I am aware of the possibility of alternate WWII history in which these very same arguments could be used to make Hitler sound like he wasn’t such a bad guy. Not saying he wasn’t. Just entertaining the thought. With all the propaganda and lies over the years from our own government and then throw in Operation Paperclip, who knows?

I think these are pretty safe positions that aren’t debatable, though they certainly aren’t going to win you any points with normies, either. (Not asserting that Hitler was worse than Satan with Normies instantly makes you a Nazi)

1. The Germans got destroyed in WWI and WWII by a foreign occupying force (not the Allies, but Prussia).
2. Hitler was not as evil as Satan, and likely had some redeeming traits and actions. This is why some portion of Germans seem to have been very loyal to him. This also does not mean he was good, or that he was headed in the right direction overall.
3. One reason for the demonization might be because he almost outed some of the higher level masters to the public, which can’t be allowed to happen. This also does not mean he was good.
4. It is possible that one or more of these German movements was infiltrated and had its direction shifted.
5. When you put the enemy’s top men in charge of your government after a war, as America did, you didn’t win. There may have been strategic reasons for this, but I’m not aware of any that make sense.

So why argue these points when they don’t win any affection from anybody? Because the truth matters. We are seeing what adopting the lie has done to us, whether it was actually better than the opposition or not.

The point here is that there seem to be great costs to turning off critical thinking and looking at issues in pure black and white. Given our current position, we have to be able to look back and see how we got here, and it doesn’t seem like all-out demonization and ignoring things helps with that task. Hopefully, there will be a mostly full declass on WWII.

I am aware of the possibility of alternate WWII history in which these very same arguments could be used to make Hitler sound like he wasn’t such a bad guy. Not saying he wasn’t. Just entertaining the thought. With all the propaganda and lies over the years from our own government and then throw in Operation Paperclip, who knows?

I think these are pretty safe positions that aren’t debatable, though they certainly aren’t going to win you any points with normies, either. (Not asserting that Hitler was worse than Satan with Normies instantly makes you a Nazi)

1. The Germans got destroyed in WWI and WWII by a foreign occupying force (not the Allies, but Prussia).
2. Hitler was not as evil as Satan, and likely had some redeeming traits and actions. This is why some portion of Germans seem to have been very loyal to him. This also does not mean he was good, or that he was headed in the right direction overall.
3. One reason for the demonization might be because he almost outed some of the higher level masters to the public, which can’t be allowed to happen. This also does not mean he was good.
4. It is possible that one or more of these German movements was infiltrated and had its direction shifted.
5. When you put the enemy’s top men in charge of your government after a war, as America did, you didn’t win. There may have been strategic reasons for this, but I’m not aware of any that make sense.

So why argue these points when they don’t win any affection from anybody? Because the truth matters. We are seeing what adopting the lie has done to us, whether it was actually better than the opposition or not.

If it’s not clear, the primary thing I am after here is that I believe there are great costs to turning off critical thinking and looking at issues in pure black and white. Given our current position, we have to be able to look back and see how we got here, and it doesn’t seem like all-out demonization helps with that task. Hopefully, there will be a mostly full declass on WWII.

I am aware of the possibility of alternate WWII history in which these very same arguments could be used to make Hitler sound like he wasn’t such a bad guy. Not saying he wasn’t. Just entertaining the thought. With all the propaganda and lies over the years from our own government and then throw in Operation Paperclip, who knows?

I think these are pretty safe positions that aren’t debatable, though they certainly aren’t going to win you any points with normies, either. (Not asserting that Hitler was worse than Satan with Normies instantly makes you a Nazi)

1. The Germans got destroyed in WWI and WWII by a foreign occupying force (not the Allies, but Prussia).
2. Hitler was not as evil as Satan, and likely had some redeeming traits and actions. This is why some portion of Germans seem to have been very loyal to him. This also does not mean he was good, or that he was headed in the right direction overall.
3. One reason for the demonization might be because he almost outed some of the higher level masters to the public, which can’t be allowed to happen. This also does not mean he was good.
4. It is possible that one or more of these German movements was infiltrated and had its direction shifted.
5. When you put the enemy’s top men in charge of your government after a war, as America did, you didn’t win. There may have been strategic reasons for this, but I’m not aware of any that make sense.

So why argue these points when they don’t win any affection from anybody? Because the truth matters. We are seeing what adopting the lie has done to us, whether it was actually better than the opposition or not.

If it’s not clear, the primary thing I am after here is that I believe there are great costs to turning off critical thinking and looking at issues in pure black and white like a 6 year old. Given our current position, we have to be able to look back and see how we got here. Hopefully, there will be a mostly full declass on WWII.

I am aware of the possibility of alternate WWII history in which these very same arguments could be used to make Hitler sound like he wasn’t such a bad guy. Not saying he wasn’t. Just entertaining the thought. With all the propaganda and lies over the years from our own government and then throw in Operation Paperclip, who knows?

I think these are pretty safe positions that aren’t debatable, though they certainly aren’t going to win you any points with normies, either. (Not asserting that Hitler was worse than Satan with Normies instantly makes you a Nazi)

1. The Germans got destroyed in WWI and WWII by a foreign occupying force (not the Allies, but Prussia).
2. Hitler was not as evil as Satan, and likely had some redeeming traits and actions. This is why some portion of Germans seem to have been very loyal to him. This also does not mean he was good, or that he was headed in the right direction overall.
3. One reason for the demonization might be because he almost outed some of the higher level masters to the public, which can’t be allowed to happen. This also does not mean he was good.
4. It is possible that one or more of these German movements was infiltrated and had its direction shifted.
5. When you put the enemy’s top men in charge of your government after a war, as America did, you didn’t win. There may have been strategic reasons for this, but I’m not aware of any that make sense.

So why argue these points when they don’t win any affection from anybody? Because the truth matters. We are seeing what adopting the lie has done to us, whether it was actually better than the opposition or not.

If it’s not clear, the primary thing I am after here is that I believe there are great costs to turning off critical thinking and looking at issues in pure black and white like a 6 year old. Given our current position, we have to be able to look back and see how we got here. Hopefully, there will likely be a mostly full declass on WWII.

I am aware of the possibility of alternate WWII history in which these very same arguments could be used to make Hitler sound like he wasn’t such a bad guy. Not saying he wasn’t. Just entertaining the thought. With all the propaganda and lies over the years from our own government and then throw in Operation Paperclip, who knows?

I think these are pretty safe positions that aren’t debatable, though they certainly aren’t going to win you any points with normies, either. (Not asserting that Hitler was worse than Satan with Normies instantly makes you a Nazi)

1. The Germans got destroyed in WWI and WWII by a foreign occupying force (not the Allies, but Prussia).
2. Hitler was not as evil as Satan, and likely had some redeeming traits and actions. This is why some portion of Germans seem to have been very loyal to him. This also does not mean he was good, or that he was headed in the right direction overall.
3. One reason for the demonization might be because he almost outed some of the higher level masters to the public, which can’t be allowed to happen. This also does not mean he was good.
4. It is possible that one or more of these German movements was infiltrated and had its direction shifted.
5. When you put the enemy’s top men in charge of your government after a war, as America did, you didn’t win. There may have been strategic reasons for this, but I’m not aware of any that make sense.

So why argue these points when they don’t win any affection from anybody? Because the truth matters. We are seeing what adopting the lie has done to us, whether it was actually better than the opposition or not.

If it’s not clear, the primary thing I am after here is that I believe there are great costs to turning off critical thinking and looking at issues in pure black and white like a 6 year old.

I am aware of the possibility of alternate WWII history in which these very same arguments could be used to make Hitler sound like he wasn’t such a bad guy. Not saying he wasn’t. Just entertaining the thought. With all the propaganda and lies over the years from our own government and then throw in Operation Paperclip, who knows?

I think these are pretty safe positions that aren’t debatable, though they certainly aren’t going to win you any points with normies, either. (Not asserting that Hitler was worse than Satan with Normies instantly makes you a Nazi)

1. The Germans got destroyed in WWI and WWII by a foreign occupying force (not the Allies, but Prussia).
2. Hitler was not as evil as Satan, and likely had some redeeming traits and actions. This is why some portion of Germans seem to have been very loyal to him. This also does not mean he was good, or that he was headed in the right direction overall.
3. One reason for the demonization might be because he almost outed some of the higher level masters to the public, which can’t be allowed to happen. This also does not mean he was good.
4. It is possible that one or more of these German movements was infiltrated and had its direction shifted.
5. When you put the enemy’s top men in charge of your government after a war, as America did, you didn’t win. There may have been strategic reasons for this, but I’m not aware of any that make sense.

So why argue these points when they don’t win any affection from anybody? Because the truth matters. We are seeing what adopting the lie has done to us, whether it was actually better than the opposition or not.

I am aware of the possibility of alternate WWII history in which these very same arguments could be used to make Hitler sound like he wasn’t such a bad guy. Not saying he wasn’t. Just entertaining the thought. With all the propaganda and lies over the years from our own government and then throw in Operation Paperclip, who knows?

I think these are pretty safe positions that aren’t debatable, though they certainly aren’t going to win you any points with normies, either. (Not asserting that Hitler was worse than Satan with Normies instantly makes you a Nazi)

1. The Germans got destroyed in WWI and WWII by a foreign occupying force (not the Allies, but Prussia).
2. Hitler was not as evil as Satan, and likely had some redeeming traits and actions. This is why some portion of Germans seem to have been very loyal to him. This also does not mean he was good, or that he was headed in the right direction overall.
3. One reason for the demonization might be because he almost outed some of the higher level masters to the public, which can’t be allowed to happen. This also does not mean he was good.
4. It is possible that one or more of these German movements was infiltrated and had its direction shifted.
5. When you put the enemy’s top men in charge of your government after a war, as America did, you didn’t win. There may have been strategic reasons for this, but I’m not aware of any that make sense.

Why argue these points when they don’t win any affection from anybody? Because the truth matters.

I am aware of the possibility of alternate WWII history in which these very same arguments could be used to make Hitler sound like he wasn’t such a bad guy. Not saying he wasn’t. Just entertaining the thought. With all the propaganda and lies over the years from our own government and then throw in Operation Paperclip, who knows?

I think these are pretty safe positions that aren’t debatable, though they certainly aren’t going to win you any points with normies, either. (Not asserting that Hitler was worse than Satan with Normies instantly makes you a Nazi)

1. The Germans got destroyed in WWI and WWII by a foreign occupying force (not the Allies, but Prussia).
2. Hitler was not as evil as Satan, and likely had some redeeming traits and actions. This is why some portion of Germans seem to have been very loyal to him. This also does not mean he was good, or that he was headed in the right direction overall.
3. One reason for the demonization might be because he almost outed some of the higher level masters to the public, which can’t be allowed to happen. This also does not mean he was good.
4. It is possible that one or more of these German movements was infiltrated and had its direction shifted.
5. When you put the enemy’s top men in charge of your government after a war, as America did, you didn’t win. There may have been strategic reasons for this, but I’m not aware of any that make sense.