Hitler: Jewish Lizard or Goy Boy Toy of the Hoi Polloi???

by **Dreams End** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:22 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>And you ask 'why do people keep going to the Rothschilds?' This also isn't just a veiled signpost to 'Jewish bankers' but a valid historical background on how elite financiers came to affect international relations and war.<hr></blockquote> Funny how so many elite financiers get left OUT of the equation. It's not about protecting Jews...that's not my job. It is about recognizing the ongoing themes of rightwing and anti-Semitic conspiracy theory as they re-emerge, almost unchanged, over decades. IT is also about assuming that all social movements are merely tools of the elite, with no recognition of the real struggle and achievements of people, despite the deck's being so stacked against them. If it's really like that...there is no hope. Let us stop this business and return to "normal" lives. It's also about diversion. MKUltra should be researched. Rothschilds have nothing to do with MKUltra...and yet there it was. I see this all the time. Elite financing of Hitler should be investigated and understood. But the only financier who seems to be of interest around here is Rothschild..by the way, how does Rothschild support for Hitler compare to Thyssen support? We can quantify Thyssen's support. We can track it. He was a huge part of the whole nazi war machine. So let's talk about rothschild. How much did Rothschild contribute? Stories of jews as the center of "satanic" conspiracy go back to the middle ages. Blood libel, it was called. Not all the Jews, you understand, just certain rabbis and higher ups. Jews died for this. Interestingly, you can trace these waves of anti_jewish persecution. Sometimes it started not with Jews, but with lepers. Sometimes they were working together. Sometimes it was the Moors financing the Jews or the lepers to spread disease by poisoning wells. And guess what? Letters were even produced proving these accusations. These letters can actually be linked to various rulers who spread these rumors for their own purposes. If you will all bother to learn this history, you will see how the story has morphed and changed. In modern times, it was the Jews behind Communism, for example. Simply swap Jews with Rothschild and you have exactly the same theories. See, Hitler, A. , Mein Kempf. To explain this is not to equate anyone who falls into this with overt Nazism. It's to explain that we swim in tainted waters. I tried to show how one can trace these stories back to their sources. I have done so here. Then one can decide if this is valid material. If you decide it is, then good for you. I think it's clear. Then, for fun, go google on Rothschild + Hitler and see what sorts of sights are putting this stuff out. What else is on those sites. No, this doesn't automatically rule something out...even a nazi site might have an accurate weather report. But the point is to understand the genesis, function and "infection" of these ideas. For what it's worth I had always assumed the stories about Hitler having a Jewish grandparent were true. I'd heard it since I was a kid. that isn't really that much of an issue for me except maybe in understanding his individual psychology...and the psychology of individuals is interesting but I don't think it has to much explanatory value when looking at large historical events, which take many people and many forces converging. Surely with their wealth and position, the Rothschilds are among the elites. And I also assume there are various factions among the elites. One thing I do NOT do is claim to have some special knowledge about these elites. Who they are. How they function. I don't run in those circles, and contrary to believers in the Protocols, they don't publish their most secret plans.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:17 am

I agree that the origins and mis-use patterns of a historical theme are good things to be reminded of when the theme pops up. Rather like advising "before you put that in your mouth realize where it has been." But these themes are multifaceted and worth turning over to look at without getting them slapped out of one's hand for 'bringing that in here.' Most people only know a fraction of what you've already covered and will be bringing things up periodically to be commented on like a freshman in class. I've caught myself feeling a tad exasperated when topics I've long ago absorbed are being batted around gingerly for the first time or even erroneously dismissed. I'm not always up to reaching into the info closet to the back shelves to pull out what they are looking for. Someone at progressiveindependent.com posted that 'JKF and RFK were just like all the rest.' I couldn't let this comment pass on the anniversary of RFK's murder and I hastily posted an analysis citing how the Kennedys became subversive to the cryptocracy but without pulling out links and edit-pasting 'proof' because I'm working on other things. Hours later I see that my use of the admittedly too dismissive phrase "ignorant of the history" in my response to their dismissiveness had devolved into a pissing match between other people that was ugly. Now I knew when I used the word "ignorant" that there was the potential for perceived insult but I was tired and didn't bother to find another way to say 'here's what you don't know' hoping it wouldn't be taken personally. Oops. Must every tiny spark conflagrate? I've gotten used to being considered paranoid due to my views on ubiquitous social engineering but present them anyway in case others eventually come round to seeing what I do. (You saw 'Chicken Little' and were unsettled I read. Love to hear your comments on that other thread 'How to Not Be etc.') The effort to make connections has folks throwing out things that might seem disruptive to the more focused examiner like you, DE. When I think of 'MKUltra' I also think of the Nazi experiments in their awful camps so I can understand why Hitler would pop into mind as well along with the tales around his enormous psychic footprint. Did you know there is a 2003 book called 'Hitler's Second Book: The Unpublished Sequel to Mein Kampf, By Adolf Hitler Translated by Krista Smith Edited by Gerhard L. Weinberg' ? <a href="http://pages.prodigy.net/aesir/hsb.htm">pages.prodigy.net/aesir/hsb.htm</a> Supposedly a dictated 1928 manuscript never edited or published and found in 1961 by the archivist of captured German documents stored in Alexandria Virginia. Boy, I'd love to know what else he found and sat on. Just saw it at Borders today and haven't searched on it yet. Re: bankers- <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Funny how so many elite financiers get left OUT of the equation. <hr></blockquote> Personally, I find the Rockefellers a much more interesting topic than the Rothschilds due to their influence on 20th century America and the National inSecurity State. "I'm for the little fellers, not the Rockefellers."

by **rothbardian** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:17 am

I was reading through this thread and I noticed that it is essentially another example of what I would refer to as 'dogmatic inconclusiveness'. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems almost as if the whole thread is set up specifically to NOT reach any conclusion. DE makes his position very clear: The information that we have regarding a Hitler/Rothschild connection is inconclusive at best...and we have no other information currently available. It's a little perplexing, because if there is no further discovery to be made (other than a miraculous unearthing of heretofore unknown sources)...what is the driving force here? It's like a big push to get...nowhere. Again, I may be misreading what is going on here but it's almost like DE has selected a topic where he believes there is an absolute lock on 'inconclusiveness'...then he invites any and all to dare and disagree with his inconclusiveness. A couple of other posters seem to be more or less conceding that, while there is indeed no DNA evidence or blood samples available..they nevertheless theorize in the direction of believing Thyssen and see some of the other factors as indicative. (There is the Dollfuss assassination; about fifteen 'shifty' name changes in the Hitler family, and a lot of people scrambling to produce about twelve murky versions of who Hitler's father and grandfather were; no clear benefit to Thyssen; other apparently independent reports; not to mention that placing depictions/photos side-by-side of the two men in question, makes for a rather interesting physical comparison.) But my impression from DE's comments is that he is unhappy with even theorizing in that direction-- apparently it's OK to be inconclusive and yet have a strong leaning AGAINST a Hitler/Rothschild connection but... ...for others to concede that there is less than 'slam dunk' evidence BUT still want to lean towards a belief in this connection...somehow inexplicably, that's wrong. On top of all that, in midst of what I had thought was a commitment to inconclusiveness... there are some very authoritative and, in fact, conclusive references to this Hitler/Rothschild connection as being just "silly". Maybe I need to be sent to the "Zoolander School For People Who Don't Read Good" but that' what I'm seeing here so far.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:46 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>it's almost like DE has selected a topic where he believes there is an absolute lock on 'inconclusiveness'...then he invites any and all to dare and disagree with his inconclusiveness.<hr></blockquote> It's fascinating how people don't get upset with someone for making a statement outright as if it were solid, proven historical fact (Hitler = Rothschild) but then if someone comes along and actually has a look at the evidence this bothers him. It's really this dynamic that is the most important one to understand. For those who don't know, Rothbardian some time back made a similar...in fact far more sweeping assertion: that Marx was paid by "the Illuminati" to "create socialism." And that Marx was a known occultist. This, like the Hitler = Rothschild connection (well, there are two sorts of Rothschild theories. The testimony of Thyssen is simply that according to this Austrian dossier, Hitler was sired illegitimately by a Rothschild...that's as far as it went. The second sort goes further and assumes, without evidence, that the Rothschilds then controlled Hitler or that he did what he did on their behalf.), would be rather significant in historical terms. And given that lots of good people are socialists and lots of good people are Jewish, I think it is not unreasonable for people to be asked to back up such assertions with some reasonable level of evidence. It it were some new line of speculation, that would be one thing, but Rothschild = Hitler is all over the internet in all its shabbily supported glory. But Roth, ole boy, if you'd rather believe wrong things than read posts attempting to discern the facts in the matter, I'll try to put some warning on future such posts. Now, I happen to think that many movements in history were made of brave men and women working together trying desperately to improve their circumstances. And just about every such movement has always been labeled by the forces of reaction as having actually been created by some evil outsider. IN modern times it was communists. Earlier it was others. Always, it was Jews. I think of a Eustace Mullens article in which he talks about how the slaves were happy till the Rockefellers came and wrecked the whole deal. I'm not equating anyone with Mullens...he's a distinct breed of rightwing asshole, but the point is that this is insulting, racist...AND inaccurate. Inaccurate. Doesn't inaccuracy in terms of major assertions bother people around here? And the reason it gets me a little riled up is that these particular inaccuracies...or, as I like to call them, "lies", have been put to some ver y evil use. Let's examine the whole way this thread started (by the way, Roth, I started this thread to allow the discussion of MK Ultra to go back on topic). Dugoboy, in the middle of an important analysis of MKUltra, puts out this stuff about how Hitler was the bastard son (he didn't get the story quite right) of a Rothschild. Well, I guess maybe Dugoboy is young and I was too hard on him ...but Omega Man posts a fairly lenghty post that gives all the "details" of this. What can we conclude? The only thing I can conclude is that they both thought that somehow this was relevant to the MKUltra discussion. Why would Hitler's parentage be relevant to the MKUltra discussion? Well, the use I have seen this story put to over and over again is to suggest that the Rothschilds were actually somehow behind Hitler. He was part of their all important "bloodline"...a word Omega Man used in his post. This loaded term "bloodline" suggest an awful lot more than just "oh, what a funny little historical fluke. Hitler was so psycho he hated Jews even though he had Jewish grandparents." It is language that goes right to Icke and others who posit millenia long conspiracies of an underground Satanic elite that involve several families (13, says Springmeier) but the pinnacle of which is the Rothschilds. Now, since I always end up in this role, I know people will think I dismiss the idea of old elite conspiracies. I don't. In fact, if you think about it, the idea of representative government is very knew in human history. Most of human history has been about OVERT rule by elites, and within that elite rule there were surely secret plots and counterplots as well. Most of human history, then, has taken place under forms of government that were based on bloodlines and very tiny elite groups ruling over the vast majority of people. As I have said repeatedly, my interest is not in debunking the general idea of this, but in making some attempt to GET IT RIGHT. So, back to the beginning of this whole discussion. The MKUltra discussion is extremely important. But when the idea of Rothschild is introduced in the middle of an MKUltra thread, this is important to deal with for several reasons, most important of which being: it leads us in a wrong direction. The Reich and its subsequent incorporation into the US military/industrial/intelligence complex is a very important thing to understand. Suggesting, even by implication, that the Reich was somehow a Rothschild plan completely misdirects from the truth. I was too hard on Dugoboy, I think, and I'm sorry. But Omega Man seems like one of the more intelligent posters here. He understands full well what I'm talking about. Let me add one further thing as an aside. It's about Hugh Manatee Wins. Hugh I get REALLY frustrated with you about your discussion of the uses of the mass media, primarily because YOU ARE RIGHT. I've had this discussion off board with others. I KNOW you are right...I sense it, I feel it. But damn it, I can't PROVE it. I don't mean you are right every time you say this or that movie is a deliberate psyop or whatever. In fact, I often, like Pan, think you overreach. But I get frustrated because you simply assert that this or that movie is a deliberately created bit of sophisticated propaganda for this or that purpose but never bother to prove it. The whole reason for such propaganda is to shape the cultural space of the country. AS such, and if it works, then this means for every succesful such "meme" introduced deliberately, there will be many, many such repetitions of such memes to take advantage of the popularity of such themes. Ah..I'm not saying this well. If the various elites can shape our cultural space effectively, then imitations of these will surely follow, with the only motivation being money. In addition, themes based on veiled or not so veiled racism, say, often need no help whatsoever getting into the media. making Arab bad guys these days is like making Russian bad guys a while back. Some of that is likely pushed from above, but mostly it's a result of wanting to make an unoriginal but profitable movie by pushing people's emotional buttons. But I wanted to go on the record about Hugh. The lines along which he is thinking I really do believe are correct. The papers from Donovan in Data Dump show how sophisticated this stuff was 70 years ago (go read those, everyone, to understand one possibility about why the Rothschild story got started in the first place.) But I don't claim to know which movies and books are a result of deliberate manipulation and which are merely people writing within the cultural space as shaped by deliberate manipulation. And on top of that we have further, "corporate" propaganda that needs no direct instructions from a secret elite. Our major corporations do quite well under our current system, and it is no surprise they would promote themes and images that would support that system. No secret meetings at Dulce needed. But I do think we are being played in many, many ways. I'd love to see more attempts by Hugh to show actual connections that prove his point...and not simply point at a theme and interpret through this lens. It may not be possible to find this evidence...but I think there might be more evidence than we realize. So back to the point...I think much of the Rothschild/Hitler thing is part of this..it was a deliberate tool of statecraft whether first started in Austria or in the US. It took on a life of its own, and now has us looking the wrong direction. Again.

by **The Omega Man** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:55 am

Hey Dreams End, I'd appreciate you making your points without drawing my name into your zeal to discredit the Hitler Rothschild connection. I have no wish to be the straw man for your personal agenda and you can best accomplish this by keeping my name out of your mouth. Lest it seem that it is me you wish to malign along with the subject. I've ignored a number of snide remarks in my direction peppered throughout your posts, and have decided enough is enough. As I am entirely sick of your erroneous attributing of statements I didn't make, along with the injection of faulty assmptions and seeing my name mentioned in relation to the derision of the subject. I don't appreciate it and find it not at all germane to the lop-sided points of your entries.

by **Quentin Quire** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:16 pm

Your original post was on the derivation of the MK-Ultra acronym and was quite interesting and cogent. However we then had this -- <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Nazi Third Reich was basically a fascism field test of sorts funded by the international bankers who have been anxiously preparing for their ultimate New World Order of All the Ages.<hr></blockquote> and <blockquote>Quote:<hr>That Rothschild Bastard<hr></blockquote> You essentially highjacked your own thread with this premise which was then questioned quite ably by Dreams End. DE has used your name to reference his info on the new thread. You're sick of 'seeing my name mentioned in relation to the derision of the subject'. If that's the case why did you bring up such a subject? Should other posters never refer to each other, their posts and ideas? Your not a 'straw man'. You're just a poster who de-railed their own thread and then had their rather dubious pet theory regarding Hitler's racial make-up refuted by those who are better informed.

by **The Omega Man** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:26 pm

Utterly foolish and noxious commentary on your part, and it is you who are poorly informed when you choose to assert your own opinions into others affairs. First of all I didn't hijack my own thread, I chose to put forth information to assist another. Plus it was my thread and I could do anything I wanted anyway. Why don't you re-read the both threads and try to be a little more objective in your speculative reasoning. The Rothschild so-called theory as you so put it, is not of my personal derivation, I merely posited the info with some links and that was bloody that. I had nothing to prove and wasn't acting as an apologist or obfuscating for Zionist criminals. Let Dreams End fight his own battles. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>You're just a poster who de-railed their own thread and then had their rather dubious pet theory regarding Hitler's racial make-up refuted by those who are better informed. <hr></blockquote>. Who the hell are you to level such a baseless and assinine assumption about me anyway? If you're spoiling for a fight then join the military or go to your nearest tavern and have at it. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=theomegaman@rigorousintuition>The Omega Man</A> at: 6/7/06 11:29 am

by **Quentin Quire** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>you who are poorly informed when you choose to assert your own opinions into others affairs. <hr></blockquote> [quote/]Plus it was my thread and I could do anything I wanted anyway. [/quote] I thought this was a discussion board not a invite-only gathering where only those who share the same thoughts and opinions were allowed. Obviously I'm 'foolish ' in that respect. I certainly shouldn't 'assert (my) opinions into others affairs'. Not on a DISCUSSION BOARD, that would surely be a folly. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I had nothing to prove and wasn't acting as an apologist or obfuscating for Zionist criminals. <hr></blockquote> Which 'Zionist Criminals' have been discussed in this and the original thread? The Rothschilds? Hitler? You see Omega Man, I've seen a great deal of posts on RI that are cogent, interesting and intellectual regardless of the posters viewpoint. However often some of those posts contain phrases such as 'New World Order', 'International Bankers' and 'Zionist Criminals'. Now some posters see those bug-bear phrases and are instantly dissuaded from any kind of rational discussion due to their inference with right-wing and anti-semetic crap. In some circumstances that may not be the case but I've seen more than enough threads where it isn't and any kind of positive research and debate is drowned in the mire. Perhaps Hitler/Rothschild isn't your pet theory but when it came up I thought an interesting thread on MK-Ultra was derailed by unrelated and loaded information regarding topics that stray into confrontational areas. DE created a 2nd thread, he referenced you with regards to its origins. I didn't see any criticism of you - just a few compliments as to your intelligence and the original MKUltra thread. Your original response simply smacks to me of a poster whose theories have been challenged effectively and who responds with vitriol instead of anything constructive.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:53 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I appreciate your commitment to following up on the info, I would just ask that we establish a new discussion thread to pursue it,<hr></blockquote> Request granted.

by **The Omega Man** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:04 pm

Sorry Quentin but my theories, which again I did not originate, have not been challenged effectively. More energy has been poured out to ridicule the assertion and dismiss the accuracy of the information than has been rendered in objectively sleuthing this out. Additionally, I specifically meant Rothschilds when I said Zionist criminals. who have done as much to hurt the Jewish faith as they have inflicted upon the public at large. I will also cast the Oppenheimer crime syndicate and Bronfmans of Canada into this infernal category as well. However I have by no means EVER asserted that these IllumiNazis are exclusively Zionist who pervert Judaism as a cover for their criminal pathologies. The global power brokers hail from every conceivable background just like the pieces on a Chess board. You have Knights (Military/Police), Rooks (Law and Intelligence), Bishops (Religion/Media), Pawns (Informers False-front organizations and collusive masses), the Queen (Pesidents, Kings, Prime Ministers and other assorted lackeys of empire) and finally the King (Global Bankers, Financial Houses, Monied "Elite"). Many different interests and agendas are represented and consolidated towards a singular goal: utter enslavement of the masses, as well as control of the world and all of its resources. Rockefellers, Morgans, Carnegies have power in the extreme and are co-conspirators along with the other criminal cabals. That is what I am talking about when I say 'International Banking' or 'Global Bankers', perhaps if you took the time to ask me direct, you would have been apprised of this fact. Judaism is just a religious gimmick and means to an end for the Zionists enclaves and their pursuit of power over the masses. Dugoboy was dead on when he advanced that religion is a tool of states to render weak the populace. Secondly the forum is obviously public, however I won't stand by and be a victim of a shoot first and ask questions later attack. Instead of assumptions why not request clarification before taking someone elses flag into battle that's all I'm saying. I've started to read your posts on my thread and they are lucid and respectful even in difference of opinion. That to me is professional courtesy rendered to foster comeraderie and commonality of goal. Snide commentary and derisive innuendo are quite the contrary and yields nothing but disrespect of ideas, theories and the individuals investigatory prowess. In New York we colloquially refer to this as 'Assing Someone Down' and it was a sign of contempt and disrespect. What I am referencing to in particular are snide little asides DE chuffed off to subtly scoff and slight my contributions to this Rothschild/Hitler quandry. I have of course taken note of his compliments to my intelligence, but if you examine the context it is actually is insulting to a large percentage of the posters, and comes off as elitist arrogance. I.e.: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I was too hard on Dugoboy, I think, and I'm sorry. But Omega Man seems like one of the more intelligent posters here. He understands full well what I'm talking about.<hr></blockquote> What you also may not be aware of is a history Dreams End as well as a few specific others have of swooping into threads with deprecating commentary. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=theomegaman@rigorousintuition>The Omega Man</A> at: 6/7/06 5:23 pm

by **Quentin Quire** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:20 pm

Omega Man - thank you for a sincere response. If you took offense at certain more feisty aspects of my post then I apologise. Perhaps it would have been better of me to engage in discourse rather than firing off an intial post, but hey, I think sometimes we type as we think and perhaps that isn't the best approach. Firstly - I am in no way interested in creating antagonism upon the board or directing insults or slights against individual posters. However I was concerned with the manner 'loaded' phrases were used without a context to place them in. I'm well aware of the history of the board and various exchanges that have taken place regarding such issues and I think they are one of the most divisive and negative aspects involved in this area of para-politics and the occult. Your analogy regarding the players in world affairs to pieces of a chess board is quite apt as are dugoboys views that match my own regarding religious control. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Professional courtesy rendered to foster comeraderie and commonality of goal. <hr></blockquote> Certainly that's something I would hope this board could do with more of, as could humanity in general. I am certainly interested in MKULTRA and the idea that Hitler has some relationship with The Rothschilds but it seemed to me that rational discourse had been in danger of slipping into an area which - whilst not forbidden - certainly illicits strong responses from all fields, including myself. I need to look back at the posts regarding info, do some searching and come back to you. I do find the 'Hitler/Jew/Rothschild' meme to be a paradox however. I always ask 'Who profits?' but in this case the waters are very muddied.

by **rothbardian** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:28 am

DreamsEnd-- I don't want to get in to a 'battle royale' but as I said before...I don't quite understand where the controversy is: You choose to describe the evidence as 'inconclusive' and are nevertheless leaning strongly in the direction of not believing the reports of a Hitler/Rothschild connection (not to mention...a couple of your statements seem to reflect strong conclusiveness?) By comparison: Someone like myself, while conceding the lack of DNA and blood sample evidence nevertheless do theorize strongly in the direction of believing Thyssen (and a couple of others) and see some of the other factors as indicative. Maybe I'm missing somebody's point somewhere but...I have yet to understand why there is the strong inclination to dismiss 'out of hand' the reports about this Hitler/Rothschild thing. For example, you were describing Thyssen as having a bone to pick with Hitler. But who didn't have a grievance with Hitler? Does it mean that anyone who disapproves of Hitler may expect to have low credibility in reporting something negative about him? For that matter, (virtually) every book written about Hitler has been authored by people who have a bone to pick with the man. Whether Thyssen had something against Hitler...it is at least equally likely that Thyssen simply came across accurate information that happily for him, was embarassing to Hitler. As I said (in ticking off some of the indicators) there is the Dollfuss assassination which in conjunction with the handful of reports (such as Thyssen's) points to a desperate cover-up. There were all these 'shifty' name changes in the Hitler family and the murkiness regarding who Hitler's father and grandfather were...which instantly makes more sense in the light of the reports from these two or three whistle-blowers. Also, it is unclear what Thyssen and the others would've gained by 'concocting' a report that slaps the most powerful members of the European PTB (the Rothschilds) across the cheek.

by **Dreams End** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:43 am

I don't know what the controversy is either. A statement was made...I tracked it down to its source...published what I found and said I don't find it convincing. By the way, Thyssen was certainly part of the PTB...not some grocery clerk. I don't know that he even DID say those things...I haven't read "I Paid Hitler" but Sutton says Thyssen denied even writing it. IN any event, I don't trust him when he's funding Hitler...and I don't trust him after. We all have different standards, I guess. show me the evidence that Hitler ordered Dolfuss's murder because of the Rothschild stuff. Be interested to read that. So far I've only found assertions...but I haven't even really seen too much detail in terms of the mainstream explanation...something along the lines of Austrian Nazis staging a coup attempt. Sounded plausible to me, though. And, of course, I still await your evidence that Marx was paid by the Illuminati to invent socialism. I'm going to bed now...but that'll be interesting reading with my morning coffee.

by **slimmouse** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:32 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The global power brokers hail from every conceivable background just like the pieces on a Chess board. You have Knights (Military/Police), Rooks (Law and Intelligence), Bishops (Religion/Media), Pawns (Informers False-front organizations and collusive masses), the Queen (Pesidents, Kings, Prime Ministers and other assorted lackeys of empire) and finally the King (Global Bankers, Financial Houses, Monied "Elite"<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> . Many different interests and agendas are represented and consolidated towards a singular goal: utter enslavement of the masses, as well as control of the world and all of its resources.<hr></blockquote> Against a Sea of pawns. I guess the pawns need to arrange themselves in the ultimate diamond formation somehow <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif ALT=":\">

by **Dreams End** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 11:01 am

Dear Roth: these showed up today. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>From a purely scientific point of view, therefore, it is sounder not to base our reconstruction on such slim evidence but to seek firmer foundations. Nevertheless, we can leave it as a possibility which requires further verification. Signed, The Guy Who Wrote The Book That Made This Claim in the First Place <hr></blockquote> and Dear Roth, <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Some of the confusion that has arisen in regard to Hitler's forebears disappears as soon as we realize the name Hitler has been variously spelled - Hidler, Hiedler, Huettler - by different members of the same illiterate peasant family. Adolf Hitler's parents were both descended from one Hitler (father's grandfater and mother's great-grandfather), an inhabitant of the culturally backward Waldviertel district, Upper Austria. Signed, The Guy Who Collaborated with the Guy Who Wrote The Above Book<hr></blockquote> and <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Dear Roth, There is no reason to believe the unlikely story told by Langer's informant that Hitler's grandmother Maria Anna Schicklgruber, a peasant woman in her forties from the Waldviertel of rural Austria, had had an intimate liaison with a Baron Rothschild in Vienna. Signed, The Guy Who Wrote the Afterword to the Book All This Material Was Taken From<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Dear Roth, Have you seen my razor? I seem to have misplaced it. Signed, William of Ockam<hr></blockquote> And now, a pointless joke. So, Descartes is riding on a plane and the stewardess comes up to him and says, "Would you like some coffee or tea?" Descartes replied, "I think not," and promptly disappeared.

Hitler: Jewish Lizard or Goy Boy Toy of the Hoi Polloi???

Re: well it coulda been worse hugh.....

Re: Themes through history

I have no real stake in the Hitler/Rothschild thing but...

Re: I have no real stake in the Hitler/Rothschild thing but.

Keep me out of this

Omega Man --

Noxious

Noxious

Re: Hitler: Jewish Lizard or Goy Boy Toy of the Hoi Polloi?

Re: Noxious

RE

Inconclusiveness vs. inconclusiveness?

Re: Inconclusiveness vs. inconclusiveness?

against a sea of pawns....

Re: Hitler: Jewish Lizard or Goy Boy Toy of the Hoi Polloi?

Who is online