Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #390138 > unrolled thread

Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-16 23:23 +0200
    Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 14:48 -0700
      Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-17 08:07 +1000
    Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 17:33 -0500
      Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-19 02:45 +0200
        Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:30 -0500
          Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-21 07:12 +0200
            Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:41 -0500
              Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-22 06:02 +0200
                Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-21 21:47 -0700
                Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 08:47 -0500
                  Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-22 23:47 +0200

#390138 — Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS

Am 10.08.2016 00:32, schrieb Gary Harnagel:

>>>> The concept of paid schools is kind of alien in the German society.
>>>> Usually public schools and universities are free.
>>>
>>> Are you implying that German teachers work for free? :-)
>>
>> Sure, the teachers get paid. But pupils do not pay.
>
> Of course they do, or their parents do.  You seem to have an entitlement
> attitude.


Students in school are actually kids, who have no income. So it would 
make no sense to demand money from kids, who don't have that money and 
who would not demand that service.

Schools are a typical community service, which is provided to the 
citizens by the state.

The municipal funds are filled by taxes, which the citizens pay.

But the taxes are not paid for schools or any other particular service, 
but as general income of the state.

>> The reason: schools are among those public services, people usually
>> expect in return for their taxes.
>
> Exactly, so people do indeed pay for schooling.  You seem to have an
> entitlement attitude.

No. Taxes are not paid for schools. Taxes are paid to maintain the 
various activities of the state and schools are only one part.

And you have to pay taxes, even if you have no kids in schools.

..
>
> When I went to elementary school, my parents paid the "tuition" directly.

And you think, that "tuition" was worth the money?


TH

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#390143

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 3:23:46 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 10.08.2016 00:32, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> >
> > T.H. wrote:
> > >
> > > Sure, the teachers get paid. But pupils do not pay.
> >
> > Of course they do, or their parents do.  You seem to have an entitlement
> > attitude.
> 
> 
> Students in school are actually kids, who have no income.

Wrong.  I went to school when I was 18 and paid my own tuition.

> So it would make no sense to demand money from kids, who don't have that
> money and who would not demand that service.
> 
> Schools are a typical community service, which is provided to the 
> citizens by the state.

And paid by tax money.

> The municipal funds are filled by taxes, which the citizens pay.
> 
> But the taxes are not paid for schools or any other particular service, 
> but as general income of the state.

Irrelevant babbling nonsense.  The only rational conclusion to be drawn
is that taxes pay for schools.

> > > The reason: schools are among those public services, people usually
> > > expect in return for their taxes.
> >
> > Exactly, so people do indeed pay for schooling.  You seem to have an
> > entitlement attitude.
> 
> No. Taxes are not paid for schools. Taxes are paid to maintain the 
> various activities of the state and schools are only one part.

So taxes pay for schools.  DUH!!

> And you have to pay taxes, even if you have no kids in schools.

Irrelevant, taxes pay for schools, people pay taxes, ergo, people pay
for schools.

> > When I went to elementary school, my parents paid the "tuition" directly.
> 
> And you think, that "tuition" was worth the money?
> 
> TH

At least >I< can think rationally, unlike yourself.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390148

On 17/08/16 07:48, Gary Harnagel wrote:


>> Students in school are actually kids, who have no income.
>
> Wrong.  I went to school when I was 18 and paid my own tuition.

So that explains why you are so backward.......

Most people start school at four.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390310

On 8/16/2016 4:23 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 10.08.2016 00:32, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
>
>>>>> The concept of paid schools is kind of alien in the German society.
>>>>> Usually public schools and universities are free.
>>>>
>>>> Are you implying that German teachers work for free? :-)
>>>
>>> Sure, the teachers get paid. But pupils do not pay.
>>
>> Of course they do, or their parents do.  You seem to have an entitlement
>> attitude.
>
>
> Students in school are actually kids, who have no income. So it would
> make no sense to demand money from kids, who don't have that money and
> who would not demand that service.

For 10-year-olds, I agree with you, though most parents are vested 
enough in their children's future to be willing to foot the bill. This 
they do in the U.S. by electing to move to areas where the schools have 
a good reputation and also where the tax rates are higher to support 
that reputation.

For 18-year-olds, it is the expectation in the US that these are no 
longer children. They can vote as adults, they can indulge in adult 
vices of most sorts, they can serve in the military. As such, if they 
want to further their own careers by getting specialized education (say, 
to prepare to be medical doctors), Americans treat that as "OK, this is 
on your dime, then."

>
> Schools are a typical community service, which is provided to the
> citizens by the state.
>
> The municipal funds are filled by taxes, which the citizens pay.
>
> But the taxes are not paid for schools or any other particular service,
> but as general income of the state.
>
>>> The reason: schools are among those public services, people usually
>>> expect in return for their taxes.
>>
>> Exactly, so people do indeed pay for schooling.  You seem to have an
>> entitlement attitude.
>
> No. Taxes are not paid for schools. Taxes are paid to maintain the
> various activities of the state and schools are only one part.

  From what funds do you suppose that teacher salaries are paid?

>
> And you have to pay taxes, even if you have no kids in schools.
>
> ..
>>
>> When I went to elementary school, my parents paid the "tuition" directly.
>
> And you think, that "tuition" was worth the money?
>
>
> TH


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390315

Am 19.08.2016 00:33, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>>>>>> The concept of paid schools is kind of alien in the German society.
>>>>>> Usually public schools and universities are free.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you implying that German teachers work for free? :-)
>>>>
>>>> Sure, the teachers get paid. But pupils do not pay.
>>>
>>> Of course they do, or their parents do. You seem to have an entitlement
>>> attitude.
>>
>>
>> Students in school are actually kids, who have no income. So it would
>> make no sense to demand money from kids, who don't have that money and
>> who would not demand that service.
>
> For 10-year-olds, I agree with you, though most parents are vested
> enough in their children's future to be willing to foot the bill. This
> they do in the U.S. by electing to move to areas where the schools have
> a good reputation and also where the tax rates are higher to support
> that reputation.


In Germany we have several levels of administration, which are organised 
according to a certain principle. In German that is called 
'Subsidiaritätsprtinzip'.

This means roughly, that a certain level should do, what no level below 
could eventually do.


The structure of the nation is is like this:

at the lowest level there is the individual
then comes the family
next communities (villages, towns)
a certain area is called 'Kreis' (county)
the next level is 'Land' (~> state)
at national level is the Federal Republic of Germany

(further levels are: EU and World)

The level 'Land' is responsible for schools and universities in a more 
general form. This entity collects taxes and pays for the schools.

The level 'Kreis' organises schools, sets in teachers or headmasters and 
so forth.

The city or village builds the school and maintains it.

So schools have similar standards over the state and taxes are similar 
throughout the country.

If you are rich enough, you can send your kids to a private school. It 
is also possible to make donations to local schools, thou not a common 
practise.

The schools are somehow better in richer areas, since usually the kids 
are less problematic there.

But in principle the schools are the same everywhere.


This not the case in the USA, since schools are build, paid and 
organised by the local entity (like town).

The residents of that town pay certain taxes and only these are used to 
build and run schools.

But in Germany we do not have such municipal taxes.  We have taxes 
mainly at the level of the 'Land' and nationwide.

The money is then distributed according to difficult schemes to every level.

The lower levels have, nevertheless, certain kinds of own income and 
there are actually a few local fees and taxes. But mainly the money is 
taken from the funds of the nation or the state.

So we do not have such problematic practise, that moving to a 'better' 
area would also enable to attend better schools.

Actually the schools are slightly better in rich areas and eventually 
way worse in regions with very poor migrant population.

But these differences are not caused by decisions of the state or due to 
different funds.  Its mainly the kind of kids, that make a difference.



> For 18-year-olds, it is the expectation in the US that these are no
> longer children. They can vote as adults, they can indulge in adult
> vices of most sorts, they can serve in the military. As such, if they
> want to further their own careers by getting specialized education (say,
> to prepare to be medical doctors), Americans treat that as "OK, this is
> on your dime, then."


Apparently the US government is ripping off the citizens, if they do not 
want to pay for schools and collages.

So what justifies taxes at all?

The monstrous army and these questionable wars?


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390358

On 8/18/2016 7:45 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> For 18-year-olds, it is the expectation in the US that these are no
>> longer children. They can vote as adults, they can indulge in adult
>> vices of most sorts, they can serve in the military. As such, if they
>> want to further their own careers by getting specialized education (say,
>> to prepare to be medical doctors), Americans treat that as "OK, this is
>> on your dime, then."
>
>
> Apparently the US government is ripping off the citizens, if they do not
> want to pay for schools and collages.

Now, now. Different does not mean worse.
In your country it may be an EXPECTATION that the government pays for 
schools and colleges, and so the fact that it does seems right. Here, it 
is not an expectation, and so the absence of it is not a loss.

>
> So what justifies taxes at all?
>
> The monstrous army and these questionable wars?

I think you'll find that the US budget is well documented and easily 
found on the web. You'll learn that there's more for the government to 
do than to have an army and to subsidize higher education. If you want 
to judge which system produces better results, Germany has 61 Nobel 
Prize, and the US has 257.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390473

Am 19.08.2016 14:30, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>>> For 18-year-olds, it is the expectation in the US that these are no
>>> longer children. They can vote as adults, they can indulge in adult
>>> vices of most sorts, they can serve in the military. As such, if they
>>> want to further their own careers by getting specialized education (say,
>>> to prepare to be medical doctors), Americans treat that as "OK, this is
>>> on your dime, then."
>>
>>
>> Apparently the US government is ripping off the citizens, if they do not
>> want to pay for schools and collages.
>
> Now, now. Different does not mean worse.
> In your country it may be an EXPECTATION that the government pays for
> schools and colleges, and so the fact that it does seems right. Here, it
> is not an expectation, and so the absence of it is not a loss.

I do in fact think, that schools are among those public services, which 
a state should provide.

Other services are: streets, pavements, water-supply, police and justice.

In case of higher education there could be eventually different rules. 
But schools are mandatory and every single kid should have the 
possibility to learn.

>>
>> So what justifies taxes at all?
>>
>> The monstrous army and these questionable wars?
>
> I think you'll find that the US budget is well documented and easily
> found on the web. You'll learn that there's more for the government to
> do than to have an army and to subsidize higher education. If you want
> to judge which system produces better results, Germany has 61 Nobel
> Prize, and the US has 257.
>

You cannot measure the situation in a certain country by counting Nobel 
prices.

Sure, USA has more. But one reason was WW II, after which all German 
scientists were hijacked and taken to the USA and to Russia.

Physics in Germany was world-class in the beginning of the 20th century.

Then came a series of devastating events, which look like administered 
from abroad (and by secret societies):

WW I
Versaille treaty
Revolution
Fascist coup
hyperinflation no. 1
Sex and drugs era of the 20th
world economy crisis
hyperinflation no. 2
Nazi dictatorship
WW II
complete destruction of all cities
hyperinflation no.3
occupation
loss of one third of the country
loss of one third of the population
loss of almost all scientists, books and univerities
communists dictatorship in East Germany
cold war and iron curtain running through the country

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390527

On 8/21/2016 12:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 19.08.2016 14:30, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
>>>> For 18-year-olds, it is the expectation in the US that these are no
>>>> longer children. They can vote as adults, they can indulge in adult
>>>> vices of most sorts, they can serve in the military. As such, if they
>>>> want to further their own careers by getting specialized education
>>>> (say,
>>>> to prepare to be medical doctors), Americans treat that as "OK, this is
>>>> on your dime, then."
>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently the US government is ripping off the citizens, if they do not
>>> want to pay for schools and collages.
>>
>> Now, now. Different does not mean worse.
>> In your country it may be an EXPECTATION that the government pays for
>> schools and colleges, and so the fact that it does seems right. Here, it
>> is not an expectation, and so the absence of it is not a loss.
>
> I do in fact think, that schools are among those public services, which
> a state should provide.

And this is your opinion. Not universally shared.

>
> Other services are: streets, pavements, water-supply, police and justice.
>
> In case of higher education there could be eventually different rules.
> But schools are mandatory and every single kid should have the
> possibility to learn.
>
>>>
>>> So what justifies taxes at all?
>>>
>>> The monstrous army and these questionable wars?
>>
>> I think you'll find that the US budget is well documented and easily
>> found on the web. You'll learn that there's more for the government to
>> do than to have an army and to subsidize higher education. If you want
>> to judge which system produces better results, Germany has 61 Nobel
>> Prize, and the US has 257.
>>
>
> You cannot measure the situation in a certain country by counting Nobel
> prices.
>
> Sure, USA has more. But one reason was WW II, after which all German
> scientists were hijacked and taken to the USA and to Russia.

LOL. You may note that a number of Jewish German scientists fled BEFORE 
the start of WWII.

>
> Physics in Germany was world-class in the beginning of the 20th century.

Yes, it was.

>
> Then came a series of devastating events, which look like administered
> from abroad (and by secret societies):
>
> WW I
> Versaille treaty
> Revolution
> Fascist coup
> hyperinflation no. 1
> Sex and drugs era of the 20th
> world economy crisis
> hyperinflation no. 2
> Nazi dictatorship
> WW II
> complete destruction of all cities
> hyperinflation no.3
> occupation
> loss of one third of the country
> loss of one third of the population
> loss of almost all scientists, books and univerities
> communists dictatorship in East Germany
> cold war and iron curtain running through the country

And you know, of course, that most of these were brought on by the 
German people themselves?

>
> TH


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390551

Am 22.08.2016 00:41, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> On 8/21/2016 12:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 19.08.2016 14:30, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>
>>>>> For 18-year-olds, it is the expectation in the US that these are no
>>>>> longer children. They can vote as adults, they can indulge in adult
>>>>> vices of most sorts, they can serve in the military. As such, if they
>>>>> want to further their own careers by getting specialized education
>>>>> (say,
>>>>> to prepare to be medical doctors), Americans treat that as "OK,
>>>>> this is
>>>>> on your dime, then."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Apparently the US government is ripping off the citizens, if they do
>>>> not
>>>> want to pay for schools and collages.
>>>
>>> Now, now. Different does not mean worse.
>>> In your country it may be an EXPECTATION that the government pays for
>>> schools and colleges, and so the fact that it does seems right. Here, it
>>> is not an expectation, and so the absence of it is not a loss.
>>
>> I do in fact think, that schools are among those public services, which
>> a state should provide.
>
> And this is your opinion. Not universally shared.
>
>>
>> Other services are: streets, pavements, water-supply, police and justice.
>>
>> In case of higher education there could be eventually different rules.
>> But schools are mandatory and every single kid should have the
>> possibility to learn.
>>
>>>>
>>>> So what justifies taxes at all?
>>>>
>>>> The monstrous army and these questionable wars?
>>>
>>> I think you'll find that the US budget is well documented and easily
>>> found on the web. You'll learn that there's more for the government to
>>> do than to have an army and to subsidize higher education. If you want
>>> to judge which system produces better results, Germany has 61 Nobel
>>> Prize, and the US has 257.
>>>
>>
>> You cannot measure the situation in a certain country by counting Nobel
>> prices.
>>
>> Sure, USA has more. But one reason was WW II, after which all German
>> scientists were hijacked and taken to the USA and to Russia.
>
> LOL. You may note that a number of Jewish German scientists fled BEFORE
> the start of WWII.
>
>>
>> Physics in Germany was world-class in the beginning of the 20th century.
>
> Yes, it was.
>
>>
>> Then came a series of devastating events, which look like administered
>> from abroad (and by secret societies):
>>
>> WW I
>> Versaille treaty
>> Revolution
>> Fascist coup
>> hyperinflation no. 1
>> Sex and drugs era of the 20th
>> world economy crisis
>> hyperinflation no. 2
>> Nazi dictatorship
>> WW II
>> complete destruction of all cities
>> hyperinflation no.3
>> occupation
>> loss of one third of the country
>> loss of one third of the population
>> loss of almost all scientists, books and univerities
>> communists dictatorship in East Germany
>> cold war and iron curtain running through the country
>
> And you know, of course, that most of these were brought on by the
> German people themselves?
>

This is the typical lie.

lets start with WWI...

This was caused by killing of the Prince of the Austrians and his wife 
in Serbia.

This has nothing to do with Germany, since neither Serbia nor Austria 
are parts of Germany.

The faked 'Kaiser' Wilhelmm II was actually the nephew of Queen Victoria 
and not particular German and not elected, as the title 'kaiser' would 
require.

But it was actually him, who led Germany into a conflict, which was not 
designed to solve any problems, but to kill as many human beings as 
possible.

Most of the victim were in fact British and French.

It was actually Churchill himself, who headed the idiotic campaign of 
Gallipoli.

Also the trenches in Flanders had no other purpose as to kill as many 
people as possible.

Same with the so called Revolution in Russia, initiated by the very same 
circles.

Who these people are, that is not exactly known.

(I personally assume certain sects, like   Rosecrucians and Illuminati, 
who secretly pull the strings from behind the scenes. But actually I do 
not know.)

These groups have also banks and control the money flow, what they had 
used to initiate hyperinflations.

This was exceptionally profitable, since money and property lost by 
ordinary people went into the hands of the 'bad guys'.

And hyperinflation was definitely nothing, what the common man would 
usually chose. So, Germans did neither want trenches in Flanders nor 
hyperinflation.

Similar with communist and/or fascists riots and coups.

To say 'the Germans' made that is simply a lie.

It was nevertheless made and among the makers were Germans, but the 
common people did not participate in such events.

Same pattern with the Nazis.

Personally I believe, that 'Hitler' was the false identity of a British 
spy, who had the real identity Noel Trevenen Huxley.

He lived in the house of the Wagner family in Munich, to where he was 
brought by his brother Julian Huxley. That was a British spy and head of 
'Eugenics'. He went to Bavaria in 1913 for a year (for WWI planning).

Forerunners of the Nazis were actually British and American, like the 
BUF and the Silver Shirts.

Supporters of German Nazis were people like Henry Ford or Prescott Bush.

Churchill also supported the fascists, as we can see in the relation of 
niece Diana to Sir Oswald Mosley and niece Unity to Hitler himself.

It was also found out, that Mussolini was on the payroll of MI6.

Anyhow..

The Nazis have never won any election. Their takeover was actually a 
coup, supported by Ludendorf and Hindenburg.

After this coup democracy was abandoned in Germany. And those, who did 
not comply got killed.

Then came WWII and at its end Germany was completely destroyed.

The Germans themselves had not chosen this end, but have not been asked.

Sure, the German soldiers were mostly Germans. But the single soldier 
had to do, what was told.

This is a hierarchic system, with Hitler at the top. And if the top 
personal conspires with the enemy, then people at the bottom are doomed 
(as Germans were).

To blame the innocent is a typical habit of 'bad guys'. But guilt 
requires something you do and should not, or something you don't do, but 
should.

'Guilt by proxy' is a typical 'bad guy pattern'. This means, that 
innocent people are guilty, because there were near the event.
But justice would require, that guilty are those who do something 
illegal, while other people are not guilty.

So: because Germans are among the 'bad guys' this does not make Germans 
'bad guys'.

The principle of the people being responsible for their nation is 
actually the core of socialism.

Socialism itself is rooted in British aristocracy and above mentioned 
sects.

Especially the Fabians and Eugenics promoted the ideas, upon what 
(national-) socialism is based.

The correct way to see these historic developments would be, that there 
are relatively small groups, which span over several nations and which 
control politics, military of finance within their realm.

Those 'bad guys' attempt to make the people of a certain nation 
complicit, if possible. But their content is not really necessary, since 
even the innocent are punished.

Since 'bad guys' are actually bad, they really love to punish their own 
followers, as we can see in the fate of the SA or Rudolph Hess (and - of 
course- of Germany in total).

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390554

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 9:03:07 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> Personally I believe, that 'Hitler' was the false identity of a British 
> spy, who had the real identity Noel Trevenen Huxley.
> 
> He lived in the house of the Wagner family in Munich, to where he was 
> brought by his brother Julian Huxley. That was a British spy and head of 
> 'Eugenics'. He went to Bavaria in 1913 for a year (for WWI planning).
> 
> Forerunners of the Nazis were actually British and American, like the 
> BUF and the Silver Shirts.
> 


You have gone off the deep end. I thought that you were an idiot based on your personal physics "theory" but it turns out that you are outright cuckoo.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390575

On 8/21/2016 11:02 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> This is the typical lie.
>
> lets start with WWI...
>
> This was caused by killing of the Prince of the Austrians and his wife
> in Serbia.
>
> This has nothing to do with Germany, since neither Serbia nor Austria
> are parts of Germany.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/britain-at-war/10110657/Germany-and-Austria-started-WWI-seeking-European-domination-historian-says.html

>
> The faked 'Kaiser' Wilhelmm II was actually the nephew of Queen Victoria
> and not particular German and not elected, as the title 'kaiser' would
> require.
>
> But it was actually him, who led Germany into a conflict, which was not
> designed to solve any problems, but to kill as many human beings as
> possible.

And so you are claiming that Kaiser Wilhelm, who led Germany into the 
conflict, was not German and so Germany is not responsible for Germany's 
involvement with WWI?

Are you nuts?

>
> Most of the victim were in fact British and French.
>
> It was actually Churchill himself, who headed the idiotic campaign of
> Gallipoli.
>
> Also the trenches in Flanders had no other purpose as to kill as many
> people as possible.
>
> Same with the so called Revolution in Russia, initiated by the very same
> circles.
>
> Who these people are, that is not exactly known.
>
> (I personally assume certain sects, like   Rosecrucians and Illuminati,
> who secretly pull the strings from behind the scenes. But actually I do
> not know.)
>
> These groups have also banks and control the money flow, what they had
> used to initiate hyperinflations.

So you are saying that an underground conspiracy by a secret society was 
responsible for all the ills that Germany suffered in the 20th century?

Aha, so you are nuts.

>
> This was exceptionally profitable, since money and property lost by
> ordinary people went into the hands of the 'bad guys'.
>
> And hyperinflation was definitely nothing, what the common man would
> usually chose. So, Germans did neither want trenches in Flanders nor
> hyperinflation.
>
> Similar with communist and/or fascists riots and coups.
>
> To say 'the Germans' made that is simply a lie.
>
> It was nevertheless made and among the makers were Germans, but the
> common people did not participate in such events.
>
> Same pattern with the Nazis.

Who were not Germans?

>
> Personally I believe, that 'Hitler' was the false identity of a British
> spy, who had the real identity Noel Trevenen Huxley.
>
> He lived in the house of the Wagner family in Munich, to where he was
> brought by his brother Julian Huxley. That was a British spy and head of
> 'Eugenics'. He went to Bavaria in 1913 for a year (for WWI planning).
>
> Forerunners of the Nazis were actually British and American, like the
> BUF and the Silver Shirts.
>
> Supporters of German Nazis were people like Henry Ford or Prescott Bush.
>
> Churchill also supported the fascists, as we can see in the relation of
> niece Diana to Sir Oswald Mosley and niece Unity to Hitler himself.
>
> It was also found out, that Mussolini was on the payroll of MI6.
>
> Anyhow..
>
> The Nazis have never won any election. Their takeover was actually a
> coup, supported by Ludendorf and Hindenburg.

A German coup against Germans.

>
> After this coup democracy was abandoned in Germany. And those, who did
> not comply got killed.
>
> Then came WWII and at its end Germany was completely destroyed.
>
> The Germans themselves had not chosen this end, but have not been asked.
>
> Sure, the German soldiers were mostly Germans. But the single soldier
> had to do, what was told.
>
> This is a hierarchic system, with Hitler at the top. And if the top
> personal conspires with the enemy, then people at the bottom are doomed
> (as Germans were).
>
> To blame the innocent is a typical habit of 'bad guys'. But guilt
> requires something you do and should not, or something you don't do, but
> should.
>
> 'Guilt by proxy' is a typical 'bad guy pattern'. This means, that
> innocent people are guilty, because there were near the event.
> But justice would require, that guilty are those who do something
> illegal, while other people are not guilty.
>
> So: because Germans are among the 'bad guys' this does not make Germans
> 'bad guys'.
>
> The principle of the people being responsible for their nation is
> actually the core of socialism.
>
> Socialism itself is rooted in British aristocracy and above mentioned
> sects.
>
> Especially the Fabians and Eugenics promoted the ideas, upon what
> (national-) socialism is based.
>
> The correct way to see these historic developments would be, that there
> are relatively small groups, which span over several nations and which
> control politics, military of finance within their realm.
>
> Those 'bad guys' attempt to make the people of a certain nation
> complicit, if possible. But their content is not really necessary, since
> even the innocent are punished.
>
> Since 'bad guys' are actually bad, they really love to punish their own
> followers, as we can see in the fate of the SA or Rudolph Hess (and - of
> course- of Germany in total).
>
> TH
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390605

Am 22.08.2016 15:47, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>>
>> The faked 'Kaiser' Wilhelmm II was actually the nephew of Queen Victoria
>> and not particular German and not elected, as the title 'kaiser' would
>> require.
>>
>> But it was actually him, who led Germany into a conflict, which was not
>> designed to solve any problems, but to kill as many human beings as
>> possible.
>
> And so you are claiming that Kaiser Wilhelm, who led Germany into the
> conflict, was not German and so Germany is not responsible for Germany's
> involvement with WWI?


Germany as a nation was created in the year 1871. Before this year there 
was no  country named 'Germany' or similar. 'German' is a language, not 
a people.

The first Kaiser was in fact elected like formerly the emperors of the 
'Holy Roman Empire of German Nations'. These 'german nations' were 
actually the Francs, which spoke French and had Paris as their capital.

'Austria' is derived from 'East Francia' and was the eastern part of the 
medieval empire of the Francs. Germany was the middle part of that Empire.

The Francs had a Kaiser and that was an office, into which someone was 
elected. Kaiser Wilhelm I was in fact elected. To call the middle part 
of the francish Empire 'Reich' was a little questionable, but was 
somehow acceptable.

But  Wilhelm II was not elected.

This is important, since that throne was not inherited.

Doesn't matter too, much, since Germany wasn't a 'Reich' neither.

So, who was that guy and what was he doing there on  that throne?

To blame the people of Germany for the deeds of this 'Kaiser' is rather 
sick.

> Are you nuts?
>
>>
>> Most of the victim were in fact British and French.
>>
>> It was actually Churchill himself, who headed the idiotic campaign of
>> Gallipoli.
>>
>> Also the trenches in Flanders had no other purpose as to kill as many
>> people as possible.
>>
>> Same with the so called Revolution in Russia, initiated by the very same
>> circles.
>>
>> Who these people are, that is not exactly known.
>>
>> (I personally assume certain sects, like Rosecrucians and Illuminati,
>> who secretly pull the strings from behind the scenes. But actually I do
>> not know.)
>>
>> These groups have also banks and control the money flow, what they had
>> used to initiate hyperinflations.
>
> So you are saying that an underground conspiracy by a secret society was
> responsible for all the ills that Germany suffered in the 20th century?

No, I assume, that these hyperinflations were actually fabricated by 
certain international banks.

This was similar to the so called 'world economic crisis' of 1929, from 
which predominately US citizens suffered.


WWI was an unnecessary conflict, which was carried out against simple logic.

So this war caused tremendous losses of life and material, but for no 
obvious gain on neither side of the conflict.

So what was that war good for, what were the objectives and why did it 
not end after stalemate in the trenches?

It was not meant to be won (by the Germans), since the war seems to 
follow a certain plan.

Such a scheme we find in other wars, too, especially in WWII.

There were many campaigns, which were obvious nonsense, like siege of 
St. Petersburg, Stalingrad or Rommel's Africa campaign.

The entire war was nonsense and could not possibly be meant as winnable 
by the Germans.

So the war was against the German population, maintained by spies in top 
positions.




>> This was exceptionally profitable, since money and property lost by
>> ordinary people went into the hands of the 'bad guys'.
>>
>> And hyperinflation was definitely nothing, what the common man would
>> usually chose. So, Germans did neither want trenches in Flanders nor
>> hyperinflation.
>>
>> Similar with communist and/or fascists riots and coups.
>>
>> To say 'the Germans' made that is simply a lie.
>>
>> It was nevertheless made and among the makers were Germans, but the
>> common people did not participate in such events.
>>
>> Same pattern with the Nazis.
>
> Who were not Germans?


Since the term 'German' could have different meanings, you must say, 
what meaning you have in mind.

The choices are:

- citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany (now) or of the nation 
'Deutsches Reich' at that time

- speakers of the German language

- members of certain tribes, which the Romans called 'Germanes'.

Most English/US people believe in the nazi propaganda, that Germans are 
'a people' ('Volk'). Only this is not true, since the citizens of 
Germany are not that ethnically related to each other. This is similar 
to the USA, which also have people from many regions of the world.

Since German is a language, which is spoken in several other countries 
besides Germany, you obviously mean German citizenship with 'German'.

But you certainly know, that several Nazis were not German citizens. 
This was especially the case for Hitler, who was born in Austria. He 
later moved to Bavaria, what was also another country until relatively 
recent.

Arthur di Gobineau was actually French and Houston Steward Chamberlain 
was English, like King Edward, Winifried Wagner or Unity Midfort.

But we had also Americans, who liked the Nazis. E.g. Henry Ford was 
famous for friendly relations to Hitler (and for anti-semitic attitudes).

About this we can be quite certain, since Ford wrote a book with the 
title 'The International Jew'.

>>
>> Personally I believe, that 'Hitler' was the false identity of a British
>> spy, who had the real identity Noel Trevenen Huxley.


The idea stems from Greg Hallet, who wrote a book called 'Hitler was a 
British Agent'.

The answer to the question, which Englishmen posed as 'The Fuehrer' was 
my own idea. And Huxley was the only person  which seemed possible: he 
was also born in 1889 and the Huxley family has several connections to 
nazi topics (Eugenics, Darwin, Brave New World).

Aldous Huxley also had connections to Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was 
schoolmate of the real Hitler in Linz.

So I assume, that the 'Apostles' were kind of hub, where certain 
influential people met (Wittgenstein, Russel, Huxley and others)

>> He lived in the house of the Wagner family in Munich, to where he was
>> brought by his brother Julian Huxley. That was a British spy and head of
>> 'Eugenics'. He went to Bavaria in 1913 for a year (for WWI planning).
>>
>> Forerunners of the Nazis were actually British and American, like the
>> BUF and the Silver Shirts.
>>
>> Supporters of German Nazis were people like Henry Ford or Prescott Bush.
>>
>> Churchill also supported the fascists, as we can see in the relation of
>> niece Diana to Sir Oswald Mosley and niece Unity to Hitler himself.
>>
>> It was also found out, that Mussolini was on the payroll of MI6.
>>
>> Anyhow..
>>
>> The Nazis have never won any election. Their takeover was actually a
>> coup, supported by Ludendorf and Hindenburg.
>
> A German coup against Germans.


Secret societies are not related to nations, but act international. (At 
least I have heard, this would be the case.)

So 'Germans' is the wrong category and we should consider different 
attributes to group people together.

Ethnic relations are such a category. E.g. we could follow the trail of 
the Vikings, Visigoth, Vandals or the Phoenicians and how they emerged 
of the centuries and whether or not hey had influence on such developments.

Religion is also a possible category.

E.g. 'Arians' was actually an early form of Christianity, which was 
common among the Vikings.

Or we could follow the Romans and what they have done, since their 
Empire vanished.

The Romans had certain sun-Gods and this motive we find in 
Nazi-symbolism, too.

'Fasces' stems actually from the Etruscans and we could search for 
influences of these people in modern times.

But ethnicity seems to be the wrong track, since there were too many 
people, tribes and Empires, which could eventually create things like 
secret societies.

'Remains of the Roman Empire' (its ancient 'military industrial 
complex') seems to be my most likely hypothesis so far.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web