Please no crazy stuff talking about time machines, JFK being alive, it’s God’s plan, or none of that shit. What the most down to business explanation or movie to ingest Q?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (16)
sorted by:
"Neo" means "new," or in this context, "revival." That is what I am saying. They weren't "new," nor was it a 'revival." The CIA was the marriage of the OSS (which was itself married to the Nazis and MI6), the Nazi intelligence organization and the Nazi scientists. See the creation of the OSS (at Rockefeller Center), the Gehlen Organization, and Project Paperclip. These people were in bed for decades before the CIA was created. Allen Dulles had direct interaction with the Nazi Intelligence from at least 1933, years before the war even started. It was he and Gehlen that started the CIA, but they had already made that arrangement long before when the Nazis "surrendered" two years previous, which Allen Dulles was in charge of.
"Neo-Nazi" is completely inaccurate. It misses the point of what happened entirely, suggesting the opposite of the truth. The Nazis in the US, were the Nazis in Germany. They were the exact same people, on both sides of the pond. They ran the show here, and they ran the show there. That's because the American Intelligence organizations were the same organizations they always were from at least WWI. Just because they put a new label on say, the OSS to "create" the CIA, doesn't make it not the same organization. It was all the same people doing all the same things in the same way. That isn't "new," that's old. When you put a new label on an old toaster, it's still the same toaster. The misdirection is that it's "new". "Neo-nazi" is a misdirection, suggesting the opposite of what really happened.
Again, you are missing what really happened. Yes, there was a transition from one program to another.
Sometime in the 80s NBC put out Cheers. A few years later they put out Frasier. Different programs, though there are some obvious connections. When Cheers was over and Frasier was still running, no one called NBC "Neo-NBC" because they were running a different program.
You are SERIOUSLY stretching the meaning of the word "neo" to apply it in this context, and again, doing so changes the perception from an appreciation of what is really going on to something completely different.
It is appropriate to use NBC because they just so happened to be next door neighbors to the CIA/OSS/Nazis in Rockefeller center, run by the same people, designed to put out their propaganda. That's really an aside, but it gives an appreciation of the larger scope of the organization.
The "post WWII" thing itself is problematic, because it suggests that WWII ever really ended. Hell, WWII never really began. It was really just WWI. WWI itself never ended, it just keeps getting a new label stuck over the top of the old one, like a 50 year old car, with the same license plate, and 50 years of registration tags.
By categorizing things as separate, you make them separate. They aren't separate. Using language that acknowledges that a thing is the same thing helps to appreciate the larger picture. Defining it as "different" just because it got a new label caters to the fraud and helps perpetuate it.
There is nothing "neo" about the group you are calling the "neo-Nazis." You are aiding and abetting their fraud by suggesting it as a "proper label."
You espouse a label that perpetuates the fraud of separation, which suggests to me that there are details you may be missing. No one who heard the phrase "neo-Nazi" would think of anything except a revival of that group, rather than a direct continuation. Literally everyone else who uses that term means "revival". Thus, by communicating it in that manner, you cause confusion and misunderstanding, Instead of what people need to understand, which is that there is an obvious unity of organization and purpose during all steps of the "Nazi" operation, starting before WWI.
One of the problems with being an expert, is that the "expert" tends to find difficulty listening to other people that disagree with them. The ego gets in the way of honest investigation.
It is only when you become just a researcher,, instead of an expert, that you are open to seeing all of the evidence, especially that which doesn't jibe with your "expert knowledge".