DNA tests reveal ? 's Jewish and African roots
Options
Comments
-
your feelings are hurt
please get your sadness out constructively
i know some of you blacks can get a little rowdy, invade Poland, gas chamber Jews, etc. -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »your feelings are hurt
please get your sadness out constructively
i know some of you blacks can get a little rowdy, invade Poland, gas chamber Jews, etc.
LMAO......Whatever you say man lol. -
alright, but let's be clear: there's a difference between questioning the legality of the Federal Republic of Germany and demonstrating that this term was never officially used for it. frankly, i think it's pretty clear that it was, and that you're being disingenuous to pretend otherwise. this is a little harsh, i admit, but it comes back to my point that you are refusing to acknowledge things that seem indisputable.musicology1985 wrote: »Both articles question the legitimacy of the Federal Republic and the second article disputes it, thereby challenging its legality.
you didn't really answer with that, because my point is to mention the clear difference in size between the two of them, and thus the lack of logic in presuming the much larger West could EVER join the East. i understand you think there's a conspiracy at work, but at the same time, you're stating that the size difference is irrelevant, as if it didn't exist.musicology1985 wrote: »It has everything to do with West vs. East and global governance engineered from the chess board that is Germany, not 75% & 25%; because both parts of Germany ended up adopting the system that the U.S. laid down, which was the plan from the start.
false. the question has long been "if the monarch(s) have controlled all these nations with NO breaks in their control, and everything is a scheme to their benefit, what's the purpose of the breaks YOU claim occur?"musicology1985 wrote: »It gives you everything that you need.
if it was about civilian changes, then you wouldn't have changed the times when these Reichs supposedly existed for your convenience. for example, you lump the Weimar Republic and ? Germany into one era; however, these CLEARLY have massive differences in civilian government, and only you claim they're BOTH part of the Third ? . if the break in political leaders mattered, you'd separate the two.musicology1985 wrote: »I already answered this. The systems of Governance change but the Monarchs continue their reign, albeit from behind the scenes. As long as political leaders don’t rock the the boat, they don’t get overthrown.
so since you don't, i have to assume that the only purpose in defining eras has to do with the "real leadership" of these German monarchs... but you can't describe that for me at all. so again, i point out that your eras don't make sense as written.
no, because i'm waiting to hear the reasoning for these supposed distinctions any time now.
no, it's a figure of speech. seriously, you're not really in a position to call such a statement outrageous.musicology1985 wrote: »Saying the U.S. alone was an inaccurate approach.
why do you say the US as a "global power" if the US is merely part of a secret German monarch conspiracy?musicology1985 wrote: »Both Global Powers (U.S. vs. U.S.S.R.) were flexing their muscle and both benefited from the competition.
this is flat-out dodging the issue. ? 's work was to seize USSR territory and ? Jews. "Operation Paperclip, the Marshall Plan, NATO & the European Union" do not serve as "blatant proof" of the US or the West continuing this.musicology1985 wrote: »Yes, true indeed. Operation Paperclip, the Marshall Plan, NATO & the European Union serves as blatant proof of this.
i think you're missing my point to say that ? is a ? but that the West was continuing his work. wouldn't the West be continuing the work he was a ? in? see what i'm saying?musicology1985 wrote: »I repeat:
it's random because we weren't discussing John McCloy.musicology1985 wrote: »It’s not random. It goes right to my point of U.S. control of Germany and certain actions being taken as a benefit to Zionists in the future, such as avoiding Auschwitz. John McCloy was also a disciple of the German American Rockefeller Dynasty.
this is the way treaties work: if you're Poland and i have agreed in advance to assist in your defense...musicology1985 wrote: »Yes they did want a war. If not they would not have declared one because the Nazis did not attack the UK.
the Lend-Lease Act was not a declaration of war. you know exactly who declared war on whom; again, you could ACKNOWLEDGE this and argue that it was inevitable because of the Lend-Lease Act, but instead, you simply claim otherwise. what's the purpose of that?musicology1985 wrote: »The Lend-Lease Act was an act of War.
again, i get that you don't want to debate anything, just repeat and repeat your posts, but "witness statements and the evidence the Soviets collected" would qualify as "proof." you can disagree with the claim while acknowledging the support for the position you don't agree with!musicology1985 wrote: »There is absolutely no proof that ? died in 1945.
actually, it's called you presuming that if you have a German gene in your body, you cannot exert free will.musicology1985 wrote: »The German Americans returned to their homeland and did ? their way; i.e. the Allied Occupation, Operation Paperclip & Marshall Plan way. It’s called an upgrade.
wow, it would just ? you to acknowledge anything i have said, wouldn't it?musicology1985 wrote: »It says nothing of the sort about the process being done forcefully or willingly, as long as it gets done. So again, ? begun tapering down from 42-45.
let's be clear: i have been asking you to "show me ANY evidence of ? scaling back his work that cannot be explained by the Allies beating the ? out of his military." if you were saying that he "pulled back" but that it wasn't voluntary, all you would have to say is "i agree with you when you say ? was FORCED to pull back." the fact that you don't implies it was voluntary on ? 's behalf.
note that you further use phrases like "instead made the decision to begin pulling back," which implies he wasn't forced to.
so are you a) agreeing that it wasn't voluntary or b) disputing this despite seeming to agree because you refuse to acknowledge anything i have posted?
and i disagree.musicology1985 wrote: »The Eastern Bloc would have been the ? Bloc, therefore, the Nazis would have expanded as they wished.
this does not change the fact that once you take back the land you lost, and then continue to take additional land, you lose the right to say you were fighting the conflict ONLY to regain land that you lost in, say, Versailles.musicology1985 wrote: »Yes it is, because the Russians will come back again. History has shown us that they are just as much an expansionist Nation as the the British, French, Spanish & U.S. Only difference is, their main focus of expansion has always been in Asia and the European Peninsula, which was absolutely the same as what the Nazis wanted. Therein lays the conflict.
or you could also not assist the USSR in any way if they're your sworn and mortal enemies.musicology1985 wrote: »Just Geopolitical Chess moves; setting your frenimies up for the later slaughter. Diplomats do it all the time.
it's still a) a religion that you can convert to and b) composed of people who lived for generations in Germany. and when you do the latter, your language and culture become, you know, Germanic...musicology1985 wrote: »Because Jews adapt everywhere that they live but they are not a Germanic people. Their roots lay in Khazaria (which is today mainly southern Russia, Ukraine & Kazakhstan,) and they are of Turko-Slavic-Mongol extraction and lineage.
"so i don't see why there's supposed to be any confirmation of her awesome royal power"musicology1985 wrote: »Of course she hasn’t vetoed it because she appoints the Prime Minister. You don’t get into that position without the Monarch.
i generally try to keep it civil; i don't think i made any remarks along the lines of "you’re the one that’s full of ? , as usual." and that, to me, is a clear indication of your hurt feelings. sorry, dude.musicology1985 wrote: »Here you go with this “hurt feelings” ? again. -
@janklow
alright, but let's be clear: there's a difference between questioning the legality of the Federal Republic of Germany and demonstrating that this term was never officially used for it.
No its not.
"if the monarch(s) have controlled all these nations with NO breaks in their control, and everything is a scheme to their benefit, what's the purpose of the breaks YOU claim occur?"
Systems of Governance. I already answered this.
you lump the Weimar Republic and ? Germany into one era;
Power passed directly from Paul von Hindenburg's hands to Hitlers along with the blessing and support of Oskar von Hindenburg
no, it's a figure of speech. seriously, you're not really in a position to call such a statement outrageous.
And you are not in a position to calla anyone outrageous. I simply stated that the U.S. being 300 years old was inaccurate.
why do you say the US as a "global power" if the US is merely part of a secret German monarch conspiracy?
The U.S. is a global power, but if caught out of line, will be checked by the British, just like the Nazis.
this is flat-out dodging the issue.
No it's not. ? 's work is ? work. ? work continued under the U.S. until 1991.
wouldn't the West be continuing the work he was a ? in? see what i'm saying?
They did continue that work, albeit with the some changes.
"his Scientists, Mathematicians, Intelligence, Doctors & Military personnel was absorbed into the U.S., while the U.S. focused on cultivating these talents and rebuilding Germany with the help of the same industrialists who supplied the Nazis."
it's random because we weren't discussing John McCloy.
McCloy was a part of the Allied Occupation, Marshall Plan & U.S. control of Germany, so he's a major figure in this discussion.
this is the way treaties work: if you're Poland and i have agreed in advance to assist in your defense...
The Nazis were taking back previously held lands and they had an interests in Polish and greater Slavic resources. This was not an act of aggression against the West, and both sides have broken Treaties in the past and present. And again, the U.S. was already in the war.
you can disagree with the claim while acknowledging the support for the position you don't agree with!
There is no proof or evidence that ? died in 1945, and nor have you posted such.
so are you
I am stating that ? began tapering down from 1942/43 to 1945.
and i disagree.
The Nazis had already established a Bloc in the East, pushed the Russians farther East and subjugated most smaller Slavic peoples within their sphere of influence.
this does not change the fact that once you take back the land you lost, and then continue to take additional land, you lose the right to say you were fighting the conflict ONLY to regain land that you lost in, say, Versailles.
This makes sense, but the Soviet threat was real. Even the Americans found this out once they established themselves in Germany. They would rather align themselves with Nazis than the Soviets.
it's still a) a religion that you can convert to and b) composed of people who lived for generations in Germany. and when you do the latter, your language and culture become, you know, Germanic...
The Nazis didn't care about b at all.
"so i don't see why there's supposed to be any confirmation of her awesome royal power"
The Queens awesome power is clear for everyone to see.
i generally try to keep it civil; i don't think i made any remarks along the lines of "you’re the one that’s full of ? , as usual." and that, to me, is a clear indication of your hurt feelings. sorry, dude.
You implied that I was speaking ? and I replied accordingly. -
actually, yes, it's quite different. in fact, one of the links YOU posted acknowledges the use of the term; it just takes issue with the legitimacy of said term. so, again, there's a difference between questioning the legality of the Federal Republic of Germany and demonstrating that this term was never officially used for it. why does it bother you to acknowledge anything you have not personally claimed?musicology1985 wrote: »No its not.
well, actually, you didn't answer this, because...musicology1985 wrote: »Systems of Governance. I already answered this.
which is still a change in the system of governance,a distinction EVERYONE makes by distinguishing between the Weimar Republic and ? Germany. if they were the same, there would be no difference. so the fact that you lump them together means your "system of governance" claim is not actually being explained.musicology1985 wrote: »Power passed directly from Paul von Hindenburg's hands to Hitlers along with the blessing and support of Oskar von Hindenburg
given that you are making it a point to refuse to acknowledge arguments you seem to agree with, yes, i am in a position to call you ridiculous. what's more, i have said "yes, of course it's not literally 300 years old," while you have been literally afraid to acknowledge anything i have stated, no matter how undisputed.musicology1985 wrote: »And you are not in a position to calla anyone outrageous. I simply stated that the U.S. being 300 years old was inaccurate.
the Nazis were, of course, not "checked by the British," given the fact that they were not stopped militarily until the USSR and US entered the war. and then, of course, you claim the US and the UK are run by the same people... which would mean that the US isn't a global power, just part of something else.musicology1985 wrote: »The U.S. is a global power, but if caught out of line, will be checked by the British, just like the Nazis
no, it's a flat-out dodge. you said ? 's work, not ? work, and ? 's work was to seize USSR territory and ? Jews. this was not continuing in 1991. you could acknowledge THAT and make a distinction between "? 's work" and "work done by any ? " ... but of course you will not. why would you?musicology1985 wrote: »No it's not. ? 's work is ? work. ? work continued under the U.S. until 1991.
completely not the point. if the West was carrying out ? 's work, he wouldn't be their ? , they'd be doing his bidding. if ? was a ? of the West, the West wouldn't be carrying out ? 's work, it would be their own work.musicology1985 wrote: »They did continue that work, albeit with the some changes.
he's not the only figure to come up in the occupation or the Marshall Plan, but he's essentially the only "major figure" you've deigned to toss into the mix.musicology1985 wrote: »McCloy was a part of the Allied Occupation, Marshall Plan & U.S. control of Germany, so he's a major figure in this discussion.
several points:musicology1985 wrote: »The Nazis were taking back previously held lands and they had an interests in Polish and greater Slavic resources. This was not an act of aggression against the West, and both sides have broken Treaties in the past and present. And again, the U.S. was already in the war.
01. the Nazis were not taking back "previously held lands" when you move on to "interests in Polish and Slavic resources." i don't know why you're trying to cut them slack and make them seem like a righteously aggrieved party when they were slicing up Poland.
02. it's an act that requires the UK and France to come to the defense of Poland; whether or not treaties have ever been broken is, frankly, irrelevant. they were designed to bring Poland aid and they were honored.
03. no, the US was not "already in the war." and i know what you're going to say, something about the Lend-Lease Act. however, please remember that Poland was attacked on September 1, 1939 ... and the Lend-Lease Act was signed in March of 1941. and, of course, the US wasn't at war with Germany until December 1941.
so feel free to acknowledge that no, the US was NOT "already in the war."
actually, i have: i've stated that Soviet authorities recovered the remains of ? (and others), which was noted when KGB/FSB files were examined; witnesses (Gunsche, Misch) have testified to his death... this is evidence. your lack of agreement with it does not make it NOT evidence.musicology1985 wrote: »There is no proof or evidence that ? died in 1945, and nor have you posted such.
why don't you just admit that you can't man up and acknowledge anything i have posted?musicology1985 wrote: »I am stating that ? began tapering down from 1942/43 to 1945.
i have said, over and over, "show me ANY evidence of ? scaling back his work that cannot be explained by the Allies beating the ? out of his military." you dodged this and dodged this and then tried to play it off as your "tapering down" meant "oh, in the face of the Allies he was forced to." if you thought he was forced to, you could easily have stated it was due to the Allies beating down his military. but you want to refuse to acknowledge what i am saying while pretending that your position has been correct all along.
also, some of ? 's later moves where he insisted on offensives that a) ultimately didn't work (Battle of the Bulge; Wenck's last ditch effort) or b) ultimately could not have occurred (Steiner's offensive) should put paid to the notion that any aspect of this was voluntary on his behalf. but you clearly do not want to engage in a real discussion anymore.
maybe you need to re-read and see what i am disagreeing with.musicology1985 wrote: »The Nazis had already established a Bloc in the East, pushed the Russians farther East and subjugated most smaller Slavic peoples within their sphere of influence.
it still means that you lose the right to claim it's about revenging the wrongs of Versailles whenever you go BEYOND that to attack a threat or take farmland or whatever.musicology1985 wrote: »This makes sense, but the Soviet threat was real. Even the Americans found this out once they established themselves in Germany. They would rather align themselves with Nazis than the Soviets.
so it's NOT about linguistic and cultural similarity, then?musicology1985 wrote: »The Nazis didn't care about b at all.
yes, it's often on display as she does... nothing at all. what an awesome display of power!musicology1985 wrote: »The Queens awesome power is clear for everyone to see.
or i implied you were referencing ? stories, because as i stated, i think you're repeating someone else's argument.musicology1985 wrote: »You implied that I was speaking ? and I replied accordingly. -
@janklow
actually, yes, it's quite different. in fact, one of the links YOU posted acknowledges the use of the term; it just takes issue with the legitimacy of said term.
No it's not different. The Federal Republic name has never been official due to the nature of it's founding.
which is still a change in the system of governance
It was the same ? (3rd) and everyone knows this. The Weimer Republic was the build up to the ? 's and was given the blessing of those in the Republic. No Treaties, Hostile Takeovers or Wars took place because it's all the same period.
the Nazis were, of course, not "checked by the British,"
Yes they were. The UK brought the U.S. into the War just like they did for both Iraq Wars and the Afghan War. Britain has two major Western Arms; One who Defends (Canada) and One who Conquers (U.S.)
no, it's a flat-out dodge.
No it's not dodging. ? was doing much more than killing Jews and taking land and Operation Paperclip is proof of such.
if ? was a ? of the West, the West wouldn't be carrying out ? 's work, it would be their own work.
Germany and the U.S. are pawns of the U.K., just look at the top 4 troop levels in Afghanistan right now:
NATO (119,819)
* United States – 78,430
* United Kingdom – 9,500
* Germany – 4,590
They move as one unit with the Military capabilities primarily maintained by NATO & the U.S. Keep in mind that the U.K. has been in Central Asia for business reasons since the early 18th century.
he's not the only figure to come up in the occupation or the Marshall Plan,
There is nothing wrong with putting McCloy into the discussion because he's a part of it. If you want to hear about someone else, you bring them up; As McCloy was, again, a disciple of the German American Rockefeller Dynasty and a major U.S. Policy maker, Allied re-organizer and re-builder of Germany as well as the Nazis.
several points:
01. the Nazis were not taking back "previously held lands" when you move on to "interests in Polish and Slavic resources."
"The Nazis were taking back previously held lands and they had an interests in Polish and greater Slavic resources. This was not an act of aggression against the West, and both sides have broken Treaties in the past and present. And again, the U.S. was already in the war."
03. no, the US was not "already in the war."
Yes they were, the Dutch American Roosevelt was always pro Britain, he just could not do anything out in the open because the American public was strongly "pro-isolationist."
and the Lend-Lease Act was signed in March of 1941.
Doesn't matter, the U.S. was already engaged with the Destroyers for Bases Agreement OF September 1940.
actually, i have: i've stated that Soviet authorities recovered the remains of ? (and others), which was noted when KGB/FSB files were examined; witnesses (Gunsche, Misch)
This is not evidence, this is hearsay.
but you clearly do not want to engage in a real discussion anymore.
? began Tapering down from 42/43-45.
it still means that you lose the right to claim it's about revenging the wrongs of Versailles
It was revenging the wrongs because without that Treaty being the way that it was WW2 would have never been fought, this is especially true for the common German. Now, I admit that ? took it too far but the Allies did not destroy ? , they just co-opted it with a tailoring to greater Western needs.
Case in point, they used Hitlers resources to eventually break up the Eastern Bloc and include many former members into the Union. In other words, they did in 50+ years what he did in 1 or 2. ? 's problem was that he wanted everything "right now" and he had no patience, so they put those in place that did.
so it's NOT about linguistic and cultural similarity, then?
Groups considered to be Germanic: Germans, Austrians, German Swiss, Dutch, Flemish Belgian, Luxembourgian, Alsatian French, Liechtensteiner & English.
Linguistic and Culturally similar people with a common Nordic origin: Norwegian, Swedish, Norman French (including the people residing in the Crown dependencies of Jersey & Guernsey) as well as the Danish.
Linguistic and Culturally similar people: Welsh, Cornish, Manx, Irish & Scottish (all of the British Isles,) and to a lessor extent, the General French and Walloon Belgians, due to their Germanic Frankish founding.
Ashkenazi Jews have never been included in this group by the Nazis because they are of Turko-Slavic-Mongol origin. Other Jews are not exempt either. Furthermore, it was not only Jews and Slavs that suffered but many Romani, Jehovah's Witnesses, Homosexuals, & people with disabilities.
what an awesome display of power!
She appoints the top Political Leaders but the Monarchy and Peerage are the real rulers, as such, most top Politicians are in the Peerage or Heraldry and the current Prime Minister is a testament to this.
or i implied you were referencing
I'm referencing what I know based upon my research of History & Western Foreign Policy. -
again, there is a difference between arguing that the Federal Republic of Germany was not legitimate for whatever reason and your contention that "Federal was the system of Government and not the formal name." it was absolutely the formal name used for the government; whether or not you think that's legit doesn't change that (as links YOU provide note, the name was used)musicology1985 wrote: »No it's not different. The Federal Republic name has never been official due to the nature of it's founding.
no, it was not. there is a distinct difference between the government of the Weimar Republic and ? Germany, which is why everyone except you states that the Third ? started in 1933. but because you have hitched your argument to this "system of governance" concept, you're now unable to admit that the Weimar Republic and ? Germany are, clearly, two different systems of governance.musicology1985 wrote: »It was the same ? (3rd) and everyone knows this.
you talk about Hindenburg's transfer of power. how'd the transfer of power work under ? Germany, if it was the same system?
the Nazis were checked by the US and the USSR. the UK didn't bring the USSR into the war, and you haven't argued as much yet, so even if you presume they brought the US into the war, they did not "check the Nazis."musicology1985 wrote: »Yes they were. The UK brought the U.S. into the War-
? 's espoused goals clearly included killing Jews and seizing USSR territory. so why are you pretending that his work was being continued when it included that?musicology1985 wrote: »No it's not dodging. ? was doing much more than killing Jews and taking land and Operation Paperclip is proof of such.
so it's a ? , based around Germany... except that Germany and the US are now pawns of the UK... so why exactly is it a ? again?musicology1985 wrote: »Germany and the U.S. are pawns of the U.K.-
i don't know why you repeat this. if your interest is in taking land for resources, it's not about going to war to right the wrongs of your stolen land. did they NOT have the goals to take these resources before they engaged in the war?musicology1985 wrote: »"The Nazis were taking back previously held lands and they had an interests in Polish and greater Slavic resources.
being pro-Britain does not mean you were "in the war." Roosevelt was also very pro-China, but it didn't mean we were in that war either.musicology1985 wrote: »Yes they were, the Dutch American Roosevelt was always pro Britain, he just could not do anything out in the open because the American public was strongly "pro-isolationist."
it matters for two reasons:musicology1985 wrote: »Doesn't matter, the U.S. was already engaged with the Destroyers for Bases Agreement OF September 1940.
01. your argument has been, until this post, that the Lend-Lease Act was an act of war that entered the US into the war. why does that change now?
02. let me bold the part you skipped: no, the US was not "already in the war." and i know what you're going to say, something about the Lend-Lease Act. however, please remember that Poland was attacked on September 1, 1939 ... and the Lend-Lease Act was signed in March of 1941. and, of course, the US wasn't at war with Germany until December 1941.
so you're telling me that the US was at war in 1939 because they signed an agreement in 1940? what is your problem with just admitting you're wrong about the time line here?
no... a witness statement is evidence. the reports from the former Soviet Union are evidence. you do not agree with them, but that does not mean they are not evidence.musicology1985 wrote: »This is not evidence, this is hearsay.
how about this: what's the evidence that ? didn't die in Berlin in 1945?
what's funny is that you DEMAND i support the "? 's dead" claim right before this... and then, when i ask you to "show me ANY evidence of ? scaling back his work that cannot be explained by the Allies beating the ? out of his military," you childishly repeat your tapering down statement over and over. seriously, you have no right to demand anyone support a statement when you refuse to do it constantly.musicology1985 wrote: »? began Tapering down from 42/43-45.
the fact that the Treaty of Versailles set the stage for WWII to be fought (and i agree with this point) does not mean that it's justification for whatever Germany did. if they had limited themselves to ONLY territories lost through said treaty, i'd see the point... but they didn't.musicology1985 wrote: »It was revenging the wrongs because without that Treaty being the way that it was WW2 would have never been fought, this is especially true for the common German.
i don't think they used ? 's resources to do this.musicology1985 wrote: »Case in point, they used Hitlers resources to eventually break up the Eastern Bloc and include many former members into the Union.
so it's NOT about linguistic and cultural similarity, then?
obviously Nazis had a problem with Jews. but linguistically, Jews that spoke German for generations were similar to them. and culturally (and admittedly "aside from Judaism"), Jews that lived in Germany for generations were similar to them. their issues were different, that's all i am saying.musicology1985 wrote: »Ashkenazi Jews have never been included in this group by the Nazis because they are of Turko-Slavic-Mongol origin.
and they use their power to... do nothing and watch Parliament and the Prime Minister run everything. this is my point.musicology1985 wrote: »She appoints the top Political Leaders but the Monarchy and Peerage are the real rulers, as such, most top Politicians are in the Peerage or Heraldry and the current Prime Minister is a testament to this.
i think some people have misled you.musicology1985 wrote: »I'm referencing what I know based upon my research of History & Western Foreign Policy. -
again, there is a difference
You got your version of what happened and I got mine. I don't see the point of the continual back and forth. Our worldviews are different.
The bottom line is, the results are always the same & this was the plan from the start:
UN
NATO
EU
& OF COURSE, THE TIGHT RELATIONS BETWEEN THE U.K., U.S. & GERMANY THAT EXISTS TO THIS DAY. -
at this point i'm mostly just arguing to get you to support claims you have made. i do doubt you're going to abandon your theories.musicology1985 wrote: »You got your version of what happened and I got mine. I don't see the point of the continual back and forth. Our worldviews are different.
the bottom line is that all that doesn't require a vast, secret German monarchy conspiracy.musicology1985 wrote: »The bottom line is, the results are always the same & this was the plan from the start:
UN
NATO
EU
& OF COURSE, THE TIGHT RELATIONS BETWEEN THE U.K., U.S. & GERMANY THAT EXISTS TO THIS DAY.
