Ive only listened to the first 40 minutes or so and cant listen to the rest until tomorrow. But Charlie cant understand how Hitler could be an admirer of Nietzsche if Nietzsche wasnt an anti-semite. Hitler liked the idea of a superman race. There were a lot of these guys around the turn of the century here and in Europe who were way into eugenics and the idea that you could ultimately create a superhuman species through selective breeding and sound positive eugenics. Like you could literally get a human being's IQ up to 200 or 300. It might take 500 years but it could theoretically be done. People talk down on eugenics but hell, look at the opposite-dysgenics which is were we are heading. Another one of these guys was George Bernard Shaw who William Pierce was a huge admirer of even though Shaw didnt share Pierce's extremist views about the white race and the jewish question. (Shaw wrote the play 'Man and Superman' which made a huge impression on William Luther Pierce). I am an admirer of CG even though he has some left-leaning tendencies(compared to most of us) when it comes to the survival and advancement of the white race. Hes pretty egalitarian. I am an admirer of Hitchens even though he openly denounced racism and ethnocentrism of any kind and believes in the Holocaust. To be honest, I think youd have to be a little bit cookoo to agree with someone 100% on every single issue. So goes it with Hitler and Nietzsche. He liked the idea of a superman. As far as Nietzsche poking fun at the German race, so what. David Irving has done the same thing. As for Hitler having dealings with questionable business entities, I will have to listen to the rest of the show and make up my mind. I will say that no country on earth could function economically in the modern world without having some international business dealings.The world was too globalized in the 20th century. It just would not be possible. Especially a country like Germany who was relying on importing and exporting. Ive disagreed with CG in the past on certain shows he did and Im pretty sure I will disagree on this Hitler series but I will still support him and look forward to his future shows.
Curt: that is probably the most mature response I have seen in some time. In other words you will agree to disagree but you didn't call him a "shil" or a "jew" or some other exaggerated insulting name. And yes, I agree, you would have to be cookoo to agree with someone on every single issue.
If I could nominate a post of the year this would be the one.
You have to be kidding me. Charlie needs to hang it up and find a different hobby.
And what is the evidence that Hitler was an admirer of Nietsche? That comes from the silly propaganda that he was trying to build a "master race" of "superman." There is no actual evidence that Hitler was a fan of Nietzsche, not one statement from him suggesting that has ever been found.
Charlie just left one cult (Christianity) for another (his own, "the Jews are responsible for everything that has happened for thousands of years" cult). Maybe it makes him feel better about being duped by the Jews if he tells himself that everyone else ever has also been duped by them.
Charlie seems like a nice guy, but if we face the facts, he can't talk for 5 minutes without saying some inaccurate insane conspiracy theory. It doesn't do any good for anyone. Henry Ford, Martin Luther, Hitler, etc., are all shady according to Charlie. Who does Charlie think was not part of a Jew conspiracy is what I'd like to know.
Ben G I agree with a lot of what you say as I do Curt ... I think the truth is we are all a part of this conspiracy in one way or another whether we like to admit it or not.
It would appear to me that another reason for his attack on Hitler (I'd have thought CG would embrace him, given his antipathy towards Jews, and justifiably so)is that Hitler embraced Christianity and described the NSDAP as a 'Christian movement.'
What CG or those like him gain from being Nihilists confounds me.
The problem with that Max is that we have never had true Christianity, we have had the Church, and they are as far apart from one another as one can get.
Coming at this from a CG supporter, I am finding his argument somewhat lacking so far. CG quotes a number of times from Mein Kampf. It would have been useful to state which part of the book they were from so that his sources and context could be verified. He states that Rosenberg and Schacht were both Jewish and yet gives no evidence for this! The fact that Germany was already on it's knees and controlled by Jews, why would they need to bring in someone like Hitler when they had a free run of the place? CG can't seem to grasp the absolute dire state that Germany was in in prior to Hitler, and the huge number of Communists in the country. The only way that the Germany could have been turned around was with a strong leader who was solely responsible for turning the situation round. CG also criticizes Nietsche, again in a out of context quote? for criticising the German people, and yet how many times have we heard CG himself call the American people dumb ass, mutton chomping sheep? I am perfectly open to the argument, but it will take more evidence than what has been presented so far.
As Charlie said in his podcasts about Paul vs James, orthodox judaism, accepting Christ as the messiah, keeping the OT law including the holy days and sabbath, physical circumcision, clean and unclean meats, etc. That's the way I understood what he said ;)
Charlie said it's over for Hitler defenders because of him being a fan of Nietzsche, and Nietzsche's statements about the German people being the lowest of all the people, but if one were to apply that same standard to Charlie, then one could write off all his work, since he has referred to, as recently as in the past few weeks, "the mutton chomping sheep," and said that people deserve what they get and other such statements.
To the extent that Hitler recognized that most people don't mind having their lives run for them by others, so long as it's not an open despotism without much benefit or propaganda, then he was simply expressing a recognition of human nature just as much as Charlie has.
Well, Ben G., so far, I've only heard definite confirmation that he thinks that the late Father Coughlin and Bobby Fischer weren't shills for the Jewish supremacists, but it's an ever-decreasing list, to be sure.
And it's the case that his speculations about Luther and others don't have the same rigour as most of the claims he has made about the Bible and particular individuals mentioned therein.
And while Charlie was mentioning that the Jewish supremacists want to get you into one of two camps -- of either worshiping Hitler or viewing him as the most evil person to ever live and blaming him for the murder of six million Jews, it's also the case that the Jewish supremacists would love to get those in the camp of thinking that they are behind every war as Charlie has openly stated on this show, and as he has alluded to in the past, because it gives them a sense of invincibility, and as Sun Tzu -- whom he accuses of being a Jewish supremacist creation -- said himself (paraphrasing), the best way to defeat your enemy is to defeat his mind before he even takes the to the battlefield, and to speculate about them being behind every major subversive movement does exactly that.
Neither Rosenberg or Schacht were Jews. Charles is wrong. The rest of his opinion here is just that opinion which lacks intellectual basis and honesty.
Yes, Rodney, I wondered about that myself, as he made that claim five minutes into the show, and I am aware that some have questioned whether Alfred Rosenberg was Jewish, because of his name, and Charlie is essentially arguing that you can't get much more Jewish than that name, so therefore he was Jewish, but it's the case that not every Berg is Jewish, and I hadn't even heard the allegation that Schacht is Jewish, so the question for Charlie is, what are your sources for those two claims.
As for the allegation of Hitler being controlled opposition because of Rockefeller funding, I have to be very objective in analyzing that claim, as I have concluded that Ludwig von Mises was effectively controlled opposition, if not actual controlled opposition, as he was funded by the Rockefeller Fund, and as Charlie makes the case about Hitler, that not only why would they give money unless it was because of some sort of support, but why would you accept it.
I see the difference with Hitler being that it is normal for the elite, comprising of Jewish supremacists at the top for the past few centuries, and in unquestioned control since the 1960s, to fund both sides of a dispute.
The issue becomes do you then go outside of the boundaries set up for you by those with ulterior motives. For instance, the same logic that Charlie applies to Hitler can be applied to David Duke, in that he is being used by the Jewish supremacists, as he was brought onto Wolf Blitzer's show to associate Iran and White nationalists with the official Holocaust narrative and Hollywood's stereotype of the KKK.
And also, he's used in that when he talks about articles in the Israeli press and by Jewish columnists there and in the U.S., anyone doing a Web search will see his name in the first or second page and the acknowledgements of Jewish exceptionalism and chicanery will be immediately discredited in the minds of most, associating it with the KKK and White supremacism.
But to the extent that David Duke goes outside of that box, and as long as he hasn't been proven to be a direct agent of the Jewish supremacists, then I don't see how he can be found blameworthy on that account alone, and I think the same thing applies to Hitler.
So it's not over just on the basis of Hitler and the National Socialists receiving money and weapons from the U.S. and Jewish companies and banks, because one of the ways that Hitler went outside of the box, is in issuing interest-free credit to pay off the bogus Weimar debts.
Charlie talks about the two camps they want you in -- of worshiping Hitler or demonizing him. I take the Ellen Brown position of recognizing him for the provably good things he did (interest-free credit, turning around the economy in an unparalleled way) and not speculating about various matters that can't be rigorously proven either way.
Rosenberg was a Baltic German, there are numerous names that can be Jew or Aryan. This is why we must be very careful when people base accusations of Jewry based solely on a name. This is silly and engaging in an over simplification. Hitler did NOT like Schacht but retained him because of his ability and relationships in America and ability to rework Weimar debt which had strangled Germany. He was replaced by Funk in 1938 whose mentor was Feder. Hitler would have liked to have had Feder in the top position but he was in declining health and was appointed as a Deputy Minister.
My point exactly. How could this guy expect to be taken seriously while claiming ignorant crap like Alfred Rosenberg is Jewish. Because his name sounds Jewish? Well it's a German name, genius. A kindergartener can do better research than this guy.
I have noticed that this guy speaks much shit. Tha last straw was that he did not mention that Hemingway was a communist spy and war criminal, maybe a Jew. He just said that he was probably murdered. I think this man does what he does for money. If he does not support Hitler he is not in so big danger. But maybe he has some backers too.
20 comments:
Ive only listened to the first 40 minutes or so and cant listen to the rest until tomorrow. But Charlie cant understand how Hitler could be an admirer of Nietzsche if Nietzsche wasnt an anti-semite. Hitler liked the idea of a superman race. There were a lot of these guys around the turn of the century here and in Europe who were way into eugenics and the idea that you could ultimately create a superhuman species through selective breeding and sound positive eugenics. Like you could literally get a human being's IQ up to 200 or 300. It might take 500 years but it could theoretically be done. People talk down on eugenics but hell, look at the opposite-dysgenics which is were we are heading. Another one of these guys was George Bernard Shaw who William Pierce was a huge admirer of even though Shaw didnt share Pierce's extremist views about the white race and the jewish question. (Shaw wrote the play 'Man and Superman' which made a huge impression on William Luther Pierce). I am an admirer of CG even though he has some left-leaning tendencies(compared to most of us) when it comes to the survival and advancement of the white race. Hes pretty egalitarian. I am an admirer of Hitchens even though he openly denounced racism and ethnocentrism of any kind and believes in the Holocaust. To be honest, I think youd have to be a little bit cookoo to agree with someone 100% on every single issue. So goes it with Hitler and Nietzsche. He liked the idea of a superman. As far as Nietzsche poking fun at the German race, so what. David Irving has done the same thing. As for Hitler having dealings with questionable business entities, I will have to listen to the rest of the show and make up my mind. I will say that no country on earth could function economically in the modern world without having some international business dealings.The world was too globalized in the 20th century. It just would not be possible. Especially a country like Germany who was relying on importing and exporting. Ive disagreed with CG in the past on certain shows he did and Im pretty sure I will disagree on this Hitler series but I will still support him and look forward to his future shows.
Curt: that is probably the most mature response I have seen in some time. In other words you will agree to disagree but you didn't call him a "shil" or a "jew" or some other exaggerated insulting name. And yes, I agree, you would have to be cookoo to agree with someone on every single issue.
If I could nominate a post of the year this would be the one.
You have to be kidding me. Charlie needs to hang it up and find a different hobby.
And what is the evidence that Hitler was an admirer of Nietsche? That comes from the silly propaganda that he was trying to build a "master race" of "superman." There is no actual evidence that Hitler was a fan of Nietzsche, not one statement from him suggesting that has ever been found.
Charlie just left one cult (Christianity) for another (his own, "the Jews are responsible for everything that has happened for thousands of years" cult). Maybe it makes him feel better about being duped by the Jews if he tells himself that everyone else ever has also been duped by them.
Charlie seems like a nice guy, but if we face the facts, he can't talk for 5 minutes without saying some inaccurate insane conspiracy theory. It doesn't do any good for anyone. Henry Ford, Martin Luther, Hitler, etc., are all shady according to Charlie. Who does Charlie think was not part of a Jew conspiracy is what I'd like to know.
Ben G I agree with a lot of what you say as I do Curt ... I think the truth is we are all a part of this conspiracy in one way or another whether we like to admit it or not.
It would appear to me that another reason for his attack on Hitler (I'd have thought CG would embrace him, given his antipathy towards Jews, and justifiably so)is that Hitler embraced Christianity and described the NSDAP as a 'Christian movement.'
What CG or those like him gain from being Nihilists confounds me.
Happiness is knowing what you believe in.
The problem with that Max is that we have never had true Christianity, we have had the Church, and they are as far apart from one another as one can get.
So, Steven, what is "true Christianity"? Please enlighten us.
Coming at this from a CG supporter, I am finding his argument somewhat lacking so far. CG quotes a number of times from Mein Kampf. It would have been useful to state which part of the book they were from so that his sources and context could be verified. He states that Rosenberg and Schacht were both Jewish and yet gives no evidence for this! The fact that Germany was already on it's knees and controlled by Jews, why would they need to bring in someone like Hitler when they had a free run of the place? CG can't seem to grasp the absolute dire state that Germany was in in prior to Hitler, and the huge number of Communists in the country. The only way that the Germany could have been turned around was with a strong leader who was solely responsible for turning the situation round. CG also criticizes Nietsche, again in a out of context quote? for criticising the German people, and yet how many times have we heard CG himself call the American people dumb ass, mutton chomping sheep? I am perfectly open to the argument, but it will take more evidence than what has been presented so far.
Mary ... umm ... i'd say spiritual, mystical .. NOT LITERAL HISTORY which has kept us in darkness.
so, if there's no historical basis for Christianity, why bother with it?
Why not learn the mystical, spiritual .. there are historical roots for that
As Charlie said in his podcasts about Paul vs James, orthodox judaism, accepting Christ as the messiah, keeping the OT law including the holy days and sabbath, physical circumcision, clean and unclean meats, etc. That's the way I understood what he said ;)
Charlie said it's over for Hitler defenders because of him being a fan of Nietzsche, and Nietzsche's statements about the German people being the lowest of all the people, but if one were to apply that same standard to Charlie, then one could write off all his work, since he has referred to, as recently as in the past few weeks, "the mutton chomping sheep," and said that people deserve what they get and other such statements.
To the extent that Hitler recognized that most people don't mind having their lives run for them by others, so long as it's not an open despotism without much benefit or propaganda, then he was simply expressing a recognition of human nature just as much as Charlie has.
Well, Ben G., so far, I've only heard definite confirmation that he thinks that the late Father Coughlin and Bobby Fischer weren't shills for the Jewish supremacists, but it's an ever-decreasing list, to be sure.
And it's the case that his speculations about Luther and others don't have the same rigour as most of the claims he has made about the Bible and particular individuals mentioned therein.
And while Charlie was mentioning that the Jewish supremacists want to get you into one of two camps -- of either worshiping Hitler or viewing him as the most evil person to ever live and blaming him for the murder of six million Jews, it's also the case that the Jewish supremacists would love to get those in the camp of thinking that they are behind every war as Charlie has openly stated on this show, and as he has alluded to in the past, because it gives them a sense of invincibility, and as Sun Tzu -- whom he accuses of being a Jewish supremacist creation -- said himself (paraphrasing), the best way to defeat your enemy is to defeat his mind before he even takes the to the battlefield, and to speculate about them being behind every major subversive movement does exactly that.
Neither Rosenberg or Schacht were Jews. Charles is wrong. The rest of his opinion here is just that opinion which lacks intellectual basis and honesty.
Yes, Rodney, I wondered about that myself, as he made that claim five minutes into the show, and I am aware that some have questioned whether Alfred Rosenberg was Jewish, because of his name, and Charlie is essentially arguing that you can't get much more Jewish than that name, so therefore he was Jewish, but it's the case that not every Berg is Jewish, and I hadn't even heard the allegation that Schacht is Jewish, so the question for Charlie is, what are your sources for those two claims.
As for the allegation of Hitler being controlled opposition because of Rockefeller funding, I have to be very objective in analyzing that claim, as I have concluded that Ludwig von Mises was effectively controlled opposition, if not actual controlled opposition, as he was funded by the Rockefeller Fund, and as Charlie makes the case about Hitler, that not only why would they give money unless it was because of some sort of support, but why would you accept it.
I see the difference with Hitler being that it is normal for the elite, comprising of Jewish supremacists at the top for the past few centuries, and in unquestioned control since the 1960s, to fund both sides of a dispute.
The issue becomes do you then go outside of the boundaries set up for you by those with ulterior motives. For instance, the same logic that Charlie applies to Hitler can be applied to David Duke, in that he is being used by the Jewish supremacists, as he was brought onto Wolf Blitzer's show to associate Iran and White nationalists with the official Holocaust narrative and Hollywood's stereotype of the KKK.
And also, he's used in that when he talks about articles in the Israeli press and by Jewish columnists there and in the U.S., anyone doing a Web search will see his name in the first or second page and the acknowledgements of Jewish exceptionalism and chicanery will be immediately discredited in the minds of most, associating it with the KKK and White supremacism.
But to the extent that David Duke goes outside of that box, and as long as he hasn't been proven to be a direct agent of the Jewish supremacists, then I don't see how he can be found blameworthy on that account alone, and I think the same thing applies to Hitler.
So it's not over just on the basis of Hitler and the National Socialists receiving money and weapons from the U.S. and Jewish companies and banks, because one of the ways that Hitler went outside of the box, is in issuing interest-free credit to pay off the bogus Weimar debts.
Charlie talks about the two camps they want you in -- of worshiping Hitler or demonizing him. I take the Ellen Brown position of recognizing him for the provably good things he did (interest-free credit, turning around the economy in an unparalleled way) and not speculating about various matters that can't be rigorously proven either way.
Rosenberg was a Baltic German, there are numerous names that can be Jew or Aryan. This is why we must be very careful when people base accusations of Jewry based solely on a name. This is silly and engaging in an over simplification. Hitler did NOT like Schacht but retained him because of his ability and relationships in America and ability to rework Weimar debt which had strangled Germany. He was replaced by Funk in 1938 whose mentor was Feder. Hitler would have liked to have had Feder in the top position but he was in declining health and was appointed as a Deputy Minister.
My point exactly. How could this guy expect to be taken seriously while claiming ignorant crap like Alfred Rosenberg is Jewish. Because his name sounds Jewish? Well it's a German name, genius. A kindergartener can do better research than this guy.
I have noticed that this guy speaks much shit. Tha last straw was that he did not mention that Hemingway was a communist spy and war criminal, maybe a Jew. He just said that he was probably murdered. I think this man does what he does for money. If he does not support Hitler he is not in so big danger. But maybe he has some backers too.
Post a Comment