The fight against Nazism was a pretext retrospectively applied to what essentially began as an economic war. It was just one of several factors which necessitated another war against Germany. Add to this the Nazi German government was funding its rearmament by printing interest free Mefo bills.

It has always seemed suspect to me that both the major conflicts of the twentieth century were against the industry and ingenuity of Germany and the second World War was primarily designed to crush Germany and its civilian population once and for all. This isn't a conspiracy. It's a fact.

The crippling terms of the Versailles treaty was always going to make another war in Europe inevitable. It was tantamount to a war crime.

If anyone brings up the hoary old line of "the Germans started it, they invaded Poland" then here is one of my replies on the matter from a historical revisionist forum where people actually know what they're talking about in regard to WWII. The bit in italics is a quote from someone who understands the realities behind WWII much better than me;

"In regard to Germany invading Poland, I've always thought the autonomous city state of Danzig was the crux of the matter. Here's an answer I found to the question of why Hitler decided to attack Poland. It's worth reproducing in full and It satisfies me completely that Germany was antagonized into invading Poland and was then drawn into a war which Hitler never wanted with Great Britain. Great Britain as usual, was the aggressor and the intention was to smash a resurgent Germany, enjoying an economic miracle, once and for all."

'What Hitler wanted was the German city of Danzig, essentially foregoing claims on the German regions of Silesia and Prussia. To underline how magnanimous this offer was, we should remember that these were popular demands in Germany, and if a politician less popular than Hitler was to concede these regions it would surely spell political suicide.

Initially Poland were willing to negotiate on these terms. They would retain their economic interests in the city and enter a military alliance with Germany.

That is until the Brits backed by Roosevelt offered them a, seemingly, better deal. This deal entailed antagonizing Germany to war, giving the West cassus belli to use force against her, and once defeated Poland would gain hegemony in that part of Europe. All they had to do was hold off the German attack until France and Britain could attack the rear.

But first they had to trigger a war. This they did by provocation. All German attempts at diplomacy were briskly refused and the Polish press began a severe anti German campaign in the country, inciting the populace to violence against the German minority. Incursions were made on the border, and finally full mobilization was ordered (an act of war in international law).

Hitler then did the only thing he could to defend German honor, use force.'

Hitler never wanted a war with GB, he rightly construed the Soviet Union as the foremost threat to Germany. Even Churchill was quoted as saying after WWII, "we killed the wrong pig".

I have been taking some heat as a war monger in one of the forums I visit. It seems that people have forgotten what war really is. War is bad War is super bad, the kind of bad that you don't ever want to see. So if you or your country declares war on another, you should consider the following.

The people fighting you want your death. They do not care about your family, your ideals or your perception of how a war should be fought. War means you use everything you have any way you can to win. You should obliterate your opponent and remove from them the ability to fight you in the future.

"Rules of Engagement" are for losers, the only rule is you win. Recently there was a suicide bomb that went off in the Afghanistan international airport. These "soldiers" killed 60 of their own citizens and 12 US soldiers. So that is the measure of their resolve. How can you or anyone expect to win a war when the enemy is hiding among the woman and willing to die to inflict even just these casualties.

When you go to war, you use what you have and you conquer the enemy. You kill every person over 12 if you have to but you make sure that no one from that country will ever lift a hand against you.

War sucks. War sucks for the people who live on the land, war sucks for the soldiers sent to fight and war sucks for the people who survive it. War just sucks. So when you do declare war, or they declare it on you, you take no half measures. If the USA had been allowed to simply obliterate the enemy, they could have brought in schools, food and meds for the non combatants, they would have won the survivors over and freed the country. Instead the USA has imported thousands of enemy fighters and really has no idea where they are.

This is another war the USA has lost, but could have won. What they need to do is to go back. But they need to go back without the press, without the journalists whining to the public about the horrors of war and kill every motherfucker with a beard. It doesn't matter if they get the peaceful idiot, that guy should leave before the fighting starts. Once it's over, send in the aid. Send in the doctors send in the teachers and the army corp of engineers. Rebuild the country, give it strength, morals and a future. Help each citizen grow and establish themselves, help each family that is left to thrive.

The old enemy is dead, the new colony has your values, your drive and your future. This is how you win a war.

Sadly, this isn't what happened. The fighters are there, subjugating and raping the women and children. there will be no schools, no meds, no future. Sure the bleeding hearts will say that the Afghans deserve to create their own future, but they wont. They will kill who they like, rape who they want and bring up future generations to hate the Americans. This is the way Liberals lose a war... they lose today, tomorrow and the people of Afghanistan lose their future.

If you think the US election was more of a selection than an actual voting by the people, please post here.
I am not so political that I would take down the posts like i see in other forums. When ever possible, please provide links with your comments so when they take down the links we still have the evidence.

Thanks to all who post.

Hi everyone and anyone.. Still here I have just been lazy and trying not to get sick.
Unlike other forums where they delete anything the liberals don't like, we don't here.
Free speech should be free speech... at least to the extent the law allows.

Anyways have fun, be happy and stay safe.

..ex

I'm posting this as many people have not heard of Paul Joseph Watson. You can view his youtube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/user/PrisonPlanetLive and it is hilarious. For some it will be offensive, but for many it is a breath of fresh air.


It's nice to see a person who looks at the world as it is, and says it like it is.

By September 10, 2019 9:40 AM EDT
Another investigation into big tech’s business practices has been launched, this time from the states. 
50 attorneys general and 48 states announced a probe into Google on September 9 for practices that “may have led to anticompetitive behavior that harms consumers.” The leader of the bipartisan coalition, Texas AG Ken Paxton, said in his announcement, “We have seen evidence that Google’s business practices may have undermined consumer choice, stifled innovation, violated users’ privacy, and put Google in control of the flow and dissemination of online information.” 

At the same time, nine attorneys general are investigating Facebook. Led by New York AG Letitia James, the probe will look at “Facebook’s dominance in the industry and the potential anticompetitive conduct stemming from that dominance.” 
These investigations are completely separate from the FTC’s investigation into Facebook and the Department of Justice’s investigation into Google. 
Google has been accused of many things, from privacy leaks to election manipulation. Leaks from state that Google plans on preventing President Trump from being re-elected in 2020. 
In an interview with CNBC, Google CEO threatened that Google would willingly take its business elsewhere if regulated by the U.S. government. He said that other countries aspire to be like Silicon Valley, and “support their companies.” He also stated that “You can’t always take for granted that you will be successful.”  
Facebook has also faced accusations of many more privacy scandals, while censoring conservatives on a regular basis in the interest of “safety.” An audit of conservative complaints over Facebook took all of conservatives’ concerns of censorship and dismissed them as “beliefs.”


Can't wait to see a totalitarian group kicked in the nuts.

Amazon last week confirmed that it keeps transcripts of interactions with Alexa, even after users have deleted the voice recordings.

Based on reports that Amazon retains text records of what users ask Alexa, Sen. Chris Coons in May sent a letter to CEO Jeff Bezos, demanding answers.

The Democrat from Delaware asked Amazon to provide answers on how long it stores transcripts, whether users can delete them, why it collects them and how they are used, and whether the company anonymizes customer identity.

“While I am encouraged that Amazon allows users to delete audio recordings linked to their accounts,” Coons, a member of the judiciary committee, wrote in his letter, “I am very concerned by reports that suggest that text transcriptions of these audio records are preserved indefinitely on Amazon’s servers, and users are not given the option to delete these text transcripts.”

In response, Amazon Vice President of Public Policy Brian Huseman revealed that the tech titan keeps transcripts and voice recordings indefinitely, removing them only when “the customer chooses to delete them.”


“When a customer deletes a voice recording, we delete the transcripts associated with the customer’s account of both … the customer’s request and Alexa’s response,” Huseman wrote in a June 28 memo. “We already delete those transcripts from all of Alexa’s primary storage systems, and we have an ongoing effort to ensure those transcripts do not remain in any of Alexa’s other storage systems.

“We do not store the audio of Alexa’s response,” he continued. “However, we may still retain other records of customers’ Alexa interactions, including records of actions Alexa took in response to the customer’s request.”

Transcripts are stored, according to Amazon, to help improve the digital assistant and “provide transparency” about what Alexa thought she heard and how she responded.

If she makes a mistake—like setting a timer for one minute instead of the four I asked for—the Voice History feature allows users to see and hear how Alexa may have misunderstood a word or phrase.

“Providing customers with the transcript also allows [them] to understand and inspect exactly what Alexa is, and is not, recording,” Huseman added.

Interacting with an Alexa skill, meanwhile, is a whole new ballgame, in which the skill developer may retain records of interactions.

As for other types of requests—recurring alarms, annual reminders, calendar events, texts—customers “would not want or expect deletion of the voice recording to delete the underlying data or prevent Alexa from performing the requested task,” the letter said.

These answers, however, do little to inspire confidence in the company for Coons.

“Amazon’s response leaves open the possibility that transcripts of user voice interactions with Alexa are not deleted from all of Amazon’s servers, even after a user has deleted a recording of his or her voice,” the lawmaker told CNET. “What’s more, the extent to which this data is shared with third parties, and how those third parties use and control that information, is still unclear.”

California lawmakers earlier this year introduced a bill that would limit how manufacturers of smart speakers and digital assistants collect recordings.

The Anti-Eavesdropping Act prohibits saving, storing, or sharing of audio recordings without explicit consent from the user.

Should the legislation pass, it would severely handicap services like Amazon’s Alexa, Siri from Apple, and Google Assistant (among a handful of others).

The Golden State is not the first to try to limit digital eavesdropping: Illinois previously attempted to pass a similar law, which Google and Amazon lobbied against.

Bloomberg recently shocked no one with the news that thousands of Amazon employees around the world listen in on Echo owners’ conversations (allegedly to improve the technology).

More troubling is the fact that workers can also access location information of Alexa users and look up their home or office address.

https://www.geek.com/tech/amazon-admits-...y-1794386/

This is a really good read...

seriously...


  adam and eve.pdf (Size: 2.19 MB / Downloads: 3)

Hi, Some cocksuckers are spamming in Cyrillic. So I have been blocking ips and purging the idiots.
So patience would be appreciated.

Last year, my buddy and the families went to Revelstoke BC canada to go on the mountain coaster.
http://www.revelstokemountainresort.com/...in-coaster

This video was taken by my buddy...
the whole thing was a lot of fun..but kind of short....

Please see attached.

Attached Files

  Video-2016-05-29-12-46-43 Revelstoke pipe.MOV (Size: 37.59 MB / Downloads: 1)