UN-Globalist Collectivism and Political Disclosure

The State of the World in 2021


View: https://youtu.be/nzPTBvuIAV4
​

 

Social Conditioning - I don't want to be difficult - Conformity to be nice (and mentally-psychologically mind manipulated)!

https://www.bitchute.com/video/DXwlGAU9TFKo/
​

 

Open address to Craig Kelly and all patriots in Australia

A question is are they, the rule makers/enforcers, blackmailed by the globalist technocrats (fed reserve banking cartel like World Bank and IMF) and medical tyranny (W.H.O.) OR are they too stupid to ask contrary 'expert' opinion.

One suspects the former, witnessing a true Aussie patriot like Craig Kelly being ridiculed as a' conspiracy theorist' by the fake patriots, including Greg Hunt and Scomo and Berejiklian.

They, the globalist technocrats made a film about the '2010-2020-2030 'Great Reset' agenda of the World Economic Forum behind the plandemic and the 'reset scam' projecting 2015 to be ' the year beginning October 18th, 2019 as the 'Event 201' into 2020'.
You can watch an account and the actual movie in the two links below.

Craig watch 'The Hamburg Syndrome' and inform the One Nation and somewhat affiliated senators, friends and colleagues.

But the government 'elected for and by the people' is actually a finance-investment driven 'regulatory bureaucracy by unelected officials' affiliated and 'installed' by international 'treaties' and conventions.

You can easily differentiate between patriotic and global politicians in their words and rhetoric regarding nationalism and say UN interests.

The main focus of the elected 'government' is to restrict global fed bank cartel interest rates disguised in the 'worship of the AAA triple credit rating'. In short most western, especially anglosaxon 'governments' are blackmailed financially (and sometimes sexually) by the global elitists headquartered in Washington DC (Pentagon) and New York (Wall Street) and the City of London with the Vatican Bank.

Political Pandemic (bitchute.com)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/7DdVybngJvDp/



Population Control Agenda (bitchute.com)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/echn6LkjEhKK/
​

1. The Hamburg Syndrome - English Subtitled - Political Pandemic 1979-2015-2020
2. Population Control as described by Ex-military officer Vladimir Kvachkov - March 25th, 2020

Die Hamburger Krankheit (1979)

Eine tödliche Seuche bricht in Hamburg aus. In einem Quarantänelager lernen sich ein Arzt, eine junge Frau, ein Würstchenverkäufer und ein anarchistischer Rollstuhlfahrer kennen. Gemeinsam gelingt ihnen die Flucht. Die kleine Gruppe will sich nach Süden absetzen, doch ihre Reise wird zu einer chaotischen Odyssee durch Deutschland.

Peter Fleischmann, Roland Topor, Otto Jägersberg

The Hamburg Syndrome (1979)

A deadly Pestilenz erupts in Hamburg. A doctor, a young woman, a sausage vendor and an anarchistic wheelchair driver get to know each other in a quarantine camp. Together they succeed to escape from the quarantine camp. The small group intend to flee to the south of Germany; their journey develops however into a chaotic odyssee through Germany.

View: https://youtu.be/w2HePNPyfbU


https://www.brighteon.com/1f97a305-c938-481e-8ad2-995b696e6bc2
Brighteon
https://www.brighteon.com/c4442bf7-65da-4b94-84f7-4893151bf629

​

 

View: https://youtu.be/BiqDZlAZygU
​

 

NSW Police blow whistle on coronavirus deception

NOV 2
Posted by Editor, cairnsnews

By TONY MOBILIFONITIS


A LETTER written by a senior constable from the Coffs/Clarence Highway Patrol in NSW and signed by colleagues, has exposed the COVID-19 narrative for its deception and the harm it is causing to police and their relations with the public.

The letter, dated October 26, is addressed to NSW Commissioner of Police Michael Fuller and is one of the best rebuttals of the COVID narrative of fear and control written anywhere, noting false predictions of its severity, false and misleading statistics, flaws in testing and serious questions around the virus itself.
The letter makes the very strong point that in the same way they cannot use an inaccurate speed detection device on motorists, the same must be demanded of the RT PCR test and as such, “police should not in any way” mandate testing for COVID-19, or rely on the results.

For police to raise this within their own ranks may be portrayed as controversial but the action is consistent with common law enforcement, e.g. investigating, exposing and prosecuting a crime of deception carried out against the public.
The letter signatories are urging fellow police officers across the country to write a similar letter to their respective police commissioners, or to sign their form at this link. https://advocateme.wixsite.com/copsforcovidtruth

The letter reads:
RE: Open Letter Concerning the Police Enforcement of ongoing COVID-19 restrictions
We are writing to you to raise concerns we have about the use of the police to enforce the ongoing restrictions placed upon our citizens relating to COVID-19, which has seriously eroded community trust in our great police force. Since the Attorney General Declared a State of Emergency for the novel coronavirus, our governments have acted upon certain powers to impose restrictions on its citizens, using the police to enforce their rules. Due to the novel nature of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, most people concurred that certain restrictions should be followed, until more was learnt about the virus.

With the initial modelling from the Imperial College in the UK [1] and the Peter Doherty Institute here in Australia, indicating a catastrophic number of cases that would severely burden our hospital system and could result in up to 150,000 Australian deaths [2], it is easy to comprehend why our governments would respond as they did and why the vast population would comply.
With these frightening projections it became evident that we needed to find a way to quickly diagnose the disease. Yet the Centre for Disease Control in the US states that “no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available”. [3] So even without the virus being isolated, the RT PCR test was picked to become the gold standard for testing.

We note that the modelling was later found to have serious calculation errors, such that experts who later reviewed it have said “no serious scientist gives (it) any validity”. [4, 5] And now the RT PCR test has been proven to be unreliable at best, with the inventor stating it should “never be used to diagnose infectious disease”, because it cannot tell if what it detected is alive or dead. [6, 7, 8] This test is still being relied upon to make critical decisions in the interest of public health and safety.
In the same way we cannot use an inaccurate speed detection device to proctor a civilian’s speed, the same must be demanded of a faulty RT PCR test and as such, police should not in any way mandate testing for covid-19, or rely on any outcome of the results. Now that we have almost 12 months of statistical data that can be relied upon, in place of flawed computer modelling, these statistics show a reality that is far from the modelling projections, which were relied upon by National Cabinet in their response. Here are some statistics which reflect this reality:

For example, we now know that around 45% of people who contract the virus are asymptomatic [9] and asymptomatic transmission is between 0-2.2% [10]. We also know that 80% of people who contract the virus will only have mild symptoms [11] and it is overwhelmingly the elderly and immuno-compromised who are at risk of severe symptoms that could result in death. [12] At the time of writing, the world-wide survival rate for covid-19 is 97.3%. [13] The ordinary flu is 99.9%. [14] Furthermore, statistics clearly show that while the confirmed cases may be on the rise, the percentage of deaths is plummeting.

Sweden and Taiwan did not enforce lockdown on its citizens like much of the world did. Although Sweden failed to take better precautions to protect the elderly in the early stages, their death rate is comparable, and Taiwan’s is outstanding. The statistics show there is a high infection rate across the globe, but very low deaths; regardless of whether there was forced lockdowns or not. What we can derive from analysis of this is that these two distinctly different ways have resulted in much the same outcome.
We note from the recent Federal budget, huge debt and unemployment, is that our lockdowns have created a series of problems that now seem to outweigh the threat this virus poses. In our line of work, we know that the socioeconomical problems created here will transpire into a greater threat down the track, as people struggle to deal with the collateral damage this is causing.

We have been told that the advice from the World Health Organization is a key aspect to the National Cabinet response, yet Dr David Nabarro of the WHO recently stated “We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” [15] So in spite of the facts, as they stand now, it would appear that the National Cabinet has been lagging in its capacity to adapt to the reality of the situation and this is causing them to fail in their duty to respond in proportion to the risk. The risk being overwhelmingly with the elderly and immunocompromised. [16, 17, 18]
What is even more concerning is the prohibition on prescribing hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 [19], when over 121 peer reviewed scientific studies have shown it to be effective in treating and preventing the disease [20, 21, 22]. Instead, the federal government has done a vaccine deal with AstraZeneca [23] and Australians told we cannot expect to go back to normal until a vaccine arrives.

AstraZeneca has been found guilty of offences relating to off-label or unapproved promotion of medical products, making false claims, kickbacks and bribery, consumer protection violation, healthcare offences, government-contracting violations and more. Since 2000 they have been fined over US$1.1billion dollars for these offences and violations. [24] Still, they have been granted protection from future product liability claims relating to its COVID-19 vaccine [25].
Alarmingly, Prime Minister Scott Morrison stated they will make the vaccine “as mandatory as you can possibly make it” [26], in spite of the criminal record of its producer, their exemption from liability claims, the fact we already have at least two approved and extremely safe medications in Ivermectin [27] and hydroxychloroquine; shown to be effective treatments and the reality that the virus does not pose a serious threat to the healthy. It seems these decisions appear to be corporate interests, not in the best interests of public health and wellbeing as is claimed.

All this indicates that the ongoing restrictions on the healthy population is a disproportionate response, yet the police are still expected to continue to enforce these measures and at risk of being forced to vaccinate against a disease that is showing not to be virulent, with a vaccine that has had no long-term safety studies and then forcing it upon the population. The evidence would suggest resources are better directed to protect the vulnerable.
We are concerned with the legitimacy of the actions we are being told to take against the citizens of Australia. States and territories cannot rise above the commonwealth constitution as well as international treaties we are signatories to, yet this is occurring. Under the state of emergency, the emergency requirements are qualified and restricted by the significant fact that emergency requirements and directions cannot request an individual to be isolated, detained, tested, vaccinated, medically treated or bodily searched in the absence of a biosecurity control order issued to the individual.

These measures are referred to as biosecurity measures and are captured under Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part 3 of Chapter 2 of the Biosecurity Act 2015. [28] (Emergency and public health powers, at the States and Territories, do not provide a carte blanche to breach an individual’s human rights by isolating them, or detaining them or testing them without the proper required notifications and risk assessments first).
There is an inter-governmental agreement [29] which places the Commonwealth in the lead as well as the Australian Health Sector Emergency Response Plan [30]. This ensures that the States and Territories act to compliment the Federal Legislative Framework. Article 7 of the international convenient of civil and political rights states “no-one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, in particular, no-one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.” [31]

Article 27 of the Vienna convention on the law of treatise “A party may not invoke the provision of its internal law as justification of its failure to perform a treaty.” [32] Article 7 of the Australian human rights commission Act 1986 states “no-one should be subjected to torture or to cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in particular, no-one shall be subject without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. [33]

Section 109 of the commonwealth of Australia constitution states “when a law of a state is inconsistent with a law of the commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall to the extent of the inconsistency being valid.” [34] With federal and international legislation breaches, it will be taken that we are complicit and consensual in their undertaking on the people of Australia, potentially rendering us criminally liable under the Crimes Act 1914 [35], as well as the Criminal Code Act 1995 [36].
Many members of the force are fed up with the approach to enforce oppressive rules placed upon the population in the name of COVID-19 and the looming mandatory vaccinations. We feel a real calling to do our part to stop this oppression, so we are writing to you to raise the following issues:-

• Police Force employees have ‘choice’ as to whether or not to receive vaccines;
• The Police believe that all members of the community also have choice around receiving vaccines;
• Police do not participate in any way in the forcing of vaccines upon the population;
• That the Police Association start preparing to defend Police employees who choose to not be vaccinated
• To raise the alarm that there is a global dictatorship occurring and the Police Force is being used as a tool to push these global and corporate agendas upon the population; and
• To warn the Police Force not to simply acquiesce to these requests, rules and laws and to act in the best interest of its population, not tyranny of government.

Recently letters have been written to our leaders from the legal fraternity, including high profile Judges and QC’s [37], The Australian Institute for Progress penned by 30 public intellectuals including 15 professors of relevant disciplines, one of whom is an advisor on health and well-being economics to the UK government [38], Advocate Me’s open letter to all leaders seeking to review disproportionate response to SAR-CoV-2 [39], as well as hundreds of doctors from the medical fraternity [40]. Despite the government continually parroting that they are following the advice of ‘the experts’, all these requests have been ignored and the police used as the enforcers of these senseless rules. We ask that you consider the information provided herein and the NSW Police Force statement of values: –

Each member of the Police Force is to Act in a manner which: Places integrity above all; Upholds the rule of law; Preserves the rights and freedoms of individuals; Seeks to improve the quality of life by community involvement in policing; Strives for citizen and police personal satisfaction; Capitalises on the wealth of human resources; Makes efficient and economical use of public resources; and Ensures that authority is exercised responsibly.

Many of us believe that we are removing our own rights and freedoms by enforcing these rules upon the community, including our family and friends. And the community are confounded by the intensified police enforcement around peaceful freedom protests and how inconsistent this was when compared with the Black Lives Matter protests. This contradiction is further destroying public confidence.

We are reaching out to all our fellow police officers across the country, to write a similar letter to their respective police commissioners, or sign our form at https://advocateme.wixsite.com/copsforcovidtruth to show your support for this stance, which we have called Cops for Covid Truth. With trust in our police force now seriously eroded, we ask you to consider now challenging the necessity of the ongoing restrictions to restore community trust, by being an integral part of returning our State and Country back to normality.

Regards
Alexander Cooney Senior Constable Coffs/Clarence Highway Patrol
NSW Police Force Grafton Police Station
5 Duke Street Grafton NSW 2460
And other signatories


About Editor, cairnsnews

One of the few patriots left who understands the system and how it has been totally subverted under every citizen's nose. If we can help to turn it around we will, otherwise our children will have nothing. Our investigations show there is no 'government' of the people for the people of Australia. The removal of the Crown from Australian Parliaments, followed by the incorporation of Parliaments aided by the Australia Act 1987 has left us with corporate government with policies not laws, that apply only to members of political parties and the public service. There is no law, other than the Common Law. This fact will be borne out in the near future as numerous legal challenges in place now, come to a head soon.
View all posts by Editor, cairnsnews »

 

View: https://youtu.be/hW0H4llB06c




Covid Culture and Political Bureaucratic Tyranny, a Medical Expert Covid Panel and Bad Antibodies (bitchute.com)

​

 

Great Reset? Putin Says, "Not So Fast" | ZeroHedge

Great Reset? Putin Says, "Not So Fast"


BY TYLER DURDEN
THURSDAY, FEB 11, 2021 - 23:50

Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, 'n Guns blog,

Did you happen to catch the most important political speech of the last six years?



It would have been easy to miss given everything going on.

In fact, I almost did, and this speech sits at the intersection of nearly all of my areas of intense study.
The annual World Economic Forum took place last week via teleconference, what I’m calling Virtual Davos, and at this year’s event, of course, the signature topic was their project called the Great Reset.
But if the WEF was so intent on presenting the best face for the Great Reset to the world it wouldn’t have invited either Chinese Premier Xi Jinping or, more importantly, Russian President Vladimir Putin.

And it was Putin’s speech that brought down the house of cards that is the agenda of the WEF.

The last time someone walked into a major international forum and issued such a scathing critique of the current geopolitical landscape was Putin’s speech to the United Nations on September 29th, 2015, two days before he sent a small contingency of Russian air support to Syria.

There he excoriated not only the U.N. by name but most importantly the U.S. and its NATO allies by inference asking the most salient question, “Do you understand what you have done?” having unleashed chaos in an already chaotic part of the world?

As important as that speech was it was Putin’s actions after that which defined the current era of geopolitical chess across the Eurasian continent.

Syria became the nexus around which the resistance to the “ISIS is invincible” narrative unraveled
And the mystery of who was behind ISIS, namely the Obama administration, was revealed to anyone paying attention.
President Trump may have taken credit for beating ISIS, but it was mostly Putin and Russia’s forces retaking the Western part of Syria which allowed that to happen, while our globalist generals, like James Mattis, did as much damage to Syria itself and as little to ISIS as possible, hoping to use them again another day.

And regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the U.S.’s policy in Syria, which I most definitely do not, it is hard to argue that Russia’s intervention there fundamentally changed the regional politics and conflicts for the foreseeable future.
It was the beginning of the voluntary disconnection of China, Russia and Iran from the West.
For standing athwart U.S. and European designs on consolidating power in the Middle East, Russia has been vilified in the West in ways that make the indoctrination I received as a kid growing up in the Cold War look like vacation advertisements for spending the summer in Crimea.

But it is that strength of purpose and character that has defined Putin’s two decades in power. He’s done wonders in rebuilding Russia.
He’s made many mistakes, mostly by first trusting American Presidents and second by underestimating just how arrogant and rapacious the leadership in Europe is.
That said, he’s now reached his limit, especially with Europe, and he’s set a firmly independent path for Russia regardless of the short-term costs.
And that’s why his speech at the World Economic Forum was so important.

Putin hadn’t spoken there for nearly a decade. In a time when WEF-controlled puppets dominate positions of power in Europe, the U.K., Canada and now the U.S., Putin walked into Virtual Davos and dumped his coffee on the carpet.




In terms I can only describe as unfailingly polite, Putin told Klaus Schwab and the WEF that their entire idea of the Great Reset is not only doomed to failure but runs counter to everything modern leadership should be pursuing.

Putin literally laughed at the idea of the Fourth Industrial Revolution – Schwab’s idea of a planned society through AI, robots and the merging of man and machine.

He flat-out told them their policies driving the middle class to the brink of extinction over the COVID-19 pandemic will further increase social and political unrest while also ensuring wealth inequality gets worse.

Putin’s no flower-throwing libertarian or anything, but his critique of the hyper-financialized post-Soviet era is accurate.

The era dominated by central banking and the continued merging of state and corporate powers has increased wealth inequality across the U.S. and Europe, benefiting millions while extracting the wealth of billions.

Listening to Putin was like listening to a cross between Pat Buchanan and the late Walter Williams.

According to him the neoliberal ideal of “invite the world/invade the world” has destroyed the cultural ties within countries while hollowing out their economic prospects. Putin criticized zero-bound interest rates, QE, tariffs and sanctions as political weapons.
But the targets of those weapons, while nominally pointed at his Russia, were really the West’s own engines of vitality, as the middle classes have seen their wages stagnate, and access to education, medical care, and the courts to redress grievances fall dramatically.

Russia is a country on the rise, so is China. Once their ties are embedded deeply enough to stabilize its economy, so too will Iran rise.

Together they will lead the central Asian landmass out of the nineteenth-century quagmire that exists thanks to British and American intervention in the region. Putin’s speech made it clear that Russia is committed to the process of finding solutions to all people benefiting from the future, not just a few thousand holier-than-thou oligarchs in Europe.

In a less confrontational address, Chairman Xi said the same thing.

He gave lip service, like Putin, to climate change and carbon neutrality, focusing instead on pollution and sustainability.

Together they basically told the WEF to stuff the Great Reset back into the hole in which it was conceived.

I’ve followed Putin closely for nearly a decade now. I got the feeling that if he was speaking to a college-level political science class and not a convocation of some of the most powerful people in the world he would been laughed in their faces.
But, unfortunately, he understands better than any of us having been the object of their aggression for so long, he had to treat them seriously as their grasp of reality and connectedness to the people they ruled was nearly severed.

At the end of his planned remarks, Klaus Schwab asked Putin about Russia’s troubled relationship with Europe and could it be fixed. Putin pulled no punches.

If we can rise above these problems of the past and get rid of these phobias, then we will certainly enjoy a positive stage in our relations.​

We are ready for this, we want this, and we will strive to make this happen. But love is impossible if it is declared only by one side. It must be mutual.​

​

I don’t get the sense from anything I’ve seen from the Biden Administration or the European Commission in Brussels that anyone heard a word he said.

* * *
Join My Patreon if you don’t want to be forcibly Reset

 

​

Dr Tom Cowan and Dr Andrew Kaufman discuss the basic medical viral theory underpinning the pharmaceutical industry and the cancer research agenda.
Using peer reviewed published evidence and information, they expose the fraudulent and scientifically unproven data used by a politicized medical bureaucracy to implement particular 'disease control' agendas to manipulate a generally scientifically ignorant population and constituency.
Their basic conclusion centers on the detoxification of the natural immune system being erroneously identified by vested interests as a 'virus' invasion, often studied by utility of disease carrying ingredients and medical contamination of the original cellular material.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/kQDtCLjE0vUU/​

 

Dr. Vernon Coleman - Genocide and Disease Control (bitchute.com)
​

In this video, Dr. Vernon Coleman describes the many deaths occurring as a consequence of the covid 19/sars 2 experimental 'genetic modifier program injection'.
Many recipients of the 'quasi-vaccine' would suffer illness and death following exposure to any pathogenic infection in autoimmune responses by the reprogrammed natural immune system. This Coleman states, is being witnessed and observed world wide, but often suppressed by the NHS in the UK and the CDC and NIH in the USA under the auspices of the W.H.O and its global technocratic overseers and administrators.
The presently increasing sickness and death count of the 'genetic programming reset' will result in a global genocide of the elderly and disabled in the foreseeable future according to Dr. Vernon Coleman, the old man in the chair. .

Sunday Times bestselling author Vernon Coleman has written over 100 books which have sold over two million copies in the UK alone.
His UK publishers include: PAN, Penguin, Corgi, Arrow, Star, Mandarin, Macmillan, Century, Thames and Hudson, and Sidgwick and Jackson.
His books have been translated into 25 languages and sell in over 50 countries. His novels include Mrs Caldicot's Cabbage War (which has been turned into a film starring Pauline Collins, Peter Capaldi and John Alderton), Mrs Caldicot's Knickerbocker Glory, The Man Who Inherited a Golf Course, The Village Cricket Tour, Deadline, Paris in my Springtime and It's Never Too Late? His books on cats include Alice's Diary, Alice's Adventures, Cat Fables, Cat Tales and We Love Cats.
His medical bestsellers include Bodypower, Mindpower, Food for Thought, How To Stop Your Doctor Killing You, Superbody and Coleman's Laws.
Dr Coleman is a general practitioner principal and a former Professor of Holistic Medical Sciences at the International Open University in Sri Lanka. He has an honorary DSc. He has given evidence to the House of Commons and the House of Lords in the UK.


https://brandnewtube.com/@DrVernonColeman

 

Paul Craig Roberts

Institute for Political Economy

• Home
• About
• Interview archive
• Articles
• Books
• Guests
• Contact

​

The Lies About World War II

May 13, 2019 | Categories: Articles & Columns | Tags: | Print This Article

The Lies About World War II

Paul Craig Roberts

In the aftermath of a war, history cannot be written. The losing side has no one to speak for it. Historians on the winning side are constrained by years of war propaganda that demonized the enemy while obscuring the crimes of the righteous victors. People want to enjoy and feel good about their victory, not learn that their side was responsible for the war or that the war could have been avoided except for the hidden agendas of their own leaders. Historians are also constrained by the unavailability of information. To hide mistakes, corruption, and crimes, governments lock up documents for decades. Memoirs of participants are not yet written. Diaries are lost or withheld from fear of retribution. It is expensive and time consuming to locate witnesses, especially those on the losing side, and to convince them to answer questions. Any account that challenges the “happy account” requires a great deal of confirmation from official documents, interviews, letters, diaries, and memoirs, and even that won’t be enough. For the history of World War II in Europe, these documents can be spread from New Zealand and Australia across Canada and the US through Great Britain and Europe and into Russia. A historian on the track of the truth faces long years of strenuous investigation and development of the acumen to judge and assimilate the evidence he uncovers into a truthful picture of what transpired. The truth is always immensely different from the victor’s war propaganda.

As I reported recently, Harry Elmer Barnes was the first American historian to provide a history of the first world war that was based on primary sources. His truthful account differed so substantially from the war propaganda that he was called every name in the book. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/20...consciousness-and-false-historical-awareness/

https://open.lbry.com/@corbettreport:0/wwi:b​

Truth is seldom welcomed. David Irving, without any doubt the best historian of the European part of World War II, learned at his great expense that challenging myths does not go unpunished. Nevertheless, Irving persevered. If you want to escape from the lies about World War II that still direct our disastrous course, you only need to study two books by David Irving: Hitler’s War and the first volume of his Churchill biography, Churchill’s War: The Struggle for Power .

Irving is the historian who spent decades tracking down diaries, survivors, and demanding release of official documents. He is the historian who found the Rommel diary and Goebbles’ diaries, the historian who gained entry into the Soviet archives, and so on. He is familiar with more actual facts about the second world war than the rest of the historians combined. The famous British military historian, Sir John Keegan, wrote in the Times Literary Supplement: “Two books stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War: Chester Wilmot’s The Struggle for Europe, published in 1952, and David Irving’s Hitler’s War.

Despite many such accolades, today Irving is demonized and has to publish his own books.

I will avoid the story of how this came to be, but, yes, you guessed it, it was the Zionists. You simply cannot say anything that alters their propagandistic picture of history.
In what follows, I am going to present what is my impression from reading these two magisterial works. Irving himself is very scant on opinions. He only provides the facts from official documents, recorded intercepts, diaries, letters and interviews.

World War II was Churchill’s War, not Hitler’s war. Irving provides documented facts from which the reader cannot avoid this conclusion. Churchill got his war, for which he longed, because of the Versailles Treaty that stripped Germany of German territory and unjustly and irresponsibly imposed humiliation on Germany.
Hitler and Nationalist Socialist Germany (Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers’ Party) are the most demonized entities in history. Any person who finds any good in Hitler or Germany is instantly demonized. The person becomes an outcast regardless of the facts. Irving is very much aware of this. Every time his factual account of Hitler starts to display a person too much different from the demonized image, Irving throws in some negative language about Hitler.
Similarly for Winston Churchill. Every time Irving’s factual account displays a person quite different from the worshiped icon, Irving throws in some appreciative language.
This is what a historian has to do to survive telling the truth.

To be clear, in what follows, I am merely reporting what seems to me to be the conclusion from the documented facts presented in these two works of scholarship. I am merely reporting what I understand Irving’s research to have established. You read the books and arrive at your own conclusion.
World War II was initiated by the British and French declaration of war on Germany, not by a surprise blitzkrieg from Germany. The utter rout and collapse of the British and French armies was the result of Britain declaring a war for which Britain was unprepared to fight and of the foolish French trapped by a treaty with the British, who quickly deserted their French ally, leaving France at Germany’s mercy.

Germany’s mercy was substantial. Hitler left a large part of France and the French colonies unoccupied and secure from war under a semi-independent government under Petain. For his service in protecting a semblance of French independence, Petain was sentenced to death by Charles de Gaulle after the war for collaboration with Germany, an unjust charge.

In Britain, Churchill was out of power. He figured a war would put him back in power. No Britisher could match Churchill’s rhetoric and orations. Or determination. Churchill desired power, and he wanted to reproduce the amazing military feats of his distinguished ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, whose biography Churchill was writing and who defeated after years of military struggle France’s powerful Sun King, Louis XIV, the ruler of Europe.

In contrast to the British aristocrat, Hitler was a man of the people. He acted for the German people. The Versailles Treaty had dismembered Germany. Parts of Germany were confiscated and given to France, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. As Germany had not actually lost the war, being the occupiers of foreign territory when Germany agreed to a deceptive armistice, the loss of approximately 7 million German people to Poland and Czechoslovakia, where Germans were abused, was not considered a fair outcome.
Hitler’s program was to put Germany back together again. He succeeded without war until it came to Poland. Hitler’s demands were fair and realistic, but Churchill, financed by the Focus Group with Jewish money, put such pressure on British prime minister Chamberlain that Chamberlain intervened in the Polish-German negotiations and issued a British guarantee to the Polish military dictatorship should Poland refuse to release German territory and populations.

The British had no way of making good on the guarantee, but the Polish military dictatorship lacked the intelligence to realize that. Consequently, the Polish Dictatorship refused Germany’s request.
From this mistake of Chamberlain and the stupid Polish dictatorship, came the Ribbentrop/Molotov agreement that Germany and the Soviet Union would split Poland between themselves. When Hitler attacked Poland, Britain and the hapless French declared war on Germany because of the unenforceable British guarantee. But the British and French were careful not to declare war on the Soviet Union for occupying the eastern half of Poland.

Thus Britain was responsible for World War II, first by stupidly interfering in German/Polish negotiations, and second by declaring war on Germany.
Churchill was focused on war with Germany, which he intended for years preceding the war. But Hitler didn’t want any war with Britain or with France, and never intended to invade Britain. The invasion threat was a chimera conjured up by Churchill to unite England behind him. Hitler expressed his view that the British Empire was essential for order in the world, and that in its absence Europeans would lose their world supremacy. After Germany’s rout of the French and British armies, Hitler offered an extraordinarily generous peace to Britain. He said he wanted nothing from Britain but the return of Germany’s colonies. He committed the German military to the defense of the British Empire, and said he would reconstitute both Polish and Czech states and leave them to their own discretion. He told his associates that defeat of the British Empire would do nothing for Germany and everything for Bolshevik Russia and Japan.

Winston Churchill kept Hitler’s peace offers as secret as he could and succeeded in his efforts to block any peace. Churchill wanted war, largely it appears, for his own glory. Franklin Delano Roosevelt slyly encouraged Churchill in his war but without making any commitment in Britain’s behalf. Roosevelt knew that the war would achieve his own aim of bankrupting Britain and destroying the British Empire, and that the US dollar would inherit the powerful position from the British pound of being the world’s reserve currency. Once Churchill had trapped Britain in a war she could not win on her own, FDR began doling out bits of aid in exchange for extremely high prices—for example, 60 outdated and largely useless US destroyers for British naval bases in the Atlantic. FDR delayed Lend-Lease until desperate Britain had turned over $22,000 million of British gold plus $42 million in gold Britain had in South Africa. Then began the forced sell-off of British overseas investments. For example, the British-owned Viscose Company, which was worth $125 million in 1940 dollars, had no debts and held $40 million in government bonds, was sold to the House of Morgan for $37 million. It was such an act of thievery that the British eventually got about two-thirds of the company’s value to hand over to Washington in payment for war munitions. American aid was also “conditional on Britain dismantling the system of Imperial preference anchored in the Ottawa agreement of 1932.” For Cordell Hull, American aid was “a knife to open that oyster shell, the Empire.” Churchill saw it coming, but he was too far in to do anything but plead with FDR: It would be wrong, Churchill wrote to Roosevelt, if “Great Britain were to be divested of all saleable assets so that after the victory was won with our blood, civilization saved, and the time gained for the United States to be fully armed against all eventualities, we should stand stripped to the bone.”

A long essay could be written about how Roosevelt stripped Britain of her assets and world power. Irving writes that in an era of gangster statesmen, Churchill was not in Roosevelt’s league. The survival of the British Empire was not a priority for FDR. He regarded Churchill as a pushover—unreliable and drunk most of the time. Irving reports that FDR’s policy was to pay out just enough to give Churchill “the kind of support a rope gives a hanging man.” Roosevelt pursued “his subversion of the Empire throughout the war.” Eventually Churchill realized that Washington was at war with Britain more fiercely than was Hitler. The great irony was that Hitler had offered Churchill peace and the survival of the Empire. When it was too late, Churchill came to Hitler’s conclusion that the conflict with Germany was a “most unnecessary” war. Pat Buchanan sees it that way also. https://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hi...ds=Pat+Buchanan&qid=1557709100&s=books&sr=1-3


Hitler forbade the bombing of civilian areas of British cities. It was Churchill who initiated this war crime, later emulated by the Americans. Churchill kept the British bombing of German civilians secret from the British people and worked to prevent Red Cross monitoring of air raids so no one would learn he was bombing civilian residential areas, not war production. The purpose of Churchill’s bombing—first incendiary bombs to set everything afire and then high explosives to prevent firefighters from controlling the blazes—was to provoke a German attack on London, which Churchill reckoned would bind the British people to him and create sympathy in the US for Britain that would help Churchill pull America into the war. One British raid murdered 50,000 people in Hamburg, and a subsequent attack on Hamburg netted 40,000 civilian deaths. Churchill also ordered that poison gas be added to the firebombing of German civilian residential areas and that Rome be bombed into ashes. The British Air Force refused both orders. At the very end of the war the British and Americans destroyed the beautiful baroque city of Dresden, burning and suffocating 100,000 people in the attack. After months of firebombing attacks on Germany, including Berlin, Hitler gave in to his generals and replied in kind. Churchill succeeded. The story became “the London Blitz,” not the British blitz of Germany.
Like Hitler in Germany, Churchill took over the direction of the war. He functioned more as a dictator who ignored the armed services than as a prime minister advised by the country’s military leaders. Both leaders might have been correct in their assessment of their commanding officers, but Hitler was a much better war strategist than Churchill, for whom nothing ever worked. To Churchill’s WW I Gallipoli misadventure was now added the introduction of British troops into Norway, Greece, Crete, Syria—all ridiculous decisions and failures—and the Dakar fiasco. Churchill also turned on the French, destroying the French fleet and lives of 1,600 French sailors because of his personal fear, unfounded, that Hitler would violate his treaty with the French and seize the fleet. Any one of these Churchillian mishaps could have resulted in a no confidence vote, but with Chamberlain and Halifax out of the way there was no alternative leadership. Indeed, the lack of leadership is the reason neither the cabinet nor the military could stand up to Churchill, a person of iron determination.

Hitler also was a person of iron determination, and he wore out both himself and Germany with his determination. He never wanted war with England and France. This was Churchill’s doing, not Hitler’s. Like Churchill, who had the British people behind him, Hitler had the German people behind him, because he stood for Germany and had reconstructed Germany from the rape and ruin of the Versailles Treaty. But Hitler, not an aristocrat like Churchill, but of low and ordinary origins, never had the loyalty of many of the aristocratic Prussian military officers, those with “von” before their name. He was afflicted with traitors in the Abwehr, his military intelligence, including its director, Adm. Canaris. On the Russian front in the final year, Hitler was betrayed by generals who opened avenues for the Russians into undefended Berlin.

Hitler’s worst mistakes were his alliance with Italy and his decision to invade Russia. He was also mistaken to let the British go at Dunkirk. He let them go because he did not want to ruin the chance for ending the war by humiliating the British by the loss of their entire army. But with Churchill there was no chance for peace. By not destroying the British army, Hitler boosted Churchill who turned the evacuation into British heroics that sustained the willingness to fight on.

It is unclear why Hitler invaded Russia. One possible reason is poor or intentionally deceptive information from the Abwehr on Russian military capability. Hitler later said to his associates that he never would have invaded if he had known of the enormous size of the Russian army and the extraordinary capability of the Soviets to produce tanks and aircraft. Some historians have concluded that the reason Hitler invaded Russia was that he concluded that the British would not agree to end the war because they expected Russia to enter the war on Britain’s side. Therefore, Hitler decided to foreclose that possibility by conquering Russia. A Russian has written that Hitler attacked because Stalin was preparing to attack Germany. Stalin did have considerable forces far forward, but It would make more sense for Stalin to wait until the West devoured itself in mutual bloodletting, step in afterwards and scoop it all up if he wanted. Or perhaps Stalin was positioning to occupy part of Eastern Europe in order to put more buffer between the Soviet Union and Germany.

Whatever the reason for the invasion, what defeated Hitler was the earliest Russian winter in 30 years. It stopped everything in its tracks before the well planned and succeeding encirclement could be completed. The harsh winter that immobilized the Germans gave Stalin time to recover.

Because of Hitler’s alliance with Mussolini, who lacked an effective fighting force, resources needed on the Russian front were twice drained off in order to rescue Italy. Because of Mussolini’s misadventures, Hitler had to drain troops, tanks, and air planes from the Russian invasion to rescue Italy in Greece and North Africa and to occupy Crete. Hitler made this mistake out of loyalty to Mussolini. Later in the war when Russian counterattacks were pushing the Germans out of Russia, Hitler had to divert precious military resources to rescue Mussolini from arrest and to occupy Italy to prevent her surrender. Germany simply lacked the manpower and military resources to fight on a 1,000 mile front in Russia, and also in Greece and North Africa, occupy part of France, and man defenses against a US/British invasion of Normandy and Italy.

The German Army was a magnificent fighting force, but it was overwhelmed by too many fronts, too little equipment, and careless communications. The Germans never caught on despite much evidence that the British could read their encryption. Thus, efforts to supply Rommel in North Africa were prevented by the British navy.
Irving never directly addresses in either book the Holocaust. He does document the massacre of many Jews, but the picture that emerges from the factual evidence is that the holocaust of Jewish people was different from the official Zionist story.

No German plans, or orders from Hitler, or from Himmler or anyone else have ever been found for an organized holocaust by gas and cremation of Jews. This is extraordinary as such a massive use of resources and transportation would have required massive organization, budgets and resources. What documents do show is Hitler’s plan to relocate European Jews to Madagascar after the war’s end. With the early success of the Russian invasion, this plan was changed to sending the European Jews to the Jewish Bolsheviks in the eastern part of Russia that Hitler was going to leave to Stalin. There are documented orders given by Hitler preventing massacres of Jews. Hitler said over and over that “the Jewish problem” would be settled after the war.

It seems that most of the massacres of Jews were committed by German political administrators of occupied territories in the east to whom Jews from Germany and France were sent for relocation. Instead of dealing with the inconvenience, some of the administrators lined them up and shot them into open trenches. Other Jews fell victim to the anger of Russian villagers who had long suffered under Jewish Bolshevik administrators.

The “death camps” were in fact work camps. Auschwitz, for example, today a Holocaust museum, was the site of Germany’s essential artificial rubber factory. Germany was desperate for a work force. A significant percentage of German war production labor had been released to the Army to fill the holes in German lines on the Russian front. War production sites, such as Auschwitz, had as a work force refugees displaced from their homes by war, Jews to be deported after war’s end, and anyone else who could be forced into work. Germany desperately needed whatever work force it could get.

Every camp had crematoriums. Their purpose was not to exterminate populations but to dispose of deaths from the scourge of typhus, natural deaths, and other diseases. Refugees were from all over, and they brought diseases and germs with them. The horrific photos of masses of skeleton-like dead bodies that are said to be evidence of organized extermination of Jews are in fact camp inmates who died from typhus and starvation in the last days of the war when Germany was disorganized and devoid of medicines and food for labor camps. The great noble Western victors themselves bombed the labor camps and contributed to the deaths of inmates.

The two books on which I have reported total 1,663 pages, and there are two more volumes of the Churchill biography. This massive, documented historical information seemed likely to pass into the Memory Hole as it is inconsistent with both the self-righteousness of the West and the human capital of court historians. The facts are too costly to be known. But historians have started adding to their own accounts the information uncovered by Irving. It takes a brave historian to praise him, but they can cite him and plagiarize him.
It is amazing how much power Zionists have gotten from the Holocaust. Norman Finkelstein calls it The Holocaust Industry. There is ample evidence that Jews along with many others suffered, but Zionists insist that it was an unique experience limited to Jews.

In his Introduction to Hitler’s War Irving reports that despite the widespread sales of his book, the initial praise from accomplished historians and the fact that the book was required reading at military academies from Sandhurst to West Point, “I have had my home smashed into by thugs, my family terrorized, my name smeared, my printers [publishers] firebombed, and myself arrested and deported by tiny, democratic Austria—an illegal act, their courts decided, for which the ministerial culprits were punished; at the behest of disaffected academics and influential citizens [Zionists], in subsequent years, I was deported from Canada (in 1992), and refused entry to Australia, New Zealand, Italy, South Africa and other civilized countries around he world. Internationally affiliated groups circulated letters to librarians, pleading for this book to be taken off their shelves.”
So much for free thought and truth in the Western world. Nothing is so little regarded in the West as free thought, free expression, and truth. In the West explanations are controlled in order to advance the agendas of the ruling interest groups. As David Irving has learned, woe to anyone who gets in the way.

The Lies About World War II - PaulCraigRoberts.org