Moreover, do you really think that Angela Merkel really wanted all those Muslim Arabs to come to Germany to rape German women? Of course not. She is a German woman herself. I suspect that Amerika pressured her to accept all those Muslim Arabs, somehow!
More likely they paid her off, and it was even more likely that it was the UN (the organization pushing all this south-to-north migration) that did the deed. Besides, if we've learned nothing else over the years, we've learned that Western "leaders" couldn't care less about the people in their respective countries; we are merely tax slaves providing the largesse that keeps them in power. We count for nothing else to them.
Yes, come to think of it, that is a possibility. I never thought of it like that. Still, the Muslim Arabs, I would suspect, are there to do a job. That is, they re there to drive Europeans into the arms of "Far Right Groups". These "Far Right Groups" appeal to what would appear to them to be the moral high ground: protecting their womenfolk. Once enough Europeans join the "Far Right", crooked Hilary can sneer that Europeans, much like rural Americans, are "a basket of deplorables".
By the way, some say that Barack Obama was a Muslim. That, too, could have something to do with it, as well. I suspect that the Democrats actually triggered the Arab Spring. That way, Arab Muslims would be pushed into Europe, to cause trouble there. And, importantly, to drive Europeans into the "Far Right".
Hard to say, though we seem to be witnessing efforts in many Western countries, particularly where illegal immigration is now putting immense pressure on native populations, to demonize people on the "far right," possibly in an effort to justify further encroachment of the police state (like sending National Guard troops to cities in the US to "keep us safe") to combat "far right extremism."
There is so much to know about how TPTB are driving the world to the brink of collapse; it's hard to wrap our heads around it all. For another perspective on what's happening in the world, you might want to listen to Michael Yon's podcasts or read his articles. He talks a blue streak, but he knows a lot about history and has what I consider a well-researched and thorough take on world events.
Can you spell "See Eye Aye," or "Emm Eye Six," or both. Destabilization of the Middle East, particularly by the UK, has been going on since Britain took control of Palestine and Iran after WWI, all to ensure its access and control over the oil in the Middle East. Classic behavior of any hegemonic power is to destabilize and fragment any country it wants to control; unstable countries are much easier to control. That's why the West wants to take control of Russia's vast resources by destabilizing and fragmenting the country into smaller segments that can be manipulated into surrendering valuable resources to Western powers for a fraction of their value. Hegemonic Power 101. (Sorry for the rant; I get ahead of myself from time to time.)
FWIW, not only did they kill the man, they also killed his message, and, if Ben Shapiro takes the helm (or any other Israel shill, perhaps Mrs. Kirk), TPUSA will be back on track with what used to be a steadfast pro-Israel message that, until Charlie changed his tune, was the consistent and well-funded Zionist message put our by TPUSA. My guess is Israel acted just in time to stem the tide; time will tell on that one.
That is an interesting possibility. Still, the Muslims really self sabotage. By raping White women and girls, in Europe, they are destroying whatever sympathy that Europeans would ever have for the Palestinian Arabs exterminated off by the Israeli Jews. It is truly rather sad!
It all changed for me, when I started to wonder about Stalin's victims. After all, if it were so wrong and evil for Hitler, and the rest of the Nazis, to exterminate off all the millions they did, why, pray tell, was it not equally and similarly wrong and evil for Stalin, and the rest of the Commies, to exterminate off the millions they did? Indeed, why would not the same types of people who hate Hitler also hate Stalin? Pondering it, for years, the whole narrative of The Second World War fell apart!
FDR was against Hitler because Hitler had made clear both in his statements and in his actions that he was intending to take over the entire world, and that therefore the U.S. would have to join a coalition to defeat him, and the only question was therefore when. FDR was for Stalin because FDR knew that in order to defeat Hitler, the Soviet Union would be the crucial ally, not only because it was the biggest of all nations but because Hitler hated communists almost as much as he hated Jews and therefore Hitler was bound to invade the Soviet Union and the only question was when. FDR made clear to his key international-relations people and to Stalin, that the Soviet Union's internal affairs were not an issue for the U.S., just as the U.S.'s internal affairs were not an issue for the Soviet Union. He also made clear to Stalin that the two men shared in common with Karl Marx the belief that international wars (including WW1) resulted from contesting empires and so that all empires including Winston Churchill's need to be outlawed in a post-WW2 world. So, FDR knew that in the post-WW2 world, if the Allies would win it, the U.N. would replace ALL empires. Churchill was FDR's enemy on that, and FDR knew it. Stalin was not. Your concern about Stalin's barbaric internal policies confuses international laws with national laws, but FDR knew that the distinction between the two must be strictly observed and that the U.N. must be concerned ONLY with international -- NOT domestic -- affairs. Truman started the Cod War on 25 July 1945.
Oh, that is very interesting. Still, the British Empire was dismantled throughout The Cold War. Why did Hitler want to take over the entire world then? I wonder!
Many imperialists such as Cecil Rhodes and Harry Truman had similarly; it's not unique to Hitler. However, your view of Stalin is very incomplete and one-sided (against him), and has been shaped by America's billionaires, who are the source of the American empire. To know about him what you don't know about him, I suggest you read https://archive.ph/MV3QG and https://archive.ph/ZoJyD both of which will help you to know what has been hidden about him throughout the U.S. empire. FDR was correct; Truman was wrong; and we live in Truman's world, not in FDR's.
Wait, the US Soldiers and other US Service personnel, who fought and died in The Second World War did so on behalf of the Soviet Union. That, of course, logically explains why the US Soldiers and other US Service personnel, who fought and died in Vietnam were so condemned and vilified. After all, the latter fought AGAINST Communism rather than in FAVOR of it!
Mind you, I firmly believe that the Union crushed The South, during The Civil War, in order to end Slavery. I do believe that the Civil War was fought over Slavery. Let me assure you of that. Praise be to Abraham Lincoln and all that!
But, I seriously doubt that The Second World War was really fought to end The Holocaust. Neither Roosevelt nor Stalin ever had any intention of either rescuing or avenging The Six Million Jews, who, were perishing in The Holocaust.
Thank you very much for the links. I never really thought of it like that. This might sound rather humorous, but I used to have a strange phobia. I developed it when I was in my twenties. You will never guess what it was. I feared, I really feared, that most other people, in America, considered Stalin's victims to be less important, of less value, due to most of them being Goyim, rather than Jewish. But, then again, I still have a suspicion that FDR was assassinated for being insufficiently anti-German. After all, the US did not go through with the vengeful Morganthau Plan!
FDR had no interest in the Morgenthau plan. Your entire view here is at odds with the relevant history. For example you say that "US Soldiers and other US Service personel, who fought and died in The Second World War did so on behalf of the Soviet Union." But the Soviet Union lost 26,600,000 dead in the war (see here https://archive.ph/zk5hw#selection-8995.0-10127.1), while the U.S. lost around 419,000 (see here https://archive.ph/zk5hw#selection-13097.0-13190.0). Furthermore, it was the Soviet Union who defeated Hitler, with U.S. Lend-Lease weaponry; it was those two countries working together that saved the entire world from becoming ruled ultimately by Hitler and his successors. But it is more true that "Soviet soldiers and other Soviet service personnel fought and died in the Second World War on behalf of the United States" than what you alleged, which is the opposite of that.
Sir Winston Churchill wanted nothing less than the complete extermination of the German people as a people. However one may hate Hitler-- and, I carefully to point out that I do not like him anymore than you do-- he at least held out the hope that through the proper implementation of Eugenics, that the German people could be purified!
Well, to be fair to Joseph Stalin, his Red Army were not the only ones to rape women. The US Military, during that horrid war, was not above raping lots of French women in the Western Theater!
The best, most convincing scenario I've seen as to who murdered Charlie is a video to be found on rense.com (rense news). It shows a brown clothed man standing 15 feet in front of Charlie and is one of his security guards. He is using a palm held gun hiding in his hand which is aimed at Charlie and triggered at the moment he is shot. This explains all the unanswered questions as to entry/exit wounds, angle of fire and etc. Rense news shows a picture of the gun and an outline of it later in said man's back pocket. Please go check it out and 'prove me wrong'!
The biggest military on earth doesn't have sovereignty. Our borders cannot be protected, and our politicians cannot be free from foreign blackmailing. We might as well be colonized and admit submission to our overlords in Tel Aviv. These foolish MAGA should stop fooling themselves.
Is it in the realm of possibility that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was assassinated? I suspect he was. He was secretly poisoned because others considered him to be insufficiently anti-German, that is my hunch, at any rate. What do you think? I would be curious to know!
Some say, Stalin was assassinated that way. When I learnt of it, it immediately occurred to me that the same thing happened to FDR. Any way, Henry Morganthau wanted revenge for The Holocaust for obvious reasons, and that is precisely why he proposed his plan. I am not too sure. The Second World War, the history of it, is really rather murky when one looks into it.
Felix, that linked-to article by you would have been a terrific article if instead of footnotes (the user-hostile old way of documentation) were instead direct clickable links to your sources. Your article advises its readers to be skeptical but then uses footnotes instead of links and is therefore user-hostile instead of user-friendly to skeptical readers who actually want to see the evidence.
Back in the old days when I was getting my information from books, I sometimes had to travel over a hundred miles to a major academic library or archive in order to access a footnoted source; and I was then finding that around 20% of such sources did not actually confirm the writer's allegation, and 5-10% were entirely bogus. So, now, when I write, I use ONLY links. Unless a given source can't be archived, I link to an archived version because around 10% of URLs go kaput within ten years. Anyway, footnotes that are like the ones you used in that article are little better than no documentation at all. That's especially odd for an article which advises skepticism.
Actually, I added the footnotes because I had been criticized for making claims allegedly not based on facts. The critics had a point: like newspapers that mix opinion and fact, it’s important to distinguish belief, speculation, and fact.
For readers who want to verify, I added the footnotes, and I feel that provides sufficient documentation, even if they aren’t fully exhaustive. I understand clickable links would be more immediately convenient, but I believe the footnotes serve their purpose for those interested in checking the sources.
Moreover, do you really think that Angela Merkel really wanted all those Muslim Arabs to come to Germany to rape German women? Of course not. She is a German woman herself. I suspect that Amerika pressured her to accept all those Muslim Arabs, somehow!
More likely they paid her off, and it was even more likely that it was the UN (the organization pushing all this south-to-north migration) that did the deed. Besides, if we've learned nothing else over the years, we've learned that Western "leaders" couldn't care less about the people in their respective countries; we are merely tax slaves providing the largesse that keeps them in power. We count for nothing else to them.
Yes, come to think of it, that is a possibility. I never thought of it like that. Still, the Muslim Arabs, I would suspect, are there to do a job. That is, they re there to drive Europeans into the arms of "Far Right Groups". These "Far Right Groups" appeal to what would appear to them to be the moral high ground: protecting their womenfolk. Once enough Europeans join the "Far Right", crooked Hilary can sneer that Europeans, much like rural Americans, are "a basket of deplorables".
By the way, some say that Barack Obama was a Muslim. That, too, could have something to do with it, as well. I suspect that the Democrats actually triggered the Arab Spring. That way, Arab Muslims would be pushed into Europe, to cause trouble there. And, importantly, to drive Europeans into the "Far Right".
Hard to say, though we seem to be witnessing efforts in many Western countries, particularly where illegal immigration is now putting immense pressure on native populations, to demonize people on the "far right," possibly in an effort to justify further encroachment of the police state (like sending National Guard troops to cities in the US to "keep us safe") to combat "far right extremism."
There is so much to know about how TPTB are driving the world to the brink of collapse; it's hard to wrap our heads around it all. For another perspective on what's happening in the world, you might want to listen to Michael Yon's podcasts or read his articles. He talks a blue streak, but he knows a lot about history and has what I consider a well-researched and thorough take on world events.
https://michaelyon.substack.com/?utm_campaign=profile_chips
This could all have been easily avoided had the Arab Spring never happened. I have my suspicions as to who was behind that.
Can you spell "See Eye Aye," or "Emm Eye Six," or both. Destabilization of the Middle East, particularly by the UK, has been going on since Britain took control of Palestine and Iran after WWI, all to ensure its access and control over the oil in the Middle East. Classic behavior of any hegemonic power is to destabilize and fragment any country it wants to control; unstable countries are much easier to control. That's why the West wants to take control of Russia's vast resources by destabilizing and fragmenting the country into smaller segments that can be manipulated into surrendering valuable resources to Western powers for a fraction of their value. Hegemonic Power 101. (Sorry for the rant; I get ahead of myself from time to time.)
But, there is the Blow Back, in the form of Muslim Refugees. The US certainly wants to destroy Germany, and Europe in general.
FWIW, not only did they kill the man, they also killed his message, and, if Ben Shapiro takes the helm (or any other Israel shill, perhaps Mrs. Kirk), TPUSA will be back on track with what used to be a steadfast pro-Israel message that, until Charlie changed his tune, was the consistent and well-funded Zionist message put our by TPUSA. My guess is Israel acted just in time to stem the tide; time will tell on that one.
That is an interesting possibility. Still, the Muslims really self sabotage. By raping White women and girls, in Europe, they are destroying whatever sympathy that Europeans would ever have for the Palestinian Arabs exterminated off by the Israeli Jews. It is truly rather sad!
It all changed for me, when I started to wonder about Stalin's victims. After all, if it were so wrong and evil for Hitler, and the rest of the Nazis, to exterminate off all the millions they did, why, pray tell, was it not equally and similarly wrong and evil for Stalin, and the rest of the Commies, to exterminate off the millions they did? Indeed, why would not the same types of people who hate Hitler also hate Stalin? Pondering it, for years, the whole narrative of The Second World War fell apart!
FDR was against Hitler because Hitler had made clear both in his statements and in his actions that he was intending to take over the entire world, and that therefore the U.S. would have to join a coalition to defeat him, and the only question was therefore when. FDR was for Stalin because FDR knew that in order to defeat Hitler, the Soviet Union would be the crucial ally, not only because it was the biggest of all nations but because Hitler hated communists almost as much as he hated Jews and therefore Hitler was bound to invade the Soviet Union and the only question was when. FDR made clear to his key international-relations people and to Stalin, that the Soviet Union's internal affairs were not an issue for the U.S., just as the U.S.'s internal affairs were not an issue for the Soviet Union. He also made clear to Stalin that the two men shared in common with Karl Marx the belief that international wars (including WW1) resulted from contesting empires and so that all empires including Winston Churchill's need to be outlawed in a post-WW2 world. So, FDR knew that in the post-WW2 world, if the Allies would win it, the U.N. would replace ALL empires. Churchill was FDR's enemy on that, and FDR knew it. Stalin was not. Your concern about Stalin's barbaric internal policies confuses international laws with national laws, but FDR knew that the distinction between the two must be strictly observed and that the U.N. must be concerned ONLY with international -- NOT domestic -- affairs. Truman started the Cod War on 25 July 1945.
Oh, that is very interesting. Still, the British Empire was dismantled throughout The Cold War. Why did Hitler want to take over the entire world then? I wonder!
Many imperialists such as Cecil Rhodes and Harry Truman had similarly; it's not unique to Hitler. However, your view of Stalin is very incomplete and one-sided (against him), and has been shaped by America's billionaires, who are the source of the American empire. To know about him what you don't know about him, I suggest you read https://archive.ph/MV3QG and https://archive.ph/ZoJyD both of which will help you to know what has been hidden about him throughout the U.S. empire. FDR was correct; Truman was wrong; and we live in Truman's world, not in FDR's.
Wait, the US Soldiers and other US Service personnel, who fought and died in The Second World War did so on behalf of the Soviet Union. That, of course, logically explains why the US Soldiers and other US Service personnel, who fought and died in Vietnam were so condemned and vilified. After all, the latter fought AGAINST Communism rather than in FAVOR of it!
Mind you, I firmly believe that the Union crushed The South, during The Civil War, in order to end Slavery. I do believe that the Civil War was fought over Slavery. Let me assure you of that. Praise be to Abraham Lincoln and all that!
But, I seriously doubt that The Second World War was really fought to end The Holocaust. Neither Roosevelt nor Stalin ever had any intention of either rescuing or avenging The Six Million Jews, who, were perishing in The Holocaust.
Thank you very much for the links. I never really thought of it like that. This might sound rather humorous, but I used to have a strange phobia. I developed it when I was in my twenties. You will never guess what it was. I feared, I really feared, that most other people, in America, considered Stalin's victims to be less important, of less value, due to most of them being Goyim, rather than Jewish. But, then again, I still have a suspicion that FDR was assassinated for being insufficiently anti-German. After all, the US did not go through with the vengeful Morganthau Plan!
FDR had no interest in the Morgenthau plan. Your entire view here is at odds with the relevant history. For example you say that "US Soldiers and other US Service personel, who fought and died in The Second World War did so on behalf of the Soviet Union." But the Soviet Union lost 26,600,000 dead in the war (see here https://archive.ph/zk5hw#selection-8995.0-10127.1), while the U.S. lost around 419,000 (see here https://archive.ph/zk5hw#selection-13097.0-13190.0). Furthermore, it was the Soviet Union who defeated Hitler, with U.S. Lend-Lease weaponry; it was those two countries working together that saved the entire world from becoming ruled ultimately by Hitler and his successors. But it is more true that "Soviet soldiers and other Soviet service personnel fought and died in the Second World War on behalf of the United States" than what you alleged, which is the opposite of that.
Sir Winston Churchill wanted nothing less than the complete extermination of the German people as a people. However one may hate Hitler-- and, I carefully to point out that I do not like him anymore than you do-- he at least held out the hope that through the proper implementation of Eugenics, that the German people could be purified!
Well, to be fair to Joseph Stalin, his Red Army were not the only ones to rape women. The US Military, during that horrid war, was not above raping lots of French women in the Western Theater!
Of course, FDR had no interest in the Morgenthau plan. That is precisely what got him killed!
Oh, that is very interesting. Stalin was not really like Hitler then!
I used to have a phobia, that most considered Stalin's victims to be less worthy of sympathy due to the fact that most of them were Goyim.
Check out rense.com
The best, most convincing scenario I've seen as to who murdered Charlie is a video to be found on rense.com (rense news). It shows a brown clothed man standing 15 feet in front of Charlie and is one of his security guards. He is using a palm held gun hiding in his hand which is aimed at Charlie and triggered at the moment he is shot. This explains all the unanswered questions as to entry/exit wounds, angle of fire and etc. Rense news shows a picture of the gun and an outline of it later in said man's back pocket. Please go check it out and 'prove me wrong'!
The biggest military on earth doesn't have sovereignty. Our borders cannot be protected, and our politicians cannot be free from foreign blackmailing. We might as well be colonized and admit submission to our overlords in Tel Aviv. These foolish MAGA should stop fooling themselves.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk certainly distracts the public from the Epstein scandal. That could be part of the plan!
Charlie Kirk, like Hitler, was a devout Christian!
Hitler a Christian? OK if YOU say so it must be true
Read "WHY The Holocaust Happened" by Eric Zuesse!
Check these out showing how it may have been an explosive device a la the exploding pagers …. The mic Charlie was using.
https://x.com/realstewpeters/status/1971087324680421499?s=46
https://x.com/ryanmattamedia/status/1971039562609918141?s=42
Video evidence changes what we are told on assassination of Charlie Kirk
https://youtu.be/MbaQadkqkzI?feature=shared
Is it in the realm of possibility that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was assassinated? I suspect he was. He was secretly poisoned because others considered him to be insufficiently anti-German, that is my hunch, at any rate. What do you think? I would be curious to know!
Some say, Stalin was assassinated that way. When I learnt of it, it immediately occurred to me that the same thing happened to FDR. Any way, Henry Morganthau wanted revenge for The Holocaust for obvious reasons, and that is precisely why he proposed his plan. I am not too sure. The Second World War, the history of it, is really rather murky when one looks into it.
And, Trump blames the Leftists!
Yeah, it appears to be a professional hit job and another cover-up, much like previous political assassinations, likely involving the usual suspects. My take on it: https://felixabt.substack.com/p/charlie-kirk-and-the-assassination
Felix, that linked-to article by you would have been a terrific article if instead of footnotes (the user-hostile old way of documentation) were instead direct clickable links to your sources. Your article advises its readers to be skeptical but then uses footnotes instead of links and is therefore user-hostile instead of user-friendly to skeptical readers who actually want to see the evidence.
Back in the old days when I was getting my information from books, I sometimes had to travel over a hundred miles to a major academic library or archive in order to access a footnoted source; and I was then finding that around 20% of such sources did not actually confirm the writer's allegation, and 5-10% were entirely bogus. So, now, when I write, I use ONLY links. Unless a given source can't be archived, I link to an archived version because around 10% of URLs go kaput within ten years. Anyway, footnotes that are like the ones you used in that article are little better than no documentation at all. That's especially odd for an article which advises skepticism.
Actually, I added the footnotes because I had been criticized for making claims allegedly not based on facts. The critics had a point: like newspapers that mix opinion and fact, it’s important to distinguish belief, speculation, and fact.
For readers who want to verify, I added the footnotes, and I feel that provides sufficient documentation, even if they aren’t fully exhaustive. I understand clickable links would be more immediately convenient, but I believe the footnotes serve their purpose for those interested in checking the sources.
Imho, the 'killing' was staged. An it was rather easy to see. If one wants to look at.