Scrapbookpages Blog

February 8, 2017

Is Trump the new Hitler?

Filed under: Trump, Uncategorized — Tags: , , — furtherglory @ 5:17 pm
Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump

Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump

The following quote is from a news article which you can read in full at http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/stop-comparing-donald-trump-adolf-hitler-nazis-it-trivialises-holocaust-1605459

Begin quote

Following Trump’s travel ban on refugees and citizens from seven majority-Muslim countries, his presidency has immediately been equated with the rise of Hitler.

Perennial-loud-mouthed MP Dennis Skinner has labelled President Trump as a “fascist”. On the continent and across the Atlantic, the mayors of Madrid and Philadelphia have both compared Trump to Hitler.

Who knew that Ken Livingstone’s constant blathering on about Hitler would finally catch on?

End quote

Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler

The news article continues with this quote:

The SNP’s Carol Monaghan has warned that “the Holocaust didn’t start with the gas chambers” and consequently, we needn’t wait for Trump to plaster the White House in Swastikas to label him a Nazi. But while it’s true that it took Hitler a few years to pass the Nuremberg Laws, it is absurd to equate Trump’s inclination towards authoritarianism with Hitler’s rise to power. Although the 45th president’s half-hearted approach towards press freedom deserves criticism, it is hardly comparable to the 1933 Enabling Act which gave Hitler the power to pass laws without consulting the Reichstag.

Of course, the tendency to refer to the travel ban as “Trump’s ban” certainly encourages people to assume President Trump is acting in a dictatorial manner. Not only does it forget that the list of seven countries was previously drawn up by Obama, but it also ignores the fact that more Americans support the travel ban than oppose it. This isn’t Trump imposing his will on America. It is Trump carrying out an election promise.

End quote

66 Comments »

  1. Not sure how you “sully” the name of the most vile man in history.

    Comment by David Pearce — February 9, 2017 @ 1:37 am

    • You wrote: “Not sure how you “sully” the name of the most vile man in history.”

      Whom are you calling the “most vile man in history” — Hitler or Trump?

      Comment by furtherglory — February 9, 2017 @ 4:27 am

      • Well Hitler of course. Trump is just an ignorant narcissistic moron.

        Comment by David Pearce — February 9, 2017 @ 10:50 am

        • Hitler the most lied, and slandered man in history.
          See the video The Greatest Story Never Told and just remember history is always written by the victors.
          Most people who vilify Hitler don’t know anything about him except the story told from the Jews…..
          This would be like getting the truth about David Duke from the NAACP.

          JR

          Comment by Jim Rizoli — February 9, 2017 @ 1:54 pm

          • Oh Jim. You are obviously an educated man. Hitler was a monster who will rightly be vilified into eternity. Nothing to do with history written by Jews. There is plenty of evidence to be found all over Europe from impeccable sources. In fact it’s ludicrous that I’m even needing to write this. You need to step outside your irrational hatred of Jews and look at things objectively. Until you are able to do that your posts and this website will continue to be an object of comic amusement.

            Comment by David Pearce — February 9, 2017 @ 2:36 pm

            • Hitler was a monster

              Why is Hitler a “monster”? — perhaps in part because he started WWII by invading Poland — but I think it’s mostly due to the ‘Holocaust’ — Hitler is seen as the person ultimately responsible for the ‘Holocaust’ — unfortunately for people who promote that view, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that 1) Hitler knew about intentional extermination of Jews, or 2) that he ordered it — absolutely none — so if you believe that he’s a “monster” for that reason, then this is something you choose to believe — there is no evidence for that.

              There is plenty of evidence to be found all over Europe from impeccable sources.

              Evidence of what? — again, in fact there is not one shred of forensic evidence for the ‘Holocaust’ — but people believe there is, at least in part for the general reason I mentioned: because of the way anyone who questions these historical events (and comes to a different conclusion/interpretation) is demonized and vilified — even in some countries prosecuted and jailed.

              Comment by eah — February 10, 2017 @ 3:32 am

              • so you are willing to believe that a dictator, tyrant and control freak like Adolf Hitler didn’t know anything about all the death camps, transports and ghettos and the millions of Marks being spent on the extermination of the Jews.

                Not much of a leader was he ? Perhaps he really was just a nice misunderstood man after all.

                I am willing to bet that you don’t expound your eccentric views to friends, colleagues and family. I’m sure you wouldn’t want to be thought of as a cretin anywhere else but on here.

                Comment by David Pearce — February 10, 2017 @ 4:13 am

              • “Why is Hitler a “monster”? — perhaps in part because he started WWII by invading Poland — but I think it’s mostly due to the ‘Holocaust’”

                Well, no, he also personally signed an order to start the T-4 Program (the murder of the disabled) his regime was responsible for the deaths of the Polish Elite, the famine conditions in the USSR that killed millions, the forcible extraction of millions of foreign workers and so on.

                “— Hitler is seen as the person ultimately responsible for the ‘Holocaust’ — ”

                Yes, because he was the head of the regime responsible for it.

                “unfortunately for people who promote that view, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that 1) Hitler knew about intentional extermination of Jews, or 2) that he ordered it — absolutely none — so if you believe that he’s a “monster” for that reason, then this is something you choose to believe — there is no evidence for that.”

                We have speeches that Hitler made that pointed to the murder of the Jews, we have meetings that occurred with Himmler and Hitler i the Summer of 1941, after those meetings the killing of Jews, especially woman and children escalated, we have the meeting on December 12th with Hitler and Hans Frank (among others), etc. Clearly this is proof of motive that Hitler apologists and deniers can’t see.

                There is plenty of evidence to be found all over Europe from impeccable sources.

                “Evidence of what? — again, in fact there is not one shred of forensic evidence for the ‘Holocaust’ — but people believe there is, at least in part for the general reason I mentioned: because of the way anyone who questions these historical events (and comes to a different conclusion/interpretation) is demonized and vilified — even in some countries prosecuted and jailed.”

                Oh, there is plenty of evidence…dismissed by deniers because they don’t want to see their precious Adolf demonized.

                Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — February 10, 2017 @ 8:19 am

                • You mentioned the T4 program.

                  I blogged about that at https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/tag/t4-program/

                  Comment by furtherglory — February 10, 2017 @ 8:28 am

                • Jeff….You are just a typical HoloHuxster that says “they” have this document, Hitler said this, someone saw this and that, you know the no proof B/S wanting stupid, gullible, non researchable people to believe you without you having to show any factoids at all that hasn’t been doctored or tampered with with lies to prove your HoloHoax case.
                  Thanks for the History lesson to no where. So where is all you mountains of proof? OH ya, the HoloHoax happened because it happened….
                  yup that is enough to make me a believer…LOL

                  JR

                  Comment by Jim Rizoli — February 10, 2017 @ 9:36 am

                • Brycesdaddy wrote: “We have speeches that Hitler made that pointed to the murder of the Jews”

                  How do you reconcile this with the alleged absolute secrecy of the ‘Holocaust’? Why the alleged great efforts to conceal the ‘Holocaust’ with alleged genocidal code words and euphemisms in internal documents, alleged obliteration units tasked with the vanishing of millions of corpses in Eastern Europe, and alleged homicidal gas chambers disguised as shower rooms?

                  The speeches you’re referring to didn’t deal with the murder of the Jews but with the socio-economic exclusion of the Jews of Europe, pending their final territorial eviction from the whole continent. And you know it. We’ve already talked about that in the past. Are you sure you want to talk about it again???

                  Comment by hermie — February 12, 2017 @ 9:03 am

                • “The speeches you’re referring to didn’t deal with the murder of the Jews but with the socio-economic exclusion of the Jews of Europe, pending their final territorial eviction from the whole continent. And you know it. We’ve already talked about that in the past. Are you sure you want to talk about it again???”

                  Sure. What speeches do you want to talk about?

                  Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — February 12, 2017 @ 9:54 am

                • BD wrote: “Sure. What speeches do you want to talk about?”

                  About Hitler’s speech of January 30, 1939 and about Hitler’s wartime speeches referring to that specific speech.

                  Comment by hermie — February 12, 2017 @ 10:06 am

                • “About Hitler’s speech of January 30, 1939 and about Hitler’s wartime speeches referring to that specific speech.”

                  You start. My phone is getting ready to die.

                  Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — February 12, 2017 @ 10:11 am

                • Jeff your a piece or work…..the USA has had T4 similar programs here operating under different names and using different lethal methods eventually leading to death…yet you don’t complain about these programs. It’s always about the big bad Germans.
                  You’re not a fair and unbiased person you have your Jew agenda and thats it.

                  JR

                  Comment by Jim Rizoli — February 12, 2017 @ 10:13 am

          • “Hitler the most lied, and slandered man in history.
            See the video The Greatest Story Never Told and just remember history is always written by the victors.”

            I tried to watch that, the only thing I really learned is that Hitler liked to draw puppy dogs.

            “Most people who vilify Hitler don’t know anything about him except the story told from the Jews…..”

            Ian Kershaw is a Jew? Volker Ullrich is a Jew? Really?

            “This would be like getting the truth about David Duke from the NAACP.”

            David Duke is an ass.

            Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — February 9, 2017 @ 3:29 pm

          • Are you conveniently forgetting that Hitler invaded Poland, Czecheslovakia, France, Belgium, Denmark and Russia ? All for the reason that he was a psychopath with a warped vision of what the world should look like centred on the reich he was trying to create. The fact that a few million people should suffer and die and I don’t mean the Jews was immaterial to him. He also instigated the bombing of civilian targets in England which of course ultimately resulted in the terrible events of Dresden and Hamburg. Thank god that the English Channel stopped Hitler invading England because in the early years of the war make no mistake England would have fallen. England was on its knees and the timely intervention of the USA tipped the balance.

            The pseudo history spouted by nazi apologists like you and others is an affront to decency.

            Comment by David Pearce — February 10, 2017 @ 1:15 am

            • David Pearce wrote: “Are you conveniently forgetting that Hitler invaded Poland, Czecheslovakia, France, Belgium, Denmark and Russia ?”

              And you, are you conveniently forgetting that the British invaded huge areas on 5 continents ?

              Hitler didn’t invade Czechoslovakia since Czechoslovakia ceased to exist when Slovakia took her independence and when the Slovaks finally freed themselves from the yoke of their Czech rulers, i.e. before Hitler’s men entered the new Protectorate of Bohemia & Moravia.

              The German invasion and occupation of France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark was perfectly understandable from a strategic point of view. Just as a U.S. invasion and occupation of Cuba would have been understandable if the Soviets hadn’t removed the nuclear missiles they had just installed there.

              Any kid above 7 years old should be able to understand that the real guilty party of a war is the side that made that war inescapable, not the side that shot the first bullet and even less the side that couldn’t shoot the last bullet (as in the puerile precedent established by the victors of WW1 and WW2). This was a basic rule of European wars for centuries. According to this rule of common sense, the real father of WW2 is undeniably Franklin Delano Roosevelt. HE made a peaceful settlement of the differences between Germany and Poland impossible. And HE pressured Britain in order to stop Britain’s conciliatory policy with respect to Germany’s peaceful erasure of the most blatant injustices inherited from the infamous Treaty of Versailles (i.e. what the Anglo-American warmongers of the late 1930’s used to call “the Munich policy” and what today’s historians usually call “Britain’s appeasement policy”).


              (Waw !! A real license to trigger a war against Germany given by Roosevelt to the military junta heading Poland at that time !! A highly predictable outcome ! Clearly a thing anybody can’t seriously call a peace policy. An even more bellicose policy than a delivery of riffles to hesitant ‘Indian’ warriors considering the possibility of taking the warpath…)

              David Pearce wrote: “He also instigated the bombing of civilian targets in England which of course ultimately resulted in the terrible events of Dresden and Hamburg.”

              The deliberate targeting of civilians during the bombings of WW2 was a British finding and standard procedure. Don’t deprive the British war lords of their due. Give credit where credit is due.

              Comment by hermie — February 10, 2017 @ 8:57 am

              • “Hitler didn’t invade Czechoslovakia since Czechoslovakia ceased to exist when Slovakia took her independence and when the Slovaks finally freed themselves from the yoke of their Czech rulers, i.e. before Hitler’s men entered the new Protectorate of Bohemia & Moravia.”

                Aaawwww, how touching.

                Hitler encouraged this secession in order to destabilize Czechoslovakia. His fingerprints were all over it.

                “The German invasion and occupation of France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark was perfectly understandable from a strategic point of view. Just as a U.S. invasion and occupation of Cuba would have been understandable if the Soviets hadn’t removed the nuclear missiles they had just installed there.”

                I don’t think any sane person would argue with that. Of course, Hitler approved an invasion of two neutral nations, Belgium and the Netherlands, but, strategically it made sense.

                “Any kid above 7 years old should be able to understand”

                So, not Hitler apologists or Holocaust deniers. Got it.

                “that the real guilty party of a war is the side that made that war inescapable, not the side that shot the first bullet and even less the side that couldn’t shoot the last bullet (as in the puerile precedent established by the victors of WW1 and WW2). This was a basic rule of European wars for centuries. According to this rule of common sense, the real father of WW2 is undeniably Franklin Delano Roosevelt. HE made a peaceful settlement of the differences between Germany and Poland impossible. And HE pressured Britain in order to stop Britain’s conciliatory policy with respect to Germany’s peaceful erasure of the most blatant injustices inherited from the infamous Treaty of Versailles (i.e. what the Anglo-American warmongers of the late 1930’s used to call “the Munich policy” and what today’s historians usually call “Britain’s appeasement policy”).”

                😂😂😂😂😂😂

                That’s hysterical, as usual.
                The truth is that Britain and France bent over backwards to accommodate Hitler, giving him everything he wanted. It was only after Hitler occupied Czechoslovakia did the French and British saw he could not be trusted….and also the fact that public opinion turned against them in their own countries.

                Fact:
                The British and French were ill-equipped for war. They say placidly by while Germany wiped out Poland. They lacked the desire for war and never wanted it.

                “( !! A real license to trigger a war against Germany given by Roosevelt to the military junta heading Poland at that time !! A highly predictable outcome ! Clearly a thing anybody can’t seriously call a peace policy. An even more bellicose policy than a delivery of riffles to hesitant ‘Indian’ warriors considering the possibility of taking the warpath…)”

                Nonsense, but, if true it just shows what a dumbass was. What you are saying is he let the west lead him around by the nose.

                David Pearce wrote: “He also instigated the bombing of civilian targets in England which of course ultimately resulted in the terrible events of Dresden and Hamburg.”

                “The deliberate targeting of civilians during the bombings of WW2 was a British finding and standard procedure. Don’t deprive the British war lords of their due. Give credit where credit is due.”

                Nope, the Germans targeted civilian targets in Poland before the British. Sorry, fail.

                Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — February 10, 2017 @ 10:14 am

                • Britain bombed Germany first….what the victors fail to mention…..
                  Gee I wonder why! LOL

                  https://historyofnationalsocialism.wordpress.com/2014/06/05/who-bombed-first-britain-or-germany/

                  JR

                  Comment by Jim Rizoli — February 10, 2017 @ 11:27 am

                • BD wrote: “Hitler encouraged this secession in order to destabilize Czechoslovakia. His fingerprints were all over it.”

                  The artificial state of Czechoslovakia didn’t need any Hitler to be destabilized and split a second time. Funny to see how Woodrow Wilson’s trick to break the empires of the vanquished apart after WW1 (I’m of course referring to his so-called “right to self-determination”) instantly become invalid, irrelevant and even shockingly expansionist to all orthodox history conformists as soon as it is not about keeping Germany and her allies divided and weak.

                  BD wrote: “I don’t think any sane person would argue with that. Of course, Hitler approved an invasion of two neutral nations, Belgium and the Netherlands, but, strategically it made sense.”

                  Before any German soldier had entered Belgium, the Belgian authorities of that time were asked around 120 times to stop permitting British planes to fly over Belgium for bombing raids on German cities. With neighbors as ‘neutral’ as that, no country needs enemies…

                  BD wrote: “The truth is that Britain and France bent over backwards to accommodate Hitler, giving him everything he wanted. It was only after Hitler occupied Czechoslovakia did the French and British saw he could not be trusted….and also the fact that public opinion turned against them in their own countries.”

                  The statement saying that “It was only after Hitler occupied Czechoslovakia did the French and British saw he could not be trusted” is nothing but victors’ BS. Roosevelt’s blackmail made some British leaders, including Chamberlain, adopt an uncompromising position with a tragic predictable outcome. And the correspondence of the French ambassador to Britain with his bosses shows that during the crucial time from September 1 to September 3, 1939 the main concern of British leaders was not to avoid or stop the war but to enter it without appearing to be enthusiastic fighters eager to wage war.

                  BD wrote: “Nonsense, but, if true it just shows what a dumbass was. What you are saying is he let the west lead him around by the nose.”

                  No, it just shows that two sides are needed to make peace while only one side is enough to make war. And it also shows that any person eager to fight will always find a convenient pretext (more or less plausible) justifying the fight he/she wants.

                  BD wrote: “Nope, the Germans targeted civilian targets in Poland before the British.”

                  Targeted? Or hit?

                  Comment by hermie — February 10, 2017 @ 4:36 pm

                • “The artificial state of Czechoslovakia didn’t need any Hitler to be destabilized and split a second time. Funny to see how Woodrow Wilson’s trick to break the empires of the vanquished apart after WW1 (I’m of course referring to his so-called “right to self-determination”) instantly become invalid, irrelevant and even shockingly expansionist to all orthodox history conformists as soon as it is not about keeping Germany and her allies divided and weak.”

                  Much blah blah, no substance.

                  Czechoslovakia was a rich country that had minorities but this was true of a lot of countries in Middle Europe at that time. It was a sovereign nation that the Germans had no rights to.
                  Hitler’s claim of the Sudetenland was laughable, it was simply a pretext to do what he wanted…invade Czechoslovakia. It didn’t hurt that Czechoslovakia had the Skoda works. The Germans even used some the Czech tanks later.
                  The British even turned over the Czech gold reserves to the Germans after they occupied it. Helpful.

                  BD wrote: “I don’t think any sane person would argue with that. Of course, Hitler approved an invasion of two neutral nations, Belgium and the Netherlands, but, strategically it made sense.”

                  “Before any German soldier had entered Belgium, the Belgian authorities of that time were asked around 120 times to stop permitting British planes to fly over Belgium for bombing raids on German cities. With neighbors as ‘neutral’ as that, no country needs enemies…”

                  Uh huh.
                  I just said the Germans were justified in what they did.

                  BD wrote: “The truth is that Britain and France bent over backwards to accommodate Hitler, giving him everything he wanted. It was only after Hitler occupied Czechoslovakia did the French and British saw he could not be trusted….and also the fact that public opinion turned against them in their own countries.”

                  “The statement saying that “It was only after Hitler occupied Czechoslovakia did the French and British saw he could not be trusted” is nothing but victors’ BS.”

                  Doesn’t matter what you think, it’s what happened.

                  “Roosevelt’s blackmail made some British leaders, including Chamberlain, adopt an uncompromising position with a tragic predictable outcome. ”

                  Uh, no. Chamberlain figured out that Hitler, like any blackmailer, would only keep escalating his demands.

                  “And the correspondence of the French ambassador to Britain with his bosses shows that during the crucial time from September 1 to September 3, 1939 the main concern of British leaders was not to avoid or stop the war but to enter it without appearing to be enthusiastic fighters eager to wage war.”

                  The British warned Hitler, repeatedly, that if he invaded Poland it would mean war. Hitler didn’t believe them, sucks to be him. The British told Hitler to evacuate Poland or it would mean war. He didn’t, his responsibility, his war.

                  BD wrote: “Nonsense, but, if true it just shows what a dumbass was. What you are saying is he let the west lead him around by the nose.”

                  “No, it just shows that two sides are needed to make peace while only one side is enough to make war. And it also shows that any person eager to fight will always find a convenient pretext (more or less plausible) justifying the fight he/she wants.”

                  Hitler kept pushing the west to the limit. This was not the action of a peaceful man but a man determined to get what he wanted, by war if necessary.

                  BD wrote: “Nope, the Germans targeted civilian targets in Poland before the British.”

                  “Targeted? Or hit?”

                  The Luftwaffe attacked unprotected towns on the first day of the invasion. So, targeted.

                  Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — February 10, 2017 @ 8:30 pm

                • BD wrote: “Czechoslovakia was a rich country that had minorities but this was true of a lot of countries in Middle Europe at that time. It was a sovereign nation that the Germans had no rights to. Hitler’s claim of the Sudetenland was laughable, it was simply a pretext to do what he wanted…invade Czechoslovakia. It didn’t hurt that Czechoslovakia had the Skoda works. The Germans even used some the Czech tanks later. The British even turned over the Czech gold reserves to the Germans after they occupied it. Helpful.”

                  Doesn’t change the fact that the Slovaks wanted their independence and their so-called right to self-determination becomes invalid and irrelevant to orthodox history conformists as soon as such a right is beneficial to Germany. The so-called right to self-determination is valid and good only when it’s detrimental or neutral to Germany. As once again demonstrated by your barely relevant rant…

                  BD wrote: “Uh huh. I just said the Germans were justified in what they did.”

                  I know you did. I only wanted to add some useful info. No need to choke because of that.

                  BD wrote: “Doesn’t matter what you think, it’s what happened.”

                  It’s rather what the victors – essentially peace-loving good guys, of course – of 1945 claimed.

                  BD wrote: “Uh, no. Chamberlain figured out that Hitler, like any blackmailer, would only keep escalating his demands.”

                  Don’t hurry. Chamberlain had figured what Hitler did and didn’t want in reality. He knew that Hitler was not out for world domination as claimed by British propagandists. Just propaganda BS intended to keep the British war machine running. A mere tactic used to send the democratic sheeple to the front line…

                  BD wrote: “The British warned Hitler, repeatedly, that if he invaded Poland it would mean war. Hitler didn’t believe them, sucks to be him. The British told Hitler to evacuate Poland or it would mean war. He didn’t, his responsibility, his war.”

                  Basic pretext for war. Simulate a concern for your enemies’ enemies and you’ll probably get a gold excuse to fight against your enemies very soon (especially if you’ve told your enemies’ enemies that they don’t even need to compromise with your common enemies).

                  And what right had the British and the Americans to interfere in the affairs of countries not even part of their sphere of influence? Would you say I’m right to break a guy’s jaw because I had told him not to come in a specific area and he came in that area despite my warning? Of course you wouldn’t. Because I had no right to prohibit access to a public place to anybody. Claiming that the British and the Americans had any right to interfere in Central Europe amounts to supporting the “right” of bullies to impose their rules. Anybody wanting to break England apart in the 19th century could have feigned an alleged concern for the Irish or any other people dominated or annoyed by England and could have attacked England in the minute. Imagine what the growth of the United States would have been if some specific states had feigned a deep concern for any ‘Indian’ tribe engulfed or annoyed by the expansion of the United States and had declared on the United States at every opportunity. The British declaration of war against Germany in 1939 was nothing but the political use of such a feigned concern.

                  BD wrote: “Hitler kept pushing the west to the limit. This was not the action of a peaceful man but a man determined to get what he wanted, by war if necessary.”

                  Yes, if necessary. And the guys who made war necessary are the real, legitimate fathers of WW2.

                  BD wrote: “The Luftwaffe attacked unprotected towns on the first day of the invasion. So, targeted.”

                  Yes, hit, not targeted. I knew it. Deplorable collateral damages, but not targets. Very different from Britain’s intentional mass murders of German civilians during WW2. Obviously.

                  Comment by hermie — February 11, 2017 @ 7:35 am

                • “Doesn’t change the fact that the Slovaks wanted their independence and their so-called right to self-determination becomes invalid and irrelevant to orthodox history conformists as soon as such a right is beneficial to Germany. The so-called right to self-determination is valid and good only when it’s detrimental or neutral to Germany. As once again demonstrated by your barely relevant rant…”

                  Oh, please. Sure, the Slovaks grew to want their independence but I’m not going to buy that Hitler actually cared about Slovak independence. It helped him destabilize what remained of Czechoslovakia after Munich, that’s why he cared.

                  BD wrote: “Doesn’t matter what you think, it’s what happened.”

                  “It’s rather what the victors – essentially peace-loving good guys, of course – of 1945 claimed.”

                  It’s always funny when you try to portray Hitler as some peace loving hippy, determined to bring flowers and puppy dogs to the poor oppressed of Europe.
                  😂

                  BD wrote: “Uh, no. Chamberlain figured out that Hitler, like any blackmailer, would only keep escalating his demands.”

                  “Don’t hurry. Chamberlain had figured what Hitler did and didn’t want in reality. He knew that Hitler was not out for world domination as claimed by British propagandists. Just propaganda BS intended to keep the British war machine running. A mere tactic used to send the democratic sheeple to the front line…”

                  It’s also funny when you have frequent breaks with reality.

                  Chamberlain didn’t want war, he saw what happened during WW I and didn’t think it was worth sacrificing British soldiers to defend some country that didn’t concern British interests. He also thought, in a wonderful break with reality (just like you) that Hitler was a man of his word, that he only wanted to protect his poor German cousins.

                  Hitler quickly disabused him of this notion by destabilizing what remained of Czechoslovakia, breaking the Munich Agreement (Hitler violated the provision of guaranteeing Czechoslovakia’s borders). Public opinion forced Chamberlain’s change of heart, there was a backlash against Chamberlain’s relative silence on the matter (the same thing happened in France).

                  BD wrote: “The British warned Hitler, repeatedly, that if he invaded Poland it would mean war. Hitler didn’t believe them, sucks to be him. The British told Hitler to evacuate Poland or it would mean war. He didn’t, his responsibility, his war.”

                  “Basic pretext for war. Simulate a concern for your enemies’ enemies and you’ll probably get a gold excuse to fight against your enemies very soon (especially if you’ve told your enemies’ enemies that they don’t even need to compromise with your common enemies).”

                  Again, Hitler backed the British and French into this corner. Both realized it was against their interest (the French especially) to allow a resurgent, aggressive, expansionist Germany in middle Europe. The British and French made agreements with Poland in the hopes that this would put a brake on Hitler’s expansionism.

                  Hermie, ask yourself this:
                  Why, if Chamberlain wanted war, was Britain so poorly prepared for war? The same for the French.
                  Why not go to war over Czechoslovakia? Czechoslovakia was better strategically placed to resist a German invasion, it had natural and man-made defenses to defend itself much better while the British and French got their act together.

                  Instead the British and French bent over backwards to give Hitler what he wanted in the timetable he demanded. They bought Hitler’s crap about the poor Sudetenland Germans and wanting to protect them.

                  “And what right had the British and the Americans to interfere in the affairs of countries not even part of their sphere of influence?”

                  Oops, Czechoslovakia and France were bound together by treaty, so yes, they had the right to intervene. The British and French signed agreements with Poland, giving them the right to intervene. Poland signed those agreements of her own free will, like any sovereign nation can.

                  “Would you say I’m right to break a guy’s jaw because I had told him not to come in a specific area and he came in that area despite my warning? Of course you wouldn’t.”

                  Actually, depending on the circumstances you would be right.

                  “Because I had no right to prohibit access to a public place to anybody. Claiming that the British and the Americans had any right to interfere in Central Europe amounts to supporting the “right” of bullies to impose their rules”

                  Uh, no. As stated, the British and later the French signed treaties with Poland to defend her from German aggression. We aren’t talking about individuals, we are talking about sovereign nations signing treaty agreements with one another. The Poles signed those treaties willingly and they expected the British and French to honor those agreements. The British warned Hitler repeatedly that invading Poland would trigger those treaties. Hitler refused to listen because he didn’t believe the British or French would go to war. That was his miscalculation that ultimately led to his defeat.

                  “Anybody wanting to break England apart in the 19th century could have feigned an alleged concern for the Irish or any other people dominated or annoyed by England and could have attacked England in the minute. Imagine what the growth of the United States would have been if some specific states had feigned a deep concern for any ‘Indian’ tribe engulfed or annoyed by the expansion of the United States and had declared on the United States at every opportunity.”

                  Irrelevant, anything the British did to Scots or Irish or what happened to the Native Americans was an internal matter. Poland and Czechoslovakia were independent nations.

                  “The British declaration of war against Germany in 1939 was nothing but the political use of such a feigned concern.”

                  No, it was a response to a treaty they were legally bound to honor. Why do you keep ignoring the French? That treaty bound them as well.

                  BD wrote: “Hitler kept pushing the west to the limit. This was not the action of a peaceful man but a man determined to get what he wanted, by war if necessary.”

                  “Yes, if necessary. And the guys who made war necessary are the real, legitimate fathers of WW2.”

                  Uh, no. Hitler kept pushing the west until the British and French realized that appeasing Hitler only spurred him on to more reckless action that was against their interest.

                  BD wrote: “The Luftwaffe attacked unprotected towns on the first day of the invasion. So, targeted.”

                  “Yes, hit, not targeted. I knew it.”

                  Do you have reading comprehension problems? I said the Luftwaffe targeted unprotected towns in Poland the day of the attack. Those towns had no military value.

                  “Deplorable collateral damages, but not targets.”

                  Uh, targets because they had no way to protect themselves.

                  “Very different from Britain’s intentional mass murders of German civilians during WW2. Obviously.”

                  Aaaawwww, the heart bleeds. The British Bomber Command lost 55,000 men out 125,000. Those casualty numbers show how well Germany defended itself against British attack until the late stages of the war. I’ll grant you that Harris’s continued bombing of German cities in an effort to reduce them to rubble brushes up against war crime territory. I’ll also remind you that the Germans also attacked Coventry, London, Belgrade and other cities also to cause casualties. The Germans lacked a truly effective heavy bomber to cause the devastation the US and British did, but, not the willpower. Do the V1 and V2 rocket attacks on London ring any bells?

                  Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — February 11, 2017 @ 11:01 am

                • We’ve already had this discussion a thousand times. This is how it’s gonna continue until one of us is too bored to waste more time with that: You’ll keep hiding behind hypocritical treaties clearly intended to get a war against Germany and an alleged concern for the independence of some nations you don’t care about, and I’ll keep telling you I don’t believe that you sincerely fail to see the signing of those treaties was a mere pretext for such a war. Uninteresting. Pure waste of time.

                  Comment by hermie — February 11, 2017 @ 9:43 pm

                • “We’ve already had this discussion a thousand times.”

                  I know. You’ve been wrong a thousand times.

                  “This is how it’s gonna continue until one of us is too bored to waste more time with that: You’ll keep hiding behind hypocritical treaties clearly intended to get a war against German”

                  No, they were intended to put the brakes on Hitler. The problem with your interpretation is that it fits no historical fact. The fact is that if the British and French wanted war they would have been in a better position to wage war. They were not. The British wastes their time dropping propaganda leaflets and the French wasted their time with their half-assed “invasion” of the Rhineland. Neither the British or French had the willpower to attack Germany when most of Germany’s military was busy wiping the mat with the Polish.
                  So, you fail because that is the reality. If the British and French wanted to destroy to Germany they could have done so while Germany was engaged with Poland.

                  “and an alleged concern for the independence of some nations you don’t care about,”

                  It isn’t what I “care” about, it’s about what the British and French cared about. It was not in their interest to have an aggressive, expansionist Germany romping about Europe. It only got that way when Hitler showed no sign of restraint.

                  “and I’ll keep telling you I don’t believe that you sincerely fail to see the signing of those treaties was a mere pretext for such a war.”

                  No, what I see and this is the reality, is that the British and French bent over backwards to avoid war. It only became obvious to them very late in the day that Hitler was determined to expand and that this was not in their best interest, especially the French. However, their thinking was to simply put the brakes on Hitler’s ambitions by signing treaties with countries in his way, mainly Poland. They hoped to stop this short of war.

                  BTW, Hermie, if the British and French so wanted war why did it take them three days to declare war? Wouldn’t they be chomping at the bit, eager to get started destroying Germany?

                  “Uninteresting. Pure waste of time.”

                  Sure. Because you simply can’t match your fantasy with the reality.

                  Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — February 11, 2017 @ 10:33 pm

                • BD wrote: “I know. You’ve been wrong a thousand times.”

                  What a puerile moron ! Pathetic…

                  BD wrote: “No, they were intended to put the brakes on Hitler. The problem with your interpretation is that it fits no historical fact. The fact is that if the British and French wanted war they would have been in a better position to wage war. They were not. The British wastes their time dropping propaganda leaflets and the French wasted their time with their half-assed “invasion” of the Rhineland. Neither the British or French had the willpower to attack Germany when most of Germany’s military was busy wiping the mat with the Polish. So, you fail because that is the reality. If the British and French wanted to destroy to Germany they could have done so while Germany was engaged with Poland.”

                  Following your ‘reasoning,’ Hitler didn’t want war either because he didn’t attack Poland on January 31, 1933.

                  The warmongers hadn’t yet prevailed over the peacemongers at that time, and the Zionist warmongers hadn’t yet received a reluctant but pungent “No !! You’ll never get Palestine as a gift for your colonial settlement project ! We can’t give your what you want.” from the Government of His Gracious Majesty (MacDonald White Paper of May 1939) in 1938.

                  BD wrote: “It isn’t what I “care” about, it’s about what the British and French cared about. It was not in their interest to have an aggressive, expansionist Germany romping about Europe. It only got that way when Hitler showed no sign of restraint.”

                  They both knew that Hitler was just erasing the most blatant injustices of the Treaty of Versailles and that he was not pursuing an expansionist policy. They lived in the real world of the 1930’s. They were not brainwashed rats trapped inside the Holo-Matrix.

                  BD wrote: “No, what I see and this is the reality, is that the British and French bent over backwards to avoid war. It only became obvious to them very late in the day that Hitler was determined to expand and that this was not in their best interest, especially the French. However, their thinking was to simply put the brakes on Hitler’s ambitions by signing treaties with countries in his way, mainly Poland. They hoped to stop this short of war.”

                  You’re entitled to call a conciliatory policy conceding “We’ve been unfair and too and hard on the defeated in 1919. That was a big mistake and the Treaty of Versailles needs to be revised for the sake of peace.” ‘bending over backwards,’ but it damages your deceptive pacifist mask.

                  BD wrote: “BTW, Hermie, if the British and French so wanted war why did it take them three days to declare war? Wouldn’t they be chomping at the bit, eager to get started destroying Germany?”

                  I’ve already told you why. The correspondence of the French ambassador to England with his bosses in Paris exposed the real reason. The British leaders of that time wanted to get a war against Germany without demolishing their deceptive image of alleged peace lovers eager to avoid war if possible. In short, to keep up appearances and dupe their citizens more efficiently.

                  Never heard of this? What?!? You mean the English-speaking academic storytellers of WW2 never translated and spread those documents??? How amazing ! Huge surprise, isn’t it?

                  Comment by hermie — February 12, 2017 @ 8:47 am

                • “BD wrote: “I know. You’ve been wrong a thousand times.”

                  “What a puerile moron ! Pathetic…”

                  I know you are pathetic. And a moron. But, I’m too polite to keep bringing it to your attention.

                  BD wrote: “No, they were intended to put the brakes on Hitler. The problem with your interpretation is that it fits no historical fact. The fact is that if the British and French wanted war they would have been in a better position to wage war. They were not. The British wastes their time dropping propaganda leaflets and the French wasted their time with their half-assed “invasion” of the Rhineland. Neither the British or French had the willpower to attack Germany when most of Germany’s military was busy wiping the mat with the Polish. So, you fail because that is the reality. If the British and French wanted to destroy to Germany they could have done so while Germany was engaged with Poland.”

                  “Following your ‘reasoning,’ Hitler didn’t want war either because he didn’t attack Poland on January 31, 1933.”

                  Irrelevant.

                  “The warmongers hadn’t yet prevailed over the peacemongers at that time, and the Zionist warmongers hadn’t yet received a reluctant but pungent “No !! You’ll never get Palestine as a gift for your colonial settlement project ! We can’t give your what you want.” from the Government of His Gracious Majesty (MacDonald White Paper of May 1939) in 1938.”

                  Warmongers? What “warmongers” are you talking about?

                  BD wrote: “It isn’t what I “care” about, it’s about what the British and French cared about. It was not in their interest to have an aggressive, expansionist Germany romping about Europe. It only got that way when Hitler showed no sign of restraint.”

                  “They both knew that Hitler was just erasing the most blatant injustices of the Treaty of Versailles and that he was not pursuing an expansionist policy. They lived in the real world of the 1930’s. They were not brainwashed rats trapped inside the Holo-Matrix.”

                  They believed Hitler until he occupied Czechoslovakia. How is that not expansionist? Those were non-Germanic lands.

                  BD wrote: “No, what I see and this is the reality, is that the British and French bent over backwards to avoid war. It only became obvious to them very late in the day that Hitler was determined to expand and that this was not in their best interest, especially the French. However, their thinking was to simply put the brakes on Hitler’s ambitions by signing treaties with countries in his way, mainly Poland. They hoped to stop this short of war.”

                  “You’re entitled to call a conciliatory policy conceding “We’ve been unfair and too and hard on the defeated in 1919. That was a big mistake and the Treaty of Versailles needs to be revised for the sake of peace.” ‘bending over backwards,’ but it damages your deceptive pacifist mask.”

                  They didn’t need to bend over backwards. You can call Versailles unfair if you’d like and I’d be inclined to agree (of course, German apologists gloss over the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, a far harsher treaty the Germans forced the Russians to sign) but it was a treaty that Germany agreed to. Hitler’s tendency to bluster and threaten confused the British, they thought he could get what he wanted by negotiating.

                  What “deceptive pacifist mask?” Hermie, your random crap gets really confusing.

                  BD wrote: “BTW, Hermie, if the British and French so wanted war why did it take them three days to declare war? Wouldn’t they be chomping at the bit, eager to get started destroying Germany?”

                  “I’ve already told you why. The correspondence of the French ambassador to England with his bosses in Paris exposed the real reason. The British leaders of that time wanted to get a war against Germany without demolishing their deceptive image of alleged peace lovers eager to avoid war if possible. In short, to keep up appearances and dupe their citizens more efficiently.”

                  ?
                  What “correspondence?”

                  Post again, please. You randomly post newspaper articles, random diary entries and other crap so often I lose track.

                  “Never heard of this? What?!? You mean the English-speaking academic storytellers of WW2 never translated and spread those documents??? How amazing ! Huge surprise, isn’t it?”

                  You feel free to enlighten me. I want the document in full so that I can properly assess what it says.

                  Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — February 12, 2017 @ 9:53 am

                • BD wrote: “I know you are pathetic. And a moron. But, I’m too polite to keep bringing it to your attention.”

                  Puerile behavior confirmed for the thousandth time…

                  BD wrote: “Irrelevant.”

                  At least try to argue a little bit. Your laconic evasions are getting hard to hide and ignore…

                  BD wrote: “Warmongers? What “warmongers” are you talking about?”

                  I was talking about the guys in England and France who favored and advocated a war against Germany. You didn’t believe the English and French were a monolithic bloc with a single opinion and a single agenda, did you?

                  BD wrote: “They believed Hitler until he occupied Czechoslovakia. How is that not expansionist? Those were non-Germanic lands.”

                  The establishment of a protectorate over a neighboring country in a process of dislocation is not an expansionist policy. No surprise Emil Hacha requested the protection of a powerful neighbor in order to prevent any additional seizure of Czech lands by his neighbors. The British had originally understood that and they opted for their “How dare you?” posture under pressure from the White House, NOT because they had stopped believing Hitler after the [nonexistent] invasion of Czechoslovakia (How can anyone invade a country that no longer exists?) as claimed in the childish orthodox narrative coined by the victors of 1945.

                  BD wrote: “They didn’t need to bend over backwards. You can call Versailles unfair if you’d like and I’d be inclined to agree (of course, German apologists gloss over the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, a far harsher treaty the Germans forced the Russians to sign) but it was a treaty that Germany agreed to. Hitler’s tendency to bluster and threaten confused the British, they thought he could get what he wanted by negotiating.”

                  Yes, it was a treaty that Germany agreed to…when the victors of November 1918 were keeping their starvation embargo against the German and Austrian population in operation. What a choice !!

                  BD wrote: “What “deceptive pacifist mask?” Hermie, your random crap gets really confusing.”

                  Your alleged love of peace as long as such a peace is good for Jewish interests and bad for German interests.

                  BD wrote: “What “correspondence?””

                  Reports of his conversations with the leaders of France (ministers). Conversations in which he received their instructions and informed them of what the British had told him and wanted to do.

                  BD wrote: “Post again, please. You randomly post newspaper articles, random diary entries and other crap so often I lose track.”

                  Sorry. Not everybody is able to base his knowledge on random quotes full of mistranslations, commonplace documents supposedly decoded in order to say things they don’t say, and similar crap.

                  BD wrote: “You feel free to enlighten me. I want the document in full so that I can properly assess what it says.”

                  OK, I’ll try to translate some of these conversational reports later.

                  Comment by hermie — February 12, 2017 @ 10:51 am

            • David Pearce wrote: “Are you conveniently forgetting that Hitler invaded Poland, Czecheslovakia, France, Belgium, Denmark and Russia ?”

              And you, are you conveniently forgetting that the British invaded huge areas on 5 continents ?

              Hitler didn’t invade Czechoslovakia since Czechoslovakia ceased to exist when Slovakia took her independence and when the Slovaks finally freed themselves from the yoke of their Czech rulers, i.e. before Hitler’s men entered the new Protectorate of Bohemia & Moravia.

              The German invasion and occupation of France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark was perfectly understandable from a strategic point of view. Just as a U.S. invasion and occupation of Cuba would have been understandable if the Soviets hadn’t removed the nuclear missiles they had just installed there.

              Any kid above 7 years old should be able to understand that the real guilty party of a war is the side that made that war inescapable, not the side that shot the first bullet and even less the side that couldn’t shoot the last bullet (as in the puerile precedent established by the victors of WW1 and WW2). This was a basic rule of European wars for centuries. According to this rule of common sense, the real father of WW2 is undeniably Franklin Delano Roosevelt. HE made a peaceful settlement of the differences between Germany and Poland impossible. And HE pressured Britain in order to stop Britain’s conciliatory policy with respect to Germany’s peaceful erasure of the most blatant injustices inherited from the infamous Treaty of Versailles (i.e. what the Anglo-American warmongers of the late 1930’s used to call “the Munich policy” and what today’s historians usually call “Britain’s appeasement policy”).


              (Waw !! A real license to trigger a war against Germany given by Roosevelt to the military junta heading Poland at that time !! A highly predictable outcome ! Clearly a thing anybody can’t seriously call a peace policy. An even more bellicose policy than a delivery of riffles to hesitant ‘Indian’ warriors considering the possibility of taking the warpath…)

              David Pearce wrote: “He also instigated the bombing of civilian targets in England which of course ultimately resulted in the terrible events of Dresden and Hamburg.”

              The deliberate targeting of civilians during the bombings of WW2 was a British finding and standard procedure. Don’t deprive the British war lords of their due. Give credit where credit is due.

              Comment by hermie — February 10, 2017 @ 9:03 am

    • The appropriate wording is “vilified for political purposes,” not “vile.”

      Comment by hermie — February 9, 2017 @ 5:00 am

      • No. Vile is actually not perjorative enough. Glad that him and his creatures got what they deserved.

        Comment by David Pearce — February 9, 2017 @ 10:41 am

        • Vile is actually not perjorative enough.

          You’re right — it’s not pejorative enough to describe Rotherham, Rochdale, etc etc, and the English faggots that created the conditions that made it possible, and then allowed it to happen — faggots like you.

          Comment by eah — February 9, 2017 @ 12:39 pm

          • Goodness me eah. You are obviously a very uptight individual. What on earth has some despicable crimes in some northern English towns perpetrated to their shame by some Asian men directed at young white girls have anything to do with that arse Donald Trump. Faggot is not a term we tend to use in Great Britain but even if we did I’m sorry to disappoint you that it would not apply to me.

            Comment by David Pearce — February 9, 2017 @ 2:43 pm

            • “Goodness me eah. You are obviously a very uptight individual. What on earth has some despicable crimes in some northern English towns perpetrated to their shame by some Asian men directed at young white girls have anything to do with that arse Donald Trump. Faggot is not a term we tend to use in Great Britain but even if we did I’m sorry to disappoint you that it would not apply to me.”

              That’s just eah being his regular warm and cuddly self.

              Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — February 9, 2017 @ 3:36 pm

              • BD wrote: “That’s just eah being his regular warm and cuddly self.”

                And despite this kind of childish & useless comments (representing well the whole of your work here), you’ll certainly pretend you don’t understand why you’re regarded as an agent provocateur the next time you’re called by that name or a similar name ! Amazing !!

                Comment by hermie — February 10, 2017 @ 7:54 am

                • “And despite this kind of childish & useless comments (representing well the whole of your work here), you’ll certainly pretend you don’t understand why you’re regarded as an agent provocateur the next time you’re called by that name or a similar name ! Amazing !!”

                  Let me check my emotional barometer to see if I give a shit.

                  Hhhhhmmmmm…..nope, still don’t give a shit.

                  Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — February 10, 2017 @ 8:01 am

                • Good news, BD. I didn’t want to disturb your inner peace. An angry agent provocateur is of course even more aggressive than a quiet agent provocateur.

                  Comment by hermie — February 10, 2017 @ 9:02 am

                • “Good news, BD. I didn’t want to disturb your inner peace. An angry agent provocateur is of course even more aggressive than a quiet agent provocateur.”

                  Hhhhhhhmmmmm, do I give a shit about being called an agent provocateur?

                  No.

                  Hermie, you can believe whatever you like about me and my motives. I simply don’t give a shit.

                  Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — February 10, 2017 @ 9:17 am

                • You wrote: “I simply don’t give a shit.”

                  Most people don’t give a damn, but not you. You have to be vulgar.

                  Comment by furtherglory — February 10, 2017 @ 9:25 am

                • Sorry.

                  Now, I assume you are going to rebuke eah for his foul language?

                  Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — February 10, 2017 @ 10:15 am

            • some despicable crimes

              Which crimes are you referring to? — the crimes of the Pakis who sexually brutalized underage white English girls? — or the crimes of the police and officials who knew it was happening but for years did nothing to stop it for no other reason than the fear of being called racist?

              Goodness me

              Like I said: you’re a faggot.

              Trump is a racist, narcissist and misogynist. How the American public did not see through the lies and hatred is incredulous to the rest of the world.

              More to the point of faggotry — it’s this kind of rhetoric, this sort of shameless, fact-less virtue-signaling, where any opposition to the ruling order is characterized as ‘hate’, ‘racism’, etc, that has created the kind of atmosphere where Pakis can sexually brutalize young white girls and responsible people feel compelled to look the other way — because they fear the accusation of ‘racist’.

              And “the rest of the world” can fuck off.

              Comment by eah — February 10, 2017 @ 12:06 am

            • perpetrated to their shame

              Man, not only are you a faggot, you are an incredibly stupid, shallow faggot — the Pakis clearly felt no shame whatsoever: after all, it went on for years — the “shame” lies with the officials who looked the other way, and with people like you who are responsible for the kind of intimidation and marginalization of dissent via name-calling that I described in another comment.

              And only a faggot would speak of “shame” where clearly talk of a gallows is more appropriate.

              Comment by eah — February 10, 2017 @ 12:16 am

              • You really are a twisted and bitter individual. How on earth do you get through the day without exploding ?
                What went on in those northern towns is beyond defence. The individuals involved rightly prosecuted and imprisoned. I hope the key is thrown away. The reasons that it was allowed to flourish also a travesty. A terrible situation which must not be repeated and lessons and practices put in place to ensure it cannot.

                What’s this faggotry thing you’ve got going ? Do you routinely dismiss anyone with opposing views to you as a faggot ? If so why ?

                It’s often said that the people that are most vociferous against gays are themselves latent homosexuals who cannot come to terms with their life. It’s nothing to be ashamed of. Help is out there should you wish to unburden yourself.

                Comment by David Pearce — February 10, 2017 @ 1:01 am

            • Rotherham child abuse scandal: 1,400 children exploited, report finds

              At least 1,400 children were subjected to appalling sexual exploitation in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013, a report has found…Children as young as 11 were raped by multiple perpetrators, abducted, trafficked to other cities in England, beaten and intimidated, it said. The report, commissioned by Rotherham Borough Council, revealed there had been three previous inquiries…The inquiry team noted fears among council staff of being labelled “racist” if they focused on victims’ descriptions of the majority of abusers as “Asian” men.

              And that’s just Rotherham.

              Have you personally ever used the term “racist” to describe the Paki men who targeted young white English girls for sexual abuse and degredation?

              Like I said: it’s disgusting moronic faggots like you — with your juvenile, rampant, baseless accusations of “racism” — who created the atmosphere which allowed this abuse to happen and to go on for so long.

              You’ve done nothing here but call Trump names.

              Get lost.

              Comment by eah — February 10, 2017 @ 4:18 am

              • You really are very odd. You don’t think it ironic that you call me out for calling Trump “names” yet you feel perfectly entitled to use the not very nice and unacceptable term “Paki” when referring to someone from Pakistan. Not all Pakistanis are abusers just like not all black men are robbers. You clearly don’t have the intelligence to work that out.

                I get the impression that you are from the UK like me. Am I correct ?

                Comment by David Pearce — February 10, 2017 @ 4:25 am

          • “You’re right — it’s not pejorative enough to describe Rotherham, Rochdale, etc etc, and the English faggots that created the conditions that made it possible, and then allowed it to happen — faggots like you.”

            You never disappoint, do you, eah?

            Nice welcome to our newest commenter.

            Did he say something to insult your beloved Hitler?

            😂

            Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — February 9, 2017 @ 3:19 pm

            • Nice welcome to our newest commenter.

              He isn’t new — he has commented here many times in the past, albeit not frequently.

              Did he say something to insult your beloved Hitler?

              Where and when have I expressed admiration for Hitler?

              You never disappoint

              Uhh, yeah — you fucking moron.

              Comment by eah — February 10, 2017 @ 12:09 am

              • “He isn’t new — he has commented here many times in the past, albeit not frequently.

                Did he say something to insult your beloved Hitler?

                Where and when have I expressed admiration for Hitler?

                You never disappoint

                Uhh, yeah — you fucking moron.”

                You seem especially grouchy wouchy today, eah. Ggggggrrrrrrrr. What’s the matter, did your VHS copy of Triumph of the Will finally give out on you?

                Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — February 10, 2017 @ 8:06 am

        • David Pearce wrote: “Glad that him and his creatures got what they deserved.”

          Got what they deserved? You mean a great opportunity to kick some Jewish asses and see their insolent smile vanish from those Chosenitic face? Yeah, I know ! They were so lucky !! A true moment of pure joy…

          Comment by hermie — February 9, 2017 @ 4:29 pm

    • He’s getting things going to upset the natives but nothing like the way Hitler did it….and Hitler had more things going against him and no Jews
      in his party to cause him problems later on, which I worry about Trumps tribe if they mutiny against him later on for their Zionist cause of divide and conquer.

      JR

      Holocausthandbooks.com
      CCFIILE.COM
      CODOH.COM
      IHR.ORG
      VHO.ORG

      Comment by Jim Rizoli — February 9, 2017 @ 9:16 am

  2. Trump is a racist, narcissist and misogynist. How the American public did not see through the lies and hatred is incredulous to the rest of the world.

    The “travel ban” is a racist implement that is beyond contempt and will act as a recruiting Sargent for Islamic fundamentalists. Did Trump include Saudi Arabia in his ban ? No of course not because he is in hock to them through his business activities.

    The parallels being drawn with Trump and Hitler are legitimate although I doubt Donald has the personal charisma of Hitler.

    I am looking forward to the embarrassing site of the President of The United States being the subject of the greatest series of public protests in British history. How wonderful that the USA will see their man booed and vilified from the moment he arrives in the UK until the moment he leaves. He will not even be afforded the honour of speaking to MP’s in The House of Commons. They don’t want him.

    Trump is an arsehole.

    Comment by David Pearce — February 9, 2017 @ 1:29 am

    • You wrote: “I am looking forward to the embarrassing site of the President of The United States being the subject of the greatest series of public protests in British history.”

      What is the location of this “site”? I think you mean “sight”.

      Comment by furtherglory — February 9, 2017 @ 4:30 am

      • You are of course correct. Thankyou.

        Comment by David Pearce — February 9, 2017 @ 10:43 am

    • Don’t be ridiculous. Trump’s travel ban is not a racist implement. A racist implement would ban travel for all the non-White people or for all the people of specific races, not for the dual-nationals from 7 countries. And a racist implement wouldn’t be temporary as Trump’s travel ban is. It would of course be permanent and not restricted to only 7 countries and even less to the dual-nationals from those 7 countries. The worn term “racist” is rapidly losing its strength because so many Liberals overuse it and because almost anybody and anything is now labeled “racist” anyway.

      Comment by hermie — February 9, 2017 @ 4:57 am

    • Amen.

      Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — February 9, 2017 @ 3:18 pm

  3. The news article states: “This isn’t Trump imposing his will on America. It is Trump carrying out an election promise.”

    Hitler never did anything else…

    Comment by hermie — February 8, 2017 @ 7:17 pm

  4. The country is in tough shape and we need strong man to guide us through things.
    Germany was in the same situation back in the thirties and Hitler was the man to get things going again so people could feel more secure and safe. Trump doesn’t even compare to Hitler but he’s trying his best to take out the trash.

    JR

    Comment by Jim Rizoli — February 8, 2017 @ 6:08 pm

  5. Equating the intellectually, culturally and morally bankrupt Humpty Trumpty to Herr Hitler is an insult to anyone capable of critical thinking and sullies the reputation and name of Herr Hitler.

    Comment by theskepticalcynic — February 8, 2017 @ 5:32 pm

    • So true !!

      Comment by hermie — February 8, 2017 @ 7:11 pm

    • How can you sully the name of a man who is responsible for starting the European end of the most violent war in history?

      Of course, then he lost (thank God) but left his country divided, his women raped, the best and brightest dead and his country stripped and vilified.

      It’s funny how you Hitler-hero worshippers think anyone can “sully” your precious führer.

      Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — February 9, 2017 @ 3:17 pm

      • I had the pleasure to interview Thomas Goodrich the author of Hellstorm today, the book that tells the story of the allied atrocities against the Germans How millions of Germans were killed, tortured, and raped out of existence by the allies. But I guess atrocities against innocent German people doesn’t count. Only what the Germans were supposed to do the Jews was the issue. Maybe you can show me somewhere where the Germans raped, and Holocausted innocent Jews in 150 cities, at the end of the war… Dresden being the largest of the massacres….we already have the record of the Allies doing it to the Germans yet nicely covered up.
        So Hitler was the bad guy while the allied murderers walk away free and easy.
        Will have the video/audio done this week sometime for you to enjoy.

        JR

        Comment by Jim Rizoli — February 9, 2017 @ 3:44 pm

      • Bris Daddy opted for the version of the wife beater, the husband’s version of last night rather that of his wife. Every wife beater in this world can explain why his wife deserved a good hiding during the previous night. Such “explanations” are of course always implausible and unpersuasive. The orthodox WW2 narrative, direct progeny of the politically-motivated stories written by the victors of 1945, is exactly that: the bullshit ‘explanations’ of a wife beater.

        Comment by hermie — February 9, 2017 @ 4:51 pm

        • “Bris Daddy opted for the version of the wife beater, the husband’s version of last night rather that of his wife. Every wife beater in this world can explain why his wife deserved a good hiding during the previous night. Such “explanations” are of course always implausible and unpersuasive. The orthodox WW2 narrative, direct progeny of the politically-motivated stories written by the victors of 1945, is exactly that: the bullshit ‘explanations’ of a wife beater.”

          The huminator says….something………that he thinks makes sense but fails miserably.

          Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — February 9, 2017 @ 6:04 pm

          • Or perhaps the daddy doesn’t have what it takes to understand the analogy. Who knows?

            Comment by hermie — February 9, 2017 @ 8:58 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: