Despite his agreement and promise, the Khazarian king and his inner circle of oligarchs kept practicing ancient Babylonian black-magic, also known as Secret Satanism.
Who cares what they call themselves? Hitler was into the occult. roman catholics are into the occult. Khazarians are into the occult. Pin the tail on the donkey.
This article has been mirrored across several sites, repeating over and over and linked here many times. It is probably factually accurate up to the 20th Century, where it falls off the rails. A key phrase to indicate this is "...created Naziism." At that point in history, "Nazi" didn't have the word over-usage and multiple meanings it does today. It was an insult, coined by a Jewish propagandist, to demean the Germans. No German ever called themselves this word.
I am pretty well-versed in the history of the two world wars, and there is NO EVIDENCE of any Judaic group influencing Hitler, or otherwise putting him in power...none whatsoever. At that time, the communist bolsheviks were wreaking havoc across Europe and western Asia, and this was what created the populist movement Hitler was part of. Hitler had no agenda against rank-and-file Jews, nor was he working "for" them in a subversive manner. Similarly, there are claims of his father being an illegitimate child of an affair with a Rothschild. This is based upon the thinnest of claims, so much so that it is absurd.
Sometimes it's helpful to apply some common sense to claims such as this. It just flies in the face of logic, not to mention historical facts.
I don't know what the agenda is behind this article, but be alert.
Despite his agreement and promise, the Khazarian king and his inner circle of oligarchs kept practicing ancient Babylonian black-magic, also known as Secret Satanism.
Who cares what they call themselves? Hitler was into the occult. roman catholics are into the occult. Khazarians are into the occult. Pin the tail on the donkey.
This article has been mirrored across several sites, repeating over and over and linked here many times. It is probably factually accurate up to the 20th Century, where it falls off the rails. A key phrase to indicate this is "...created Naziism." At that point in history, "Nazi" didn't have the word over-usage and multiple meanings it does today. It was an insult, coined by a Jewish propagandist, to demean the Germans. No German ever called themselves this word.
I am pretty well-versed in the history of the two world wars, and there is NO EVIDENCE of any Judaic group influencing Hitler, or otherwise putting him in power...none whatsoever. At that time, the communist bolsheviks were wreaking havoc across Europe and western Asia, and this was what created the populist movement Hitler was part of. Hitler had no agenda against rank-and-file Jews, nor was he working "for" them in a subversive manner. Similarly, there are claims of his father being an illegitimate child of an affair with a Rothschild. This is based upon the thinnest of claims, so much so that it is absurd.
Sometimes it's helpful to apply some common sense to claims such as this. It just flies in the face of logic, not to mention historical facts.
I don't know what the agenda is behind this article, but be alert.