense. Attacking China through Manchuria, and driving into Korea and Russia would have been the logical course for Japanese 'lebensraum'. Attacking the jUSA brought in a whole new supply of men and materials to sustain the Talmudists in London and Moscow. The ludicrous propaganda that the Axis nations sought to invade the continental USA can easily be dismissed when one considers that Canada was subservient to the British Empire, and would have thrown its full weight behind the USA if any part of North America was attacked. Only the enfeebled minds of those who have succumbed to the post-war media and mis-education systems could believe that Japan seriously posed a threat to the USA. Attacking the pacific outposts of the USA in preference to concentrating on the Asian mainland was suicide - and this was by design. The whole Second World War, was a well-orchestrated pantomime, albeit one with very real casualties.]
About point 3 in the third message of this topic :
3) Hitler knew a two-front war was something he had to avoid at all costs. He told many times that it was that which had lead to the defeat during WWI. But what does he do ? He attacks USSR before having destroyed England, thus creating a... two-front war.
We could add that Hitler had to know that the USA would very probably get involved quite soon on the English side. They had already intervened during WWI, there was no reason that they wouldn't do it during WWII. And it was obvious that England would serve as a base to invade France. It was the only place where they could do it. So, invading England was an absolute necessity in order to be sure that the USA would be completely neutralized.
Without England, they couldn't do anything against Germany. With England still alive, it was sure that they would come and try to invade France and then Germany.
We use to think that there was only England involved on the west side, and so that there wasn't such a threat for Hitler there. But no. There was an enormous threat. And Hitler had to know that.
So, by opening a second front against the very powerful USSR, without trying anymore to invade England, Hitler had to know that it was nearly suicide.
We can also understand why the USA didn't declared war to Germany just after the English/French defeat, when the possibility of an invasion of England was very possible. Which is a very strange thing when you think about it. It was an obvious decision for the USA the decide to get involved. Especially when you think that it wasn't Gentile, but jews, who were at the head of these two countries (England an the USA). How could jews let Europe threaten to get lost and get back to a Goyim leader ? Impossible.
But if the USA had made that, the opening of a second front would have been a very strange decision from Hitler. He couldn't have made that with such a threat on his west side. But then, he wouldn't have been able to invade the east of Europe, and the USSR. Thus, he wouldn't have been able to gather jews, destroy their houses, steal their wealth, etc... And the war would have also lasted much longer.
So the USA had to wait. They had to wait that Hitler decides to make war to the USSR, and advances a lot into the Russian territory. And as the capture and the gathering of European jews is not something which could be done in only one year, they had to wait before invading Europe.
And as it wasn't Hitler who could force the USA to enter the war, it had to be Japan. This is why they attacked at Pearl Arbour.
And this is why Germany had to make an alliance with Japan. Without the Alliance, there was no reason for Germany to declare war on the USA.
Germany attacked. One month after, they had taken 500 km of the USSR territory ; 6 months after, they had taken nearly 1000 km. So, it's obvious that the Soviet armies had retreated. This doesn't mean that they had only retreated, since there was a lot of prisoners made. But still, they had retreated.
[Also is strange that Japan didn't attack Soviet Union from east, so that it would be a two-front war. When the USA declared war on USA, Hitler declared war on USA. But Japan didn't declare war on Soviet Union, not even Hitler ordered the Japanese to do that.]
Yes, very true. Hitler could have asked his allied to invade Soviet Union from the east. It would have been normal to ask this. And Japon was already in China. So, it wasn't so difficult for them to try to do that.
[Do you know that Hitler postponed Operation Barbarossa by one month? He launched the Balkans campaign in order to invade the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Greece. Fascist Italy started its conquests in the Balkans before the WW2 started, Albania was conquered but the invasion of Greece failed. Prince Pavle of Yugoslavia was pressured by Hitler in 1939 to give (separatist) Croats more rights and to create "Banovina Croatia" (which happened with the so-called Cvetković-Maček agreement). Vlatko Maček, the leader of the HSS (Croatian Peasant Party), signed a secret agreement with Italian minister Galeazzo Ciano. That agreement contained the organization of 300.000 militant Croats (by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany) who belonged to the HSS-party. According to the agreement, these Croatian paramilitary troops would be used to support Nazi Germany's invasion of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. In 1941, Hitler put pressure on the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to join the Tripartite pact. When the Kingdom of Yugoslavia joined the Tripartite pact, a military coup was performed in Belgrade that was supported by Great Britain. Prince Pavle of Yugoslavia was overthrown and Peter II was replaced on the throne. Hitler considered the military coup in Yugoslavia and the failure of the invasion of Greece as argument to launch an invasion against both countries. Great Britain supported the military coup in order to draw the Kingdom of Yugoslavia into a trap that justifies Hitler's plan to launch the Balkans campaign. King Peter II wanted to re-negotiate about the accession of the Tripartite Pact (after the military coup), but Hitler refused and prepared the invasion.When Nazi Germany and other Axis powers invaded the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the Croatian paramilitary forces attacked the Yugoslav army. During the bombing of Belgrade, 10.000 - 20.000 Serbs were killed. When the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was defeated and divided into pieces, the Nazis ordered a law that for every one of their soldiers who was killed they would execute 100 Serbs and for every wounded soldier, 50 Serbs. The Nazis collaborated with the Yugoslav communists and signed even agreements with them for the common struggle against the royal Chetniks.]
Interesting. But for the moment, I don't see a lot of discrepancies here regarding the official history.
Maybe the organization of 300.000 Croatian militants is shady. How could they know that they would need 300.000 guys ? But maybe official historians could answer that it was to control the country once invaded.
However, it shows the importance of having with us people of specific areas involved during the war. Without you, we wouldn't have those kinds of information. I hope we will have people from Germany, Finland, Russia or Japan joining, in order to have specific informations about those countries.
...but, of course, the fact that Hitler helped the communist against the Chetnik is a discrepancy.
There is another discrepancy about the reactions of the USSR. You have a country totally controlled by jews (USSR). Another country totally controlled by jews (France). So, we are talking about merciless guys who will do anything in order to keep the power. France is attacked by an antisemitic leader (Hitler). This leader could then control the biggest part of Europe and then destroy the Jewish influence there. USSR could destroy German armies by forcing them to defend a second front. And what does the USSR do ? Nothing.
It's impossible. But once again, it makes perfectly sense if the war was staged by Jewish leaders themselves.
Even with the orthodox version of history, the behavior of USSR is very suspicious. Stalin had to know what Hitler had said about Slavs and what were his intentions about Slavic countries. He had to know that Hitler would attack the USSR once the French army defeated. So the decision of doing nothing is still very strange.
Thinking about that, I think we can understand why Germany attacked Poland before attacking France. The attack of Poland before France was very dangerous. France and England could have attacked Hitler in the back. So, logically, Hitler should have attacked France by surprise before attacking Poland. France and England were the main threat, not Poland.
But then, the non intervention of USSR would have been very strange. So, Jewish leaders had to explain why the USSR wouldn't intervene. With the soviet-German pact (a treaty of Non-Aggression), they could explain that. So, Germany had to make a treaty with USSR. And the treaty had to be based on an important goal. This is the reason of the invasion of Poland by both countries. But then, Jewish leader could have reversed the order of the two invasions without creating too much discrepancies. USSR could have waited that Hitler destroys the English-French armies before attacking Poland with Germany. But attacking Poland first could allow to explain better the non intervention of Stalin during the war against France. Because then, this is France and England which have declared war on Germany, not the opposite. So with Germany being the attacked, Jewish leaders could justify the non intervention of USSR.
So because of that, Jewish leaders were obliged to have Hitler making war on Poland before making it on France.
About the war on France, I remember a suspicious thing I have read some times ago. When German armies broke through the French lines, everything wasn't lost for the French army. Two armies which were located behind the front line were coming to stop the Germans. But what is very strange and suspicious, is that allegedly because of organizational problems, those two armies were almost completely lost during their journey toward the German armies. Equipment were sent somewhere, soldiers elsewhere. Some soldier were sent by train, many others afoot. Finally, they almost disappeared in the air.
Quite incredible. But not so incredible if everything was stagged by Jewish leaders in order to make France and England lose this battle. These armies were lost on purpose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
