









It is difficult to believe, after viewing this, that none of the Germans had anything to do with Hitler and they were ‘just following orders!’
Source:
Related articles
- Germany marks 80th anniversary of Hitler’s rise (utsandiego.com)










It is difficult to believe, after viewing this, that none of the Germans had anything to do with Hitler and they were ‘just following orders!’
Source:
Who benefits from Wars?
Do people of either country or the Countries that participate in a War?
Do the Nations Profit by War?
No,
The Business interests.
Quote.
“Some people fight for Idealism and Ninety nine out of hundred ae being conned.
So are the people back home who cheer for war.
We are always Right and they are always wrong.
In Washington and Beijing,London and Moscow.
People are being conned.
Those GIs in Vietnam,do you think they die for Life,liberty,and the pursuit of Happiness?
They die for the DOW Jones Index in Wall Street and always have.
…

They were in those lands because their Colonel ordered them there,and he was ordered by The War Office and that was ordered by The
Cabinet to keep the British Control over the Economies.”
Unquote.-From The Dogs of War by Frederick Forsyth
The World War, has costed the United States some $52,000,000,000.
The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent.
But war-time profits — twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent — the sky is the limit.
For the du Ponts, the powder people , the average earnings for the period 1910 to 1914 was $6,000,000 a year.
Their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year
An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.
Bethlehem Steel shunted aside the making of rails , girders and bridges to manufacture war materials.
Their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000.
Their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!
United States Steel.
The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year.
The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000.
Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000.
During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.
Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period.
Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period.
Central Leather Company were $3,500,000.
That was approximately $1,167,000 a year.
In 1916 ,Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, an increase of 1,100 per cent.
The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year.
Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.
International Nickel Company showed an increase in profits from a mere average of $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly.
An increase of more than 1,700 per cent.
American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war.
In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded.
Listen to Senate Document No. 259.
The Sixty-Fifth Congress, reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues.
Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal producers during the war.
Profits under 25 per cent were exceptional.
For instance the coal companies made between 100 per cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war.
The Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings.
And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and their billions I do not know, because those little secrets never become public — even before a Senate investigatory body.
to be continued.
ack:
It is inconceivable that a Human being can harm this much!
May this be reminder to us that we do not sit back and keep quiet when things are happening around us as was done.
”
Irene and her twin brother Rene were born Renate and Rene Guttmann. The family moved to Prague shortly after the twins’ birth, where they were living when the Germans occupied Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939. A few months later, uniformed Germans arrested their father. Decades later, Irene and Rene learned that he was killed at the Auschwitz camp in December 1941. Irene, Rene, and their mother were deported to the Theresienstadt ghetto, and later to the Auschwitz camp. At Auschwitz, the twins were separated and subjected to medical experiments. Irene and Rene remained separated for some time after their liberation from Auschwitz. The group Rescue Children brought Irene to the United States in 1947, where she was reunited with Rene in 1950.
Personal Account: “I, of course, have, um, unfortunately a lot of memories of, um, of the hospital and, um, the doctor’s office. It, I seem to recall spending a great deal of time, um, there. And also being in the hospital and being very sick. And, um, I know one time, when I went to the doctor’s office, that they took blood from me and, it was extremely painful because it was from the left side of my neck. That’s a strange thing to remember. I also remember having blood taken out of my finger, but that wasn’t quite so bad. And I also remember having to sit, um, very still for long periods to be measured and, or weighed, or in X rays. I rem…I remember X rays, X rays. Um…and injections. I remember injections. And then I’d be sick. Because then I, I’d be in this hospital. And I remember having a high fever, because I know they were taking my temperature, somebody was. Um, I really got to hate doctors. I, I got to be afraid. I used, I was terribly scared of doctors, I still am. They’re a nightmare. Hospitals are out of the question and illness is unacceptable.”







http://www.fold3.com/page/94047273_auschwitz_concentration_camp/
Jesus is the name attributed the Founder of Christianity.
Jesus means the ‘anointed’
There other meanings ascribed based on the writings from the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Most of the allusions given indicate that it is not the real name but allusions, which can be inferred from the com the context in which it was used.
While the Old Testament was compiled at the behest of Constantine, The New testament was written to suit King James.
So th name Jesus is not real.

References:
“Jesus” is a transliteration, occurring in a number of languages and based on the Latin Iesus, of the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs), itself a hellenization of the Aramaic/Hebrew ישוע (Yēšûă‘) which is a post-Exilic modification of the Hebrew יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yĕhōšuă‘, Joshua) under influence from Aramaic.[38] In the Quran, it is عيسى (‘Īsa).[39][40]
In the Bible he is referred to as “Jesus from Nazareth”,[Mt 21:11] “Joseph’s son”,[Lk 4:22] and “Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth”.[Jn 1:45] Before his death and resurrection, his followers may have begun to refer to him as the Messiah—”Christ” in Greek translation, the anointed one. After his death and resurrection, his followers regularly referred to him as both “Lord” and “Messiah”.[Ac 2:36] In his writings, Paul variously used both “Christ” and “Son of God“. Paul used “Christ” as if were Jesus’ name rather than a title. As an example, in Romans 6:4 he wrote “Christ was raised from the dead”. He most often referred to Jesus as “Jesus Christ”, “Christ Jesus“, or “Christ”.[41]
The etymology of the name Jesus in the context of the New Testament is generally expressed as “Yahweh saves”,[42][43][44] “Yahweh is salvation”[45][46][47] The name Jesus appears to have been in use in Judea at the time of the birth of Jesus.[47][48] The first century works of historian Flavius Josephus refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus.[49] Philo’s reference (Mutatione Nominum item 121) indicates that the etymology of the name Joshua was known outside Judea at the time.[50]
In the New Testament, in Luke 1:26–33, the angel Gabriel tells Mary to name her child “Jesus”, and in Matthew 1:21 an angel tells Joseph to name the child “Jesus”. The statement in Matthew 1:21 “you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins” associates salvific attributes to the name Jesus in Christian theology.[51][52]
“Christ” (pron.: /ˈkraɪst/) is derived from the Greek Χριστός (Khrīstos), meaning “the anointed” or “the anointed one”, a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ), usually transliterated into English as “Messiah” (pron.: /mɨˈsaɪ.ə/).[53][54] In the Septuagint version of the Hebrew Bible (written well over a century before the time of Jesus), the word “Christ” (Χριστός) was used to translate the Hebrew word “Messiah” (מָשִׁיחַ) into Greek.[55] In Matthew 16:16, the apostle Peter’s profession “You are the Christ” identifies Jesus as the Messiah.[56] In postbiblical usage, “Christ” became viewed as a name, one part of “Jesus Christ”, but originally it was a title (“Jesus the Anointed”).[5(wiki)
..
The intent of this article is to investigate the origin of the Greek name Jesus and its erroneous transliteration of the Hebrew name of our Savior Yahshua. Our Saviour’s Name in Hebrew is (read from right to left). The English name “Jesus,” which later employed the letter “J,” is a derivation from Greek “Iesous” and the Latin “Iesus” version.
This name “Jesus” commonly used in Christianity today did not exist and would not be spelled with the letter “J” until about 500 years ago. This article will also discuss the grammatical errors involved in the transliteration of Yahshua into Greek and Latin, which radically changed the form of Yahshua’s name.
http://www.plim.org/JesusOrigin.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Etymology_of_names
Update on 19 January.
I received a colorful comment for this post and there are two ratings “Poor’.
(that the post received 18 Likes is a different matter-Obviously from the colonized!)
Obviously from the British.
They asked me to Study History.
This is Britain’s History.
“Everybody knew that the British loved to conquer lots of countries for their precious empire. It’s not until somebody sits down and actually counts all of them that we realize just how many. Historian Stuart Laycock was happy to volunteer for the job and presents his findings in a new book All the Countries We’ve Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To. The book stays true to its title and finds in a survey of 200 of the world’s countries through that, in one shape or form, Great Britain has invaded all but 22 of them. That amounts to about 90 percent of the world’s countries.”
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/british-invaded-90-percent-countries-earth-021130513.html
Argentina laid claims to Falklands which Britain took from it ,claiming British Sovereignty over the Islands.
Argentinian President wrote to the British Prime Minister asking Britain to return it.
Britain refused.
Meanwhile the SUN, British daily published an advertisement in Argentina, a rebuttal.
Britain conveniently forgets that it trampled countries all over the world by colonizing it.
A hotchpotch of different national identification, United Kingdom exists only in name.
If you any doubt. ask a Welsh,Irish or a Scotsman.
If the countries Britain colonized were to ask for reparation damages for pilfering other nations, what will it do?
Britain, under the garb of protected territories still continues its colonialism elsewhere in the world.

Story:
Buenos Aires, January 3rd, 2013
Mr Prime Minister David Cameron,
One hundred and eighty years ago on the same date, January 3rd, in a blatant exercise of 19th-century colonialism, Argentina was forcibly stripped of the Malvinas Islands, which are situated 14,000km (8700 miles) away from London.
The Argentines on the Islands were expelled by the Royal Navy and the United Kingdom subsequently began a population implantation process similar to that applied to other territories under colonial rule.
Since then, Britain, the colonial power, has refused to return the territories to the Argentine Republic, thus preventing it from restoring its territorial integrity.
The Question of the Malvinas Islands is also a cause embraced by Latin America and by a vast majority of peoples and governments around the world that reject colonialism.
In 1960, the United Nations proclaimed the necessity of “bringing to an end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations”. In 1965, the General Assembly adopted, with no votes against (not even by the United Kingdom), a resolution considering the Malvinas Islands a colonial case and inviting the two countries to negotiate a solution to the sovereignty dispute between them.
This was followed by many other resolutions to that effect.
In the name of the Argentine people, I reiterate our invitation for us to abide by the resolutions of the United Nations.
Cristina Fernández de Kirchner
President of the Argentine Republic
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/02/cristina-fernandez-kirchner-letter-cameron
The British PMs reaction may be found in the Link.
SUN Advertisement in Argentina.

PM David Cameron yesterday backed the islanders remaining British.
We fired off our newspaper message to Kirchner in her native Spanish.
She accused Britain of stealing the islands in adverts placed in left-wing British papers The Guardian and Independent.
But in an open letter today in the Buenos Aires Herald, translated below, The Sun tells her Britain has had sovereignty there before Argentina even existed.
And we remind her how the Argentine invasion of the islands in 1982, which was ended by our troops, was against the UN charter.
The islanders hold a referendum on whether they remain British in March.
But The Sun responded by taking out an advert in the Buenos Aires Herald – an English-language paper with a circulation of around 20,000 – telling Argentina to keep its “hands off”.
The advert refers to the 649 Argentinian and 255 British servicemen whose lives were lost in the 1982 war and said it was a conflict fought to defend the principle of self-determination.
The ad goes on to dispute Argentina’s claim to the islands and points out British sovereignty dates back to 1765.
It ends with the words: “Until the people of the Falkland Islands choose to become Argentinian, they remain resolutely British.”
But the journalist Daniel Schweimler, who lives in Argentina, said the Sun’s message would not go down well.
Argentine veterans protested outside the British Embassy in Buenos AiresMr Schweimler, who is based in Buenos Aires, said: “I’ve been here seven years now, and have never come across an Argentine who doesn’t believe that the Falklands belong to Argentina.
“There’s never been any animosity towards me when I say I’m British, but I think it’s fair to say that almost across the board in a country of 40 million people that Las Malvinas, the Falklands, belong to them,” he added.
Argentine journalist Celina Andreassi agreed and says the Sun’s advert was quite provocative-BBC news.
Read the advertisement Text at the SUN link above.
You must be logged in to post a comment.