Jimmy Falun Gong, Hitler’s Mind Control History |540|

Robbe was drawing a distinction between reported COVD deaths in the U.S. vs China. I'd assume most around here think the official U.S. numbers are bullshit. Yet propping up numbers provided by Chinese officials as a reference seems pretty laughable. Or, more dangerously, bias-seeking. Right?
Thanks for putting the discussion into context.
 
wow... thx... confidence restored :)
I just realized why Rogan's comment irked me (and probably many others). It's 3d chess stuff.
Points made (in order) paraphrasing to prove a point
-I'm not willing to have Trump on JRE - (cough cough, had alex jones multiple times)
-He's a controversial figure - (cough cough, had alex jones multiple times)
-"other people" were freaking out about him being a threat to our democracy.

Pertaining to actual conversation (as opposed to sound bytes)....

In my opinion, these 3 statements were a combined answer to the question "But Joe, of course you would have Trump on your show if it was up to you, why really??"

I hope that makes at least some sense.

IMO, Joe was blaming libtards for him not being able to host Trump on JRE. But he threw in that extra OOOOMPH around the statement "threat to our democracy" to offset the fact that he really wishes he could do it.

The lie was pretending Trumps not at tippy top of his Guest wishlist...
He used Comedy magic to divert it at the libtards...

clumsy Mic drop
 
Why does everything have to be so complex around here. 3d chess.

Rogan has had Jones on for years. He's had other controversial people on his show. Its sorta what he does.

Trump's in another class. How many ex POTUS has Rogan had on his show for starters? I mean the profile difference between Trump and Jones is gigantic.

Finally, and this was his biggest point, Trump would use his show as a marketing platform (like he uses EVERYTHING) and NOT to engage in an authentic discussion. Rogan's good at getting past this with many guests, but he even mentioned he's not sure he could do it with Trump and certainly not in the allotted timeframe of a podcast.

Maybe that's it, end of story. No comedy magic misdirection. Just, actually, what he plainly stated.
 
I just realized why Rogan's comment irked me (and probably many others). It's 3d chess stuff.
Points made (in order) paraphrasing to prove a point
-I'm not willing to have Trump on JRE - (cough cough, had alex jones multiple times)
-He's a controversial figure - (cough cough, had alex jones multiple times)
-"other people" were freaking out about him being a threat to our democracy.

Pertaining to actual conversation (as opposed to sound bytes)....

In my opinion, these 3 statements were a combined answer to the question "But Joe, of course you would have Trump on your show if it was up to you, why really??"

I hope that makes at least some sense.

IMO, Joe was blaming libtards for him not being able to host Trump on JRE. But he threw in that extra OOOOMPH around the statement "threat to our democracy" to offset the fact that he really wishes he could do it.

The lie was pretending Trumps not at tippy top of his Guest wishlist...
He used Comedy magic to divert it at the libtards...

clumsy Mic drop
Nicely nuanced. I get your excellent point. this would also fit my perception of rogan.

Full lavalier microphone drop on this one :)
 
Why does everything have to be so complex around here. 3d chess.

Rogan has had Jones on for years. He's had other controversial people on his show. Its sorta what he does.

Trump's in another class. How many ex POTUS has Rogan had on his show for starters? I mean the profile difference between Trump and Jones is gigantic.

Finally, and this was his biggest point, Trump would use his show as a marketing platform (like he uses EVERYTHING) and NOT to engage in an authentic discussion. Rogan's good at getting past this with many guests, but he even mentioned he's not sure he could do it with Trump and certainly not in the allotted timeframe of a podcast.

Maybe that's it, end of story. No comedy magic misdirection. Just, actually, what he plainly stated.

I'll make up a fake scenario for example.

Rob speaking to Alex: Why don't you have Eric Dubay on to discuss Flat Earth Theory, Eric is well respected in their community and you might be able to make a difference.

Alex: Na, I don't think I could do it. He's way too controversial. Also there's a lot of legit educated people who would see it as giving Flat Earth a platform.

While those things may be true, they're not Alex's real reasons, and anybody who knows Alex would know there's a lot missing from his explanation / below the surface.

This is not a perfect example, but it's a good example of 3d dodging.

Per the example (incase anyone confused by it) Alex's typical answer to this is along the lines of barrier of entry, like "Not gonna consider it until they come at it with some real science and maybe even education, not backyard stuff".

And regarding 3d chess, that's pretty much a large part of what comedians do. Look up the "Callback", which is basic level 3d.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callback_(comedy)
 
Last edited:
where is Scott Shay wrong? where is he right?

I think Scott is right when he points out that some people seem to have deep held anti-‘Jew’ views, these are the people that think things about all Jews that don’t make any sense. Arthur Butts sounds like one of these people. He may not be, but he certainly would appear to have strange opinions.

Eisenhower throwing up at what he saw? If he really was a hardened soldier that’s something I would question. I would question it, although it is possible.

You were right to sort of question his views on ‘what is a conspiracy that would be worth looking into’. ‘Conspiracy Theories’ bad but ‘Theories about Conspiracies’ acceptable? That’s just word salad nonsense imo.

I would have questions about the 9/11 event that I would have no doubt would be called ‘conspiracy theory’ type questions, but would Scott begin to accept such questioning no matter what we called it? I would not even call my views a ‘theory’ - I’m at a point that I’m just asking questions! Twenty one years on. Why are we not even allowed to ask questions??? The less open things seem to be, the more I feel that there is something being hidden.

To me, we seem to be forced into having to believe a fixed unwavering opinion on the following…

Holocaust.
9/11
Vaccines

As I said before, I think the holocaust did occur but am not that concerned about the actual numbers - why are others? No one really gives a shit about the twenty-seven million Russians that perished and without doubt won the war for us. Why are Vaccines and the Holocaust allowed to be discussed freely, as long as our views on them are in line with mainstream? 9/11 doesn’t appear to be even mentioned by the media nowadays without a reference to how silly the truthers appear to be.

Scott himself implies the same thing to you.

George Floyd? I had no idea that BLM was involved in anti Zionist thinking.

No one‘s calling for the obliteration of Iran? I beg to differ. I would say that Netanyahu and many others in Israel & The USA would celebrate such an event. The same way some in the US & Europe secretly hope for the war in Ukraine to fatally weaken Russia while not caring a jot for either countries citizens.

I like to point out the many open minded Jews to put my point of view across, to show that I really couldn’t care what people like to see themselves as; Jews, Zionists, Christians, Man United or New York Jets fans or anything else. People like Norman Finkelstein, Miko Peled, Ron Unz and many many others appear to have been able to see through this particular veil.

BDS is supported by many Jews as well as others, to paint it as having been started by anti-Semitic people many years ago as if it has the same energy driving it now is not being totally honest. I for one tend to think that it is probably worth supporting but perhaps not. The fact that Israel complains so hard about it probably means it is worth supporting. The Palestinians have a tough time of it imo, there is very little they can do to change their situation or increase their voice, so I tend to be supportive.

Israel likes to say it’s army is “the most moral army in the world”. To that I can only I say fuck off!!! Many others who have actually served in it say the same.

Yes, many other countries behave badly, but Israel has a history of carrying out devious clandestine things, as well as in the open - like shooting dead protestors that are behind a wire fence. That was horrible by any standards! People in the West are more anti Islam than they are anti-Semitic imo. It is so ironic that they are heavily in support of the Ukrainian army, large elements of whom no doubt appear to have strong nazi leanings.

So it is no surprise to me that while Scott appears very reasonable, and I agree with some of his thinking, he stays totally close minded to you bringing up the “dancing Israelis” - immediately saying it has been debunked - you stood your ground well when he did so. There are many such things that have yet to be answered about 9/11.

So to sum Scott up, I reckon he is a perfectly reasonable guy, the same way that most doctors appear to be - until you question their strong beliefs, or threaten their income.
 
Last edited:
I think the holocaust did occur but am not that concerned about the actual numbers - why are others?

No one really gives a shit about the twenty million Russians that perished and without doubt won the war for us.

That's why I do care about the numbers. I think the numbers matter. history is a story that needs to be told... part of that story is numbers.

Evil-doers are using the numbers to distort history and tell the different story. hitler DID kill 6 million jews in the death camps. hitler did indiscriminately kill millions of russians and use their frozern bodies to pave the roads his tanks rolled over.
 
That's why I do care about the numbers. I think the numbers matter. history is a story that needs to be told... part of that story is numbers.

Evil-doers are using the numbers to distort history and tell the different story. hitler DID kill 6 million jews in the death camps. hitler did indiscriminately kill millions of russians and use their frozern bodies to pave the roads his tanks rolled over.

Is that your only comment? I sense a slight disapproval? I‘m sure that war really is hell, and both sides are probably guilty of horrific acts. What if a war was deliberately started by the good guys as we might see ourselves? What are your views on the Ukraine war and Putin for example? I’m not drawing you into an argument, I think it’s relevant because I for one think I know more about the circumstances around this war, so it will be interesting to see if you think any bit similarly.

Maybe because I tend to think that death is not final (the same for you), for me people dying aren’t as ‘be all and end all’ as it may be to others. It‘s important, but not as critically important as it maybe is to an atheist. At the same time, you’d think that millions of very young men dying in a war less than a century ago should surely be a lesson that we should have huge humility and respect for - but most of us move quickly on.
 
Is that your only comment?

No. I got a ton of comments to make, but I feel like we need to establish some kind of baseline of rational thinking before we go further.

In that respect, I feel like the discussion is derailed by anyone who can't accept -- hitler killed 6 million jews in the death camps.

Anyone who can't use that as a starting point has probably succumbed to wacky neo-nazi propaganda bullshit... so for those folks I just like to keep hammering on the 6 million... but once we past that I have a lot to say.

Are we there yet???
 
https://www.google.com/search?q=cur...otal&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari

Also very easy to research (unless you’re a covid hoaxer)
Current total of Covid deaths world wide to date.
USA- 1.02million
China(mainland)- 5226 (give or take, of course)
If the current control of planet-scale propaganda is allowed to maintain, the following will be a typical conversation, 50 years from now, between a conspiracy theorist and an educated person being pressed on the science:
Conspiracy Theorist: We can agree that Covid originated in Wuhan China and spread so fast before China could get a grip on it that it spread to the entire world. But you believe China made went 2.5 years with only 5226 Covid deaths similar to countries with populations of only 5million? That's obvious BS, and certainly it would have required that the scientists were compromised.
2050 Historian: So, what, did they get EVERY legitimate scientist on the planet and EVERY legitimate journalist and EVERY country's leadership to somehow agree on fake reporting? That’s ridiculous.
 
No. I got a ton of comments to make, but I feel like we need to establish some kind of baseline of rational thinking before we go further.

In that respect, I feel like the discussion is derailed by anyone who can't accept -- hitler killed 6 million jews in the death camps.

Anyone who can't use that as a starting point has probably succumbed to wacky neo-nazi propaganda bullshit... so for those folks I just like to keep hammering on the 6 million... but once we past that I have a lot to say.

Are we there yet???

I feel like you are blackmailing me into saying something I don’t know as a fact Alex. The number could well be six million, it could be less or even more, but hypothetically could I bet my wife or daughter‘s life on exactly six million? I could easily lie and say ok, let’s talk. The reality however is that I just don’t know, and I‘m not going to spend any time trying to find out as faith in what’s written in history books has been shot to hell, like my faith in lots of other things. I’m not going to be sort of forced into saying something I cannot definitely know as a fact (or close to facts as we think we can get).

You may read this as me succumbing to “wacky neo-nazi propaganda bullshit” if you like. If you knew me better you might not - but you will probably think it anyway. I am confident that I’m a rational thinker, as rational as anyone else here. If I wasn’t rational I doubt I would have passed my many tests and examinations as well as yearly medicals in my career in the airline industry, being chosen as an examiner for the final few years before my stroke. Achieving basically what I wanted to, has made me secure in myself.

Its like me requiring you to state on a bible that there’s no Covid virus, otherwise I won’t discuss the topic with you at all. You may say it’s a well known fact that six million Jews died in Germany, my response would be “I’m fine with you believing that, it may well be true, but I can’t know that and as I’ve said, I’m not really interested in spending hours and hours finding the exact number that did - I do tend to believe that awful atrocities were carried out on millions of Jewish people. If that’s not enough, then tough. I’ve shed tears in the Holocaust part of the Imperial War Museum.

Its the principle that I’m not happy with here.
I read your response yesterday and was immediately disappointed, so gave myself some time to think about it. Me having to state a certain factual statement like having a tattoo to gain entry into a discussion. What happened to an individuals free speech and free thought? It’s not going to happen Alex, and I’m rather disappointed and sad, but will just add it to the rest of my recent ‘disappointments‘ - live & learn, live & learn. :)
 
Last edited:
No. I got a ton of comments to make, but I feel like we need to establish some kind of baseline of rational thinking before we go further.

In that respect, I feel like the discussion is derailed by anyone who can't accept -- hitler killed 6 million jews in the death camps.

Anyone who can't use that as a starting point has probably succumbed to wacky neo-nazi propaganda bullshit... so for those folks I just like to keep hammering on the 6 million... but once we past that I have a lot to say.

Are we there yet???

No, we are not.

Sorry, Alex, but I second Steve here: this controversy is as open to an objective, rational, evidence-based examination and discussion as absolutely any other one - without exception. And your recurrent dogmatic chant is as subjective, sentimental and faith-based as anything one can ever get. This is a reaction one can observe from a person whose deeply-held sacred taboo is being desecrated by the blasphemous knowledge presented, so this person is hastily constructing a defensive mental wall that the sacrilegious evidence and arguments cannot perceive.

Just FYI: my own poition on the Holocaust debate is agnostic; I'm not certain what exactly happened in those concentration camps, how exactly, how many people lost their lives and in which way. I once dwelled in the evidence and arguments presented by the critics of the mainstream historical narrative on this issue, partially out of my own sheer curiosity, partially out of the amity to heterodoxy, transgression and subversion of all and every kind, and decided to take a neutral position in the end. I simply won't take a side in this imbued-with-ersatz-sacredness, vehemently defended and repressively enforced issue - well, apart from the anti-censorship and pro-objectivity one, which I now defend.

Personally, I won't push this one topic here, in order not to provoke your ire (which I already did once by daring to deal in an impartial and evidential basis with another Unthinkable Topic). But, I think, I would be allowed to ask a single question: Alex, can you provide some primary source(s) on the six million figure you keep reiterating? That would be very useful.

Now, I quickly silence myself, not to risk igniting your fury...

P.S. If you did get angry already, just tell me, OK - I'll remove this post immediately!
 
Last edited:
I feel like you are blackmailing me into saying something I don’t know as a fact Alex. The number could well be six million, it could be less or even more, but hypothetically could I bet my wife or daughter‘s life on exactly six million? I could easily lie and say ok, let’s talk. The reality however is that I just don’t know, and I‘m not going to spend any time trying to find out as faith in what’s written in history books has been shot to hell, like my faith in lots of other things. I’m not going to be sort of forced into saying something I cannot definitely know as a fact (or close to facts as we think we can get).

You may read this as me succumbing to “wacky neo-nazi propaganda bullshit” if you like. If you knew me better you might not - but you will probably think it anyway. I am confident that I’m a rational thinker, as rational as anyone else here. If I wasn’t rational I doubt I would have passed my many tests and examinations as well as yearly medicals in my career in the airline industry, being chosen as an examiner for the final few years before my stroke. Achieving basically what I wanted to, has made me secure in myself.

Its like me requiring you to state on a bible that there’s no Covid virus, otherwise I won’t discuss the topic with you at all. You may say it’s a well known fact that six million Jews died in Germany, my response would be “I’m fine with you believing that, it may well be true, but I can’t know that and as I’ve said, I’m not really interested in spending hours and hours finding the exact number that did - I do tend to believe that awful atrocities were carried out on millions of Jewish people. If that’s not enough, then tough. I’ve shed tears in the Holocaust part of the Imperial War Museum.

Its the principle that I’m not happy with here.
I read your response yesterday and was immediately disappointed, so gave myself some time to think about it. Me having to state a certain factual statement like having a tattoo to gain entry into a discussion. What happened to an individuals free speech and free thought? It’s not going to happen Alex, and I’m rather disappointed and sad, but will just add it to the rest of my recent ‘disappointments‘ - live & learn, live & learn. :)

Must say- as said with all due lots respect- I have to definitely second/third Steves point here.

-Its the principle that I’m not happy with here.
I read your response yesterday and was immediately disappointed, so gave myself some time to think about it. Me having to state a certain factual statement like having a tattoo to gain entry into a discussion. What happened to an individuals free speech and free thought?-

Is this idea of pronouncing 1 way of subjective "truth" as the Ultimate
- and all those not adhering to as "wacky" / irrational and unworthy of engaging with their factual data-
exactly what Laurence Krauss, Sam Harris and the likes have been proven- thanks to Skeptikos great shows not least- to use as excuse for never having to challenge their own beliefsystem and look at the scientific data regarding NDE, Mediumship....?
Probably one of my misunderstandings, I just really wonder-what is the difference here and how does this fit with "follow the data wherever it leads"..?

Each to his/her own opinion of course, but why must discussions seemingly -especially about this topic..?- derail into (have to second Steve here too, admit saddening for me to see as well..) name calling and shouting down of others, should it not be possible to have a fruitful skeptikal investigation/dialogue here, exploring, maybe learning new things from each others perspective/done research?

-I am confident that I’m a rational thinker, as rational as anyone else here. -

Fwiw- judging from what I have read you write so far, cant find anything much irrational, rather opposit.
Definitely as rational as me....
though since me, according to the prime quote, probably being rightly labeled the wacko irrational exemplaire, not sure my judgement counts as compliment...
:eek::).
 
No, we are not.

Sorry, Alex, but I second Steve here: this controversy is as open to an objective, rational, evidence-based examination and discussion as absolutely any other one - without exception. And your recurrent dogmatic chant is as subjective, sentimental and faith-based as anything one can ever get. This is a reaction one can observe from a person whose deeply-held sacred taboo is being desecrated by the blasphemous knowledge presented, so this person is hastily constructing a defensive mental wall that the sacrilegious evidence and arguments cannot perceive.

Just FYI: my own poition on the Holocaust debate is agnostic; I'm not certain what exactly happened in those concentration camps, how exactly, how many people lost their lives and in which way. I once dwelled in the evidence and arguments presented by the critics of the mainstream historical narrative on this issue, partially out of my own sheer curiosity, partially out of the amity to heterodoxy, transgression and subversion of all and every kind, and decided to take a neutral position in the end. I simply won't take a side in this imbued-with-ersatz-sacredness, vehemently defended and repressively enforced issue - well, apart from the anti-censorship and pro-objectivity one, which I now defend.

Personally, I won't push this one topic here, in order not to provoke your ire (which I already did once by daring to deal in an impartial and evidential basis with another Unthinkable Topic). But, I think, I would be allowed to ask a single question: Alex, can you provide some primary source(s) on the six million figure you keep reiterating? That would be very useful.

Now, I quickly silence myself, not to risk igniting your fury...

P.S. If you did get angry already, just tell me, OK - I'll remove this post immediately!

-this controversy is as open to an objective, rational, evidence-based examination and discussion as absolutely any other one - without exception.

Yes, must admit I have hard times finding any argument against this statement...-
What is this "magic" about this theme, why the loadedness instead of simply presenting/exploring data facts from all sides and see how they all hold up to scrutiny...?

Personally would be interested to know what kind of sources you found interesting in your research, any you would recommend (either side of debate)?

Reg.: the infamous 5-6 million-
Not to want to answer instead of Alex- exact opposit actually, as stated in my endless posts many times: I would extremely much like to know the Primary Sources for that claim as well- and not as trick question, but just for the data source!-

In wait for that-
Interestingly again here I found that the (#28) Science Mag article lists (footnote 8) the very group of researchers/authors around Wolfgang Benz and their work ("Dimensions of the Holocaust" aka english version/extract of )
"Dimension des Völkermordes" (without giving any page no of course..) as the source for that claim, the same book I had proposed in the post #27 before.
Which was/is the response-work to
Walter N. Sannings "The Dissolution of the Eastern European Jewry" (and his estimate given there of around 500000 victims total).

Personally fwiw I was-again-astonished when looking into Benz`s book and the way he (and his co-authors) actually had researched/counted up those numbers,
Just as 1 -maybe generally illustrative- example short- the main country of/for victims, Poland:
while Sanning dedicates ca 20 pages of detailed documented statistics, Benz needs only 2 sentences to come up with a wholesale estimate of 3.5 million jewish inhabitants pre-war:

"if we extrapolate the census figures [of 1931] taking into account natural increase and emigration, we arrive at a 1939 total population of 35,100,000 persons for the Polish nation as a whole, of which the Jewish component is estimated at 3,446,000. We repeat: these figures are not certain" (p 417)

Thus leaving all out the thoroughly (jewish primary sources) documented pre-war west emigration from -then-strongly anti-semitic Poland of around 100000 a year from 1933 onward..
Plus his subsequent estimate that just 300000 of those had fled eastwards before Germanys invasion-and 80-85% of which being then promptly deported to Siberia by Stalin..-, while contemporary jewish own (aid-)organisations specifically document that up to a million actually fled and at least 600000 were attended to by them in siberian camps alone...

Have not gone through the entire books yet, but sofar have been personally rather baffled that actually fwiw Sannings work seems the far more detailed and primary-source documented one, the counting of Benz et al being amazingly simplistic and partly even strangely unscientific, several times double counting populations because of pre/post war border confusions..
But all just my impression so far of course..

If interesting to anyone - most thorough scholarly comparison of these two standard compendiums I have seen sofar:
https://codoh.com/library/document/holocaust-victims-a-statistical-analysis/en/

Anyone else found interesting primary sources regarding the 5-6 million to recommend?

Regarding the "Death Camp"- claim-
since I am looking into that right now and would help my research-does anyone maybe know where to find the exact list of trains (and prime sources thereto) that Yithzak Arad presents in his work (and Science Mag article subsequently) "Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka" online in a relatively easily accessible format?
 
I have a mindblower of a discussion here which is the best explanation you’ll ever hear for why "it's not a conspiracy”. Short answer is bees building a beehive.
But I wouldn’t miss this if you have a chance. At least the first 50 minutes. And don’t be thrown off that the title mentions “the Jews”. The argument lands against the ideas that “the Jews” are conspiring or to blame.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/16Twfo8Of3GZ/

Edit: 1.5hrs into it and it’s still non stop gravy. This might be a hall of famer

Edit: 2hr 42 minutes in and still 100% level 3. No joke
 
Last edited:
I believe I’m on the verge of sufficiently verbalizing a theory I’ve been working on in deep thought for a few years and overall maybe all of my philosophical adult life.
It’s surely not my idea, but rather more toward personal discovery.

The idea that Communism and/or Marxist may be the testers against which the various systems of freedom can be measured. Specifically proven wherein a system of freedom defaults to warring-against communism as opposed to building-away-from it.

I have no way to know the experiences that lead Hitler to allow himself to paint Marxism as a form of ultimate opposition. But I’ve come to recognize this as the moment his battle was lost (or at least the battle he perceived). This rings parallel to the modern Americans who think things would be solved if we could just vote out “the left”.

While I personally perceive Marxism as a measure of weakness, I think the universe may be beckoning for mankind to produce a movement which can outshine Marxism without holding any regard for/against it.

Earlier today I was asking myself “What would you do if you were preparing for a boxing match and realized your opponent was a dirty boxer who was in cahoots with the referee?”
I think the answer is to forfeit the match and go back to the drawing board to find out how you ended up on that ticket and make those necessary changes.
Even if you defeat the dirty boxer, he may just use the experience to learn ways to dirty box better. And you’ve also legitimized the match.
In this light, there need be no movement against “dirty boxing”. Let it be. And if you want something better, you have a mind to create it or find it.
Yes, much easier said than done. But I think this is the test, plain as Yin and Yang.
 
I doubt any form of pacifism fares well against systems which militarily impose assimilation, aka Marxism, or The Borg. Have you thought that part through? Meaning couldn’t I argue a pacifist just a Marxist who hasn’t been assimilated yet?
There's some thoughts on that in the show that the link opens. In the meantime, let's not forget that your premise was ...
I think the universe may be beckoning for mankind to produce a movement which can outshine Marxism without holding any regard for/against it.
I suggest that "outshining" isn't the same as "militarily assimilating". I think Anarcho-Pacifism already "outshines" Marxism, along with pretty much everything else. That's not the same as claiming it's either dominant or more capable of enforcing its precepts on others. In fact, the whole idea of forcing its precepts on others is counter to its fundamental philosophy. Outshing, IMO, is an allusion to its potential to bring goodness ( light ) into the world.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top