latest

It is amazing how this stinking movie genre of World War II lies, which started with The Great Dictator in 1940, is still going strong after 77 years! Boy oh boy, evidently The Great One (that's Hitler for all youse newbies and normies) must have really shaken the New World Order gang to its rotten Satanic core.

Though we just cannot bring ourselves to the theater and subject our volatile emotions to two hours of fraudulent filth on the big screen, based on reviewing several extended You Tube trailers, and in light of the fact that a “historian” named Joshua Levine (cough cough) was hired to help develop the script, we already know the oh-so-predictable historical spin of the Dunkirk “escape” that this propaganda film will surely present. Let us debunk the lasting lie about “the miracle at Dunkirk.”

Sandwiched around our explanation of why the British were able to so easily “escape” at Dunkirk, are critical bits of before and after historical context, excerpted from “The Bad War: The Truth Never Taught About World War II.”

1. As part of prepping the American public for eventual entry into World War II, Communist Charlie Chaplin, described in FBI files as a "secret Jew" (here), mercilessly mocks Hitler in 1940 film, The Great Dictator. 2. Fake historian Joshua Levine (cough cough) collaborated on the script of Dunkirk. 3. The Bad War (banned by Amazon) sets the record straight! (here)

OCTOBER, 1939 — MAY, 1940

HITLER PLEADS FOR PEACE WITH BRITAIN & FRANCE

The quiet period between the end of the German-Polish (started by Poland) war until May 1940, is dubbed by a U.S. Senator as "The Phony War." During this time, Hitler pleads for the Allies to withdraw their war declarations. Towards France he declares:.

“I have always expressed to France my desire to bury forever our ancient enmity and bring together these two nations, both of which have such glorious pasts."

To the British, Hitler says:

“I have devoted no less effort to the achievement of Anglo-German friendship. At no time and in no place have I ever acted contrary to British interests—.Why should this war in the West be fought?”

Hitler’s pleas for peace are ignored as the allies begin to mobilize more than 2,000,000 troops in Northern France. Plans are openly discussed to advance eastward upon Germany, via “neutral” Belgium and Holland, as well as establishing operations in “neutral” Norway and Denmark, with or without their consent.

During his speech of October 6, 1939, Hitler pleaded for peace. Meanwhile, the British government shamelessly frightened its own people with idiotic tales of imminent German gas attacks.

MAY 10, 1940

GERMANY LAUNCHES PRE-EMPTIVE INVASION OF BELGIUM & THE NETHERLANDS

The massive invasion of Germany’s industrial Ruhr region is to come through the ostensibly “neutral” League of Nations member states of Belgium and The Netherlands, whose governments are under intense Allied pressure to allow safe passage for the planned Allied attack on the bordering Ruhr region of Germany.

As an act of national self-defense, Germany takes the fight to the Allies before they can bring it to German soil and reinstitute a 2nd Versailles Treaty. In a stunning advance westward, the German Blitzkrieg quickly overtakes the smaller nations and pushes the Allied armies into a full retreat towards the beaches of northern France.

The Globo-Zionist press, as well as today’s history books, portrays the Blitz as “the Nazi conquest of Holland, Belgium, and France.” But the menacing presence of the massive Allied force on Germany’s industrial frontier is conveniently ignored, as is the undeniable and extensive collaboration between the “neutral” Low Countries and the Allies.

After the invasion, the German government published “Allied Intrigue in the Low Countries.” which is a 50-page English language paper detailing the full extent of Belgian and Dutch cooperation with the Allies. The western press and modern court-historians have buried these allegations.

MAY 27 — JUNE 4, 1940

AS A SIGN OF FRIENDSHIP, HITLER ALLOWS THE ALLIED ARMIES TO ESCAPE AT DUNKIRK

After Germany’s stunning advance, the Allies are trapped on the beaches of Dunkirk, France. The entire force can be easily captured, but Hitler issues a halt order --- since spun by court historians as being due to concern over tanks getting stuck in mud or just plain carelessness.

The truth is, Hitler doesn’t want war. As a show of good faith towards his western tormentors, Hitler believes that the British will be more likely to make peace if they can escape with their dignity intact.

A massive boat lift involving British fishermen ferries the troops across the English Channel back to England. The Globalist Press maliciously spins Hitler’s gracious act as a “miraculous escape right under Hitler’s nose.”

The alcoholic Winston Churchill vows to keep fighting as he frightens the British people with tales of imminent German invasion.

"He (Hitler) then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. ....He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany's position on the Continent. The return of Germany's colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties anywhere."

- German General Gunther von Blumentritt

MAY - JUNE, 1940

CHURCHILL DELIVERS HISTORIC RADIO ADDRESSES USING A VOICE ACTOR TO IMPERSONATE HIM

Throughout the spring and early summer of 1940, the brainwashed people of Britain cluster around their radios to hear defiant and motivational oratory from what they believe is the mouth of their new Prime Minister.

The ‘We Shall Fight on the Beaches’ Speech

On June 4, after the evacuation of the defeated British army from Dunkirk, the radio version of the British Mad Dog pledges:

"We shall fight on the seas and oceans. We shall fight in the air. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields and in the streets. We shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender."

“And if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet would carry on the struggle until, in God’s good time, the New World (United States) with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

It is now known, in spite of what some ‘in-denial’ Churchill sycophants still refuse to accept, that this radio broadcast and others, were made not by Churchill, but by an actor hired to impersonate him. Norman Shelley, who voiced for Winnie-the-Pooh for the BBC's Children's Hour, ventriloquized Churchill for history and fooled tens of millions of listeners.

Perhaps Churchill is too much incapacitated by drink to deliver the speeches himself; or perhaps his difficult-to-understand speech has been deemed not suitable for a radio audience. So you see, not only was Churchill the “literary giant” a proven plagiarist who also used ghostwriters; it turns out that Churchill the “orator” was also a sham!

- Nothing is real about the British Mad Dog — nothing! 2- Norman Shelley delivered the most famous radio speeches in 20th Century British History 3- Shelley later voiced for the children’s cartoon character ‘Winnie the Pooh’ -- an inside joke made to mock ‘Winston the Piece of Crap’, perhaps?

JULY 20, 1940

HITLER DROPS ‘PEACE LEAFLETS’ OVER LONDON!

With Germany in total control of the continent and the war situation, Hitler responds to Churchill’s unilateral air bombardment by dropping mass quantities of leaflets over London. The 4-page broadsheet contains an English language summary of Hitler’s recent speech before the Reichstag. The speech is entitled, “A Last Appeal to Reason,” in which he closes with a final appeal for peace:

"In this hour I feel it to be my duty before my own conscience to appeal once more to reason and common sense in Great Britain as much as elsewhere. I consider myself in a position to make this appeal, since I am not the vanquished, begging favors, but the victor speaking in the name of reason. I can see no reason why this war must go on. I am grieved to think of the sacrifices it will claim.

Possibly Mr. Churchill again will brush aside this statement of mine by saying that it is merely born of fear and of doubt in our final victory. In that case I shall have relieved my conscience in regard to the things to come.”

The British respond to Hitler’s sincere plea with mockery, threats, and more bombs. UK warmonger Sefton Delmer, the future head and mastermind of British “Black Propaganda,” is just about to make his debut broadcast to Germany on the BBC when he hears about Hitler’s "last appeal to reason." He rejects any notion of a compromise peace. Bigmouth Delmer announces:

"Herr Hitler," you have in the past consulted me as to the mood of the British public. So permit me to render your Excellency this little service once again tonight. Let me tell you what we here in Britain think of this appeal of yours to what you are pleased to call our reason and common sense. Herr Führer, we hurl it right back at you, right in your evil smelling teeth."

Delmer's inflammatory statement upset a few peace-minded Members of Parliament, but undoubtedly pleased Churchill, his Jewish handlers, and other assorted "patriots" very much.

And that, dear reader, is the true before-during-after story of Dunkirk that you’ll neither see nor hear out of Jewish Hollywood. Sight unseen, (other than the various extended trailers) we give this soon-to-be released "summer blockbuster" one big "rotten tomato." Save your money, and pick up a copy of The Bad War and/or The Hitler Photo Album instead.

Boobus Americanus 1: I am looking forward to that movie about the British escape at Dunkirk.

Boobus Americanus 2: Me too. World War II movies never seem to go out of style.

Sugar: That's becausse the &^%$#*%* @%&* run frickin' Hollywood, you idiot!!!

Editor: And the Fake News, and the major universities, and the banking system, and Wall Street, and the courts, and the arts too.

The "Native American" Genocide Myth

Liberals lie constantly without conscience or remorse. They are exposed almost daily in hate-crime hoaxes, racial crime-rate statistical misinformation, and falsified historical accounts. They have been caught in enough major lies, in fact, to fill many large volumes. Just off the top of my head: Michael Brown was not shot in the back nor with his hands up. George Zimmerman is not White and did not inform the dispatcher of the race of Trayvon Martin until asked. The perpetrators of the Oberlin College “hate graffiti” were exposed as false-flagging leftists. Matthew Shepard was not killed by homophobes or because he was gay. The Tuskegee Syphilis study did not infect any Blacks with syphilis, nor refuse to treat any infected Blacks according to the medical knowledge of the time. George Stinney was not convicted of murder in a mistrial. “Jackie” at the University of Virginia was not raped. Blacks are not given longer sentences than Whites are for the same crimes. Homosexuals are not even nearly as likely to remain monogamous as heterosexuals are. Anders Breivik was not a White Nationalist. No one was ever gassed at Dachau. Homosexuality was neither common nor accepted in Ancient Greece. Black people did not “invent” Rock and Roll. Waitress Dayna Morales made up the story about receiving a discriminatory note instead of a tip. Kerri Dunn vandalized her own car to incite hatred against her political opponents. Crystal Magnum lied about being gang-raped in order to frame White men. So did Tawana Brawley. No one shouted the n-word at John Lewis at the political rally in Duluth. Eric Garner was placed in a headlock, not a choke-hold, and the coroner confirmed that no damage was done to his airway.

This is just the tiniest sample of the endless lying from the left. It is a testament to the irrationality, gullibility, and delusional self-interest of the stupider half of humanity that anyone believes anything liberals assert no matter how benign it might sound, to say nothing of their more extreme claims.

And this takes us to the American Indian Genocide Myth: the incessant assertion of the White-hating left that Europeans “committed genocide” against “Native Americans.” The latter term has been placed in quotes because they aren’t native to the Americas. No humans are native to the Americas. “Native American” is yet another evasive, politically correct propaganda label from the same lying libtards who can’t seem to keep their story straight for more than ten seconds at a time.

American Indians speaking English have called themselves Indians for centuries. The American Indian Movement was named by the American Indians (and notice which term they applied to themselves). Of course, there is that small problem of America being a long way from India. For this reason, the scientific term Amerindian was created to remedy it, which is far preferable to the entirely fake and emotion-manipulating term preferred by leftists.

So what is genocide? According to the United Nations (whose definition everyone seems to take as the most official one), it is inflicting upon a group of people conditions calculated to bring about its destruction in whole or in part. In fact, this is only a portion of the UN definition, but it is the most relevant portion.

The UN doesn’t seem to make clear in its definition the difference between a genocide and, for example, a war. Wars often involve races, nationalities, ethnical or religious groups and the killing involved in a war is generally quite deliberate. Presumably the difference is in the intent. If the war is being fought for the purpose of wiping out a group of people, it is genocide. If a bunch of them die as a consequence of a war for some other purpose, it is not. The wars between the Amerindians and European colonists, then, were not genocide. They were, in nearly all cases, started by the incessant treaty-violations of the Amerindians, and ended by the Europeans attempting a new treaty with them instead of simply wiping them out.

Meanwhile, there is no real argument from anyone that most of the Amerindian deaths associated with European colonization resulted from diseases, not war. The left asserts that this was intentional, that centuries before Germ Theory existed, Europeans were using germ-warfare against the Amerindians. The absurdity of this assertion is obvious to any thinking person: The only place Europeans could hope to get diseases to pass to the Amerindians was from each other, but unless they were also committing germ-warfare against themselves, the ready transmission of the same diseases from European to European had to be entirely accidental. So according to leftists, it was unintentional when Europeans spread diseases to each other, but it was “germ-warfare” when the same diseases inevitably spread to the Amerindians (to say nothing of the diseases such as syphilis that they gave to us).

To support this assertion of enormous numbers of intentionally inflicted “germ-warfare casualties,” the left has found . . . (wait for it!) . . . ONE sentence in a private letter written by a European in a fort under siege by Amerindian marauders prior to the existence of the United States. And what does the sentence say? It says that maybe they can get the marauding gang of Amerindians to stop murdering them by making them sick with smallpox transmitted by offering them a stack of blankets that would first have been handled by people who had smallpox.

There are a few massive problems with this “evidence,” however—a few technical issues with this one tiny sentence that constitutes the entirety of liberals’ proof of deliberate germ-warfare against the Amerindians: First, the Amerindians were already getting smallpox and had been for some time, most often via robbing and raping and murdering Whites, some of whom obviously were suffering from the disease. (Otherwise how could anyone at the fort hope to infect a blanket before giving it to an Indian?) In fact, this appears to have been the case for the gang of savages that was attacking the fort in question: They already had it, most likely contracted from the home of a nearby White family that they had murdered and robbed a few days before the siege at the fort began.

Next, there is absolutely no evidence that such a scheme of transmitting smallpox using blankets was ever attempted there or anywhere else. Ward Churchill’s assertion to the contrary turned out to be another lie from a leftist. He made the whole thing up and there was not, in reality, a fort within eight hundred miles of the location at which he claimed a fort’s soldiers had distributed infected blankets.

Last, the transmission via blankets almost certainly would not have worked in any case because smallpox cannot survive very long outside of a host’s body. The blankets would have to be freshly and wetly infected. What kind of an idiot would accept and use a stack of puss-covered blankets? The entire proposal in the sentence in question was a desperate and empty suggestion by an exhausted and distraught person grasping at straws to try to save his people.

The Amerindian Genocide claim also entirely fails to explain the enormous efforts the Europeans went to in order to keep the Amerindians from dying out. Concerned about their falling population, the American government first tried giving the individual Indians land, but they promptly sold it off for liquor, weapons, and the like instead of working it or living on it. Finally, the government set aside large reservations that could not ever be sold to any White person, nor taken away under any circumstances (hence the name “reservations”). It worked, as all Amerindian tribes presently show steadily increasing populations and when including the mixed-race Latinos and others who group with them genetically, they now have populations in the tens or millions in the US and Canada.

In short, all of this means huge sums of money were spent by Whites to (successfully) save the people liberals claim Whites were trying to exterminate. If this was attempted genocide on the part of Europeans, we really suck at it.

Recall that the UN definition of genocide includes the stipulation of “calculated” conditions. This means awareness and willful choice. Clearly Whites recognized that Amerindians were dying out, but chose NOT to maintain the detrimental conditions, and instead went to great lengths to reverse them. Compare this with the ongoing genocide of the White race by anti-Whites, who admit freely that they are aware of our falling population, and vehemently insist on maintaining the conditions resulting in our destruction. By definition, the Amerindian situation was not a genocide. The White situation IS a genocide, and liberals care not at all.

One of the most interesting and pernicious aspects of the Amerindian Genocide myth, however, is in the numbers. A favorite liberal claim is that “greater than 90%” of the Amerindians died in the wake of the arrival of Europeans. How do they know that? The Amerindians were far too primitive, illiterate, and ignorant to have censuses, and trying to search for remains at this point to count them from so long ago would be like trying to do the same for antelope or horses—ridiculous and utterly futile. The leftist solution has simply been to make up numbers—the higher the better—because then it appears that more Amerindians must have died when one looks at the far lower population numbers after Whites started counting them.

Before the age of anti-White liberalism, the best estimates by the academics were very different than they are today. For the territory that is now the United States and Canada, the US Census Bureau estimated in 1894 that the pre-Columbian Amerindian population was half a million. This was a rational estimate considering the primitive, literally stone-age conditions under which they lived throughout most of that region. In 1928, James Mooney, an ethnologist employed by the Smithsonian, estimated a little over twice this number, 1.2 million. Again, this is probably more or less reasonable for their level of technology.

It is worth pausing for a moment to reflect on the fact that liberals consider a debate “won” for their side if they can find a supporting figure from an authority such as an ethnologist working for the Smithsonian or the US Census Bureau. They consider such authority estimates final and unquestionable . . . unless those estimates do not serve their agenda.

The estimates above were good enough by all academic accounts until it became beneficial to the anti-Whites to bump them up in the 1960’s. Then leftist anthropologist Henry Dobyns resolved to work backward to get the answer that he wanted: He decided to assume (without reason or proof) that over 95% of the “native” population died from European diseases (which would be a truly astonishing mortality rate for ANY plague). Using census figures for Amerindians from after the arrival of English colonists, he declared that the pre-Columbian population for the same territory already described must have been in excess of twelve million—ten to twenty times higher than the previous estimates.

This is, of course, a typical example of leftist deception and a wonderful tool of circular reasoning for anti-Whites: They wish to describe the arrival of the Europeans as a devastating calamity for the Amerindians, so they start by assuming that it was, use the assumption to make up some numbers, and then use the numbers to back the assumption whenever the subject comes up thereafter. Liberals ceaselessly cite these numbers as “proof” of the scope of the destruction, never bothering to answer for the source of the numbers they are using.

After all, the numbers come from “experts.” If the population fell from 12 million to 490 thousand by 1900, then that’s a lot of dead people. If, however, the other experts (the ones liberals don’t approve of and whose estimates were around 500 thousand) are correct, then their population barely fell at all. Their argument boils down to declaring that the high estimates are the right ones because White people are evil, and White people are evil because the high estimates are the right ones. Got it?

What liberals can’t avoid, however, is that even in the modern world of politically correct academia, the pre-colonialism Amerindian population estimates are still all over the board. High they undoubtedly remain in nearly every case. After all, who wants to lose their career for being a “racist” by impeding the leftist agenda? And despite this, the upper-end estimates are absurdly, grotesquely, ridiculously inflated. Consider, for example, the estimates for pre-Columbian Central America, which range from 100 thousand at the low end, to about 13.5 million at the high end.

Think about that for a moment: The upper estimate is more than THIRTEEN THOUSAND PERCENT higher than the lower estimate. How does one justify such a thing mathematically? This is like saying that the weight of the average adult female is between 200 and 26000 pounds, or that the cost of a loaf of bread is between five dollars and seven hundred dollars. In math circles, this is referred to as being completely full of crap. In political circles, this is typical leftist “reasoning.”

Liberals depend upon authority arguments because their assertions fall apart immediately when examined logically. When a leftist states a statistic, assume it was simply made up out of thin air (because it probably was). Expend the effort to dig around for the real numbers since your liberal opponents never will: They care not at all about truth, nor about REAL genocides, only about getting their way in everything.