The Occult History of the Third Reich
🧠 MEMORY HOLE 🕳️
An audio recording of this had been played in one of the Bill Cooper episodes that Ashland Dog posted a couple of months ago. Here's that thread: https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZXQrMoPx/300-bill-cooper-hour-of-the-time/c/
I found the video of it on archive.org.
https://archive.org/details/TheOccultHistoryOfTheThirdReich-Part4HimmlerTheMystic
It should be required viewing since it connects the root ideology of Nazism with the religion of the global cabal. Q had confirmed Hitler was just a puppet. The ideology shared between him and the puppet masters was the occult.
The catholic church (who funded the Nazi movement) would prefer to be a pagan religion, but they took up Christianity some 1700 years ago in order to quash the growing Christian movement, and control it. If they had a choice, the church would not be christian at all.
The nazis intended to bring about this return to paganism that was at the heart of Rome (mithraism).
Good point. Nazism, like esoteric religions, liked to cherry pick from what came before.
Q will sometimes give us a straight and truthful answer. Often, when a topic is too obscure (open to “conspiracy attack”) the Socratic method, or Symbolism is employed. Q did not say Hilter was a puppet. Q merely introduced the idea that Hitler was a face and not the mastermind for the Nazi movement. We should investigate every claim, because more often than not we are being given information that leads to useful data. Q has proven dozens of “deltas” and other proofs. Q isn’t the gospel, but I think there’s enough consistency to gaina positive reputation. Just like Symbolism- you see it or you don’t.
Im my opinion, several people wrote the Q posts. It makes it somewhat hard to follow at times because the writing style varies at times. Also in my opinion, Symbolism is something more anons should look into.
https://decodingsymbols.wordpress.com/2023/01/21/the-truth-why-youve-never-seen-it/
Interesting...
It was manly Himmler and a few others into that shit. Hitler was not part of that circle jerk. And in this case it was an actual circle with a round table in a castle and everything.
Fun fact hitler was said to be obsessed with reading news headlines from around the world,looking for comms I guess.
Hitler chose the swastika early on. It hardly gets more esoteric than that. Might as well have chosen an onk.
Hyperbole.
Symbols are esoteric by nature as they reflect thousands of words, constructing thoughts, but overlain with the emotions and programming of decades if not a century and more.
Even the letters you see within this message, are symbols.
Symbols are not in the pissing contest of being the most esoteric. For those with eyes and logical thinking, symbols are exoteric.
The issue we are facing with many symbols, is they are being repackaged, abused and given new meaning.
But as always, if you think and feel symbols stand for the window of truth, you will find they are open doors behind which there is much more to collect without giving you any more repose and happiness. Symbols are a red herring.
The last people who are going to play fast and loose with the meaning of symbols are Nazis.
The whole "symbols can mean ANYTHING" argument falls apart when applied to people obsessed with a heritage-based ideology.
Who are you referring to as NAZI?
This term alone is meaningless, as it is a derogatory form of speech to denounce everything that is thought to challenge easily emotionally challenged minds.
When it comes to symbols relating to heritage, it all depends on the argument, is it not?
For instance, I could claim these letters: "I, A, R," have a meaning based on my heritage. It may escape you, yet, it is. It does not mean I have a right to kill you...but it does mean I have a right to use it in accordance to it's meaning as a guiding principle.
Then some fucker from Switzerland comes along and tells everybody, by using these symbols in a different manner, to force everyone to eat ze bugz. If enough pain on others is inflicted, the sheer combination in any name may trigger an emotional response. As a matter of fact, the audio-plasticity may trigger worse.
Conviction and emotion are the tools used to program. And by obfuscating original meaning by actions COUNTER the original meaning, such symbols indeed can gain a different comprehension. Case in point, as you well know: the Swastika, or a Sun.
All writing is symbolism. Any picture is symbolic. All numbers are symbolic. Even acts can be symbolic (rituals)
I do agree with you, some symbols do interfere with the metabolics and can produce an involuntary protein spill.
Do you know what's behind that? The symbol had such long and widespread use before he commandeered it, it may even be a constellation. Why choose that?
It looked cool at the time.
That's probably about it.
Nazis are ideologues who take symbolism very seriously. Hitler didn't choose the symbol of his party based on what looks cool. The meaning matters.
They didn't stay close to their roots then,the symbol is peaceful. The symbol was picked in the early days,when they had around 50 members. And he was of the age when people picked shit cause they thought it looked cool.
That's what they say,but it may have been someone else who told him about it. History is often wrong on small details like this,credit always goes to the big guy....
He pretty much said it was all fake and gay,and he was not a member of Himmlers circle
Hitler's SS soldiers were adorned with skulls and bones. Adolph was a Vienna indoctrinated, occultist kook, just like the rest of the upper echelons of the nazi party.
Once again,the SS got a deal on left over ww1 badges and wore them cause they thought they looked cool. After they ran out of surplus badges, they made their own.
All tankers in the German army also wore them.
Their were a lot of occultism high up in the nazi party,hitler wasn't really one of them. Don't get me wrong he was plenty evil,but Himmler was the main believer and hitler let the people under him do whatever they fuk they wanted.
To me swastikas are vortexes. They indicate how energy swirls.
Could also be the Big Dipper at different times of year.
You're disputing an opinion with your own opinion, which is fine, but it's not a matter of fact.
The veracity of #940 aside, are you sure a Q forum is really your thing?
This forum is much, much bigger than Q, so, yes, GAW is "my thing."
Furthermore, do you really want a forum populated with "yes men," who will agree with everything Q says, or you do? What you don't realize is that you NEED people like me, people who understand history, and are capable of thinking outside the box. People like me, who are conservative-minded, can provide a perspective you are lacking.
It seems what you want to see on GAW is an echo chamber. That helps no one.
There are just some debates that are not productive by the time you get to this forum. Debating whether Q is trustworthy would seem more fitting for the chans or something.
I'd like to see what the counter evidence was to #940. Was the year wrong or was the logo fake?
in #940, Q implied that Nazis were communists, and analogous to Antifa.
Q was correct, and the comparison of Nazis to communists has been a credible view within political science for many years. The book Liberal Fascism is based on this argument. Fascism and communism are ideological cousins that are authoritarian, socialist, and expansionistic. The main difference is that communism relies on the state to control the means of production, while fascism relies on state corporatism to control it. We see this today in the Chinese Communist Party, which has technically turned China into a fascist state.
The father of fascism was Benito Mussolini, who was a self-declared socialist until the day he died. Hitler's problem with the communist party wasn't ideological, it's that they were rivals.
What Q was also hinting at in #940 was that the Antifaschistische was ultimately controlled by the same puppet masters as the Nazis, and that Antifa uses the same street thug tactics as the Nazi Brownshirts. Antifa is a George Soros creation, and Soros is a descendant of the Nazi Legacy.
So I'd say Q was 100% correct in #940.
Since you are convinced of your perception of this, I won't debate you, but there is plenty to dispute what you write. The only source materials claiming that the Nazis were "puppets" are those who build upon fringe theories, along with the "Nazis were monsters" agenda. Legitimate historical sources do not suggest anything matching these theories. Beware that most source material is written by Zionists, who will say anything they can to demonize Germany and throw suspicion off themselves.
What I will say, is that the only "claim" about Soros' roots is Soros himself. There is no verification elsewhere that children were employed as Soros claims. If you take a suspicious position of his claim, it could be that this story of his has two aims: First, it adds to the belief that the "Nazis" were monsters and victimized Jews. Second, it hides/obfuscates the true source of his seed capital.
“ What you don't realize is that you NEED people like me, people who understand history, and are capable of thinking outside the box.”
That’s awfully presumptuous to assume you’re the only one on GAW who understands history and are capable of thinking outside the box. Besides, you only understand the history you were taught. And “history” is determined by the victorious in every conflict throughout history.
First of all, I said, "...people like me." I said nothing of the kind that I am the only one on GAW who thinks that way. Don't put words in my mouth.
Secondly, I came here to GAW thinking incorrectly about history, and it was folks here who led me to sources which chronicled the truth about history. I was open-minded, and benefited from others here on the forum. What is needed here is a bit of humility...and I have already demonstrated my own humility, by a willingness to listen to others.
And finally, the fact that others attack people here on this forum for expressing an "opinion" is reprehensible. That's what the left does. We are supposed to welcome discussions, no?
“ We are supposed to welcome discussions, no?”
Agreed!