Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
You better take that ♥♥♥♥ back, Stormtrooper, or I'm telling Lord Vader you've insulted him! Got my big-ass Star Destroyer parked, and I'll move that gigantic beast to the other side of the galaxy just to tell him on YOUR ASS!
Real number confirmed by legit red cross documents - around 300 000 jews during entire war, most was casulties, and the only jews who was killed on purpose by germans was saboteurs, criminals, and those who severved opposite armies as soliders, they was killed not because they was jews, they was killed because they was saboteurs, criminals and solders of opposite forces. Most of these 300 000 jews died because of alied forced bombing work camps and cut suplies, this caused spread of infection and starvation amongt both jews and germans, and bodies that was burned was dead because of infection outbreak and was burned to prevent further outbreak. and this measure that helped to save jews and germans who was not infected yet, served as base for myth of holocaust and turned into tales of "evil germans burning innocent jews alive". Also this myth also shaped death chamber myth combined with reality about germans asked jews nicely to undress and used portable steam machines on dress to sanirize it from insects. Non of evidence of existence of gas chambers ever existed.
Poland started war 1st, Polish Jews and some angry Polish people, before war started slaugtered sever thousands of german men, women and children at ex german territories. This triggered Adolf Hitler to start war against Poland to protect remaining germans in poland and avenge fallen.
But this was not real date when WW2 started.
Jews started it in 1933 when "JUDEA OFFICIALY DECLARED WAR ON GERMANY". It was in cold state until 1939 and slauger of germans in Poland was provocation to get Hitler into trap and make him look like agressor, in fact he was the only man in world who on previous assembles of world leaders suggested everyone program of demilitarisation, nobody listened and it was obvious they will start war against german sooner or later, so Adolf started to prepare army for defence, but Polish provocation tricked him into going offence.
Same story happened with USSR - Adolf was paranoid bout idea that Stalin will atack him Soon, so he used tactics - best defence is offence when USSR started to get clother to Germany.
It was the war - everyone who kills another man is criminal on every side. But thing is - its quite unfair and unrealistic, that Hitler and Germany was blamed everything and victors spread lies about germans and turned them into pure evil, when in fact the way german led war was more civilized and humanitarian than any other oppenent.
Even our USSR solders (ill post video later) admited that germans used to bury their soldiers, and never atacked thos who was not offensive or show white flag and showed mercy to enemies. And some who was in german work camps adimed that conditions there was better than in army they served or in ghetthos they lived. German work camps even has cultural centers where people was able to play music and rest, self organized brodels, and hospitals. Why in world germans would build that for people they sort of wanted to terminate? Because they did not want to terminate anyone but Marxist\Jewish goverments around Europe, that killed more people than germans and they did it in their own countries... or not so own, if you will take a note that marxist jews was guests there who decided to become rulers.
Huge lie perpetrated by Neo-Nazi Richard Harwood, bro.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#International_Committee_of_the_Red_Cross
In 1975, the ICRC wrote to the Board of Deputies of British Jews in London regarding Harwood's citations, stating:
The figures cited by the author of the booklet are based upon statistics falsely attributed to us, evidently for the purpose of giving them credibility, despite the fact that we never publish information of this kind.
— Françoise Perret, Comité International de la Croix-Rouge, to Jacob Gerwitz, August 22, 1975.
Go back to your hole already.
Either holocaust denier or wholly hypocrite.
Don't they all.
Lol. quoting WIkipedia, which can be edited by anyone and which is by the way controlled by jew who also runs porno business and connected to mossad and personaly to ex israel president Simon Peres.
Quoting Wikipedia which is moderated by group of israelite desinformators who pushing freemasonry \ illuminati \ jewish \ holohoax narrative despite this hoax if fully provable (if you have brains to find proves outside of Wikipedia of lies)...
Well, man, bravo!
Also your false claims that im neo-nazy... this is just stupid. im not new nazy, i have jewish friend, and those friend despite they are jews has brains to realise whole WW2 hoax. Maybe these jews also neo nazy for you? And you know, neo nazy has nothing to do with real national socialist from germany, modern neo nazy mostly just a bunch of agressive wannabes, who dont understand real national socialist ideology... and the most funny part about neo nazy, they are controlled by freemasons and jews and dont realise that. Evin so called neo nazy Breivik was not real one, he was member of freemasonry and templar lodge and he just set up right movement to make them look even worse than they did. He is kept in prison like prince, its a part of another hoax.
Also you know trere is jewish director of movies Stanley Kubrik - every of his movies exposed jewish illuminati \ freemasonry doings and he also wanted to shoot movie about holohoax truth, but after spielberd shoot his awful propaganda fiull of lies (Shieldlers list) that shaped modern dellusions about germans and jews during WW2, Kubric was so mad at Spielbierg and canceled his movie.
Also his last movie, that got him killed - Eyes Wide SHut, exposed inner Illuminati\Freemasonry (which also measn jewish bankers such as people from Rothschild clan, including Goldman Sacs members, and other elite, like both jewish bankers husbends of Chealsey Clinton and Invanka Trump, who are aso Kabalistic Satanist... google for connection of cabbalah and satanism if you have no idea) rituals and orgies.
Shortly before they murdered Kubrick he said "Hitler was right about almost everything"... and Kubrick was a jew. So, you genius think that this makes a jew Kubrick a neo nazy just because he agreed with some of Hitlers claims and about global conspiracy with jewish involvment (part of which Kubrick initially was, then he betrayed them and started to expose them)? Or you think that exposing truth, no matter how bad it hurts makes people a neo nazis?
No! It does not! I personally dont hate jews, like i said before, i have some jewish friends who agree with me and trying to explain other jews how they was used to shape this hoax, the only thing i hate is LIE no matter who spread it - i expose this lie. Alex Jones (and alsmot entire infowars), for example is half truther half liar, a gate keeper - he never mentions involvement of jews, and leads people into wrong directions, so i expose even his lies.
You just very naive and know nothing about subject. And for ♥♥♥♥ sake, stop thinking that Wikipedia is relyable source of knowledge and has any valid proof - its a garbage bin, owned and moderated by israeli gate keepers.
Another "reliable" source XD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JhwQ17mLjo
Founder of TED is http://wikivisually.com/wiki/Richard_Saul_Wurman - american jew. Globalist and jewish businemen, freemasons \ illuminati talk at TED ... sure, reliable neutral source that has no interest to justify jews busines. *sarcasm*
Can you rely at least on one source that is not controlled, owned or founded by jews, and can be neutral and objective?
Your "proves" is like using killer as witness of his "innocence" - "Sir, did you kill that person?" "No, absolutely! Why would i?" - "Seems legit, reliable prove, why would man lie to defend himself?".
http://www.moneycrashers.com/ted-talks-conference-history-criticisms/
Criticisms of TED
Despite its popularity, TED is subject to various critics, some of which may be warranted:
1. Elitism
In the September 2012 issue of the New Statesman, writer Martin Robbins claimed that talks he watched were neither “new or original” and aimed at “social elites who’ve invested thousands of dollars for the opportunity to bask in the warm glow [of] someone else’s intellectual aura.” Robbins claims that you need “to be rich and well-connected” to get into the Conferences, suggesting that a more appropriate slogan would be “Ego Worth Patching For,” rather than “Ideas Worth Spreading.”
Certainly, the price for Conference admission – as well as the requirement to be deemed TED-worthy – could be viewed as barriers to the information available at a TED Conference. It should be noted, however, that presentations are available, albeit delayed, for free over the Internet.
2. Misinformation and Oversimplification
In a 2013 article for The Guardian, Benjamin Bratton claims that TED is actually “middlebrow mega-church infotainment,” where audiences prefer presenters such as journalists – who recycle fake insights – to actual scientists who produce actual knowledge. This oversimplification of complicated subjects, focused on style rather than substance, is akin to “taking something with value and substance and coring it out so that it can be swallowed without chewing.” Even some presenters dislike the focus on slick, over-the-top performances. “Black Swan” author Nassim Nicholas Taleb described TED as “a monstrosity that turns scientists and thinkers into low-level entertainers, like circus performers.”
The TEDx program, in which organizers arrange their own speakers, has created problems of vetting and content, primarily because of the tremendous publicity and financial benefits accruing to a TED presenter. In its April 2013 issue, Harvard Business Review reported that TED no longer controls its content or its brand, using the example of TEDx presenter Randy Powell’s presentation about “Vortex-Based Mathematics” that was roundly criticized for its incorrect information. Writing in The New Inquiry, Nathan Jurgenson compared TED talks to the “infamous patent medicine tonic sure-alls pitches of previous centuries,” and that the “conferences have come to resemble religious meetings and the TED talks techno-spirtual sermons, pushing an evangelical, cultish attitude toward the ‘new ideas that will change the world.'”
Certainly, the explosive growth in popularity of TED has created problems, as has the attraction for unscrupulous, self-promoters who recognize that a single presentation can change their lives. At the same time, the public is exposed to a new source of ideas and understanding that did not previously exist. Like any exchange of ideas, it is up to the viewer or listener to discern the wheat from the chaff, the really valuable ideas from the popular, though often suspect, repackaged corporate speak and techno-jargon.
3. Misogyny
According to a 2013 research study, 73% of presenters were male senior academics from elite schools such as MIT, Stanford University, Harvard University, and the University of Oxford. When asked about TED’s recruitment of speakers, one of the authors of the study, Cassidy Sugimoto, responded, “I’d question their composition. Do they really have the innovative, cutting edge people they think they have? Are they really seeking diversity in their speakers?”
A review of the data suggests that the authors may have drawn mistaken conclusions from the study. The statement that three of four speakers are male senior academics in itself does not prove prejudice if, in fact, the gender ratios of senior academics of elite schools reflects a similar ratio. This information is not provided. Furthermore, there is no information regarding the prospective presenter pool which have been available to organizers when planning the events. As a consequence, the male/female data as presented does not justify a claim of prejudice or even a concerted attempt to favor one gender over another. It should also be noted that the sponsor’s attempt to resolve a perceived public relations gaff with the establishment of TEDWomen is equally controversial, viewed as “tokenism” by some and heralded as revolutionary by others.
4. Lack of Critical Analysis and Alternative Views
As TED has grown in popularity, speakers and the ideas they present have been elevated to “secular scripture,” simplistic solutions to complex, difficult problems. The existing format, essentially a series of short talks with high entertainment value, does not provide any counterbalance to the ideas presented even when the subject is controversial. Richard Saul Wurman, no longer associated with TED after selling his interest to Anderson, seems to agree, and is promoting his own conferences built around the concept of two presenter “experts” having a conversation. By exploring ideas and subjects “in conversational modality, you’re more likely to have those shared moments of epiphany. You can get closer to the truth.”
Some presenters or their subjects are too controversial for TED’s taste and are not made available as TED Talks to broader audiences. Multimillionaire investor Nick Hanauer’s 2012 presentation about the widening income inequality in America and that the rich should pay more in taxes was deemed too politically controversial by TED curator Anderson, leading Alex Pareene to criticize TED as being nothing more than a “massive, money-soaked orgy of self-congratulatory futurism.”
PREACH! Live the moment, not in the past, and not in denial.
We honestly and OBVIOUSLY have better things to take care of then revive historic idologies. Nobody really have time for that nonsense.
I will say one thing...It is funny to me that most people, i think will agree that 9-11 was at least KINDA fishy, as were the wars that followed thereafter....Most people will probably agree that Vietnam was maybe not all it was made out to be....and on down the list.
But everyone just 100% without nary a moments hesitation...accepts the "official story" about WW2 hook, line and sinker, without ever DARING to question it....lest you be a crazy person...I'm not saying I know what happened or anything, but i just notice these little human phenomenons....