Guest Post by Paul Craig Roberts
“The Lies About World War II” (https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05/13/the-lies-about-world-war-ii/) is my most popular column of the year. It is a book review of David Irving’s Hitler’s War and Churchill’s War, the first volumn of Irving’s three volume biography of Winston Churchill. A person does not know anything about WW II until he has read these books.
Historians, and even book reviewers, who tell the truth pay a high price. For reasons I provide in my review, generally it is decades after a war before truth about the war can emerge. By then the court historians have fused lies with patriotism and created a pleasing myth about the war, and when emerging truth impinges on that myth, the truth-teller is denounced for making a case for the enemy.
Wars are fought with words as well as with bullets and bombs. The propaganda and demonization of the enemy are extreme. This is especially the case when it is the victors who start the war and have to cover up this fact as well as the war crimes for which they are responsible. When decades later the covered up crimes of the victors are brought to light, truth is up against the explanation that has been controlled for a half century. This makes the truth seem outlandish, and this makes it easy to demonize and even destroy the historian who brought the truth to the surface.
This makes a problem for a reviewer of revisionist history of World War II. If a reviewer gives an honest review, he faces the same demonization as the historian who brought the truth about the war to the surfice.
This happened to me when I reviewed Irving’s books, both of which were researched for decades and completely documented. I was supposed to denounce Irving, in which case my stock would have gone up, but giving him an honest review got me branded “a holocaust denier” by Wikipedia, in my opinion a CIA front created in order to protect the official stories by marginalizing truth-tellers.
I have never studied the holocaust or written anything about it. I simply reported Irving’s assessment based entirely on documented evidence that many Jews were killed, but there was not the organized holocaust that is taught in the schools and which is a crime to dispute in many European countries.
So, this is how bad it is. I am, according to Wikipedia, a “holocaust denier” for the simple reason that I honestly reported Irving’s findings instead of jumping on him with hob-nailed boots for giving evidence contrary to the protected official story. Anyone who does not protect official explanations is “suspect.”
In my opinion what makes historians suspicious of the official holocaust story is the extreme resistance to any investigation of the event. One would think that investigation would support the story if it were true. It would seem that it is the Jews who raise questions about the holocaust by placing it off limits for open discussion. I personally am not very interested in the holocaust, because WW II itself was a holocaust. Tens of millions of people were killed. The Russians themselves lost 26 million, 20 million more than the holocause figure of 6 million Jews. The Germans after the war was over lost considerably more thn 6 million in the forced resettlements and General Eisenhower’s murder of 1.5 million German POWs by starvation and exposure. ( See John Wear, Germany’s War, and James Bacque, Other Losses, for the massive evidence. )
Somehow World War II has become the Jewish holocaust, not everyone else’s.
My interest is the predominance of propaganda and lies over truth. Ron Unz has the same interest. Four months after my column, “The Lies About World War II,” appeared, Unz took the story further in his long report, “Understanding World War II” ( http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-understanding-world-war-ii/ ). Unz’s columns tend to be monographs or small books, well beyond the attention spans of most Americans. Unz has given me permission to republish his monograph in installments. This is the first installment.
I learned from Unz’s article that getting rid of truth-tellers has been the practice of the West for a long time. Unz got interested in WW II when Pat Buchanan’s book, The Unnecessary War, became an issue for The American Conservative, a magazine for which Unz was the major money man. Unz couldn’t find that much difference between Buchanan’s book and that of A.J. P. Taylor’s The Origins of the Second World War. Yet The American Conservative, fearful of challenging WW II myths, was disassociating from its own founder, Pat Buchanan.
Disassociation from official truth cost Taylor his lecturership at Oxford University. Taylor’s publication of The Origins of the Second World War, caused Oxford to decline to renew Taylor’s appointment as a university lecturer in modern history. Taylor left Oxford for a lecturership at the University College London. Note that England’s best historian at the time was a mere lecturer, not a professor of modern history. Truth-tellers don’t advance very far in the world of information.
Harry Elmer Barnes explained that the origins of World War I were in France and Russia, not in Germany, which was the last to mobilize but was blamed for the war, resulting in the Treaty of Versailles, which led to WW II. Unz was stunned to find that Barnes, a historian of great stature, was unknown to him. Unz writes:
“Imagine my shock at later discovering that Barnes had actually been one of the most frequent early contributors to Foreign Affairs, serving as a primary book reviewer for that venerable publication from its 1922 founding onward, while his stature as one of America’s premier liberal academics was indicated by his scores of appearances in The Nation and The New Republic throughout that decade. Indeed, he is credited with having played a central role in ‘revising’ the history of the First World War so as to remove the cartoonish picture of unspeakable German wickedness left behind as a legacy of the dishonest wartime propaganda produced by the opposing British and American governments. And his professional stature was demonstrated by his thirty-five or more books, many of them influential academic volumes, along with his numerous articles in The American Historical Review, Political Science Quarterly, and other leading journals.
“A few years ago I happened to mention Barnes to an eminent American academic scholar whose general focus in political science and foreign policy was quite similar, and yet the name meant nothing. By the end of the 1930s, Barnes had become a leading critic of America’s proposed involvement in World War II, and was permanently ‘disappeared’ as a consequence, barred from all mainstream media outlets, while a major newspaper chain was heavily pressured into abruptly terminating his long-running syndicated national column in May 1940.”
Unz next tells us how the establishment got rid of Charles A. Beard. Beard was an intellectual of high stature. But “once he turned against Franklin D. Roosevelt’s warmongering foreign policy, publishers shut their doors to him, and only his personal friendship with the head of the Yale University Press allowed his critical 1948 volume, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941, to even appear in print. Beard’s stellar reputation seems to have begun a rapid decline from that point onward, so that by 1968 historian Richard Hofstadter could write: ‘Today Beard’s reputation stands like an imposing ruin in the landscape of American historiography. What was once the grandest house in the province is now a ravaged survival’. Indeed, Beard’s once-dominant ‘economic interpretation of history’ might these days almost be dismissed as promoting ‘dangerous conspiracy theories,’ and I suspect few non-historians have even heard of him.”
William Henry Chamberlin was one of America’s leading foreign policy journalists, an author of 15 books whose writings appeared regularly in The Atlantic Monthly and Harpers. His career was terminated when his critical analysis of America’s entry into WW II, America’s Second Crusade, was published in 1950.
Unz gives other examples of highly credible authors being cast into darkness for telling the truth while the establishment provides lavish rewards to those who endorse the propaganda line. Unz concludes that “A climate of serious intellectual repression greatly complicates our ability to uncover the events of the past. Under normal circumstances, competing claims can be weighed in the give-and-take of public or scholarly debate, but this obviously becomes impossible if the subjects being discussed are forbidden ones.”
The victors control the explanations and bury their own guilt and war crimes behind a humanitarian smokescreen of “saving democracy.” It is the function of historians to penetrate the smokescreen and to dig up the buried facts.
One of the icons of the Anglo-American world is Winston Churchill. Unz summarizes some of the information historians have uncovered about Churchill:
“Until recently, my familiarity with Churchill had been rather cursory, and Irving’s revelations were absolutely eye-opening. Perhaps the most striking single discovery was the remarkable venality and corruption of the man, with Churchill being a huge spendthrift who lived lavishly and often far beyond his financial means, employing an army of dozens of personal servants at his large country estate despite frequently lacking any regular and assured sources of income to maintain them. This predicament naturally put him at the mercy of those individuals willing to support his sumptuous lifestyle in exchange for determining his political activities. And somewhat similar pecuniary means were used to secure the backing of a network of other political figures from across all the British parties, who became Churchill’s close political allies.
“To put things in plain language, during the years leading up to the Second World War, both Churchill and numerous other fellow British MPs were regularly receiving sizable financial stipends—cash bribes—from Jewish and Czech sources in exchange for promoting a policy of extreme hostility toward the German government and actually advocating war. The sums involved were quite considerable, with the Czech government alone probably making payments that amounted to tens of millions of dollars in present-day money to British elected officials, publishers, and journalists working to overturn the official peace policy of their existing government. A particularly notable instance occurred in early 1938 when Churchill suddenly lost all his accumulated wealth in a foolish gamble on the American stock-market, and was soon forced to put his beloved country estate up for sale to avoid personal bankruptcy, only to quickly be bailed out by a foreign Jewish millionaire intent upon promoting a war against Germany. Indeed, the early stages of Churchill’s involvement in this sordid behavior are recounted in an Irving chapter aptly entitled ‘The Hired Help.’
“Ironically enough, German Intelligence learned of this massive bribery of British parliamentarians, and passed the information along to Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who was horrified to discover the corrupt motives of his fierce political opponents, but apparently remained too much of a gentlemen to have them arrested and prosecuted. I’m no expert in the British laws of that era, but for elected officials to do the bidding of foreigners on matters of war and peace in exchange for huge secret payments seems almost a textbook example of treason to me, and I think that Churchill’s timely execution would surely have saved tens of millions of lives.
“My impression is that individuals of low personal character are those most likely to sell out the interests of their own country in exchange for large sums of foreign money, and as such usually constitute the natural targets of nefarious plotters and foreign spies. Churchill certainly seems to fall into this category, with rumors of massive personal corruption swirling around him from early in his political career. Later, he supplemented his income by engaging in widespread art-forgery, a fact that Roosevelt later discovered and probably used as a point of personal leverage against him. Also quite serious was Churchill’s constant state of drunkenness, with his inebriation being so widespread as to constitute clinical alcoholism. Indeed, Irving notes that in his private conversations FDR routinely referred to Churchill as ‘a drunken bum.’
“During the late 1930s, Churchill and his clique of similarly bought-and-paid-for political allies had endlessly attacked and denounced Chamberlain’s government for its peace policy, and he regularly made the wildest sort of unsubstantiated accusations, claiming the Germans were undertaking a huge military build-up aimed against Britain. These roiling charges were often widely echoed by a media heavily influenced by Jewish interests and did much to poison the state of German-British relations. Eventually, these accumulated pressures forced Chamberlain into the extremely unwise act of providing an unconditional guarantee of military backing to Poland’s irresponsible dictatorship. As a result, the Poles then rather arrogantly refused any border negotiations with Germany, thereby lighting the fuse which eventually led to the German invasion six months later and the subsequent British declaration of war. The British media had widely promoted Churchill as the leading pro-war political figure, and once Chamberlain was forced to create a wartime government of national unity, his leading critic was brought into it and given the naval affairs portfolio.
“Following his lightening six-week defeat of Poland, Hitler unsuccessfully sought to make peace with the Allies, and the war went into abeyance. Then in early 1940, Churchill persuaded his government to try strategically outflanking the Germans by preparing a large sea-borne invasion of neutral Norway; but Hitler discovered the plan and preempted the attack, with Churchill’s severe operational mistakes leading to a surprising defeat for the vastly superior British forces. During World War I, Churchill’s Gallipoli disaster had forced his resignation from the British Cabinet, but this time the friendly media helped ensure that all the blame for the somewhat similar debacle at Narvik was foisted upon Chamberlain, so it was the latter who was forced to resign, with Churchill then replacing him as prime minister. British naval officers were appalled that the primary architect of their humiliation had become its leading political beneficiary, but reality is what the media reports, and the British public never discovered this great irony.
“This incident was merely the first of the long series of Churchill’s major military failures and outright betrayals that are persuasively recounted by Irving, nearly all of which were subsequently airbrushed out of our hagiographic histories of the conflict. We should recognize that wartime leaders who spend much of their time in a state of drunken stupor are far less likely to make optimal decisions, especially if they are as extremely prone to military micro-management as was the case with Churchill.
“In the spring of 1940, the Germans launched their sudden armored thrust into France via Belgium, and as the attack began to succeed, Churchill ordered the commanding British general to immediately flee with his forces to the coast and to do so without informing his French or Belgium counterparts of the huge gap he was thereby opening in the Allied front-lines, thus ensuring the encirclement and destruction of their armies. Following France’s resulting defeat and occupation, the British prime minister then ordered a sudden, surprise attack on the disarmed French fleet, completely destroying it and killing some 2,000 of his erstwhile allies; the immediate cause was his mistranslation of a single French word, but this ‘Pearl Harbor-type’ incident continued to rankle French leaders for decades.
“Hitler had always wanted friendly relations with Britain and certainly had sought to avoid the war that had been forced upon him. With France now defeated and British forces driven from the Continent, he therefore offered very magnanimous peace terms and a new German alliance to Britain. The British government had been pressured into entering the war for no logical reason and against its own national interests, so Chamberlain and half the Cabinet naturally supported commencing peace negotiations, and the German proposal probably would have received overwhelming approval both from the British public and political elites if they had ever been informed of its terms.
“But despite some occasional wavering, Churchill remained absolutely adamant that the war must continue, and Irving plausibly argues that his motive was an intensely personal one. Across his long career, Churchill had had a remarkable record of repeated failure, and for him to have finally achieved his lifelong ambition of becoming prime minister only to lose a major war just weeks after reaching Number 10 Downing Street would have ensured that his permanent place in history was an extremely humiliating one. On the other hand, if he managed to continue the war, perhaps the situation might somehow later improve, especially if the Americans could be persuaded to eventually enter the conflict on the British side.
“Since ending the war with Germany was in his nation’s interest but not his own, Churchill undertook ruthless means to prevent peace sentiments from growing so strong that they overwhelmed his opposition. Along with most other major countries, Britain and Germany had signed international conventions prohibiting the aerial bombardment of civilian urban targets, and although the British leader had very much hoped the Germans would attack his cities, Hitler scrupulously followed these provisions. In desperation, Churchill therefore ordered a series of large-scale bombing raids against the German capital of Berlin, doing considerable damage, and after numerous severe warnings, Hitler finally began to retaliate with similar attacks against British cities. The population saw the heavy destruction inflicted by these German bombing raids and was never informed of the British attacks that had preceded and provoked them, so public sentiment greatly hardened against making peace with the seemingly diabolical German adversary.
“In his memoirs published a half-century later, Prof. Revilo P. Oliver, who had held a senior wartime role in American Military Intelligence, described this sequence of events in very bitter terms:
Great Britain, in violation of all the ethics of civilized warfare that had theretofore been respected by our race, and in treacherous violation of solemnly assumed diplomatic covenants about “open cities”, had secretly carried out intensive bombing of such open cities in Germany for the express purpose of killing enough unarmed and defenceless men and women to force the German government reluctantly to retaliate and bomb British cities and thus kill enough helpless British men, women, and children to generate among Englishmen enthusiasm for the insane war to which their government had committed them.
It is impossible to imagine a governmental act more vile and more depraved than contriving death and suffering for its own people — for the very citizens whom it was exhorting to “loyalty” — and I suspect that an act of such infamous and savage treason would have nauseated even Genghis Khan or Hulagu or Tamerlane, Oriental barbarians universally reprobated for their insane blood-lust. History, so far as I recall, does not record that they ever butchered their own women and children to facilitate lying propaganda….In 1944 members of British Military Intelligence took it for granted that after the war Marshal Sir Arthur Harris would be hanged or shot for high treason against the British people…
“Churchill’s ruthless violation of the laws of war regarding urban aerial bombardment directly led to the destruction of many of Europe’s finest and most ancient cities. But perhaps influenced by his chronic drunkenness, he later sought to carry out even more horrifying war crimes and was only prevented from doing so by the dogged opposition of all his military and political subordinates.
“Along with the laws prohibiting the bombing of cities, all nations had similarly agreed to ban the first use of poison gas, while stockpiling quantities for necessary retaliation. Since Germany was the world-leader in chemistry, the Nazis had produced the most lethal forms of new nerve gases, such as Tabun and Sarin, whose use might have easily resulted in major military victories on both the Eastern and Western fronts, but Hitler had scrupulously obeyed the international protocols that his nation had signed. However, late in the war during 1944 the relentless Allied bombardment of German cities led to the devastating retaliatory attacks of the V-1 flying bombs against London, and an outraged Churchill became adamant that German cities should be attacked with poison gas in counter-retaliation. If Churchill had gotten his way, many millions of British might soon have perished from German nerve gas counter-strikes. Around the same time, Churchill was also blocked in his proposal to bombard Germany with hundreds of thousands of deadly anthrax bombs, an operation that might have rendered much of Central and Western Europe uninhabitable for generations.”
Equally unsettling facts have emerged from their burial yards about Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower, but these revelations will await later installments of Unz’s long report on WW II lies.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
You call for war, you (and your offspring) need to be the first one on the front line. That should be the requirement.
Too bad PCR didn’t include the generous terms Hitler offered Britain.
Everything you learned in school was wrong or an outright lie.
Amazing who was playing who! Sounds like FDR made Hitler seem like a nice uncle with chocolates who loved kids and dogs.
I like PKR. He’s one of the few that have been in gov’t that appear to have a conscience and understand what the word ‘ moral’ means. However, rehashing what happened before I was born isn’t worth a read, at least for me.
Don’t we all know that the current gov’t is full of sociopaths?
Don’t we all know that in decades past it was also full of mostly scumbags?
“If you don’t know history, then you don’t know anything. You are a leaf that doesn’t know it is part of a tree. ”
― Michael Crichton
“However, rehashing what happened before I was born isn’t worth a read, at least for me.”
You might consider editing that line out before the criticisms begin. That’s not a position that will go over well on this site.
These things are obvious (oblivious?) to him. My little granddaughter then should learn nothing about 9/11 and how it has shaped (distorted) our world. It happened before she was born doncha know. And certainly none of the human history recorded thousands of years ago in the Bible is worth consideration… ?
The Christian bible was assembled by the religious and political mafia of the day via the Council of Nicaea in 325. Men determined which ‘books’ made it into the bible and which didn’t. The ‘word of god’ idea is really the construct of man.
The Flavians authored much of the bible with the help of Josephus who was made Flavius Josephus by edict.
The bible is a novel, possibly taking poetic license with actual events. To rely on it as an accurate or factual document is a mistake.
If you can refute anything I stated, please do.
But wisdom is justified of her children.
Are you speaking in tongues? I have absolutely no idea what your comment means. Please elaborate.
SOA.
Exactly.
I have been telling anyone who would listen the holocaust never happened. That our world war 11 so called leaders were as vile as vile could be . They were all treasonous to their countries. All we ever learned in school was LIES.
BB.
You’ve been absent for awhile. Me and Tampa thought maybe you were kidnapped by a lot lizard.
Not this one… not yet.
I have two living relatives that served in WW2.
Educate yourself, it’s obvious that someone else failed you.
I got it.
It means that denial of the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin and that the wise of this world can give birth to(justify) anything.
Careful Flea… that unforgivable sin was the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit; a sin Saul (soon to be Paul) committed with the rest of unbelieving Israel in Acts 7 when Stephen was stoned. There was no entering into Gods earthly Kingdom for whomever was guilty, as Christ said.
Shortly thereafter God revealed something to Paul which was kept secret since the world began. The body of Christ was to be formed; Saul/Paul being the first member. There is now no sin that cannot be forgiven. Any man, anywhere, anytime, any sin… a free gift just sitting there for the taking.
Colossians 2:13-14 KJB… “And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;”
All means all. Please read 2 Cor 5, see what is said. Have a small book for ya if you’d like to read it. It’s titled “start rightly dividing” written by Justin Johnson. Happy to send you a copy if you get me your address.
Good evening!
Gracie.
Refusal to believe is denying the Holy Spirit. When God’s spirit moves in us to convict and convince us and we refuse it we are condemning ourselves. We can’t be forgiven if we refuse to ask and believe. Spare me your books.
Good evening.
Your missing a beautiful fine point I’m trying to make. I agree wholeheartedly with what you just said about denying conviction. If we deny that we are sinners in need of a Savior… we are damned. But the gift of salvation is on the table for one and all to take no matter what, yes? How is that possible if there is currently a certain sin that cannot be forgiven? A sin Christ’s blood cannot atone for?
You write… “We can’t be forgiven if we refuse to ask and believe.” I get where you’re coming from.
Paul writes that we are forgiven unless we fail to accept the fact that we need forgiveness. If we fail to accept that which is already accomplished.
I’m not striving with you here. I rather have come to respect you quite a bit. Just offering some insight into what, in my opinion, is the most incredible topic under the sun. Information that would greatly expand your understanding in the form of a wonderful little book; one of the best I’ve ever read. If you don’t want it, well that’s fine too. I’ll save myself the ten bucks plus postage for someone else.
2 Corinthians 5:17-21 KJB… “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to BE sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”
In the bold text above, is there room for an unforgivable sin as per…
Matthew 12:31-32 KJB… “Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”
There are some differences in these verses are there not? Paul spoke against the Holy Ghost manifest in Stephen. How then did God not only forgive him, but turn him into the apostle to the gentiles? These are the things that cause many to discount the Bible as a collection of mythical stories rather than seeing it as the remarkably interconnected work of God that it is.
Are you saved, Flea? I get the feeling you are. I’d rather not “spare” you anything but offer anything I can in the spirit of:
1 Timothy 2:3-4 KJB… “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”
Cheers, grace and peace…
Gracie.
I wasn’t accusing him of blasphemy, although Websters definition 1. a. &2. would come close to what I was saying to an Atheist.
I was implying that he is too smart for his own good.
Behold, I stand at the door and knock.
My Atheism was born of guilt, not reason and the misery I brought on myself trying to avoid my conscience and God’s quiet but firm calling drove me mad, literally. He’s just getting started on that road. Was just putting a few coals on the head.
I was simply speaking with you Flea. He’s too smart for me. Good on ya with the coals though. He sure could use a few.
“…rehashing what happened before I was born isn’t worth a read…”
Well, you’ve obviously taken a little interest in the early history of Christianity. That’s a good thing.
My interest is in Plasma Physics which naturally leads to Cosmology which leads to Astronomy.
=====================
Just a cursory glance at modern religious festivals reveals many underlying similarities that clearly have their origin in astronomical events.
For example, Horus of Egypt was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave with the birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men. Mithra, Sungod of Persia, was born of a virgin on December 25th, and was considered a great travelling teacher and master. Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki (The Divine One), his father was a carpenter, his birth attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh. Prometheus of Greece descended from heaven as God incarnate, to save mankind. Prometheus was crucified, suffered, and rose from the dead. The list goes on.
It should be noted that The Sun ‘dies’ for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, and is ‘born again’ or ‘resurrected’ on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north. In some areas, the calendar originally began in the constellation of Virgo, and the sun would therefore be ‘born of a Virgin’. The sun is the ‘Light of the World’, and its rising in the morning is the ‘Saviour of mankind’. The sun’s ‘followers’ or ‘disciples’ appear to be the 12 months or the 12 signs of the zodiac (constellations), through which the sun must pass.
It is difficult to ignore the role of the heavens in mythology and its close relative, religious symbology.
====================
That led to researching many ancient religions and gods. The fact I hate the Catholic Church also contributed to my zeal.
Total bullshit. Now you bullshit too.
Jesus Wasn’t a Pagan God: Debunking Zeitgeist and Religulous
In another part of this page, I provided links to 3 videos. Please review them and let me know of your opinion if you can keep the discussion civil.
The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, And Hitchens
Vos Day
http://www.milobookclub.com/mart/TIA_free.pdf
You funny. I can’t refute a thing you choose to believe.
“Clergymen are the ticket scalpers outside the gates of heaven. Religion has been a curse to mankind.”
H. L. Mencken
“Religion has been a curse to mankind.”
If he only knew how true that statement really was… I ain’t no clergyman. I’m a student. Pay no mind, you’ll only wind up thinking and that can bruise the ego.
You sound like a victim, you must be a democRAT.
Not that I disagree with this particular post,because it is in fact true. But it must be pointed out, that you have rather selectively chosen to rehash some part of history, that was before your time. Perhaps you might reconsider your original statement, in this light.
There is history and then there is Archaeology. History is for the recent past almost contemporaneous with our time and claims to be an accurate record of events. It’s supposedly recorded from living memory and archival documents,
Archaeology is to a large extent story telling because everything requires interpretation. The Archaeologists gets to spin the yarn. No one with more than a room temperature IQ believes the details, but the gross discoveries can be interpreted by anyone.
See the difference?
All the worlds strife and problems are rooted in the system of ALL organized religions The people who at the top crave control, money and power. The Jews practice Kabalic magic, the Vatican has black mass ceremonies and so it goes. The average follower is completely willing to turn their life over and or ignorant of history.
I couldn’t agree more.
“Throne and alter were twins–two vultures from the same egg.
To attack the king was treason; to dispute the priest, blasphemy.
The sword and cross were allies.
Together they attacked the rights of men; they defended each other.
The king owned the bodies of men, the priests the souls.
One lived on taxes collected by force, the other on alms collected by fear.
Both robbers, both beggars.
The king made laws, the priest made creeds.
With bowed backs the people carried the burdens of one, with open-mouthed wonder received the dogmas of the other.
The king said rags and hovels for you, robes and palaces for me.
The priest said God made you ignorant and immoral; He made me holy and wise; you are the sheep, I am the shepherd; your fleeces belong to me.
You must not reason, you must not contradict, you must believe.”
Robert G. Ingersoll
Your Ignorance is Obvious.
As a believer, can you handle this:
https://youtu.be/k-P0bm3SeQs
https://youtu.be/SNtF1-Y-JJM
Perhaps we can all learn our own alphabet, speech, reading abilities, and thought processes from scratch at birth?
No need to learn lessons from the past.
The farther you look back in history, the further you can see the future.
The effects of the holohoax are still very much with us today.
As I have said several times- why is the holohoax never forgotten and the Holodomor never remembered? Ask a Jew……
History is written by the victor. Therefore it is a lie as it’s just half the truth. We are supposed to learn from history but we apparently never do, do we?
I posit that studying history is a waste of time as it relates to the present because the average person can’t do a damned thing about policy because the current pack of scumbags run the show.
Forget history. Concentrate on the here and now.
I get your point about the here and now.
Still, I for one want to feel connected to my ancestors, to understand my roots. And for this purpose I want the retelling of what they experienced to be as truthful and honest as possible, not necessarily factually detailed with perfect accuracy and objectivity, which is impossible anyway, but, to the extent possible, rendered with a good-faith account of how they lived, what they loved and hated, their truimphs and defeats, joys and sorrows, the heroes and scoundrels…all of it, the good and the not so good.
There will be no clemency for ((those)) who have suppressed, sullied, or outright falsified American and European history.
Get a grip on yourself.
History is propaganda, from the Holocaust to Pearl Harbor, from the Maine to the Gulf of Tonkin. There isn’t a single thing in the history books that’s accurate enough to warrant study; its all a pack of lies.
Just look at the history we all lived thru – 9/11. Tell me that the history books record the truth with a straight face. I dare you.
History or propaganda? Can self-deluded shit for brains discern the difference ?
“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”
― William Paley
The Gulag Archipelago in three volumes
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
https://archive.org/details/TheGulagArchipelago-Threevolumes/page/n2
Tragedy and Hope
Carroll Quigley
https://archive.org/details/TragedyAndHope_501
Great Wars And Great Leaders: A Libertarian Rebuttal
Ralph Raico
https://archive.org/details/GreatWarsAndGreatLeadersALibertarianRebuttal2
Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich
Guido Giacomo Preparata
https://archive.org/details/ConjuringHitler
Pull down any historic statues lately?
You sound more foolish with each post.
More bullshit from a self-deluded bullshitter . History can be recorded by losers too . e.g.
Hitler: Born At Versailles
https://archive.org/details/BornAtVersailles
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers.
Socrates
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Mark Twain
You confuse slander with truth. Your self inflected ignorance masquerades as intellect but tis’ a lie only you yourself believes.
When the personal attacks start, the person doing them is scrambling desperately.
We do well to know thy enemy. Beyond that the only control we have is over ourselves in the moment of now.
SAO.
No history, no kids and no God.
What an empty place.
Quote:
“Idealism increases in direct proportion to one’s distance from the problem”.
John Galworthy
There are 2 murderous scoundrels that propaganda and deceit have been poured down on us to exalt as heros-Churchill and Lincoln. Until the truth gets redeemed with these two sick perverts neither will this nation.
“History is but a fable agreed upon”
Voltaire
“What is history, but a fable agreed upon?” Napoleon
Voltaire was a pompous hateful fool.
And when he died his house was turned into a storage place for bibles and Christian tracts.
Who owned the “British” government?
The mystery of history.
Written to appease the victors regardless of methodology.
History isn’t just the story of bad people doing bad things. It’s quite as much a story of people trying to do good things. But somehow, something goes wrong.
C. S. Lewis
He not only imprisoned Hess but he kept it hidden from Chamberlain.
I have always been a student of history, yet only in recent years am I learning what has been suppressed. The fact that we are deceived by TPTB is damning evidence that tells which account is accurate. Many will shine on as if they did not read or hear the truth. It scares them to think that their life( in most cases, a long life) has been a lie. Maybe the ‘Overton Window’ is shifting quicker these days; we can only hope.
Irving, Oliver, Bacque are all fantastic. I would add Bento Bradbery’s “Myth of German Villainy”, Day’s “Onward Christian Soldiers” and Ramsay’s “The Nameless War” in there too. The truth is out there.
Find some salty WWII historical memes at twitter @TruthWar1
TC.
Ramsey’s was one of my favorite short stories because I could recommend it to people without bogging them down.
Hellstorm , by Thomas Goodrich
Simple math. Try burning 6m jews in the number of ovens. Calculate the time and number of trees to use for firewood. It does not add up. Mathematicians will tell you the same. Historical pics do not show massive tree cutting for firewood as a simple example.
anon
Germany had a lot of coal so firewood wouldn’t be needed. It’s still a lot of bodies no matter what method used. They can’t even coordinate their story amongst each other. Did they gas them or burn them.
Cremation is actually difficult enough for one body, research this, but to apply it to masses of people starts to border on the ridiculous.
Ever heard of Zyclon B?
It’s called Hydrogen Cyanide.
No need for any tree cutting.
Was the supposed terms of the peace offered in 1940 in written authoritative form?
Is there an ‘official’ copy? Or was it all in recollections of supposed conversations with Hess (subject to being misinterpreted, either by Hess, his captors, or subsequent historians).
I would like to read the original primary source, if it exists, rather than claims and assertions about it.
While in Germany a few years ago we were staying in Wannsee. I visited the building, now museum, where the conference was held that the final solution was supposed to have been arrived at. But there was no documentation to attest to that there . Irving did his research. Read his books.
At the point where Germany attacked Russia, the course of the war was set. The US could not allow Russia to conquer Germany and to obtain all the technology and scientists that would give them the upper hand on the US. It was imperative that the US get involved in Europe and acquire the technologies and scientists before Russia. They were able to do so to a large extent, although Russia did capture enough rocket technology to establish parity with the west.
And FDR was giving Stalin billions of dollars worth of military aid before we even got involved.