Nazis Among Us

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 14:54
VIEWED: 2059
PAGE 1 of 1

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, December 19, 2010 11:33 AM

Reading through this cancer research I was struck by an appalling possibility:

First, I looked at a series of reactions, and then thought, but that cant be right, that would kill the patient. So I went through it again, and again. And then I thought, any sane patient under such a plan would look at that and say "My doctor wouldn't do that to me, would he?"

No, of course not. Not intentionally that is. But what if he didn't know that was what he was doing? What if higher agencies had told him that the condition was incurable, and that this was the best chance. He'd have to try, it would be the only human thing to do.

Why would anyone do such a thing? Economics and Eugenics. The sick cost money, and use resources, while not contributing to a healthy gene pool. He'll, they might even be a part of an ethnic group targeted for extermination.

So, I dig into where the suggestions come from. The FDA, run by big pharm, but before that, the recommendations come from the WHO. The WHO is a pretty clear heir to the eugenics movement, and before I say that the UN is a successor state to Nazi Germany, or that the US is, I have to take a stab at who the Nazis were.

Nazi Germany is a creation of foreign financial interests, merged with a national isolationists revolution trying to flee those very same influences in the wiemar republic. I don't think thats very radical, its probably obvious to everyone here.

The more curious thing I've noticed is the fairly radical shift in policy in Germany in 1938. I figure there was some change of sub-leadership, in the advisory corps, as happens sometimes here, particularly starting around 1974. This change in Germany in 1938 transforms the Jewish expulsion into the holocaust, Germany into a world war and an alliance with Japan. It also changes the foreign policy focus in Europe from western european domination through revolution for the fascists to eastern European domination through wholesale slaughter.

Now it would be easy to draw the kind of conspiracy John likes to to say Hitler was a Rothschild, and Jewish, by his own one grandparent definition, but I don't think this is pertinent. I'm going to make the radical suggestion that Nazi Germany was the creation of British and american eugenicists. An experiment, as it were. Furthermore, that Germany was then used for the eugenicists primary goal of the time, to try to exterminate the Slavic race. It fits the pattern of activity very well, and explains their loss of interest in progress or western Europe, and their increasingly violent and genocidal tactics.

If this is the case its entirely possible that my ancestors main sin for the eugenicist Nazi army was not that they were Jewish, but that they were Slavs. Little effort was made to irradiate the western Jewry, or to depopulate Europe of non-Germans, and almost no effort was made against the US and UK outside or random bombings, see Orwell...

So, the more radical suggestion that the international interests, whose choice of religion was really immaterial, were never anchored in Germany to begin with, and that it was or became a puppet state by the same people who run our society today. Nothing has essentially changed, and nothing was particularly gained by the defeat of Germany from the point of view of the common man, but a great deal was gained from the crisis of war created by TPTB which cowed the world into accepting radical changes in the was the world was run.

Now we are coming to the point that TPTB frequently find themselves in which is that they are no longer satisfied with the amount of power they gained then, and a new generation of useless silver spoon elitists need to prove themselves as dominators of the globe.

Meanwhile, they're still playing god with the little people, only they've become such puppet masters that their agents of action are no longer aware of the masters they serve. Today's elitists believe that capitalism is a force of evolution, and that the poor are poor because they are inferior. This is just a cover rationalization for their desi

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, December 19, 2010 2:46 PM

Upon awakening it seems like less of a revelation, but contains a couple other conspiracies the origin of which I do not know

One is control commodities. I'm certain the fracking is about intentionally poisoning the water more than it is about the extraction of natural gas, and the nat gas companies have probably been convinced by the blue gold crowd that adding these chemicals will help them in various ways, and they are the dupes in this case.

Nat gas is just a branch of a control commodity: oil. Much of WWII was about oil, which Britain saw as its means of controlling Europe. Before that I don't see control commodities, just useless habitual commodities like cotton and tobacco originating from the land owning aristocracy I would guess. Land generating revenue. Theres obviously way more land that is farmed than is need to be in order to feed the worlds population, even today, let alone back in the 18th c. Modern farming methods have done very little to increase yield, only decrease the labor required.

Since then we've seen a couple serious control commodities sprout up, like medicine. Both legal and illicit drugs are used this way. There's another major one that's eluding me at the moment.

Articifical value commodities like gold are out fo vogue with TPTB right now, but still big in Africa, hence the diamond wars. I wouldn't be too surprised if those diamonds were actually be manufactured by GE and sold to an ignorant populous, but hey, we accept federal reserve notes as payment, so go figure.

I suppose ultimately they will attack food as a control commodity, its worth figuring out who they are. I suspect the eugenicists, because this is being used as a form of genocidal war, destroying the land under the target population. Haiti is really an excellent model for the way in which the NWO attacks the undesirables.

I also had another thought about nazis. Many of their casualties were eastern european conscripts, as were many of the Russian casualties. This looks like a conspiracy but might just be two different groups with the same agenda, kill the locals and import your own population.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, December 19, 2010 3:41 PM

Hello,

It's a bit early for me, so I may have lost a train of thought.

Are you positing that cancer treatment is designed to kill the patient?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

SIGNYM

Sunday, December 19, 2010 4:30 PM

DT, tell me if this is what you're thinking... Following the logic of cancer treatments, which seem designed to be terminal altho disguised as a "Hail Mary" pass, you detect a pattern of TPTB working towards eugenics.

If I may rearrange a bit...

Quote:
So, the more radical suggestion that the international interests, whose choice of religion was really immaterial, were never anchored in Germany to begin with, and that it was or became a puppet state by the same people who run our society today...[I noticed a] fairly radical shift in policy in Germany in 1938... This change in Germany in 1938 transforms the Jewish expulsion into the holocaust, Germany into a world war and an alliance with Japan. It also changes the foreign policy focus in Europe from western european domination through revolution for the fascists to eastern European domination through wholesale slaughter.

It is well known that American banking, engineering, and manufacturing interests... the Bush family, for example... collaborated with the Nazis. I think there is more than being Slavic which was at stake. American and British financial interests had always seen the Russian revolution as the critical threat to their way of life... certainly more of a threat than the Nazis, who were believers in the hand-in-glove cooperation between established financial interests and the state.

Nothing embodied the Red Menace like the unwashed Slavs, who were dangerous economic enemies as well as visually different. This change in policy may have come about from a foreign nudge, in the belief that the Germans could be used to wipe out the threat from the east, leaving Britain and the USA the victors by default.

Quote:
Nothing has essentially changed, and nothing was particularly gained by the defeat of Germany from the point of view of the common man, but a great deal was gained from the crisis of war created by TPTB which cowed the world into accepting radical changes in the wa(y) the world was run.

Now we are coming to the point that TPTB frequently find themselves in which is that they are no longer satisfied with the amount of power they gained then, and a new generation of useless silver spoon elitists need to prove themselves as dominators of the globe. Meanwhile, they're still playing god with the little people, only they've become such puppet masters that their agents of action are no longer aware of the masters they serve. Today's elitists believe that capitalism is a force of evolution, and that the poor are poor because they are inferior.... Even on an individual level, I cannot get any of those that I know to admit that they were dealt an unfair advantage no matter how free thinking they are. Given such a self denial, it would be easy to fall into the trap of believing the fallacy of social mobility just as it is of believing in democracy, justice, absolution, salvation or other unsupported premises commonly believed.

Rappy believes this, and so does everyone who clings to "capitalism".

I think what came to you is a deep-seated emotional understanding of the paradigm of the wealthy. How little the lives of "lesser beings" mean. How elitists can condemn millions to misery and a well-deserved death.

I came across a business magazine once. There was an ad in it, placed by the nation of Ireland, if you can believe it. It was to seduce businesses to locate there, and what it said was:

Our population is well-educated. We are politically stable. Our currency is undervalued. And our people are desperate for work. You can make a lot of money here.

That is how they think of the world.

SIGNYM

Sunday, December 19, 2010 4:37 PM

Oh BTW DT- did you look into nanoparticle research being done using the same ventilation system? It could even be a nearby pharmaceutical company working with nanoparticle metal oxides (used in sunscreen and makeup).

Nanoparticles will literally creep up the odor nerves and wind up in the brain. That is one way in which a cancer-producing agent can be brain-specific. Like I said before, sounds like science fiction, but it isn't.
www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/nanoparticles-damage-br
ain-cells/

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, December 19, 2010 7:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Are you positing that cancer treatment is designed to kill the patient?

I'm not answering for DT.

But *my* answer is yes.

And the reason I say that is because they have chosen the most harmful treatments available to sanction as the only valid treatments, while either outlawing or otherwise excluding more gentle treatments.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, December 19, 2010 10:47 PM

More gentle treatments that don't actually work, you mean.

Cancer treatments are harsh, but they improve your survival rate, not decrease it.

If a cancer is untreatable, then doctors generally don't treat it or they should give you a realistic option.

People have somehow linked chemo and death, but the sad fact is that despite treatments, people still die from cancer, but it's not the chemo that kills them. Some people continue to make that link.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, December 20, 2010 12:34 AM

Sig,

You need to check out order out of attacking the new world order, whoever originally posted the link, if you can, repost here, it's was bytemite I think

The Russian revolution was state capitalism, and funded by the Rothschild bank, its not exactly an outside element, but it got out of their control, and so yes, they turned against it, and yes, they were more worried about this than about Germany.

But the plan to exterminate the Slavs definitely precedes this. I'm sure you're right that they thought that they could use Germany to destroy Russia, or some of them did, but it's important to remember that the powers that be are not a monolithic entity. Many NWO types deliberately sold eastern Europe to Russia. My own homeland of .cz being a primary example.

ETA: I think this is unfair to Rap. He's a reasonable individual with whom you happen to disagree. I disagree with him sometimes as well, but whenever I get angry, I find I regret it later. Everyone here at FFF is essentially a political ally. If it were not so, our band of the political spectrum would be rather small. I don't really have major problems with anyone here, and I humbly suggest that for people who do, that you just take a moment to check comment boards on some of the other sites, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. I think you'll find auraptor refreshingly liberal by comparison.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, December 20, 2010 12:44 AM

Sorry guys if this comes through in several posts. Ipad forgets when I itch pages, so I an only do one at a time.

Sig

Yes i did, its possible, CFCs are the major threat, or something radioactive, but high level. Beta radiation, not radon.

At the moment I'm not investigating causes, cures are taking up all my time. The resulting cancer has little to do with its cause. Pathogenesis is determined by cell type, not mutagen, so its not useful information for the case, so it's been bumped down on the priority listless. My advice to everyone is stay away from unnatural things. ESP. Construction done in the 1950s or later.

Watch the water supply.

Byte

We will need a canary for this one. Something that will not grow in water contain petrochemicals and CFCs.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, December 20, 2010 12:51 AM

Anthony

The disconnect was mine not yours, it wS a pretty discombobulated post.

Also, a forewarning, I'm finding lots of contradictory information, so my reports may change.

Yes. I'm considering it as a possibility. It does serve two purposes of the powers that be.

My analysis of the treatments is based on a pretty solid background in the field. Looking at who llayed it, and what they turned down, I'm baffled if their intention was to cure the disease,

I don't mean that anyone in medicine is in on this, just that someone up top, like whoever bush appointed to head the FDA, and the WHO is always suspect.

Maybe it's just bad bureaucracy, but why you wouldn't okay to try cure with 1% fatality rate to treat a disease with a 99% fatality rate, it just boggles.

Also, this would not be the first time that such a claim was made, many people commented that the standard AIDS regimen kills the patient, where alternatives which were not passed were far more promising.

Another thing that enters into this is pure corruption. The company that makes drug A has connections, and drug B's owner does not, so it doesn't matter whY the chances are

DREAMTROVE

Monday, December 20, 2010 12:56 AM

CTS

that would be the fear, I'm not convinced myself, but it has occurred to me as a possibility, it's not to be ruled out.

Fortunately, the care providers are not in on it, and so they can dissuaded by scientific arguments because they're very knowledgeable.

One doctor even expressed concern about the recognized treatment plan, and what he wasn't saying was saying that the idea had occurred to him as well. He is handing over control to a couple of Indians on the idea that they will have other ideas. Its probably better than even odds that we willed up seeking treatment overseas.

It's also important to realize that 3% is not zero. It's possible that a plan B will not have to beimplemented

DREAMTROVE

Monday, December 20, 2010 1:03 AM

Magon,

I don't think this is what CTS was implying, it certainly was not what meant. Chemo is relatively harmless to the patient, and somewhat effective. Radiation is less effective, and is likely to be a little bit outmoted. We will probably continue to treat cancer this way for decades as a form of ritual, but everyone has pretty much recognized that it does not sol e the problem.

The hazards come from side treatments, like steroidal treatments, anti-immune and even tumor promoting drugs. It's a minefield out there. Its entirely possible also that cures have been intentionally silences, for either reason. Most working treatments result in what's called survival, by which they mean the person has cancer steady for five years or more.

Survival is different from cure, which really means remission, survival appears to be a designation for chronic conditions. I would imagine a chronic five year cancer treatment is reallyexpensive. There's an obvious incentive.

I see no reason to take a society so incredibly backwards and barbaric that it still fights wars would NOT stoop to such a level, in fact, it's hard tl see any difference in the primary logic.

More raising the question here than coming to a conclusion

ANTHONYT

Monday, December 20, 2010 1:59 AM

Hello,

So what IS the success rate of chemo/radioactive therapy?

I know that AIDS patients can often live indefinitely on their chemical cocktails.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

BYTEMITE

Monday, December 20, 2010 2:21 AM

Quote:
You need to check out order out of attacking the new world order, whoever originally posted the link, if you can, repost here, it's was bytemite I think

It was me, but I didn't post it here. It wasn't from a "respectable" source, either, and there's lots of conspiracy theory cites that I'm not sure about. But otherwise, there's a lot in the post that makes sense.

http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/the-new-world-order-wants-the
-new-world-order-to-fail-order-out-of-attacking-the-new-world-order/

Quote:
We will need a canary for this one. Something that will not grow in water contain petrochemicals and CFCs.

Everything kinda dies when you have enough of any chemical above a specific dose, even stuff we normlly consider vital nutrients. But, there might be some organisms more susceptible to death by petroleum and CFCs than other organisms. Usually it's young aquatic macrobiotes that suffer the worst: fish and tadpoles and their eggs.

But because you live near farms, you might have a problem with aquatic macrobiotes in the first place because of the nitrates and algal blooms. So if you have algae and it starts to die off, that may be a sign.

Quote:

Another thing that enters into this is pure corruption. The company that makes drug A has connections, and drug B's owner does not, so it doesn't matter whY the chances ar

At the business level it's this, I think. At a business level, all those guys are thinking about is profit, and generally, killing off their customers doesn't help profit (except price gouging, but that's usually terminal patients, and addiction). Though, administrators generally aren't scientists, and might be gullible enough to believe an agenda.

Banks, special interests, government, and industry are all connected, it's the same groups of elites everywhere. But some elites like one thing, others like another, they work together when they think it furthers their goals, dont really stand in the way when it doesn't, so the death machine creeps ever slowly forward as destructive agenda ideas seep into direction and policy making. They may be picking and choosing, but what they're choosing from still will inevitably go bad, and it's enough.

Hey Sig. >_> Agree with your posts.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, December 20, 2010 3:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
So what IS the success rate of chemo/radioactive therapy?

It depends on the type of cancer, and how you define "success."

Physicians sometimes present conventional cancer treatment as the only thing that improves survival rates, the only thing that works, when that simply isn't true.

Here is just one example of the lie.

http://www.ouralexander.org/

This is not something I could persuade anyone of on a forum like this. But if you were interested in chemo/radiation/surgery vs. other cancer treatments, there are books like

Ralph Moss' The Cancer Industry

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1881025098/healingdailyc-20

or James Carter's Racketeering in Medicine:

http://www.amazon.com/Racketeering-Medicine-Alternatives-James-Carter/
dp/187890132X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1292815920&sr=1-1

The cancer treatment debate goes very much like the vaccine debate or the global warming debate. Most people have already made up their minds, and "debates" usually end up in name-calling and invectives. I really don't want to go there. So that is all I'll say about that.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

KIRKULES

Monday, December 20, 2010 4:00 AM

While I would tend to agree that most cancer treatments are worse that the disease, I have a close friend that survived melanoma with a Interferon treatment that he thought was killing him and another friend that was cured of hepatitis C with a drug cocktail that included Interferon. If you go to your local doctor looking for a cancer cure you will probably die, if you do your research and find a doctor that actually likes curing people you chances are greatly increased.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, December 20, 2010 4:04 AM

Anthony,

Maybe the treatment has changed, but there are a few things that came to mind last time i looked into it

1) the company that made AZT had a sweetheart deal
2) AZT could kill a normal personas it interrupts healing.
3) as few as 25% of HIV positives had AIDS. its entirely possible that the magic johnsons of the world simply fought off the disease the first time, on contact, like we would the flu.
4) people are still dying by the millions of the disease, three million a year, and that cocktail is now available worldwide.
5) many drugs proven in animal tests to be effective were then blocked by the WHO, who almost certainly caused the problem in the first place, whether or not you believe that they did so maliciously.

So, sorry, not buying it. If a disease was basically treated and cured, it wouldn't be killing people at such a rapid rate.

To your other point

the current treatments and their success rates vary widely. In this case, 3%.

If there were a conspiracy, and usually there are several, then it would target those which were most a burden on the system.

You might have noticed that anti aging treatments never get mainstream attention, even though mainly are now widely known.

Why does our medical community still prescribe pain killers for arthritis? What is this, the middle ages? It would seem that common sense would have taken over. I can only think of two real answers: either they are a) stone stupid or b) have no interest in promoting an aging population.

To say nothing of mental health. I now know how to cure virtually every kind of mental illness and I'm no genius. I would have to think that anyone in the field with half a brain and access to the internet could have figured out the answers by now, but the treatments are barbaric and mentally disabling.

Honestly, I have no idea what the answer is. This could be a broad spectrum systematic failure of an out of contol bureaucracy, and there may be no ill intent anywhere, but what I can be sure of is that it is a failure.

My best guess on the chemo treatments currently used, which are not what I was commenting on, as I said before, its the steroids, not the chemo, but I don't have a strong objection to the chemo other than that it seems primitive compared to what is now available, is that this is a case of corporate corruption.

Where I see conspiracy possibility is that every mix seems to contain a dose of what I call toxideathinol. Something that doesn't have a good reason to be there and that kills everything. The fracking fluid is a good example. There's no good reason for it to be there, except to poison the groundwater.

Here, the toxic substance is the immunosuppressant steroids, which serve a nominal function: they're anti-emetic, but there are lots of less deadly anti-emetics if that's really an issue.

But no, I don't think anyone is going to die of the chemo, I actually would like to see more chemo agents used.

While I'm at it, just a side note: skepticism is always good, but my apologies if I don't have time to debate whether or not there is an asteroid headed to the earth when I only have a few hours to stop it.

I don't remember what the last debate I cut out of, but it was something along these lines. I get the idea, which is "I could be seeing things" but i said at the top of this very thread that I was aware of this possibility and didn't really have time to debate it.

if I'm aware of the possibility, what do you gain by arguing it? Would you convince me to not prepare for the worst? if you could convince me, what would happen if you were wrong?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I said the thought occurred. This was really sort of a pirate news rant as I said, not really a well thought out argument, I'm just stabbing at possibilities.

Politically, I feel that eugenics is still probably the dominant policy decider on the planet, followed by economic domination, or slavery as we used to call it.

If forces for good were as powerful as the armies of hope seem to think they are, as ofte

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, December 20, 2010 4:08 AM

Well, I do have some recent news on water quality, something I have been eyeballing for a very long time, in fact.

US water has large amounts of likely carcinogen: study
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/healthusenvironmentpollutionwater

That the EPA hasn't chosen to give a shit has a lot to do with many years of both parties shovelling political, rather than scientific people, into it.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, December 20, 2010 4:10 AM

Byte

Sorry. I meant to say neurotoxins specifically.

Kirk

Thanks, yes, already did that, but I also have to do a lot of research myself, and then present him with my findings. This cancer actually has a frequency of about three per million, and the subtype of it is an unrecognized unique, one. So sure, he's a cancer specialist, even brain cancer, but he hasn't met this before, and he has hundreds of patients to look after, all of whom have poor prognosis. The more brains I have on this problem the better.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, December 20, 2010 4:24 AM

Frem

Also industry people, lots of industry people. The more political people also hang around in the advisory capacity, as do many industry people.

An agency has a lifespan of about 20 years on average before it becomes captured by the industry it is designed to regulate.

Groundwater toxicity is also a goal of the blue gold crowd, and the eugenics people also undoubtedly see not just the power to kill or occupy the time and energy to disable the inferiors, but also, by controlling the water supply, limit their population growth.

Industry of course has been pouring god knows what for a long time, but now things like the fracking industry create chemicals with no scientific merit to pour into the water in record astronomical quantities. Water contamination is clearly the goal. If you crunch the numbers on nat gas fracking, it's not even profitable. In fact, the world over, environmental destruction is not profitable, except if someone else is subsidizing it, so it's not net profitable, which means that the destruction is the goal..

If destruction is the goal, I'm willing to classify it as a form of warfare and feel no qualms about doing so, as I said earlier, terrorism is not too strong a term...

DREAMTROVE

Monday, December 20, 2010 10:30 PM

My apologies to people. Particularly Anthony, I didn't mean to snap, vie been under a lot of stess, I get the devils advocate position and it's always a valid one, but the last couple of threads vie been kind of dismissive of it because I don't have the time at the moment. We can discuss this later when things are more relaxed, including when I'm more relaxed.

Frem anything about hexavalent chromium in rural areas?

A point that someone ma on a page I found searching for this is actually valid for fracking, and gets me to thinking:

So, they want to poison the land for rural people, the
Owers that be and the blue gold crowd and the eugenics crowd, because hill billies are definitely one of the new blacks. But theres something here they're missing:
they have exempted their own resevoir for NYC because let's face it, most globalists live in either NY or London, but how do they figure they're going to get their food, crops, milk? Do they really think even if they protect their precious water that these toxins will not enter into their own food? Something like 3/4 of the water that we consume during the day does not come to us in the form of water, if you poison the water, you poison everything, especially when you're poisoning your own damn farmland.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, December 20, 2010 11:08 PM

You might be able to get local reports, DT, being that one of the local papers did, but I suggest going right to the source and asking...
http://www.annarbor.com/news/report-chromium-6-detected-in-ann-arbor-d
rinking-water/

Cause getting your hands on a print copy of the report might be damn useful to you, for a multitude of reasons.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, December 20, 2010 11:16 PM

This hexv chromium business makes me sick.

What's wrong with people?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, July 24, 2024 2:54 PM

Nazis fled Germany, they didn't all go to NASA and make rockets but some went to BigPharma?