>>17418107

>if it was a forgery, the existence of the Protocols cannot be used as an evidence for The Jewish Conspiracy, do you understand?

They can be used for just such a purpose because of the PREDICTIVE power of the protocols.

The odds of it being able to perfectly describe the future (i.e. now), in lieu of there being an actual Jewish conspiracy is near zero. Add in the fact that one can witness the Jewish hyper involvement in every element alleged by the protocols.. seals the deal.

Forgery or not, the conspiracy is real, and after all, is written up in the Talmud for all to see, and spills out of the Jewish media, and Jewish talking heads daily, again for all to see.

Their project is to globalise the world, and take control of it, and end the White race, and certainly, end the ability of Whites to have their own nations and sustainable & realisable White group self-determination within them, without Jewish and "minority" mediation.

So the protocols CORRECTLY charge the culprits, and the project, regardless of the documents origins.

If not a direct Jewish publication, likely a person with exposure to the inner workings of their clique.

>>17418159

>Bankers always fund wars.

Given there was an international blockade on Germany, and Germany had ITS OWN currency, backed by its own labor and industry, that needed no private bankers to debt binge into existence.. what do you think Germany could spend this imaginary "international banker" cash on?

The German answer to the blockade was to BARTER goods for goods across borders with non-hostile partners.

Kind of goes against your "funded both sides" doesn't it.

War was made on Germany very specifically because it had freed itself from the international banking system, and was no longer a part of it.

The same reason they have made war on dozens of targets over the last century.

The idea that Hitler was a "Rothschild plant" requires specific actions he took to have:

a) been against the interests of Germany

b) have been a betrayal of his stated positions to the public

c) have taken the place of much better actions that would have led to much better outcomes in the absence of his chosen actions, and for this to be FORESEEABLE and obvious, with his actions, in lieu of the path forgone, clearly working against the best outcome for Germany.

And each of those conditions must hold, for SPECIFIC examples, or the charge against him is false.

And such a charge cannot be successfully laid for any of his actions.

"he let a Rothschild escape".

1. killing one man in a petty act changes nothing.

2. the key criteria is he closed their banks and their access.

3. letting prisoners go, is a COMMON gesture of goodwill, to avoid more serious conflict.

It is a "see, we are genuine in only wanting our independence, and are not on a quest to murder people, or take over the world".

Hitler NEEDED the Anglo world to refrain from a very deep and serious commitment to destroying Germany. He NEEDED the Western world to act rationally in its own interests. Acts such as these can be read in that light. Trying to keep emotional temperatures low, and commitment to a fight to the death minimalised. Because an "all out war" "to the death" was going to be the worst for Europeans, on both sides (and yes he cared about both European sides), and Germans specifically.

You basically want to condemn the man for acting judiciously, honourably and intelligently. But that is exactly how a good leader of the German people should act!

>>17418356

>which would make sense because for example Bush funded Hitler/Nazis, then it would be basically 2.

The Communists were financed by United States Jews. The "Nazis" got limited financial support from non-Jewish friends around the world.

They also had an agreement in the early days of the war with Zionist Jews, to speed the Jewish exit from Germany, and establish them in Palestine.

Again, these speak to intelligent leadership, and looking for win-win fair outcomes. AVOIDING unnecessary & damaging conflict.

Again none of the acts can be laid as against the German interest, or humanities.

In the end he had to be prepared for war, because the enemies of humanity were going to bring it. But he gave every chance for other paths to be taken instead (other than letting Germany be laid waste & genocided without a fight), but they would have required RATIONALITY on the Anglo side, and their not being willing to destroy themselves to advance Jewish enslavement of humanity. And there us Anglos let humanity and Germany and Hitler down, not the other way around.

There was nothing bad about financing the Nazis either, since they were the side that was in the right.

The French financed the American revolution. Did that make the revolutionaries bad guys?

>>17418358

>STFU fucking Kike!

You either have a pretzel for a mind, or you are Jewish. The mental gymnastics you have to leap through to conclude a person defending that Hitler was rational and acting in the German interest is Jewish is extreme.

I laid out the way for you to prove your point. An action of Hitler's must be laid out as to be CLEARLY against the German interest, and a betrayal of what he outlined to the German people would be his approach.

No such act exists. And we can see that clearly via your own actions. Rather than lay out verifiable proof of such acts, of which there must be many, if your case against Hitler is to be true, you leap to character assassination, slander and attacks.

EVERY single act Hitler took, is consistent with what he said he would do, and was clearly a rational choice given the range of options available to him.

Hitler was defeated only because Anglos chose to act completely against their own interests, and destroy themselves on behalf of Jews. That, prior to ww2, could not have been rationally expected.

It can now, because we see how easily they dominate our weaker minds. But in the time of Hitler, no one thought Anglo people, to have been foolish to quite that degree.

>>17418368

>Remember laws and pretending to be a state of law?

1. What law had he broken? Remember the activities of the enemies of the German people were quite legal under Weimar laws, and under Hitler the activities were stopped. So under what charges would you have Rothschild charged?

1. For your case to be won, that Hitler betrayed Germany by allowing a Rothschild to leave, you would have to prove the case that there would have been more benefit to the German nation in a petty murder, than being paid a huge ransom for him.

Exactly as I said, your prime example on inspection, is not an example of betrayal of the German people at all.

As for other Jews "being put into camps", the US, UK, Australia and others all did the same thing to Japanese and German residents within their borders.

It might surprise you, but when fighting a war, it doesn't do you a lot of good to allow partisan combatants free rein to run around your territory. And note Rothschild was not free to run around German territory either. He was locked up, and then permanently exiled.

This is how DUMB you have to be to eat up anti-Nazi propaganda. All of the lurid and shrill complaints about the Nazis are SO EASILY & RATIONALLY explained.

But you never get to hear such a response to the chargers laid against them, because when people do, it makes it VERY clear on which side the truth lies.

>>17418379

>Imagine Hitler would NOT have invaded all sorts of European countries.

Without capturing and liberating some of the surrounding territory Germany would not have been able to mount a sustained effort in its own defence. They would have had no oil, limited manufacturing and ore resources, and no land buffer to offer resistance against widespread and unilateral bombing of its cities.

You have to understand, the Jewish led Allies were DETERMINED to make war on Germany, and the Communists were always coming for them.

Germany's ONLY chance was to offer the world a better path, which they did, and prepare for war, and to capture the resources they would need to fight it.

Sitting tight did not save Saddam. It did not stop Assad being bombed (only Russia's potential nuclear involvement has stopped his overthrow via a massive war), Libya keeping to its borders did not save them from being destroyed by the global bankers.

The last 500 years is replete with the banker led side making war on anyone it wanted, whether they needed to concoct a lie to do so, got a casus belli, or just proceeded regardless.

Your assumption is that Germany would have been left alone if they just stayed put. Looking at the history of every side involved in the war, before and after, makes such an assumption look absolutely ridiculous and without any historical support whatsoever.

IF Hitler had proceeded as you wish, THEN you'd be able to make a very real and responsible claim that he betrayed his people. By leaving them sitting ducks for absolute genocide.

NOTE: how quickly the German side was defeated once conflict reached the borders of Germany. They could NEVER succesfully defend their land if world powers could walk right up to their borders.

>>17418389

>Sending them to their certain death (10+ million of them) is not betrayal?

Again, for your charge to carry weight, it must be that Germany was not at risk if they just sat still. But the historical record and the actions of the Jewish Bolsheviks on their borders put the lie to that sentiment.

The historical actions of France, UK and USA make of your statement an absolute lie.

Note: France & UK declared war on Germany first, not the reverse. The Allies invaded German territory first, not the reverse. Germany sought every alternate means to war to prevent the persecution of ethnic Germans in Poland, on GERMAN land. Inclusive of allowing the land to remain in control of Poland, so long as international peace keepers were kept present to maintain the peace. Refused of course.

Why refused? The ALLIES wanted war.

Germany COULD NOT just sit there and let itself be destroyed.

They, despite History channel propaganda, were the defensive party, not the aggressors.

Hitler PLEADED with Western Europe to join him in fighting the Communists. Instead the "Allies" fought to deliver half of Europe to Bolshevik control.

The traitors were on OUR side, not the German one.

How many wars has USA fought in the last 100 years? dozens? more?

How many were fought on American territory vs thousands of miles from its borders?

What about the UK's record prior to the? Ever see a map of their invasions and attacks on foreign nations in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries?

But "muh Hitler was the aggressor and the Germans had nothing to worry about" if they just sat and waited.

Also, what did it say in the Communist manifesto about their revolution being global?

"just sit and wait without oil, resources, or a buffer zone, I am sure it will be fine, or else you are evil".

If people were capable of thinking for themselves the History Channel would be out of business.

>>17418449

>Nazis were probably the first that used the TV mass hypnosis, just like with covid.

Now we are down to "probablies" as attack vectors.. sigh.

What counts is not whether a government creates media for the masses, or not, but what the government encourages.

What did the "nazis" encourage that was bad?

…healthy happy and dutiful families?!

Oh my the monsters!

What has been encourages since then, and by whom.

Now THERE are the monsters. The people the Germans were fighting. The people ruling US.

>>17418538

>Hating fellow German citizens,

You mean the ones teaching that gender is a "feeling" and encouraging homosexuality and transgenderism?

Sounds like we desperately need the Nazi approach here. Would certainly help clean things up.

>>17418544

And civic nationalism is for cucks. It results on NOTHING but harm for the heritage population being replaced & disenfranchised.

Pushing back on such people for not being "true" to the stock of the nation is the appropriate response.

The alternative is modern Paris, UK, Sweden, USA…

NOT an improvement. Accepting the people replacing your and who have invaded your people's lands, as "equals" is not a recipe for survival, but demographic genocide.

>>17418549

>If every Jew did what you say (they didn't), then why did they release the fat banker Jew, who must have done the same according to your brainwashed brain?

Didn't say every Jew did. And we already discussed the other. Look, do you need some help making decent points?

>>17418549

>And why invent fake and phoney health reasons like covid?

Covid was a lab connected relatively harmless bioweapon designed and released by Jews, with Chinese assistance, and then pumped by their propaganda and minions, in order to bring about the Great Reset and get the vast majority of White people on the planet to inject a fake mRNA vaccine that harms their health, enriches Jews, and potentially sterilises their offspring a generation hence.

Like the Holocaust, it is a successful modern fiction carried out be the same parties.