Hitler and the Big Lie - the magic trick explained
Senin, 29 Juni 2009
0
komentar
In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler explained the Big Lie. Paraphrasing now - regular people tell lots of little lies and expect to hear little lies in turn: but the concept of a huge lie, a really monstrous lie, a lie bigger than Ben Hur (ha ha ha), is something so alien to regular punters that it's effectively beyond their ken, and thus they are unable to dismiss it as a falsehood. The logic is: it's unimaginable that anyone, or any group, would tell a lie that big, therefore it must be true.
It seems there's a curious logic going on here. Let's imagine Hitler as a magician - a magician who explains the trick before he does it. "Ladies and Gentlemen, for my next trick I shall perform the 'Floating Phantom'. In this trick I shall, with great flourish, drape a cloth over a black felt-covered steel frame that will be lowered in as my lovely assistant drops into the box you see here. The frame was always there but you couldn't see it what with the black curtains and dim lighting, and not forgetting me and my lovely assistant doing our best to distract you. I next proceed with a bit of hoop-la - with a hoop! - and then for the big finale, I shall whip the cloth off and, believe it or not, the frame will be right there in front of you! But since you expect the girl, and she's not there, and what is there is impossible to see, you will be 'delighted and amazed', ha ha! And now on with the show! Ladies and Gentlemen! For your delight and amazement I shall now perform the wondrous Floating Phantom!"
And there you have Hitler as the creator of the Big Lie - the mad, where's-the-sense-in-it magician who tells you how he's going to trick you. Absurdly, no one ever wonders at this. Yes, we get the concept of the Big Lie, and yes, Hitler told us about it. But why do we imagine that it's his gig he's talking about? How does that make sense? And what was his big lie exactly? In any discussion of Hitler and the Big Lie, madly, no one ever does the obvious thing and cites an example of one of Hitler's Big Lies.
Okay, why don't I do it for them? How about the burning of the Reichstag? This was a false-flag attack blamed on 'terrorists' for the purpose of implementing a fascist roll-out. Um... perhaps we ought not to mention that? Shades of 911, with the Reichstag fire looking like the runt of the litter. In fact, purely in terms of casualties, and desired outcome (the nuking of Cairo), even the attack on the USS Liberty has it beat hands down. Sure enough in any public discussion of the Big Lie, the Reichstag fire will not be cited. Perish the thought! God forbid we end up in a broad Big Lie discussion about a government faking a terror attack to trick the population into accepting a variation of totalitarian rule. Thus we may discuss the Reichstag fire as false, and we may discuss Hitler as the proponent of the Big Lie, but we may not connect the two. Hitler may only be discussed as the epitome of evil one step below satan and the thought of him as an also-ran may not be countenanced.
But let's stop beating around the bush - Hitler, sure enough, was not that impossible creature, the magician who ruined his own trick. Rather he was the mythbuster of his day exploding the technique of those other tricksters, the people who owned the banks, the media, and most of commerce; who declared war on Germany in 1933; who ran the weimar printing presses; who backed and otherwise comprised the Bolsheviks; for whom the opium wars were fought; who ran and then commodified the slave trade; who posited God as supplicant under their own talmud; and who were, way back when, the only people Jesus ever got angry with. In case anyone missed it, that would be the Jews and specifically the dozen families who control international banking.
That was then, this is now, and the more things change, the more they stay the same. The media, which is to say, the place where all public discussions take place, is still entirely in the hands of Jews. If anyone wants to argue this, take it up with the gleeful-to-the-point-of-intoxicated Joel Stein. (Poor old Joel! Imagine the size of the shut-the-fuck-up he'd have been on the receiving end of! Ha ha ha, suffer in your jocks, Joel!).
Along those bracketed lines, it should come as no surprise that any discussion about the Big Lie, by the people who were accused of it, should posit the accuser as its inventor and chief practitioner. It's blame-the-victim meets shoot-the-messenger. If you think about it, this irony-free circularity is pretty much inevitable. It's QED territory - as if anyone given to the Big Lie, and who lie like they breathe, is going to throw their hands up in the air and say, 'We confess, it's true!' Ha ha ha ha - an abject impossibility.
Hmmm... an interesting thought, that. Let me have a cig on the balcony whilst I think about it.
---
For me, everything comes down to the continuum of selfishness and selflessness. The people for whom the phrase the Big Lie was coined are upside-down paragons of selfishness - they're anti-Buddhas, the opposite of 'at one with the universe' who embrace utterly the collective mindset of 'us and them' with its individual expression of 'me uber alles'. Again, if you want to argue, include me out of any parlour games. Just go read the talmud.
Whilst the Big Lie is a thing worth discussing, obviously it's subordinate to this anti-Buddha mindset. Or to put it another way, given the mindset, and the degree of it, the Big Lie is inevitable. Keeping in mind that 'selfish behaviour' equals 'sin' (with 'selfless behaviour' equalling 'virtue'), a lie, whether small, medium, or big (or as they say in America - medium, large, and extra large, ha ha) is just another sin, one amongst many. For the anti-Buddhas at the furthest end of the continuum, all of their sins are 'Big', Lies included.
The problem with sins this great is that they cannot be walked away from. Sure enough, this is Shakespeare territory, specifically Macbeth:
By the worst means, the worst. For mine own good,
All causes shall give way: I am in blood
Stepp’d in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o’er
Onya Bill! Like he said, as sins increase in magnitude, indeed to epic proportions, the sinner can no longer return to the embrace of those sinned against. Put mathematically, let's just call sin 'desire' (for the self) and plot it on an xy graph. As desire increases, 'fear' (of retribution) will inevitably climb in an identical fashion. Ha! Euclidean proof that Buddha was right in declaring fear and desire to be the same thing. Hats off to the Buddha and Euclid both.
Anyway, bare-headed now, let's just say that under this logic, the Big Lie can never be admitted, walked away from, or any other thing. Lies will follow lies, one on top of another, until an absurd unsustainable edifice is constructed that can only have one future - collapse. Hmm... it seems I'm in Les Visible territory here. Back to the specifics.
---
There's been more shit said about Hitler than any other man in history. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might have copped a lot of shit but he's got a long way to go to match the sins that have been concocted for Hitler. The bloc-media has perpetually depicted him as a villain whose only rival is Satan. BTW, I don't want anyone confused about me being an apologist for Hitler - best I can make out he was a crypto-gay paedophile racist, and probably a satanist to boot. Even on a purely technical realpolitik basis, Hitler is the guy to look to if you want a lesson in how to fail. (*And he was a vegetarian! This is ipso facto proof that vegetarians are clearly very wicked people. Hi John!)
But that being said, Hitler did a single extraordinary thing - he named and described the Big Lie. Has anyone else done this? Best I can see, everyone plays within the rules of the Big Lie parlour game, with no one ever calling a halt to things by simply naming the game. The game by the way is 'usury'. Even JFK, who followed Hitler in trying to retake control of his nation's money, did so in silence. What? Was he hoping the owners of the Fed wouldn't notice? Either way, he explained nothing and unsurprisingly no one has heard of executive order 11110.
Meanwhile on the telly, God knows how many discussions I've sat through with politicians pleading with the Reserve Bank not to raise rates, and never once have any of them wondered at its 'independence'. Likewise, the opposition will attack the government for getting into deficit by way of borrowing money from the Reserve, but never mention that the Reserve just pulled the money out of thin air. Even Ron Paul, the US's chief opponent of the Fed, will discuss inflation, the gold standard, all manner of things, but will never bag out usury as crap from the get-go. Not forgetting the left, where everyone from John Pilger to Naomi Klein will heap shit on the IMF and the World bank as wicked institutions but never wonder who owns them or whether the whole thing is a con.
And yes, I do get it that there are sundry other Big Lies entirely unconnected to banking, but for mine, none of them seem to be possessed of banking's ancient voodoo power. The central core to the banking Big Lie is the absurdly simple, and yet ultimately daft, idea that money is possessed of some kind of planet-like gravity and that merely by existing should attract more money as interest. For mine this is the heart of the matter stripped down to its rawest, most impenetrable kernel. From this flows everything else - fractional banking, reserve banking, monetary policy - and upon which such perfectly vicious entities as the IMF and the World Bank are then constructed.
Let's not forget that these other Big Lies are arguably connected to banking as well. Why did the world jewry declare war on Germany in 1933? 1933 was pre-Kristalnacht, pre-yellow stars, pre-Wannsee conference, pre-everything except Hitler's discussion of the Big Lie and his wresting of Germany's monetary policy from the Rothschilds and their very good friends. If we're prepared to acknowledge Judea's declaration of war on Germany, who but a fool wouldn't include follow-the-money in explaining it?
Following that, it's only a short step to viewing the current War On Terror in the same terms. We all know that the stories about Saudis and 911, Iran and nukes, the Taleban and opium, Pakistan and the Mumbai bombings, etc. etc. ad nauseam, are lies. And they're pretty big sure, but might they have something in common? A single, really Big Lie that explains all of them? Okay, how about the fact that all of these countries declare usury sinful and otherwise do not submit to a privately owned reserve banking system? It works for me.
Whatever you might think of Hitler, you'd have to admit that at the very least he did one worthy thing - he gave name to the Big Lie and explained the means by which it functions. But on this topic we can also fault him for not having explained clearly enough quite how big the Big Lie can be. Perhaps we can put that down to chaos theory (and its ideas on the infinite nature of scale) not having been invented yet? Regardless, in much the same way that 'big' is a concept that has no end, the Big Lie, under the auspices of its chief magicians, will always be greater than we who are used to little lies can imagine. Even as we shift our sense of scale and come to terms with the enormity of any given Big Lie, above it will be another.
Sure enough, the high priests of banking would have this seen as the ultimate voodoo spell, invested with numerological occult power. But this is arse-about. The fact that a Big Lie of this magnitude can be rendered hidden-profane-occult isn't proof of it's magical power. Quite the opposite, it's proof of its pathetic frailty - if it weren't hidden it would collapse in a screaming heap.
Back to our magician now - the easiest way to ruin his trick would be to turn the house lights on. 'Occult' means hidden - unhide what's hidden and the magic evaporates. Suddenly everything changes: the magician frozen on stage with a horrified expression on his face; the crowd's 'delight and amazement' gone like a puff of smoke; the whole tableau as un-magical as can be.
'Boo! Get Off!' says the crowd, as the well-deserved tomatoes fly.
It seems there's a curious logic going on here. Let's imagine Hitler as a magician - a magician who explains the trick before he does it. "Ladies and Gentlemen, for my next trick I shall perform the 'Floating Phantom'. In this trick I shall, with great flourish, drape a cloth over a black felt-covered steel frame that will be lowered in as my lovely assistant drops into the box you see here. The frame was always there but you couldn't see it what with the black curtains and dim lighting, and not forgetting me and my lovely assistant doing our best to distract you. I next proceed with a bit of hoop-la - with a hoop! - and then for the big finale, I shall whip the cloth off and, believe it or not, the frame will be right there in front of you! But since you expect the girl, and she's not there, and what is there is impossible to see, you will be 'delighted and amazed', ha ha! And now on with the show! Ladies and Gentlemen! For your delight and amazement I shall now perform the wondrous Floating Phantom!"
And there you have Hitler as the creator of the Big Lie - the mad, where's-the-sense-in-it magician who tells you how he's going to trick you. Absurdly, no one ever wonders at this. Yes, we get the concept of the Big Lie, and yes, Hitler told us about it. But why do we imagine that it's his gig he's talking about? How does that make sense? And what was his big lie exactly? In any discussion of Hitler and the Big Lie, madly, no one ever does the obvious thing and cites an example of one of Hitler's Big Lies.
Okay, why don't I do it for them? How about the burning of the Reichstag? This was a false-flag attack blamed on 'terrorists' for the purpose of implementing a fascist roll-out. Um... perhaps we ought not to mention that? Shades of 911, with the Reichstag fire looking like the runt of the litter. In fact, purely in terms of casualties, and desired outcome (the nuking of Cairo), even the attack on the USS Liberty has it beat hands down. Sure enough in any public discussion of the Big Lie, the Reichstag fire will not be cited. Perish the thought! God forbid we end up in a broad Big Lie discussion about a government faking a terror attack to trick the population into accepting a variation of totalitarian rule. Thus we may discuss the Reichstag fire as false, and we may discuss Hitler as the proponent of the Big Lie, but we may not connect the two. Hitler may only be discussed as the epitome of evil one step below satan and the thought of him as an also-ran may not be countenanced.
But let's stop beating around the bush - Hitler, sure enough, was not that impossible creature, the magician who ruined his own trick. Rather he was the mythbuster of his day exploding the technique of those other tricksters, the people who owned the banks, the media, and most of commerce; who declared war on Germany in 1933; who ran the weimar printing presses; who backed and otherwise comprised the Bolsheviks; for whom the opium wars were fought; who ran and then commodified the slave trade; who posited God as supplicant under their own talmud; and who were, way back when, the only people Jesus ever got angry with. In case anyone missed it, that would be the Jews and specifically the dozen families who control international banking.
That was then, this is now, and the more things change, the more they stay the same. The media, which is to say, the place where all public discussions take place, is still entirely in the hands of Jews. If anyone wants to argue this, take it up with the gleeful-to-the-point-of-intoxicated Joel Stein. (Poor old Joel! Imagine the size of the shut-the-fuck-up he'd have been on the receiving end of! Ha ha ha, suffer in your jocks, Joel!).
Along those bracketed lines, it should come as no surprise that any discussion about the Big Lie, by the people who were accused of it, should posit the accuser as its inventor and chief practitioner. It's blame-the-victim meets shoot-the-messenger. If you think about it, this irony-free circularity is pretty much inevitable. It's QED territory - as if anyone given to the Big Lie, and who lie like they breathe, is going to throw their hands up in the air and say, 'We confess, it's true!' Ha ha ha ha - an abject impossibility.
Hmmm... an interesting thought, that. Let me have a cig on the balcony whilst I think about it.
---
For me, everything comes down to the continuum of selfishness and selflessness. The people for whom the phrase the Big Lie was coined are upside-down paragons of selfishness - they're anti-Buddhas, the opposite of 'at one with the universe' who embrace utterly the collective mindset of 'us and them' with its individual expression of 'me uber alles'. Again, if you want to argue, include me out of any parlour games. Just go read the talmud.
Whilst the Big Lie is a thing worth discussing, obviously it's subordinate to this anti-Buddha mindset. Or to put it another way, given the mindset, and the degree of it, the Big Lie is inevitable. Keeping in mind that 'selfish behaviour' equals 'sin' (with 'selfless behaviour' equalling 'virtue'), a lie, whether small, medium, or big (or as they say in America - medium, large, and extra large, ha ha) is just another sin, one amongst many. For the anti-Buddhas at the furthest end of the continuum, all of their sins are 'Big', Lies included.
The problem with sins this great is that they cannot be walked away from. Sure enough, this is Shakespeare territory, specifically Macbeth:
By the worst means, the worst. For mine own good,
All causes shall give way: I am in blood
Stepp’d in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o’er
Onya Bill! Like he said, as sins increase in magnitude, indeed to epic proportions, the sinner can no longer return to the embrace of those sinned against. Put mathematically, let's just call sin 'desire' (for the self) and plot it on an xy graph. As desire increases, 'fear' (of retribution) will inevitably climb in an identical fashion. Ha! Euclidean proof that Buddha was right in declaring fear and desire to be the same thing. Hats off to the Buddha and Euclid both.
Anyway, bare-headed now, let's just say that under this logic, the Big Lie can never be admitted, walked away from, or any other thing. Lies will follow lies, one on top of another, until an absurd unsustainable edifice is constructed that can only have one future - collapse. Hmm... it seems I'm in Les Visible territory here. Back to the specifics.
---
There's been more shit said about Hitler than any other man in history. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might have copped a lot of shit but he's got a long way to go to match the sins that have been concocted for Hitler. The bloc-media has perpetually depicted him as a villain whose only rival is Satan. BTW, I don't want anyone confused about me being an apologist for Hitler - best I can make out he was a crypto-gay paedophile racist, and probably a satanist to boot. Even on a purely technical realpolitik basis, Hitler is the guy to look to if you want a lesson in how to fail. (*And he was a vegetarian! This is ipso facto proof that vegetarians are clearly very wicked people. Hi John!)
But that being said, Hitler did a single extraordinary thing - he named and described the Big Lie. Has anyone else done this? Best I can see, everyone plays within the rules of the Big Lie parlour game, with no one ever calling a halt to things by simply naming the game. The game by the way is 'usury'. Even JFK, who followed Hitler in trying to retake control of his nation's money, did so in silence. What? Was he hoping the owners of the Fed wouldn't notice? Either way, he explained nothing and unsurprisingly no one has heard of executive order 11110.
Meanwhile on the telly, God knows how many discussions I've sat through with politicians pleading with the Reserve Bank not to raise rates, and never once have any of them wondered at its 'independence'. Likewise, the opposition will attack the government for getting into deficit by way of borrowing money from the Reserve, but never mention that the Reserve just pulled the money out of thin air. Even Ron Paul, the US's chief opponent of the Fed, will discuss inflation, the gold standard, all manner of things, but will never bag out usury as crap from the get-go. Not forgetting the left, where everyone from John Pilger to Naomi Klein will heap shit on the IMF and the World bank as wicked institutions but never wonder who owns them or whether the whole thing is a con.
And yes, I do get it that there are sundry other Big Lies entirely unconnected to banking, but for mine, none of them seem to be possessed of banking's ancient voodoo power. The central core to the banking Big Lie is the absurdly simple, and yet ultimately daft, idea that money is possessed of some kind of planet-like gravity and that merely by existing should attract more money as interest. For mine this is the heart of the matter stripped down to its rawest, most impenetrable kernel. From this flows everything else - fractional banking, reserve banking, monetary policy - and upon which such perfectly vicious entities as the IMF and the World Bank are then constructed.
Let's not forget that these other Big Lies are arguably connected to banking as well. Why did the world jewry declare war on Germany in 1933? 1933 was pre-Kristalnacht, pre-yellow stars, pre-Wannsee conference, pre-everything except Hitler's discussion of the Big Lie and his wresting of Germany's monetary policy from the Rothschilds and their very good friends. If we're prepared to acknowledge Judea's declaration of war on Germany, who but a fool wouldn't include follow-the-money in explaining it?
Following that, it's only a short step to viewing the current War On Terror in the same terms. We all know that the stories about Saudis and 911, Iran and nukes, the Taleban and opium, Pakistan and the Mumbai bombings, etc. etc. ad nauseam, are lies. And they're pretty big sure, but might they have something in common? A single, really Big Lie that explains all of them? Okay, how about the fact that all of these countries declare usury sinful and otherwise do not submit to a privately owned reserve banking system? It works for me.
Whatever you might think of Hitler, you'd have to admit that at the very least he did one worthy thing - he gave name to the Big Lie and explained the means by which it functions. But on this topic we can also fault him for not having explained clearly enough quite how big the Big Lie can be. Perhaps we can put that down to chaos theory (and its ideas on the infinite nature of scale) not having been invented yet? Regardless, in much the same way that 'big' is a concept that has no end, the Big Lie, under the auspices of its chief magicians, will always be greater than we who are used to little lies can imagine. Even as we shift our sense of scale and come to terms with the enormity of any given Big Lie, above it will be another.
Sure enough, the high priests of banking would have this seen as the ultimate voodoo spell, invested with numerological occult power. But this is arse-about. The fact that a Big Lie of this magnitude can be rendered hidden-profane-occult isn't proof of it's magical power. Quite the opposite, it's proof of its pathetic frailty - if it weren't hidden it would collapse in a screaming heap.
Back to our magician now - the easiest way to ruin his trick would be to turn the house lights on. 'Occult' means hidden - unhide what's hidden and the magic evaporates. Suddenly everything changes: the magician frozen on stage with a horrified expression on his face; the crowd's 'delight and amazement' gone like a puff of smoke; the whole tableau as un-magical as can be.
'Boo! Get Off!' says the crowd, as the well-deserved tomatoes fly.
Baca Selengkapnya ....
Categories:
anti-buddhas,
continuum,
germany,
history,
hitler,
international banking,
reserve bank,
rothschilds
