Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Glenn Beck Show Hilariously Mocks Alex Jones Fawning Over Charlie Sheen - IMG INT
03-29-2011, 01:03 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-18-2012, 09:29 PM by Negentropic.)
Glenn Beck Show Hilariously Mocks Alex Jones Fawning Over Charlie Sheen - IMG INT

This is an IMAGE & MEDIA INTENSIVE thread, not intended for the meek or those in love with their own dubious notions of 'sanity.' If you do not want to wait a few minutes for the page to load or you have an older junk computer, please do not visit this thread.

Gotta admit this was pretty friggin hilarious!

[Image: Hilarious.jpg]

[Image: alex-jones-batshit-insane-o.gif]
04-03-2011, 04:06 AM,
RE: Glenn Beck Show Hilariously Mocks Alex Jones Fawning Over Charlie Sheen
I'm one of the few who likes Charlie Sheen. He's one of those people who just doesn't give a fuck about human nonsense. If he wants to rock the fuck out and snort cocaine off of a hookers ass, I say go for it. He tried to get the word out about 9/11, and I'm sure he sees the world going to hell, so why not? Not like its anyone's business, anyway. All of this attention towards Charlie Sheen's behavior, you gotta see how utterly pathetic others have to be to make anything out of it. How about paying attention to issues that matter, rather than other people that you feel are so unimportant? Why care so much?
04-03-2011, 08:04 AM,
RE: Glenn Beck Show Hilariously Mocks Alex Jones Fawning Over Charlie Sheen
(04-03-2011, 04:06 AM)Justinfinity Wrote: . All of this attention towards Charlie Sheen's behavior, you gotta see how utterly pathetic others have to be to make anything out of it.

Is it "making" anything out of it? While I respect Sheen for throwing caution to the wind, and having the balls to face the consequences, the guy did look pretty fucked up on the clip I saw of him on CNN.

While it was a hit piece no doubt, it was still a HP of chuck's own making.

I told myself when I saw it, the dude just got fired... it undoubtedly stressed out, and a little weirdness is in order, or excusable but at the same time, I truly had to wonder if the guy was loosing his marbles.

While I can/do respect Sheen for his stance, I do wonder about his sanity as of late. He seems borderline coherent. At least Rosie O'Drivel kept her head on her shoulders when she went public on 9-11.

04-04-2011, 05:11 AM, (This post was last modified: 04-09-2011, 01:37 PM by Negentropic.)
RE: Glenn Beck Show Hilariously Mocks Alex Jones Fawning Over Charlie Sheen
AJ already responded to being made fun of by Beck & his on-air crew like he so completely deserved by claiming it was X-rated & too nasty to play on the air. What bunk. The only reason he won't play it is because it makes him look like a complete butt-wipe of an idiot and borderline homosexual. He's seen Charlie's hernia you see & they've been friends 6 1/2 years. Beck is a douchebag for a hundred other reasons but not for kissing Charlie Sheen's ass the way Alex 'I've-seen-your-hernia' Jones does.

What Sheen did took very little balls considering how much money he has. He's been set for life for a long time now and he's not risking anything financially. He'll get fired and either work with his brother & his dad or independent of Hollywood with Mel Gibson (not easily done at all but possible) or just retire with a fifty to a hundred million dollar nest egg (depending on how much alimony he pays, how many porn stars he bangs at one time and how many grams of coke he sniffs). Only risk he took is that the JWO & the Arabs-that-own-Hollywood might get together & off his ass Michael-Jackson-like for no other reason than his impertinence to Chaim Levin and the rest of his tribe. They've been known to do that before. He did try to hedge his bets though like a little wus by claiming his momma was a Jew.

Let's see Willie Nelson, Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell, Joe Rogan and Ed Asner. Oh and don't forget that guy from the rock group Muse & Warren Cuccurullo from Duran Duran. Is that the best Hollywood & the Music Biz combined can muster? I guess they don't want to piss off the Arabs that sign their checks. What a bunch of cowards they all turned out to be. Besides Brian De Palma, none of them even has the guts to make an anti-war film anymore.

[Image: charlie-sheen-bree-olsen-twitter.jpg]
04-04-2011, 10:54 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-04-2011, 10:55 PM by Justinfinity.)
RE: Glenn Beck Show Hilariously Mocks Alex Jones Fawning Over Charlie Sheen
That comment was not about Charlie Sheen whatsoever. To put it other words: who cares; or, why care, at all? It is pretty obvious he isn't the most stable person on the planet... a lot of people aren't, and there are much worse. So, why the attention? Because he's a 'celebrity'? If he's dead tomorrow from a heroine overdose, the only thing I care to remember about him is his attempt to get the truth about 9/11 out. In my eyes, that's all that matters. The rest of it isn't any of my business - I just don't care what he does with his life.
04-05-2011, 08:19 AM, (This post was last modified: 04-05-2011, 08:19 AM by Infinite.)
RE: Glenn Beck Show Hilariously Mocks Alex Jones Fawning Over Charlie Sheen
Yeah Charlie Sheen is a more authentic person than Glenn Beck is, despite his shortcomings. Beck is a beta male
04-05-2011, 11:49 AM, (This post was last modified: 05-04-2011, 01:52 PM by Negentropic.)
RE: Glenn Beck Show Hilariously Mocks Alex Jones Fawning Over Charlie Sheen
AJ got a shitload of publicity out of that Charlie Sheen rant, to the point where it would have been smart to have staged it. And if you noticed, Beck never mentions Alex Jones by name, lest he get any of his listeners to actually go visit infowars & become 9/11 truthers, either of the in-denial-&-rationalizing plane-hugging variety or of the more advanced No-Planer variety that AJ strictly gatekeeps against. According to AJ though he has three million listeners a day now, much more than Glenn Beck on the radio.

AJ knows that the only way he can have celebrities on and get more listeners for his show is by not challenging them directly on 9/11 truth. He had Chuck Norris on, no 9/11 truth questions but both agreed on Libertarian ideas. And yesterday he had Sean Stone on, the son of JFK/Wallstreet/Salvador director Oliver Silverstein and he didn't ask him a single 9/11 truth question while they both rambled on and agreed about the NWO, Henry Kissinger and Bohemian Grove. I'll bet a ton of people who never listen to AJ listened for that show wondering if the son of Mr Conspiracy-Director himself is coming around and by extension his sell-out dad. Bottom line is whatever these guys privately think about 9/11 they won't declare it publicly but they can be used to draw more listeners from the mainstream to infowars & from there to Rense, Icke and WhatReallyHappened & eventually to Texe Marrs, Jim Fetzer, Christopher Bollyn, Morgan Reynolds, Kevin Barrett, Daryl Bradford Smith, Adrian Salbuchi, Fritz Springmeier, Simon Shack, Ace Baker, Killtown, Judy Wood, Rollye James, Charles Guiliani, Carolyn Yeager, Celtic Rebel, Lenon Honor, Dennis Fetcho, Michael Tsarion, Ezra Pound, Father Couglin, Douglas Reed, Archibald Ramsey, Eustace Mullins, Clayton Douglas, John Kaminski, Michael Collins Piper, Nesta Webster and the rest of the more hardcore truthers, past & present. The actress Daryl Hannah recently made her second or third appearance on Jeff Rense. She drives an alcohol-fueled car converted by David Blume.

[Image: 982BLR_Daryl_Hannah_010.jpg] Hannah & Rutger Hauer in Blade Runner

[Image: Beck.jpg] Glenn Beck High School Photo
04-29-2011, 03:06 PM,
RE: Glenn Beck Show Hilariously Mocks Alex Jones Fawning Over Charlie Sheen
Nothing Glenn Beck does is intentionally "hilarious." I'm not much of a fan of AJ, but if we're going to talk about who's a shill or who's a laughable buffoon -- I mean, FFS Beck works for NewsCorp International and his radio show is on all the Clear Channel stations. He gobbles up all that dirty corporate money and shills for Goldline, which is well known for being the worst, most screw-the-customer gold seller.

So AJ has some wacky Hollywood friends? Beck is a MORMON, his entire worldview is nuts! I could go on but I feel sorry for the idiot who cares at all what Beck has to say. The people who sign Beck's checks are part of the global plutocratic elite, and his agenda is set by them.
05-03-2011, 05:34 AM,
RE: Glenn Beck Show Hilariously Mocks Alex Jones Fawning Over Charlie Sheen
Did AJ mention this at all?
05-04-2011, 09:55 AM, (This post was last modified: 05-06-2011, 05:35 AM by Negentropic.)
RE: Glenn Beck Show Hilariously Mocks Alex Jones Fawning Over Charlie Sheen
AJ just repeated Hitler setting the Reichstag Fire himself as a false-flag bullcrap again for the ten thousandth time on Russia TV in the middle of analyzing 'The Bin Laden is Dead / Obama Kills Osama' story. He just pulled it out of his ass right in the middle. This story is 100% false & he just keeps repeating it over & over again like a broken record retarded parrot without bothering to do the slightest bit of research.

Another 100% absolute bullshit story he keeps repeating is the one about Hitler bannnig guns.

You don't even have to read revisionist historians like David Irving to know that that is totally false. Hitler didn't ban guns, that was the fuckin' Bolshies over in Ruskie land.

Quote:1.) Hitler was anti-smoking [False: Hitler promoted purity/health in all forms of the body and spirit, and while Hitler didn't endorse smoking, and banned smoking in Government buildings, Hitler did not outlaw smoking in Reich in bars, restaurants, homes, public, etc; by citizens]

2) Hitler was anti-gun and stripped all Germans of their guns [False: That was Communism/Soviets, and why 100 million Europeans lost their lives...Hitler was extremely Pro-Gun and had official shooting/collecting/sporting clubs for German-Reich citizens...As a matter of fact: When last days of the Reich came, and the Allies were entering Berlin, the (Volk-Sturm) or "Peoples Storm", consisted of German civilians and their private guns as all resources had been exhausted]

3) Hitler outlawed Hunting [True and False: Hitler outlawed only Kosher-Slaughter and maltreatment of animals but did allow regulated hunting on government reserves as seen in America with permits/limits, etc; via the German Hunting Society 1934-1945, as long as it was supervised according to Reich-law humane treatment of animals]

"I am not a complete vegetarian. I eat only animals that have died in their sleep" -- GEORGE CARLIN,
05-06-2011, 07:52 AM, (This post was last modified: 05-06-2011, 07:57 AM by Infinite.)
RE: Glenn Beck Show Hilariously Mocks Alex Jones Fawning Over Charlie Sheen
What do you say to this:

Reichstag Burning: What We Know Today
History - History 1933
Abel Ashes - One of the most often cited instances of agents of government conducting a terrorist spectacle against their own institutions for propaganda effect is that of the burning of the German Parliament building, also known as the Reichstag, on February 27th 1933. This was the event which provided the excuse that the Nazi Party needed to transform Germany into a militarized dictatorship.

The Reichstag fire was officially attributed to a nearly blind Dutch communist radical named Marinus van der Lubbe who was arrested in the Reichstag building as it burned. Adolph Hitler and the top Nazi leadership alleged a widespread communist conspiracy was responsible for the act of arson and used this fraudulent assertion to justify their subsequent acts of constitutional and human treason.

However, even before the Reichstag Fire Trial in Leipzig, the Legal Commission of the International Investigation Committee had reached the conclusion that Nazi agents had set fire to the Reichstag and that van der Lubbe was innocent of the crime. In 1945, failing to produce evidence linking any communist but van der Lubbe to the crime, the Nazi Government settled for an official story starring Marinus van der Lubbe as sole perpetrator. Of course by then the Nazis had already successfully used the fictional widespread communist arson threat to suppress opposition to their murderous ambitions at home and abroad.

In 1990, 50,000 pages of original German court, government, and Gestapo documents pertaining to the Reichstag fire that had been hidden away for decades in Moscow and East Berlin, were finally made available for review. Historian Alexander Bahar and physicist and psychologist Wilfried Kugel spent years meticulously reviewing the documents before publishing their 864 page analysis of the burning of the Reichstag, Der Reichstagbrand - Wie Geschichte gemacht wird. The title translates into English as The Reichstag Fire – How History is Created. While the evidence extracted from the 50,000 previously unavailable documents is primarily eyewitness testimony and therefore circumstantial, it is as conclusive a circumstantial case as any prosecutor could hope for. Indeed, the only evidence that was necessary to convict and execute Marinus van der Lubbe was the fact of his presence and subsequent arrest in the Reichstag building at the time of the fire and a flimsy insinuation of political motive. Whereas the evidence against the Nazi Party is comprised of sworn testimony and confessionals by Nazis themselves, not only admitting the guilt of the Nazis and the innocence of van der Lubbe, but explaining how the deception was carried out.

The Nuremberg War Crimes Trail in 1946 yielded testimony such as that of Hans Bernd Gisevius, a junior lawyer for the German political police from August 1933 to December 1933 who stated for the record that "It was Goebbels who first came up with the idea of setting fire to the Reichstag. Goebbels discussed this with the leader of the Berlin SA brigade, Karl Ernst, and made detailed suggestions on how to go about carrying out the arson. A certain tincture known to every pyrotechnician was selected. You spray it onto an object and then it ignites after a certain time, after hours or minutes. In order to get into the Reichstag building, they needed the passageway that leads from the palace of the Reichstag President to the Reichstag. A unit of ten reliable SA men was put together, and now Göring was informed of all the details of the plan, so that he coincidentally was not out holding an election speech on the night of the fire, but was still at his desk in the Ministry of the Interior at such a late hour... The intention right from the start was to put the blame for this crime on the Communists, and those ten SA men who were to carry out the crime were instructed accordingly."

Newspapers such as Pariser Tageblatt, which provided daily news to German immigrants and exiles living in Paris offered important details such as those provided in their interview of SA member Adolf Rall, published on December 24, 1933 , which read in part: "He (Rall) stated he was a member of the SA's "Sturm 17" unit. Before the Reichstag fire broke out, he had been in the subterranean passageway that connects the Reichstag assembly building to the building in which the government apartment of the Reich President (Hermann Göring) is located. Rall said that he had personally witnessed various members of his SA unit bringing the explosive liquids into the building." Adolf Rall was later murdered by the SA and the Gestapo.

Official Nazi documents provided evidence such as the police radio telegram alleged to have been written six hours before the Reichstag fire and sent out to all police stations in Prussia on February 27th 1933 at approximately 6:00 p.m., which is at least three hours before fire was set to the Reichstag. The official police radio telegram was written by none other than Rudolf Diels, head of the Political Police since February 23, 1933 and who was subsequently appointed head of the Secret State Police Office, or Gestapo as it is more widely known today. Rudolf Diels telegram warning in advance of the Reichstag fire that communists would soon be attacking Nazis and Nazi institutions reads in part:

"Communists reportedly plan to carry out systematic raids on police squads and members of nationalist associations with the aim of disarming them…Suitable countermeasures are to be taken immediately, and where necessary communist functionaries placed under protective custody." With this official police proclamation the Nazi Party initiated the wave of arrests that would follow the Reichstag fire, in advance of the Reichstag fire.

Documents from The Reichstag Fire Trial, which began on September 21, 1933 in Leipzig conclusively prove that each and every one of the fire experts that had examined the physical evidence of the Reichstag fire were in complete and certain agreement that the fires set in the Reichstag assembly hall had to have been set by multiple arsonists. Yet the only persons in addition to van der Lubbe that were present in the assembly hall in the time immediately before, during, or after the blaze were Nazis such as Reich President Hermann Göring.

From their detailed analysis of all of the available documentation Bahar and Kugel constructed the following sequence of events taking place on the night of February 27th 1933: "On February 27, 1933, at about 8:00 p.m. a commando group of at least 3, and at most 10 SA men led by Hans Georg Gewehr entered the basement of the palace of the Reichstag President. The group took the incendiary substances deposited there, and used the subterranean passageway to go from the Reichstag President's palace to the Reichstag building, where they prepared the assembly hall in particular with a self-igniting liquid they probably mixed in the hall. After a certain latency period, the liquid set off the fire in the assembly hall. The group made their getaway through the subterranean passageway and the basement of the Reichstag President's palace (and possibly also through the adjacent basement leading to the machinery and government employees' building) to the public street 'Reichstagsufer.' Göring entered the burning Reichstag building at 9:21 p.m. at the latest, presumably in order to provide a cover for the commando group's retreat.

"Van der Lubbe was brought to the Reichstag by the SA at exactly 9:00 p.m. and let into the building by them. The sound of breaking glass which was noticed by witnesses and which was allegedly due to van der Lubbe breaking window panes to get into the building was probably only intended to attract the attention of the public. The Dutchman was sacrificed as the only available witness."

Bahar and Kugel also discovered that many of the SA involved in the Reichstag fire and the framing of van der Lubbe were murdered by fellow Nazis, along with lesser accomplices during the so-called "Röhm putsch" of June 30, 1934 , thus insuring their silence.

So how exactly did the Nazi leadership benefit from the Reichstag fire?

After a much contested and allegedly rigged election Weimar Republic President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Adolph Hitler Chancellor of Germany on January 30th 1933. Less than a month later, on February 27th, the Reichstag was set ablaze and consequently burned to the ground. As discussed earlier, the fire was blamed on a widespread communist conspiracy and led to the end of the Weimar Republic and the true beginning of the Nazi totalitarian power.

The institution of a German police state was accomplished via the false justification that was the Reichstag fire and thereafter through both the legislative process and via dictatorial decree. This process began immediately on February 28th 1933, the day after the Reichstag fire when German President Hindenburg and German Chancellor Adolph Hitler invoked article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State, which permitted the suspension of civil liberties in times of national emergency. The Constitutional rights that were thereby repeal included, freedom of expression and opinion, freedom of the press, the right to freely assemble and associate, the right to privacy of postal and telephonic communications, the right to be free of unlawful searches and seizures, the right to individual property, and the States' rights to self-governance. An additional decree created both the SA and the SS Federal police agencies which operated as dictatorial death squads.

On March 5th 1933 Herman Göring declared to the Reichstag that State governments were no longer necessary. State governments were indeed dismantled following a wave of chaos and violence instigated by Nazi provocateurs. The anarchy was quieted only after elected State governments were replaced by appointed Nazi Reich Commissioners.

Then, perhaps the most infamous piece of legislation in history, The Law for Terminating the Suffering of The People and Nation, also known as the Enabling Act was passed by the Nazi dominated Reichstag. It was this piece of legislation that granted to Adolph Hitler the dictatorial powers he used to wage imperial war on Europe and murder an estimated 6,000,000 people via eugenics extermination programs. None of this would have been possible without the manufactured crisis that was the Reichstag fire.

< Prev Next >

Not sure about the 6 million death toll but there seems to be some legit evidence that the false flag theory of the Reichstag fire is true
05-06-2011, 02:01 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-01-2012, 05:20 PM by Negentropic.)
RE: Glenn Beck Show Hilariously Mocks Alex Jones Fawning Over Charlie Sheen
(05-06-2011, 07:52 AM)Infinite Wrote:
Not sure about the 6 million death toll but there seems to be some legit evidence that the false flag theory of the Reichstag fire is true

That's exactly the kind of non-objective BS rewriting of real history by the winners Alex Jones uses for his 'research.' I'm sure you can find many more like that.

All the so-called 'legit' evidence or 'sworn' testimony is from the fraudulent charade of the Nuremberg trials and the conformist historians who not only do not challenge the legitimacy of the Nuremberg courts but won't even ask a fraud like Elie Wiesel to show the tattoo on his arm.

If you take just motivation alone. Hitler and the Nazis didn't need a 'Reichstag Fire' to consolidate power. They were already massively popular with the German people.

As far as the holohoax goes make sure you read the extensive & very thorough and detailed posts by Konev from a few years ago, right here on Concen. Meanwhile all you need to know is this simple and 100% verified fact:

"Supposedly the most dreaded of German camps, Auschwitz was repeatedly visited by Red Cross inspection teams who were allowed to speak to prisoner representatives alone, in order to hear first-hand of any mistreatment, chicanery, interruption of mail and parcel delivery, health concerns, food and ration matters etc. The International Red Cross visited monthly. In a 1650 page report there was never a mention of gas chambers."

and also a few more hard facts you have never been told in your life here:

The so-called sworn evidence obtained from the Nazis was from the Nuremberg Trials which was nothing but a complete fraud. If a bunch of sadists were crushing your testicles & shoving a hot pocker up your rear end then you would swear to anything under the sun also. Go back to that link and listen to that whole podcast by Carolyn Yeager,

then listen to the podcasts on the Nuremberg trials:

If I had to go into it in writing it would take me ten pages. She does a great job of bringing together lots of hard evidence from all the revisionist historians.

While you're listening and hopefully using your own logic to weigh which side has real source documents on their side and which side 'sworn' testimony obtained under torture, and not forgetting about the fact that you could go to prison in many European countries if you reach the wrong conclusion, consider this fact:

"Of 3,000 people employed on the staff at the Nuremberg Courts, 2,400 were Jews" - Louis Marschalko (author of "The World Conquerors: the Real War Criminals")

& also ponder some of these quotes, all from verified sources:

"One day, an Englishman will come along and write my biography. But it cannot be an English man of the present generation. They won’t be objective. It will have to be an Englishman of the next generation, and one who is totally familiar with all the German archives" Adolf Hitler (anticipating David Irving)

Judea Declares War on Germany!" - Daily Express headline, March 24, 1933.

"Judea Declares War on Germany! Jews of all the World Unite! Boycott of German Goods! Mass Demonstrations!" - These were all headlines in the Daily Express on March 24, 1933.

"The Israeli people around the world declare economic and financial war against Germany. Fourteen million Jews stand together as one man, to declare war against Germany. The Jewish wholesaler will forsake his firm, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his commerce and the pauper his pitiful shed in order to join together in a holy war against Hitler's people." - Daily Express, March 24, 1933.

"Each of you, Jew and Gentile alike, who has not already enlisted in this sacred war should do so now and here. It is not sufficient that you should buy no goods made in Germany. You must refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any German-made goods or who patronises German ships or shipping.... we will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends." - Samuel Undermeyer, in a Radio Broadcast on WABC, New York, August 6, 1933. Reported in the New York Times, August 7, 1933.
"Joining with Samuel Untermeyer in calling for a war against Germany, Bernard Baruch, at the same time, was promoting preparations for war against Germany. 'I emphasised that the defeat of Germany and Japan and their elimination from world trade would give Britain a tremendous opportunity to swell her foreign commerce in both volume and profit.'" - "Baruch, The Public Years," by Bernard M. Baruch, p.347.
Samuel Untermeyer was a Jewish leader and close friend of presidents Wilson and Roosevelt.
Bernard Baruch was a presidential adviser to Wilson, Roosevelt and Truman.

"This declaration called the war against Germany, which was now determined on, a 'holy war'. This war was to be carried out against Germany to its conclusion, to her destruction" (Diese Erkl舐ung nannte den Krieg gegen Deutschland, der nun beschlossen sei, einen heiligen Krieg. Dieser Krieg m・se gegen Deutschland bis zu dessen Ende, bis zu dessen Vernichtung, gef・rt werden). - Dr. Franz J. Scheidl, Geschichte der Verfemung Deutschlands.

"War in Europe in 1934 was inevitable." - H. Morgenthau, Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, Hearst Press, September, 1933 (also quoted in "The Palestine Plot" by B. Jenson, p. 11).

"For months now the struggle against Germany is waged by each Jewish community, at each conference, in all our syndicates, and by each Jew all over the world. There is reason to believe that our part in this struggle has general value. We will trigger a spiritual and material war of all the world against Germany's ambitions to become once again a great nation, to recover lost territories and colonies. But our Jewish interests demand the complete destruction of Germany. Collectively and individually, the German nation is a threat to us Jews." - Vladimir Jabotinsky (founder of the Jewish terrorist group, Irgun Zvai Leumi) in Mascha Rjetsch, January, 1934 (also quoted in "Histoire de l'Arm馥 Allemande" by Jacques Benoist-Mechin, Vol. IV, p. 303).

"Hitler will have no war (does not want war), but we will force it on him, not this year, but soon." - Emil Ludwig Cohn in Les Annales, June, 1934 (also quoted in his book "The New Holy Alliance").

"We Jews are going to bring a war on Germany." - David A. Brown, National Chairman, United Jewish Campaign, 1934 (quoted in "I Testify Against The Jews" by Robert Edward Edmondson, page 188 and "The Jewish War of Survival" by Arnold Leese, page 52).

"We want to bring about a deep hatred for the Germans, for German soldiers, sailors, and airmen. We must hate until we win." - Lord Beaverbrook, quoted in Niemals! by Heinrich Goitsch.

"There is only one power which really counts. The power of political pressure. We Jews are the most powerful people on earth, because we have this power, and we know how to apply it." - Vladimir Jabotinsky, Jewish Daily Bulletin, July 27, 1935.

"Before the end of the year, an economic bloc of England, Russia, France and the U.S.A will be formed to bring the German and Italian economic systems to their knees." - Paul Dreyfus, "La Vie de Tanger" May 15, 1938.

On the 3rd of June, 1938, the American Hebrew boasted that they had Jews in the foremost positions of influence in Britain, Russia and France, and that these "three sons of Israel will be sending the Nazi dictator to hell." - Joseph Trimble, the American Hebrew.

"Germany is our public enemy number one. It is our object to declare war without mercy against her. One may be sure of this: We will lead that war!" - Bernard Lecache, the president of the "International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism," in its newspaper "Droit de Vivre" (Right to Life), 9 November, 1938.
"The war now proposed is for the purpose of establishing Jewish hegemony throughout the world." - Brigadier General George Van Horn Mosely, The New York Tribune, March 29, 1939.

"I wish to confirm in the most explicit manner, the declaration which I and my colleagues made during the last months, and especially in the last week: that the Jews "stand by Great Britain and will fight on the side of the democracies." Our urgent desire is to give effect to these declarations. We wish to do so in a way entirely consonant with the general scheme of British action, and therefore would place ourselves, in matters big and small, under the co-ordinating direction of His Majesty's Government. The Jewish Agency is ready to enter into immediate arrangements for utilizing Jewish manpower, technical ability, resources, etc." - Chaim Weizmann, President of the World Jewish Congress, Head of the Jewish Agency and later President of Israel, the London Times, September 5, 1939, and the London Jewish Chronicle, September 8, 1939.

"The millions of Jews who live in America, England and France, North and South Africa, and, not to forget those in Palestine, are determined to bring the war of annihilation against Germany to its final end." - Central Blad Voor Israeliten in Nederland, September 13, 1939.

"Stop talking about peace conditions! Break Germany in pieces!" - The Daily Herald, No.7426, 9 December, 1939.

"The Jews, taken collectively, view this war as a holy war." - The Daily Herald, No.7450, 1939, quoted in "Reichstagsbrand, Aufkl舐ung einer historischen Legende," by U. Backes, K.H. Jan゚en, E. Jesse, H. Kler, H. Mommsen, E Tobias.

"Even if we Jews are not physically at your side in the trenches, we are morally with you. This war is our war and you fight it with us." - Schalom Asch, Les Nouvelles Litterairres, February 10, 1940.

"In losing Germany, Jewry lost a territory from which it exerted power. Therefore it was determined to re-conquer it." - Louis Marschalko, "The World Conquerors : The Real War Criminals."

"The World Jewish Congress has been at war with Germany for seven years." - Rabbi M. Perlzweig (head of the British Section of the World Jewish Congress), Toronto Evening Telegram, February 26, 1940.

"The Second World War is being fought for the defense of the fundamentals of Judaism." - Rabbi Felix Mendlesohn, Chicago Sentinel, October 8, 1942.

"We are not denying and are not afraid to confess that this war is our war and that it is waged for the liberation of Jewry... Stronger than all fronts together is our front, that of Jewry. We are not only giving this war our financial support on which the entire war production is based, we are not only providing our full propaganda power which is the moral energy that keeps this war going. The guarantee of victory is predominantly based on weakening the enemy forces, on destroying them in their own country, within the resistance. And we are the Trojan horses in the enemy's fortress. Thousands of Jews living in Europe constitute the principal factor in the destruction of our enemy. There, our front is a fact and the most valuable aid for victory." - Chaim Weizmann, President of the World Jewish Congress, Head of the Jewish Agency and later President of Israel, in a Speech on December 3, 1942, in New York.

"Played golf with Joe Kennedy (U.S. Ambassador to Britain). He says that Chamberlain stated that America and world Jewry forced England into World War II." - James Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy (later Secretary of Defense), Diary, December 27, 1945 entry.

"It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was wanted and provoked solely by international statesmen either of Jewish origin or working for Jewish interests. Nor had I ever wished that after the appalling first World War, there would ever be a second against either England or America." - Adolf Hitler, April, 1945.

The joke doing the rounds of the British Union of Fascists at this time was that the Jewish national anthem was, 'Onward Christian Soldiers.'

[Image: ajones-01-o.gif]

Alex Jones has at least twenty-three(23) different radio and website sponsors that are Jewish owned and operated.

Who Controls Television ?

Who Controls Big Media ?

Who Controls the News ?

Who Controls the Council on Foreign Relations ?
05-06-2011, 09:03 PM, (This post was last modified: 05-06-2011, 10:22 PM by Infinite.)
RE: Glenn Beck Show Hilariously Mocks Alex Jones Fawning Over Charlie Sheen
I just think that both sides were bad, I've seen a lot of that info before. I mean come on 'the British Union of Fascists', yeah I'm sure that they were great people. Both the fascists/Nazis and the Zionist Jews/Communists were liars and scum and there was intermingling between the two of them if you look into it. For instance some of the early Zionists were admirers of Mussolini and fascism. And today the most ardent Zionists are aligned with the far right.
05-06-2011, 11:01 PM,
RE: Glenn Beck Show Hilariously Mocks Alex Jones Fawning Over Charlie Sheen
(05-06-2011, 02:01 PM)Negentropic Wrote: All the so-called 'legit' evidence or 'sworn' testimony is from the fraudulent charade of the Nuremberg trials and the conformist historians who not only do not challenge the legitimacy of the Nuremberg courts but won't even ask a fraud like Elie Wiesel to show the tattoo on his arm.

Read the above article again, slowly. Maybe this time you'll notice the parts that totally counter your ridiculous assertion.

BTW, WTF does the fire have to do with Wiesel's tattoo? Nothing at all! You're using weasel tactics and anybody with a basic grasp of propaganda techniques can easily spot it.

(05-06-2011, 02:01 PM)Negentropic Wrote: If you take just motivation alone. Hitler and the Nazis didn't need a 'Reichstag Fire' to consolidate power. They were already massively popular with the German people.

In your twisted little jackboot licking world maybe. In reality Hitler had just been made Chancellor at the time and had nowhere near a majority of the people on his side - quite the opposite. He wanted to pass an act giving him dictatorial powers which would not have been possible without an emergency - like the Reichstag fire.
[Image: randquote.png]
05-07-2011, 06:47 AM,
RE: Glenn Beck Show Hilariously Mocks Alex Jones Fawning Over Charlie Sheen

Actually even the more well-known completely conformist so-called 'historians' such as Evans and Shirer don't claim it was a Nazi False Flag but only that the Nazis took advantage of the event after the fact. That's because they have to use their willingness to tackle this particular lie head-on and get to the truth to establish their so-called 'street credibility' as 'real historians' so that they can later refuse to admit any conclusive proofs found by revisionists about the holohoax. The sacred cow is their holycost industry which they must maintain at all costs.

Quote:April 12, 2011
The Reichstag Fire Was NOT a Nazi False Flag Operation
Posted by David Kramer on April 12, 2011 12:08 AM
As much as I admire the work that Jesse Ventura is doing uncovering evidence of U.S. government conspiracies, he unfortunately repeats a “History is written by the winners” myth that has been around since Bankster War II. Today’s posted a recent interview that Jesse did with The Daily Bell. In Jesse’s own words:

“Likewise the Reichstag Fire in Germany in the 1930s. They burned down the congressional building and blamed it on the Communists, which set the stage for war. It turned out that the Nazi’s had done it themselves.”

This is not true. But don’t take my lunatic fringe word for it. Here’s the word from one of the greatest living Austrian economists and historians, David Gordon:

“This of course changed when Hitler used the crisis brought about by the burning of the Reichstag building to secure passage of the Enabling Bill, giving him dictatorial powers. (Contrary to a popular belief, the Nazis did not start the fire themselves. See on this Fritz Tobias, The Reichstag Fire, Putnam, 1964.)”

What happened was that when the Nazis first learned of the fire, they assumed that it was carried out by the Communists and, therefore, that it would be a great piece of political propaganda to use to go after the Communists. When they later learned that it was a lone arsonist, they decided to ignore the truth and still claim the Communists were behind the fire. And that is the lie about the Reichstag Fire—not that it was a False Flag operation carried out by the Nazis.



If the burning of the German Reichstag brought the National Socialists to power in 1933, were the Nazis responsible for the arson? If not, who was?

By 1933, Germany was ripe for another revolution. The Moscow-backed communist revolutions of 1919 had been put down at awful cost. And then the Allies imposed "reparations" that stripped the country of its ability to employ its workers and feed its people, including a British-engineered blockade that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Germans by starvation.

The worldwide depression of 1929 hit the country, still staggering under the yoke of the Treaty of Versailles, in the gut. Food was scarce. Jobs were disappearing. Those who had jobs earned money that was close to worthless.

It was clear that the centrist government of President Paul von Hindenburg and Chancellor Heinrich Bruning, under extreme pressure from both the left and the right, could not hold. Fearing civil war, Hindenburg dismissed Bruning and in January of 1933 appointed Adolf Hitler, leader of the National Socialists, as chancellor, even though Hitler had no absolute majority in the lower chamber of the German Parliament-the Reichstag.
And then, on the night of February 27, the Reichstag building burned.

It is important to note that, following the armistice of 1918, British Prime Minister lloyd George had promised the British voters "to squeeze the German lemon until the pips squeaked." Germany had been stripped of its industry, its coal reserves in the Saar and the manufacturing capacities of Alsace-Lorraine.

The German Navy and merchant fleet had been seized; export barriers had been established for German products while free trade was imposed on imports produced by the Allies.

According to Leon Degrelle: "Germany was experiencing near-famine conditions. It was at this moment the Allies decided to confiscate a substantial part of what was left of Germany's livestock." (Hitler: Born at Versailles; Institute for Historical Review, 1987.)

Thomas Lamont, the American representative of the Allied powers "overseeing" Germany, was quoted: "The Germans were made to deliver cattle, horses, sheep, goats etc .... A strong protest came from Germany when dairy cows were taken to France and Belgium, thus depriving German children of milk."

According to Degrelle, "The question was now: Who was going to break the chains?

"Germany looked for an avenger to smash the Treaty of Vengeance. The avenger could not belong to the conventional right and left wings of German politics or any other Establishment entities, whether financial, military or religious."

In 1925, following the death of German President Friedrich Ebert, Hindenburg, a hero of World War I, was persuaded to run for president. He won easily. But, aging and ill, Hindenburg was not the national leader to bring Germany back from the abyss.

Prior to Hitler's appointment, the Reichstag had been suspended several times with rule by presidential decree. Neither the left nor the right believed it was Hindenburg himself who was running the country, which staggered on ineffectually. By 1933, Hindenburg had become senile.

On this point, European newsman Alec de Montmorency tells a story that was making the rounds in the Paris clubs frequented by journalists. Hindenburg, the story goes, asked one of his close aides in early 1933: "Who is that young man with a mustache who keeps bringing me papers to sign?"

Immediately after Hitler's appointment, the Reichstag was dissolved and new elections set for March 5. A violent election campaign ensued.

On February 24, the police raided Communist Party headquarters. It was announced that they had discovered plans for a new communist revolution. But they either didn't discover what they said that they had, or the evidence, for unknown reasons, was suppressed, because such documentation was never made public.

Then came the Reichstag fire. Hitler immediately blamed the communists. Hindenburg proclaimed a state of emergency and issued decrees suspending freedom of speech and assembly. Thanks to the "Red scare," the National Socialists and their allies, the German Nationalists, won a bare majority in the general election of March 5.

Shortly thereafter, first the Communist Party, and then all other parties except the National Socialist,were made illegal. The burning of the Reichstag was the spark that set the country ablaze. If, then, the fire was what catapulted Hitler to power, is it not reasonable to assume that the National Socialists had a hand in it? That was the consensus of propaganda in the United States, France and Great Britain.

The National Socialists blamed the communists, and tried to establish the guilt of Communist Party leaders in a trial at the High Court at Leipzig.

They failed.

That led to the generally accepted theory that the National Socialists themselves torched the building. This version has been generally accepted. It appears in most textbooks and many reputable historians repeat it. According to A.J.P. Taylor in History Today, "I myself accepted it unquestioningly, without looking at the evidence."

But someone did look at the evidence: A retired civil servant-and anti-Nazi named Fritz Tobias. He began his project, it is reported, with the idea of settling once and for all the fact that the Nazis had been responsible for the fire. But that's not what he discovered. The results of his investigation were serialized in the German weekly Der Spiegel in 1950.

Here's the story as detailed by Tobias.

At just about 9 pm on February 27, a theology student -later a lecturer at Bremen-named Hans Floter was on his way home after a day of research and study at the library. As he crossed the open space in front of the Reichstag, he heard the sound of breaking glass. He looked up and saw someone climbing into the building through a window on the first floor. The building was otherwise deserted except for a night watchman who apparently did not hear the breaking glass.

Floter ran to the comer and found a policeman. "Someone is breaking into the Reichstag," he reported. The two men ran back to the building. Through the window they saw a shadowy, unidentifiable figure and something more ominous-flames. It was 9:03 pm. Floter, having done his duty, went home. He had not yet had supper and was hungry.

At this point, another passer-by joined the policeman, a young printer called Thaler, who was, incidentally, a Social Democrat, and definitely no supporter of the National Socialists. Thaler shouted: "Shoot, man, shoot." The policeman fired his revolver into the building and the shadowy figure disappeared.

The policeman ran to the nearest police post and gave the alarm. The time recorded was 9:15 pm. Within minutes police backup arrived at the Reichstag, At 9:22, a police officer tried to enter the Debating Chamber. He was driven back by the flames. At 9:27, the police discovered and arrested a half-naked young man. He was a Dutchman named Marinus van der Lubbe.

Meanwhile, the fire brigade had also been alerted. The first report is recorded at 9:13. The first engine reached the Reichstag at 9:18. But the firemen had problems entering the building to fight the blaze. Only one side door was kept unlocked after 8 pm. The firemen, not knowing this, went to the wrong door.

Gaining entrance, the firemen fought the first fires they came to-small blazes in the corridors, it turns out, and not the main fire. Eventually, the full strength of the Berlin fire brigade was mobilized, a force of some 60 engines. The time was 9:42. But by then, the building was beyond help.

Seen as evidence of Nazi involvement in the blaze was the fact that across the street from the Reichstag building was the residence-sometimes called a palace-of its president. The National Socialists being in charge of the legislative body, the president of the Reichstag on February 27, 1933 was Nazi leader Hermann Goering. But Goering had not yet moved in.

The building was unoccupied except for an apartment on the top floor which Goering had lent to "Putzi" Hanftstaengl, Hitler's foreign press chief. Hearing a commotion, Hanftstaengl looked out the window and saw the Reichstag burning. He knew that Hitler and Josef Goebbels were at a party nearby. He phoned Goebbels, who thought Hanftstaengel was playing some sort of practical joke and hung up. Hanftstaengel called back. Goebbels checked with the police and found the report was true.

Within a few minutes he, Hitler and a large group of National Socialists who had been at the party arrived at the Reichstag. An English journalist, Sefton Delmer, managed to join the crowd. Hitler, he reported, was very upset certainly not the demeanor of a man responsible for the action. "This is a communist plot, the signal for an uprising," Delmer reported Hitler yelling to his supporters. "Every communist official must be shot. The communist members [of the Reichstag] must be hanged."

Van der Lubbe, meanwhile, had been taken to the nearest police station. He was interrogated until 3 am of February 28. He was allowed to sleep for a few hours, awakened, given breakfast and, at 8 am, the questioning resumed. He gave clear, coherent answers. He described how he had entered the Reichstag and started a series of fires, even using some of his clothing to help the blazes get going.

The police, thoroughly and methodically, checked his story. They retraced his route through the Reichstag with a stopwatch and determined that the timing was correct for his entrance through a window to the time of his arrest. Van der Lubbe was clear about his motive. He had hoped that the entire German people would protest against the Nazi government. When this did not happen, he determined that he would protest individually.

Although the burning of the Reichstag was certainly a signal for revolt-he called it a "beacon" -he had given the signal alone, he insisted. He denied that he had any associates or fellow plotters. He said he knew no Nazis. He was not a member of the Communist Party. He was a socialist, more politically in tune with the left wing of the centrist government.

Van der Lubbe proved a willing witness against himself. He traced his movement for police during the weeks prior to the arson. He had drifted across Germany, apparently searching for anti-Nazi sentiment and finding nothing approaching the mass revolt he had hoped for. He even told police where he had purchased "fire-starter," a petroleum-based liquid used, as its name implies, to start fires, and matches. The police checked his story. Everything he said proved to be correct.

The police officials conducting the investigation concluded that van der Lubbe was deranged-but above average in intelligence, with an exceptionally accurate sense of place and direction. He knew where he had been and what he had been doing and remembered even small details of his wanderings, purchases and arson.

His interrogators were experienced men, professionals with no political connections. They became convinced that he was telling the truth and that he had set the fire at the Reichstag all by himself, with no outside help or even encouragement. Firemen who had been at the scene agreed that the sequence of arson events detailed by van der Lubbe matched their investigation results.

That conclusion didn't sit well with Hitler and the upper cadre of the National Socialists,locked in a bitter battle with the communists to gain control of the Reichstag. They had committed themselves to the proposition that the fire was a communist plot. Whether or not they believed this, it was the story that had to be sold to the German public if they were to defeat the communists at the polls.

Van der Lubbe and four others were tried for the arson; a man named Torgler, the leader of the communist bloc in the Reichstag, and three Bulgarian communists including Georgi Dimitrov.

Van der Lubbe's guilt was beyond question. He had been found in the Reichstag and he admitted starting the fires. But that wasn't what was worrying the Nazis. Everyone accepted van der Lubbe's guilt. It was the communists the Nazis wanted convicted.

A number of "expert" witnesses were produced-with Nazi help-by the prosecution with the intention of proving that the fire could not have been started by one man. But van der Lubbe proved to be the best witness for the other defendants. Testifying for hours, he told the judges that it was he, and he alone, who was responsible. He was quoted: "I was there and they [the other four defendants] were not. 1know how it was done because 1did it."

The High Court arrived at a complex verdict. First, van der Lubbe was found guilty. He was subsequently executed. (Arson was not a crime punishable by death. But Hitler managed to shove through a law to that effect and make its ramifications retroactive, a decision that would come back to haunt him.)

The other four defendants were found innocent. But, the court agreed with the Nazi-provided "expert" witnesses that the Dutchman could not have done it alone and that, therefore, the Reichstag had been torched by van der Lubbe and "persons unknown."

The Nazis had been hoist by their own petard. If van der Lubbe had accomplices, and the accomplices were not communists, who were they? The implication was that the accomplices must have been National Socialists, a point made repeatedly in court by Dimitrov, and echoed by the Establishment media throughout the Western world.

(Dimitrov, incidentally, fled Germany following the trial to the USSR where he rose in the ranks of Soviet officialdom and later returned to Bulgaria to take over leadership of the communist government there.)

The propaganda possibilities of the High Court decision were not lost on the communists. Enter a man named Willi Munzenberg, a German expatriate communist popular with the media and the pro-communists in the West, particularly Great Britain. The communists published what was called the Brown Book about the fire, filled with alleged evidence of National Socialist complicity in the arson. That the communist evidence of Nazi involvement was no more convincing than the Nazis' evidence of communist complicity was lost on the popular press.

Subsequently, the communists staged a counter-trial in London that, not unexpectedly, brought in a guilty verdict against the Nazis. Considered vital evidence in the counter-trial was the existence of a tunnel between Goering's residence and the Reichstag which carried electric and telephone cables and pipes for central heating.

According to the communists, a group of Brown Shirts had used the tunnel to enter the Reichstag and soaked the curtains and woodwork with a flammable liquid which caught fire when 'van der Lubbe struck the match or, alternately, they set the fire themselves. According to the latter version, when all was ready, van der Lubbe was pushed through the window into the Reichstag by an unnamed accomplice of the Brown Shirts, there to be found and arrested.

The Brown Book also alleged that, far from being an intelligent Socialist, Van der Lubbe was a degenerate half-wit and a homosexual prostitute, kept by Brown Shirt leader Ernst Roehm. This was the story accepted by the Western press in 1933 and, subsequently, historians. It became something "everyone knows," without anyone actually examining the facts.

There were allegations that the fire brigades were deliberately delayed by the Nazis. But the record books of the aforementioned brigades disprove this. And, almost all history books say the records of van der Lubbe's interrogation by the police had mysteriously disappeared. But again, that isn't true. Tobias found them where they were supposed to be-in the office where they had always been-in eight copies.

Van der Lubbe, having been characterized by the Nazis as a communist dupe, was treated even more harshly by the communists. Included in the Brown Book is a statement by a Dutch friend of the arsonist. One sentence reads: "I often spent a night in the same bed with him." This was used by the communists as proof of his homosexuality. But, according to Taylor, the sentence originally went on: " ... without observing any homosexual tendencies in him."

Taylor goes on to point out that all the stories about van der Lubbe's bad upbringing, about his disreputable family and his lack of friends "were in fact lies; communist forgeries."

The most vital evidence produced by the communists was the tunnel and the allegation that it had been used by the Brown Shirts. This, the communists alleged, had been revealed by repentant Brown Shirts to communists in Paris. One alleged Brown Shirt appeared at the counter-trial with a muffler wrapped around his face to conceal his identity. It was a wise precaution, according to Taylor, because the witness "was, in fact, a well-known communist and unmistakably Jewish."

Another confession supposedly came from one Karl Ernst, Brown Shirt leader in
Berlin. Conveniently, the "confession" turned up after Ernst was dead, killed in the purge of June 30, 1934. Even more convenient, Ernst cleared up any items in the earlier communist versions of the arson where inaccuracies had been proven. But one point Ernst got wrong.

His post-mortem "confession" agreed with other "confessions" that the Brown Shirts entered the Reichstag at 8:49 pm. This had to be the time if they were to do their work before van der Lubbe was "pushed through the window" at 9:03. Unfortunately, Ernst (or the communist forgers) were unaware of one item in the Reichstag routine. At 8:45 pm, a postman came through the side door to collect the deputies' mail.

On February 27, he entered as usual, walked through the deserted building and left at 8:55 pm. He found nothing out of the ordinary-no shadowy figures, no smell of flammable liquid. In fact, the postman disproves the "accomplices" theory, no matter who those accomplices were alleged to have been, because of the time sequences.

And then there is the small fact overlooked by historians-that when Goering arrived at the Reichstag at 9:35 pm, having been alerted by his friend, he immediately thought entrance might have been gained through the tunnel. He was quoted: "They [the arsonists] must have come through the tunnel." He immediately went off with several policemen-not Nazis-to examine it. They found the doors at either end securely locked.

Would Goering have called for a search of the tunnel if he or his compatriots had been responsible for the fire? Hardly likely. He and the police might have caught the conspirators exiting on the Goering residence side.

In non-ideological retrospect, the same lack of evidence that exonerates the communists serves to also exonerate the National Socialists. If the Nazis had set fire to the Reichstag they would have manufactured evidence against the communists, just as the communists manufactured evidence against the Nazis in the Brown Book and the counter-trial.

The Brown Book was not intended to be closely examined. If it achieved its propaganda purpose-which it did, in the UK and the United States, at least- Munzenberg and his associates were satisfied.

Here is what can be determined from the facts that can be proved. No one came through the tunnel. There was no other way to enter the Reichstag, except past the night watchman or by breaking the window. Only van der Lubbe broke a window. Those who want to stick to the communist version, although they admit they can't prove how the Nazis got into the Reichstag, point to the trial testimony that van der Lubbe had to have had help.

But this evidence is the most unreliable of all. The most emphatic "expert" was, according to Taylor, "a crank distrusted by his colleagues." He claimed to be an authority on a strange "fluid" which, he said, was necessary for starting fires, He alleged that this "fluid" had a distinctive smell. But no policeman or fireman at the scene noticed any smell except smoke-no "fluid"; not even gasoline.

How could van der Lubbe have set the fire himself? These old, grandiose buildings were fires waiting to happen. There were heavy, dusty curtains everywhere; wooden paneling, high ceilings, drafts under the doors; everything capable of supporting a fire.

In 1834, the Houses of Parliament at Westminster in the UK were entirely destroyed by fire, Simply by a stove pipe becoming too hot. If this is too "historical" for today's reader, in 1956, the Vienna Stock Exchange was gutted by fire as the result of one smoldering cigarette in a wastepaper basket. Van der Lubbe had over 20 minutes to start fires; more than enough time.

One point: the postman left the building at 8:55 pm. How did van der Lubbe know it was safe to break in? He couldn't have; it was a lucky break, a coincidence. In any event, Hitler was well known for his penchant to improvise and it is obvious that is what he did while watching the Reichstag burn. Here was his chance to demonize the communists to his own advantage. He couldn't have known the outcome of that decision.

That van der Lubbe was guilty is beyond question. There is more evidence to acquit both the communists and the National Socialists of complicity than evidence to convict either group. But Germany lost the war and the communists won; and the winners write the history books.

• Davidson, Michael worth, MA, Editor. "Hitler Soars to Power." When, Where, Why & How It Happened. Readers Digest Association limited, London, New York, Sydney, Cape Town, Montreal, 1995.
• Degrelle, Gen. Leon. Hitler: Born at Versailles: lnstitute for Historical Review, Torrance, California, 1987.
• Degrelle, Gen. Leon. Hitler: Democrat. Unpublished manuscript.
• Montmorency, Alec de. Interview by the author, November, 1995.
• Taylor, A.J.P. "Who Burned the Reichstag?" History Today, London, June, 1956.
Fred Blahut has been a writer and editor for more than 30 years and currently is managing editor of The SPOTLIGHT and assistant editor of TBR.

This next one is from one of those close-minded idiot savants who tries to prove 9/11 truthers BS by opening his mind just enough to come up with the facts on the Reichstag fire and then close it promptly lest any 9/11 truth get through. He did this to discredit 9/11 half-truth by discrediting 'the Reichstag Fire' portion of their claims and comparisons that they have been uncritically parotting courtesy of Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura.

Skepticism undermined by an insufficient knowledge of history
Category: History • Holocaust • Skepticism/critical thinking • World War II
Posted on: May 9, 2007 9:01 AM, by Orac
I'll admit it.
There have been at least two times since I started blogging that I fell for a dubious story because I exercised insufficient skepticism. The first time occurred very early on in my blogging history when swallowed a story about how legalization of prostitution was claimed to lead to the requirement that unemployed women take jobs as prostitutes or lose their unemployment benefits. More recently, I backpedaled a bit over a story about how supposedly history teachers in the U.K. were not teaching about the Holocaust out of concern for offending the sensitivities of certain of their constituents. Generally, I'm harder on myself than most of my critics, but I also realize that my record is probably not bad for over two years of continuous blogging.

Basically, there are two ways to get burned while exercising critical thinking. One way, which the two examples above illustrate, is simple laziness, to accept a report at face value without digging a little deeper. Another way is to have insufficient background knowledge to critically examine the report. For example, there's a reason why I rarely comment on global warming. Even though I generally accept the scientific consensus that human activity is causing global warming, I don't have sufficient background in the science to match the level of commentary that I can provide on alternative medicine, Holocaust denial, or my other usual topics. That reticence may change as I learn more about the issue, but for now it has served me well to be cautious. It is the cranks who tend to jump into discussions of fields that they clearly do not understand and make proclamations with unjustified confidence. All of this is my not-so-subtle way to introduce a discussion of how even die-hard skeptics can be burned. The example I happened to come across that disappointed me came, surprisingly, from my favorite skeptical podcast, The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, the most recent episode of which I was a bit late getting around to listening to. I don't do this as a "gotcha" exercise, but merely as a cautionary tale that even the best skeptics can be burned if they have insufficient knowledge of a topic. In this case, it was knowledge of history, specifically Nazi history.

Basically, during the podcast, Steve Novella and crew were doing a fine job of debunking some of the sillier 9/11 conspiracy myths, in particular the analogy often cited that "9/11 was Bush's Reichstag fire." For those not familiar with the history, on February 27, 1933, only four weeks after Adolf Hitler had been named Chancellor of Germany and before he had consolidated his power, the Reichstag (the German parliament building) burned. The man caught, convicted, and eventually executed by beheading for the crime (the favored method of execution in Germany at that time) was self-styled revolutionary and rabble-rouser, Marinus van der Lubbe, a Dutch council Communist, who was caught at the scene and who proudly confessed to the crime. In the days before that he had tried to burn down an unemployment office and other buildings but had not succeeded. He thought that his arson at the Reichstag would be the spark that would cause the workers to rise up and throw off the Nazi yoke. Not surprisingly, Hitler, blaming it all on the Communist Party, used the Reichstag fire as a pretext for rounding up his hated enemies, particularly Communist leaders, and for persuading President Hindenberg to sign the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended the remaining civil liberties in Germany and set the stage for Hitler's becoming absolute dictator. From the very day after the fire, not surprisingly, suspicions swirled that the Nazi Party was somehow involved and that van der Lubbe was a dupe.

This is what the letter by Patrick Pricken, to which our intrepid skeptics responded, said about the event and 9/11:

I just wanted to follow up on the (ridiculous) argument by 9/11 conspiracy theorists that Hitler burned the Reichstag, so Bush might as well have hijacked the planes.

First off, the Reichstag burned in the night, when nobody was in it. Also, as you can read for example in Sebastian Haffner's account of his youth in Germany up to 1933, the general populace was very aware of what had really happened with the Reichstag; or at least, they knew it wasn't the poor sod the Nazis said who did it. It's just that a mixture of fear and carelessness (and of course people who approved of Hitler's course) was stronger than any anger the people might have felt at some building burning down. Hitler not only burned the thing, but it was also he who instilled the symbolism into it. That was even a matter of some jokes, according to Haffner, of how Hitler didn't respect the Republic at all, but then gets all puffed up when the Reichstag burns.

So this analogy doesn't hold up, no matter where you're coming from. It's simply STUPID.

I agree that the analogy is definitely exceedingly stupid, but for far more reason than the reasons above. Indeed, discussion of the letter on the podcast appropriately pointed out the logical fallacy in this line of argument and how ridiculous it is to have thought that President Bush or someone in the administration had been the "real" culprit behind the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The problem is, our skeptics missed the two biggest problems with Patrick's characterization of this 9/11 Truther canard:

1. No historian (or even proponents of the viewpoint that the Nazis were involved) seriously proposes that Hitler was involved. In fact, all the known contemporaneous accounts of what happened when Hitler learned of the fire suggest otherwise, given Hitler's surprise and dismay upon learning of the news. His reaction has to be remembered in the context of the times. The Nazi Party was not yet in full control, and Hitler and his cronies had been fearing since they took power that the Communists would try to incite unrest and overthrow the fledgling goverment. They saw the Reichstag fire as the signal for the long-feared Communist revolt to begin.

2. Although, as Pricken states, it was widely speculated among the populace that van der Lubbe was a dupe and that the Nazis may have planned the fire, more recent scholarship suggests that this was not the case. Most historians these days believe that van der Lubbe probably really did act alone. In other words, just because it was plausible to think that the Nazis were involved does not necessarily mean that they were.

Clearly our skeptics didn't know these things. Consequently, although they criticized it for some good reasons, they missed the biggest flaw in this Truther chestnut: It's based on really bad history to go along with the bad logic.

Perhaps the most famous of the chroniclers of Nazi history who believed that van der Lubbe was not responsible for the fire was American journalist William Shirer, who stated bluntly in his famous book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich that it was "beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the Nazis who planned the arson and carried it out for their own political ends." He went on to say that van der Lubbe was a "dupe of the Nazis" who had been "encouraged to try to set the Reichstag on fire" while the main job was to be "done without his knowledge" by stormtroopers. More recent scholarship casts considerable doubt on this version, however. For example, British historian Ian Kershaw, in the endnotes of part one of his recent (and massive) biography of Hitler, Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris, states with extensive references and documentation:

The question of who set the Reichstag ablaze has provoked the most rancorous of disputes. The Nazi version that it was a Communist plot was widely disbelieved at the time by critical observers and was not even convincing enough to secure the conviction of the leading Communists tried at the show trial at the supreme Reich Court in Leipzig in autumn 1933. The view that the Nazis, with the most to gain, had set fire to the Reichstag themselves was immediately given wide currency among diplomats and foreign journalists, and in liberal circles in Germany...Nazi authorship, as put forward in Communist counter-propaganda, orchestrated by Willi Münzenberg in The Brown Book of the Hitler Terror and the Burning of the Reichstag, Paris, 1933, carried the day for a long time. But the findings of Fritz Tobias in the 1960s, collected in his extensive evaluation and documentation...supported by the scholarly analysis of Hans Mommsen...that Marinus van der Lubbe acted alone, are compelling and are now widely accepted, though not by Klause P. Fischer...The counter claims of the Luxembourg Committee...that the Nazis were indeed the perpetrators, are regarded by most experts as flawed The consequences of the Reichstag fire were, of course, always more important than the identity of whoever instigated the blaze. But the question of authorship was nevertheless of significance, since it revolved around the question of whether the Nazis were following through carefully laid plans to institute totalitarian rule or whether they were improvising reactions to events they had not expected.

Here's what historian Richard J. Evans wrote in the endnotes of the first volume of his recent history of the Third Reich, The Coming of the Third Reich, along with references and documentation:

Subsequently, the Communists attempted to prove that the Nazis had been behind the arson attempt, but the authenticity of van der Lubbe's statement and associated documentation seems beyond doubt. Moreover, numerous forgeries and falsifications have been found among the documentary evidence purporting to prove Nazi involvement...A recent attempt to suggest that the Nazis planned the fire rests on an exaggeration of similarities between earlier discussion papers on emergency powers, and the Reichstag Fire Decree...So far, the conclusion of Tobias and Mommesen that van der Lubbe acted alone has not been shaken.

Finally, it is instructive to look at what Sebastian Haffner himself actually wrote about the Reichstag fire in his memoir about living in the Weimar Republic and his experiences in the early years of the Nazi regime, Defying Hitler. This is a truly fascinating book that I heartily recommend. Particularly fascinating his his first-person account of the hyperinflation of 1923 and of how life continued seemingly normally for a while after Hitler took power, with change only being noticed relatively slowly. Here are Haffner's speculations about the Reichstag fire, apparently written within a day or two of the event:

So the Communists had burned down the Reichstag. Well, well. That could well be so; it was even to be expected. Funny, though, why they should choose the Reichstag, an empty building, where no one would profit from the fire. Well, perhaps it really had been intended as the "signal" for the uprising, which had been prevented by the "decisive measures" taken by the government. That was what the papers said, and it sounded plausible. Funny also that the Nazis got so worked up about the Reichstag. Up till then they had called it a "hot air factory." Now it was suddenly the holy of holies that had been burned down...

More seriously: Perhaps the most interesting thing about the Reichstag fire is that the claim that it was the work of the Communists was so widely believed. Even the skeptics did not regard it as entirely incredible. That was the Communists' own fault. They had become a strong party in recent years, and had again and again trumpeted their "readiness." Nobody believed they would allow themselves to be "prohibited" and slaughtered without putting up a fight. During the whole of February we had been permanently at "eyes left," waiting for the Communist counterstrike...A Communist attack was what we expected. The Communists were determined people, with fierce expressions. They raised their fists in salute and had weapons--at least, they used guns often enough in the everyday pub brawls. They boasted continually about the strength of their organization, and they had probably learned how to do "these things" in Russia. The Nazis left had left no one in doubt that they wanted to destroy them. It was natural, indeed obvious, that the Communists would retaliate. It was only surprising that there had been nothing of the kind so far.

Haffner then goes on to lament how, essentially overnight, Germans had given up their freedoms and privacy. Houses could now be searched without warrants, people arrested and held indefinitely without charges, and mail opened. Freedom of speech and of the press disappeared overnight.

What Haffner's account sounds like to me is not unlike what happens after any major event: A lot of speculation without much real knowledge of what really happened. It is essentially irrelevant to the question of whether the Nazis were or were not involved. Contrary to what Pricken said, Haffner never said that "everyone knew what really happened." He merely speculated about what happened and admitted that even skeptics of official version of what happened found the the Nazis' claim that the Communists were the arsonists at least somewhat plausible. That's because such claims were plausible, given events leading up to the fire. In fact, the question of plausibility is another instructive aspect to fallacious comparisons of 9/11 to the Reichstag fire. Given how much the Nazis benefited from the fire, it was not at all implausible to suspect that the Nazis had planned it. In contrast, to think that the Bush administration, with all its incompetence, could possibly have somehow planned and executed a conspiracy to launch the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks and kept the secret is about as implausible as it gets, about as implausible as Kent Hovind suddenly deciding to pursue a real Ph.D. in evolutionary biology.

Finally, one of the more unintentionally amusing (but also infuriating) things about the likening of 9/11 to the Reichstag fire becomes apparent when you consider one little fact about this comparison. The Reichstag was burned at night, when there was no one in it. If the Nazis were involved in its burning, this would imply that even the Nazis shrank at the thought of the carnage that might have resulted from burning a government building during the day or launching some sort of other "black ops" that would cause casualties, even if casualties would strengthen their case for "drastic measures" in response. In contrast, in the 9/11 Truther's fevered world, apparently President Bush has no such scruples. This comparison thus seems to paint him as even worse than Adolf Hitler. (Indeed, where's the Hitler Zombie when you need him?) Of course, it's not entirely unreasonable to draw parallels between the reactions of the Bush administration after 9/11 to the reaction of the Nazi regime to the Reichstag fire, but there remains, as usual, the problem of scale. Bush's actions after 9/11 are to Hitler's actions after the Reichstag Fire as a minnow is to a whale--heck, as an amoeba is to a whale. In other words, the Patriot Act is not the Reichstag Fire Decree.

You may think that I'm being excessively picky here. Maybe so. After all, this happens to be in one of my areas of interest, and not in Steve's or any other of the panel's. Besides, how many people know much about the Reichstag fire, or even anything at all about it? Why should I be annoyed that people whose skeptical skills I respect are unaware of this basic history? The answer is that knowing this little bit of history allows me to be more effective in debunking this particularly idiotic 9/11 Truther gem of argumentum ad Nazi-ium to go along with all their other "Bush = Hitler" idiocy, and I hate to see skeptics that I like and respect reveal an ignorance about history that renders them unable, at least in this one case, to marshal the strongest possible counterarguments to rebut the brain-dead conspiracy-mongering idiocy of the 9/11 Truth movement. The implication that the "fact" that Hitler burned down the Reichstag and then used the event to take total power suggests that it is not so implausible that Bush executed 9/11 and then tried to use it to justify the curtailment of civil liberties is indeed stupid for the reasons discussed by Novella and crew. However, it's stupid for at least one more reason: Although we can never be 100% certain about this and it's impossible to rule out Nazi complicity totally, what we know today is that the Nazis probably didn't burn down the Reichstag. Most likely, they just got very, very lucky that a zealot like van der Lubbe did it at such an opportune time for them.

ADDENDUM: A most interesting first-person account by Sefton Delmer. Some interesting excerpts:
Göring picked a piece of rag off the floor near one of the charred curtains. "Here, you can see for yourself Herr Chancellor how they started the fire," he said. "They hung cloths soaked in petrol over the furniture and set it alight."

Notice the 'they'. 'They' did this, 'they' did that. For Göring there was no question that more than one incendiary must have been at work. It had to be more than one to fit in with his conviction that the fire was the result of a Communist conspiracy. There had to be a gang of incendiaries. But as I looked at the rags and the other evidence, I could see nothing that one man could not have done on his own.


But while the story of the Communist plot to set the Reichstag on fire proved an enormous success in Germany and gave Hitler all the political leverage he hoped for, it was beginning prove a liability abroad. No-one outside Germany would believe that the fire was not a put-up job. The shirtless man who had been captured in the Reichstag while he was trying to spread the flames still further - a young Dutch hitch-hiker named Marinus van der Lubbe - was assumed by the world at large to be a tool of the Nazis.

The insistence of Göring and Hitler that not just van der Lubbe alone, but a whole group of people must have been at work - a theory which they had to maintain and support in order to justify their story of a Communist plot - had just the opposite effect abroad. For people accepted it as a fact that more than one pair of hands was needed to produce such a big fire, and they decided the missing hands must be Nazi hands.


But I have always believed that neither the Nazis nor the Communists laid and lit this fire, but that both exploited it for their political warfare. the Nazis did so for the immediate objective of suppressing all opposition to themselves in Germany, the Communists for the long term objective of rallying the world against the Nazis. My own view I put forward in an article on Hitler and the Reichstag fir in 1939, when I said, "I rather suspect there was really just one incendiary who lit that fire - the lunatic van der Lubbe."

Today I no longer suspect, I am sure of it.


The Nazis had suborned their scientific experts, twisted and faked the evidence, all in order to show that van der Lubbe could not possibly have raised the fire entirely by himself - as he claimed and as the CID men who had checked his story had confirmed. The Nazis insisted that a whole gang of incendiaries must have been at work. Now the Communists joyfully took up the Nazi thesis to use it as the foundation for the accusation that the Nazis were the authors of the fire and van der Lubbe their tool.
It's worth reading the whole account. it gives a plausible account of how the Nazis may well have had no one but themselves to blame for the wide acceptance of the suspicion that the Nazis had either put van der Lubbe up to the job or had used him as a dupe and done it themselves--truly ironic if true.

Quote: "I read for the first time Göbbels' hand-written entry about the Reichstag fire. As he described it, he was at his home with Hitler on that evening of February 27, 1933, when the phone rang at nine o'clock. It was the prankster "Putzi" Hanfstängl, saying: "The Reichstag's on fire." Göbbels remembered that he'd been had twice by Hanfstängl already that week, and he thought this was another prank, so he just put the phone down.

Hanfstängl phoned again and said, "You'd better listen to what I'm saying, The Reichstag's on fire." Göbbels realized this could be serious after all, so he made a phone call to the police station at the Brandenburg Gate, which confirmed that the Reichstag was on fire. Thereupon he and Hitler jumped into a car and drove straight to the Reichstag where they found their worst fears confirmed. This is in the hand-written diary, it is obviously genuine, and it confirms what we know from other sources. "

~David Irving

The Website of Carlos Whitlock Porter


READER: I thought the message below was a good write-up on the "gatekeeping" of info. He mentions Alex Jones. Jones has some good points, but he always cites the Reichstag fire as a classic instance of gov't-run false-flag op, created for the purpose of justifying tighter societal controls. He claims that "post-war German documents prove it". Do you know what he's referring to?
[Name withheld]

Quote from saveireland blog (person as letter 22):

Ok I am busy so let us be brief. There is a good site by Auzzie Peter Myers which touchs on the points mentioned.

The Internet is here, so old censorship is out and neo-censorship is here. This involves adding a little salt to the message, alloying the truth with enough lies to confuse 90% of people.

An example. Noam Chomsky, a Zionist one day to a gatekeeper for the left, making sure they never really threaten Zionism or it's core myths.He purports to believe in the Holohoax. Anyone who believes in the Holohoax is a Zionist even if they think they are anti-Israel or in favour of "human rights" or something.

Alex Jones and all those American things like Zeitgeist that give a little truth but then go and say the NWO is Fascist and Nazi and not not Jewish and Zionist. Americans are doped up and easily confused.

All the left-wing "Anti-Zionists" are gatekeepers. The Indymedia shower. Same idea: keep people away from Revisionism, which is the only thing that can free both Palestine and Europe. And one won't be freed without the other, hence the Islamophobic gatekeepers targeting our core audience on immigration/colonisation. The Jews have appointed these people to sit upon this weak point in our ideology, this nexus of potential confusion. You have Zionist agents like Arthur Kemp causing as much confusion as possible.

You have left-Zionists like the Socialist workers and right-Zionists like the BNP.

The Jews can't ban everything, so they interpret it and send out their rival interpretations which are always more popular.

The BNP and all the Islamophobes. Jews are murdering innocent Muslims over there, nominally Islamic migrants are stealing and raping here. The Jew conflates the two, to create more Zionist propaganda: suddenly the immigration the Jew created becomes a rationalisation for his murder of the innocents and his power, which is primarily used to keep Whites down.

These parties like the BNP are anti-Nazi, anti-Revisionist etc. This Islam stuff is a smokescreen behind which they move closer to the Zionists. It is for the retard level of the xenophobes who can register dark skin but not the deeper subtleties. This is how the Jew got into Europe after all , just pale enough to confuse the low brows. He plays these kind of games and the retards fall for it again and again.

Basically all Muslims in Europe are Zio-Muslims, because their presence boosts the oriental presence here and helps to screw the free Muslims over in the east. Muslim is not a good term as they have little in common politically or in any other way with say a Turk and Iran. The Turkish freemasonic state is the model all these head scarf bans are based on. Europe is being turned into a big Turkey by the Jews. But we need to be careful not to create Zionist propaganda for the Yids as we talk about this.

It would be nice if those here started a civil war, but the ZOG is busy taming them and turning them into more orthodox niggers who will not be a political threat to it, with the help of the gatekeepers and the xenophobes they fool.

We don't want to fix this system: worse is better, we want it to explode. Right-wing retards in France elected Sarkozy who uses his powers to attack White dissidents and promote mixing.

The Holohoax is the key test for political purity. Griffin even faked that for years to get himself in and then turn the BNP into a ZOG front.

The Jew has his power and media monopoly so he will be one step ahead of our less well-bred brothers even though they now have the internet.

People find themselves out of the old Jewish courtyard and trapped in the next one for the most part and those serious among us have had our rank and file stripped away.

So only by being extreme and simple can we get a message out through the gatekeepers to the people.

Down with ZOG.
COMMENT BY CARLOS: Please see THE REICHSTAG FIRE by Fritz Tobias, published in English in 1964.
In the 75 years since the fire, and in the 45 years since the publication of Tobias' book, not one shred of credible evidence has ever been found indicating that Marinus van de Lubbe did not, in fact, act alone, exactly as he claimed, and as the National Socialists implicitly admitted by acquitting all the other defendants.
A newer publication, available only in German, by the same author in collaboration with a number of other respected German historians, is Reichstagbrand - Aufklärung einer historischen Legende [Reichstag Fire: Explanation of an Historical Legend] (ISBN: 3492030270 / 3-492-03027-0), by Backes, Uwe / Jansse, Karl-Heinz / Jesse, Eckhard / Köhler, Henning / Mommsen, Hans / Tobias, Fritz); same conclusion.)

I like Alex Jones, but it must be admitted that he is barking up the wrong tree on this one, and, I think, deliberately. His "documentary proof" that the Nazis burnt the Reichstag consists of THE VOICE OF DESTRUCTION, the famous forgery and fake by Hermann Rauschning, and a single Nuremberg "affidavit" by General Halder, saying that Göring went through a tunnel and burned the place. This is impossible, totally impossible. It is always implied that the tunnel was a secret, and that the purpose of the tunnel was something very sinister. It conveyed heating pipes. It was locked with 5 doors, there were only 5 keys, kept in 5 separate locked cabinets, and they were all there after the fire. Plus the floor of the tunnel was very uneven, and was covered with iron plates that made so much noise when anyone walked on them that it could be heard all over the Reichstag, which was full of guards all night. Van der Lubbe climbed up a scaffolding. He was spotted by night watchmen almost immediately after climbing through the window and in fact he was shot at from the street. He was pursued by guards through the plenum while setting most of his fires. His "accomplices" did not exit the tunnel, they did not climb out the windows, and they did not leave through any of the entrances. No one saw them. Where did they go?
The Nazis aquitted the other defendants, but then claimed that there were other arsonists "anyway", without ever explaining where the hell they came from or where they went. All the fires set in the restaurant went out immediately. The fires in the plenum destroyed the whole central part of the building very quickly, because the glass dome cracked, creating an updraft. Any fireplace technician can tell you that with a properly functioning chimney with a good updraft, the fire will burn until all fuel is exhausted.

Jones is married to a Jew and his whole operation is aimed at claiming that it's not Jews, not Zionists, not AIPAC, who are responsible for our problems, no, it's the Nazis! Whew, is that a load off my mind! So as soon as the Jews become "Nazis", they're not Jews any more! Good news. Back to sleep.

Jones is a good rabble-rouser, but all this talk about the Illuminati and the Bilderbergers and the Trilateral Commission is a complete waste of time. No Presidential candidate -- much less three of them, over and over again -- every candidate, in every election, decade after decade -- ever promised unconditional support to the "Illuminati" [!].
Either you're part of the solution or you're part of the problem.

…The purpose of the heating pipes was to convey heating pipes from the boiler house into the building, to avoid fire. It is always insinuated that the tunnel was built or dug secretly simply to burn the Reichstag. During the trial, the Nazis sent a party of men through the tunnel in carpet slippers, and they made so much noise that any idea of use of the tunnel for the purpose of setting the fire was abandoned. They bungled very badly, in fact it is an exact parallel with the JFK assassination. All the evidence indicated no conspiracy, so they decided there was a conspiracy anyway, without any evidence. In this case the Nazis were very stupid, incredibly so.

Van der Lubbe was an extraordinary person, not at all an idiot or half-witted tramp. On the contrary, he was extremely intelligent. He was also an experienced arsonist, having successfully set fire to 3 government offices in Berlin that week. There's a lot more but it's lengthy and complicated.

Halder was one of a whole group of anti-German traitors for many years. Blaskowitz, Halder, Weizenäcker, Canaris, and another one, Fritsch, who got fired right before the war, falsely accused of marrying a prostitute, were all traitors. Canaris got caught, of course. The British said, we don't need a Secret Service, the Germans come to us in droves and tell us everything.

Anyway Van der Lubbe was an extremely interesting person, extremely intelligent, with a near photographic memory for some things. Absolutely fearless, very athletic and a very strong swimmer. Somebody offered a cash prize to the first Dutch citizen to swim the English channel, and he was planning to attempt it. He moved someplace where he could swim in the sea every day and actually swam a quite considerable distance along the Dutch coast between two towns. It was not an unrealistic ambition for him at all. He was not blind and was not a half-wit. Very hard worker, very strong physically, experienced Communist speaker and anti-Communist heckler, very well educated by reading in public libraries, spoke very good German, understood it perfectly, many amazing qualities.

It's a shame he was executed, he would have been an extremely valuable witness in the end. He saw through the Communist leadership, left the Party and joined a small splinter group, he may well have seen through Communism itself in the long run. That's what I think. Arson without loss of life was not even punishable by death in Germany, so they passed a special law ex-post facto and executed him. When told he was to be beheaded at 10 o'clock the next morning, he said, "Thank you very much for telling me. I shall see you tomorrow". Wrote no letters, no notes, no last words, showed up next morning as if he was going for a haircut, and was executed as cool as a cucumber.

The court Dutch interpreter (who was never required) said “It is quite a remarkable fact, but van der Lubbe does not speak like an ordinary Dutch workman. He speaks in the idiom of educated people”. Another person said “Because of the damage to his eyesight, he appears to stare vacantly into space at times, but in fact he pays very close attention to everything going on around him and very few things escape his notice”. He understood the slightest nuance of meaning in German and could remember whole sentences word for word, insisting that they be re-worded to reflect some different, but minor, shade of meaning. His eyes had been damaged in two separate accidents with lime, but he was not blind. Because of this problem he developed an extraordinary memory for directions, he could remember everywhere he went in extremely great detail, and never got lost. He had been in Berlin for a week and knew the city almost as well as the police. He described his movements in the Reichstag step by step and never forgot a thing. He could describe long walks in Berlin, street by street. The Nazis “proved” that the curtains couldn't burn by using samples which had been kept in an airtight box for years, forgetting that the fire retardant chemical impregnation evaporated with time, and in Berlin theaters had to be renewed every 2 years!

He lived off public assistance and spent his time in public libraries, working odd jobs or tramping around. He was arrested in Poland trying to enter Russia illegally; but he was not just an ordinary "tramp". When told he could not possibly have caused that much damage all by himself, he calmly replied, "In that case, the plenum must have been far more inflammable that these gentlemen imagine". The plenum was almost 40 years old. The curtains set fire to the woodwork and the dome cracked, creating an artificial chimney.

It's impossible to read about van der Lubbe without a sense of admiration. He was a revolutionary, easily prepared to give his life for a cause. He had a nervous breakdown in jail when he saw that his effort was a total failure: the Communists rejected his gesture, because they wanted to blame the Nazis (which has been the standard propaganda yarn ever since), while the Nazis rejected his confessions because they wanted to blame the Communists! It never occurred to them that it was actually far more important to prove themselves innocent than to prove that the Communists were guilty. As a result of his hopeless position, which lasted for many months, Van der Lubbe became completely apathetic, which is understandable. In one of his last court appearances, Van der Lubbe made a long and impassioned, but lucid, coherent, and very well-spoken appeal to the court to put an end to the proceedings, saying, "All I ask is a verdict". The judges kept on telling him to name his accomplices. He kept on saying he couldn't, because he didn't have any. By the time he died, he was probably completely disgusted with life generally.
Personally, I think the Vollmächtigungsgesetz would have been passed with or without the Reichstag fire because the country was ungovernable.
[READER… Thanks much for this extensive write-up. has a file (Worm in the Apple) that discusses how much German traitors helped the Allies, so much so that WW II would never have happened, or, once started, would never have been won by the Allies, without their help...


[Image: reichstag_1945.jpg]

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Rainbow Glenn Greewald's New NSA-funded Website CharliePrime 17 593 03-10-2014, 04:32 PM
Last Post: CharliePrime
Video Viggo Mortensen on Alex Jones CharliePrime 0 329 06-21-2013, 02:09 PM
Last Post: CharliePrime
  Alex Jones on BBC One Sunday Politics stiffy 15 1,115 06-15-2013, 08:21 PM
Last Post: SiLVa
  Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills R.R 10 867 02-06-2013, 12:46 PM
Last Post: Valthrax
  Watch “Alex Jones vs Piers Morgan On Gun Control – CNN datars 2 477 01-09-2013, 11:13 PM
Last Post: datars
  Jesse Ventura Rips Alex Jones A New One For Gatekeeping Judy Wood & DEW - IMG INT Negentropic 15 7,371 11-17-2012, 03:36 AM
Last Post: Negentropic
  The Satanic Salutes Of Alex Jones And Ron Paul fred15 13 2,604 06-28-2012, 03:46 PM
Last Post: rsol
  Alex Jones's Satanist Friends fred15 16 3,522 05-10-2012, 02:55 AM
Last Post: operatorkos
  V for Bullshit, Alex Jones & the Practically Non-Existent French 'Resistance' Negentropic 8 4,693 04-30-2012, 01:47 PM
Last Post: Negentropic
  Hidden Masonic Symbols In Alex Jones Broadcasts fred15 18 9,115 04-08-2012, 03:39 PM
Last Post: nico23

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)