Hitler Was Not Elected (APPOINTED Chancellor, Given Powers After False Flag Event)

[allodial]

There is this myth about Hitler having been elected democratically when in fact he was appointed chancellor of Germany and only gained extraordinary powers after pre-contrived plans triggered by the Reichstag fire which is widely regarded as a staged, false-flag event.

What? Hitler was Not Elected?
Frequently, those who oppose the democratic peace argue that Hitler was elected democratically in 1932, and therefore World War II in which Hitler fought many democracies shows that democracies make war on each other. Then there are those who recognize that Hitler seized total power in Germany and therefore at the time of the war, it was not a democracy. Still, even some of them believe Hitler was elected, and that proves the inherent danger of democracies electing tyrants.

First, Hitler was never elected. He ran in two national elections in 1932. In the first, he got 30 percent of the vote, and no one got a majority. In the resulting runoff election, he increased his votes to 37 percent, while his opponent, World War I hero Field Marshall Hindenburg, got a majority. And since the Nazi party won 230 seats out of 608 in the Reichstag, it did not have the majority to make Hitler Chancellor.

So how did this happen? By backroom backstabbing, double-crossing, threats, and promises, including among former Chancellor Franz von Papen, present Chancellor Lieutenant General Kurt von Schleicher, and the elected President Hindenburg. Their maneuvering, a rumor of a threatened military coup, and the urging von Papen, who had entered into a secret alliance with Hitler to get supporters into Cabinet positions, finally persuaded Hindenburg to reluctantly appoint . Many involved in this intrigue, including von Papen, thought that this would bring Hitler under their control.

As Chancellor, then, how did Hitler turn this functioning democracy into a bloody, totalitarian dictatorship?

When Hitler was appointed in January 1933, Germany was a democracy. Germany had fair elections; nobody had their right to vote abused; there were numerous political parties you could vote for etc. To pass a law, the Reichstag had to agree to it after a bill went through the normal processes of discussion, arguments etc. Within the Reichstag of January 1933, over 50% of those who held seats were against the Nazi Party. Therefore it would have been very unlikely for Hitler to have got passed into law what he wanted. . . .

Hitler had promised a general election for March 1933. . . . One week before the election was due to take place, the Reichstag building burned down. Hitler immediately declared that it was the signal for a communist takeover of the nation. Hitler knew that if he was to convince President Hindenburg to give him emergency powers Using the constitution, Hindenburg agreed to pass the Law for the Protection of the People and the State.After the burning down of the Reichstag, politicians had nowhere to meet. The Kroll Opera House in Berlin was chosen.

What he wanted would become law in Germany within 24 hours of his signature being put on paper.

On 7th April 1933, Nazi officials were put in charge of all local government in the provinces.

On May 2nd 1933, trades unions were abolished, their funds taken and their leaders put in prison. The workers were given a May Day holiday in return.

On July 14th 1933, a law was passed making it illegal to form a new political party. It also made the Nazi Party the only legal political party in Germany.

(source/more)

[David Merrill]

Thank you for that. I was just thinking this over today. I reread this article from 1928 - Century Magazine and am convinced more than ever that this article influenced Adolf.

P.S. I have a great picture book. I enjoy seeing the reality, that the German people were not totally insane or deluded evil to accept Adolf HITLER's leadership:

[David Merrill]

These tactical drawings were on trace paper so that they could be easily destroyed in an ashtray. Sometimes I wonder if whoever kept this one intact risked his or her life in doing so:



This came with the package and I think it may have actually been taken from the desk of the Fuhr:

[allodial]

Thank you for that. I was just thinking this over today. I reread this article from 1928 - Century Magazine and am convinced more than ever that this article influenced Adolf.

Well considering that they were being hammered from so many different directions, I wouldn't call them deluded but desperate. That he took over, and may have been directly responsible for bringing orthodox Christianity of Germany to demise, portrayed himself as God and left Germans to be taken captive to the Soviets, well that is interesting to consider nonetheless. Remember Makow's assertion that WWI and WWII were primarily purposed to perpetrate genocide against orthodox Christians (placed in the same category as "Jews" by Hitler).

Although Hitler may have been influenced by the article(s), IMHO the article(s) from 1928 evidence that the author had strong blinders on about history in that he doesn't seem to have fully comprehended the topic about which he wrote (or maybe he did but just preferred his own slant and propaganda) especially considering that the orthodox Christians (note the lowercase 'o') weren't Gentiles (as opposed to being Hebrew Israelites). Of course, any pseudo-Christian group that falsely called itself Christian would have been and still be deemed Gentiles--even according to Paul. Furthermore, it is rather logically clear that Judah was never all of Israel, but instead a subset.



Consider that statement in the snipped above in light of the fact that per Deuteronomy 28:43 the people had become marginalized and a stranger (religiously) had gained the advantage among them, that of Judah and Benjamin the rest of Israel was in exile. The idea that Jesus had to settle with the poor and laborers wasn't a political strategy but of the consequence that Edomites/Idumeans had taken over Judah as aristocrats. Furthermore, the idea that the disciples formed themselves into a permanent 'communistic' society seems misleading to me. They pooled everything and then to each was given according to his need--they held everything in common which is what most every community does. It was never a state sector commons but the commons of a loving family. They were a royal priesthood rather than secularists or non-believers. That idea of Jesus having had "to settle for less" with the poor or laborers is misleading since he made it clear that his concern was to save that which is lost (i.e. Israel) rather than a hostile, occupying aristocracy. Remember, just before the Idumeans had it, the scepter was taken away, Rome made Judea their province...just as Israel (the Man) explained would happen per Sefer Bereshit (the Book of Genesis).

AFAIK, the Gospel and its narrative works suggest that that true wealth is in substance of wisdom, truth--the Word of God rather than in earthly things, the priority being of import (heavenly treasures having the greater priority and value) that earthly trinkets are of less important to heavenly treasures.

P.S. Still today, orthodox Christians aren't Gentiles. The term "Christian" even during WWI and WWII was rather 'loaded' and could mean so many things: Manichean, Simonian, orthodox, who knows what is meant without case-by-case explanation or inspection.

Related:

• British Secret Service Agent Adolf Hitler
• Hitler was a British Agent

[David Merrill]

Of course, any pseudo-Christian group that falsely called itself Christian would have been and still be deemed Gentiles--even according to Paul.

Key word is "strangled". Paul uses it and describes the Noachide Law. That Paul was teaching the gentiles of Asia Minor Noachide Law turns everything around completely.

--H.J.Res.104--
H.J.Res.104

One Hundred Second Congress of the United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-one

Joint Resolution

To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'.

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos...

[walter]

Well George W Bush wasn't elected either and if it wasn't a land slide Hillary would have had the same faith.


Angela Merkel and Hillary Clinton are half-sisters:
- daughters of the fuherer of the III Reich in plain sight, Adolf Hitler.
- first cousins once removed to the fuherer of the IV Reich hidden in plain sight, Alexander Adolf Hitler.

http://truth-in-plain-sight.blogspot.ca/2010/10/angela-merkel-with-real-mother-gretl.html

[allodial]

Key word is "strangled". Paul uses it and describes the Noachide Law. That Paul was teaching the gentiles of Asia Minor Noachide Law turns everything around completely.

The book of Acts was written by Luke, James, brother of Jesus (rather than Paul) is speaking at Acts 15:29:

That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. Acts 15:29

Paul taught what James (brother of Jesus) was led to teach for the purposes of extending those specific anti-idolatry or holiness laws (from Leviticus 17?) which AFAIK would be a portion of "Mosaic Law" rather than "Noachide law". That reference seems to be to Mosaic law per Leviticus 17 rather than "Noachide law"--which specific portion could be said to incorporate Hebrew/Melchizedek/'Universal' holiness and anti-idolatry laws or ante(pre)-diluvian (pre-flood) "Patriarchal Priesthood Law". Partaking in the fruits of idolatry and old idolatrous practices was clearly being discouraged. However, it seems only logical that Noah, rather than being inventive or legislating, would have been carrying forward (or would have been encouraged to carry forward) the very same doctrines of those preceding him. There are those who view that only after the flood permission to eat meat was given (to the priestly lines?) and there are those who disagree and who suggest that only eating of reptiles/insects was allowed (but nothing that had blood in it for its life).

(1976, p. 240).

It makes perfect sense that Noah would have taught what he learned from Lamech and others prior to the flood and that he would have taught his sons (and held them to) those same things (per Jubilees 7) after the flood. Of course, it could be concluded Mosaic law incorporated pre-flood and post-flood holiness requirements as pertains to 'meat' and other things. Nonetheless, it seems that only one part of the Acts 15 exhortation or requirement of James pertained to 'abstaining from strangled meat'--to call all of James' exhortation 'Noachide law' might be errant (see Genesis 9). No doubt, at Acts 15, the most high saw that it was was necessary to see to it that instructions be given for maintaining holiness and purity.

Concerning holiness and food, the minister speaks specifically of matters pertaining to food holiness and fornication through the video. He actually makes an interesting point about the trouble which could arise from eating food prepared by foreigners/strangers in that some restaurateurs may actually sacrifice their food to idols before preparing it and serving it to their customers ("curses attach to the food") (~1:30:00..1:40:00... although there may be other points in the video). Consider that Chinese food stores have more often than been established in CHRISTIAN BLACK COMMUNITIES but, of course, not only there. In many if not most American grocery chains, high quality vegetables, high quality fruit and kosher meats tend to be priced out of reach of those at an economic disadvantage--this practice is so widespread that its seems quite intentional.

On that note, it might be worth considering Dr. Sebi's opinion that folks in America mainly eat blood (referring to red meat?) and starch (as in therein is the cause of their health problems). What if the McDonald's food chain was intentionally turned into anti-holiness food chain whose managers intentionally set out to foist anti-holiness foods on 'the masses'?

Basically, Noah does not seem to have created any new laws. Jubilees and Genesis only refer to covenants, prohibitions or exhortations (even reminders) to abstain from shedding the blood of men and from eating blood: such prohibitions appear to have been in effect even before Noah was born. Consider: Cain and Abel, the prohibition of shedding of blood of a man seems to have been in effect before Noah was born.

While Acts 15 promotes general holiness and abstinence, I find it challenging to see James teaching "Noachide law". Instead it seems moreso that he is reiterating certain aspects of "Mosaic law" (Exodus, Leviticus) which clearly took note of laws or principles of the antedeluvian Patriarchal Priesthood holiness and anti-idolatry laws. I have yet to find anywhere in the scriptures a reference to seven laws from Noah.

That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. Acts 15:29

1 Abstain from meats offered to idols
2 Abstain from blood
3 Abstain from things strangled
4 Abstain from fornication.

Four in total. Those were not laws of Noah but "Universal"/Patriarchical/Priesthood/Hebrew/Melchezidek holiness/purity laws. In any case, according to Paul the new coverts are regarded to be former Gentiles (i.e. no longer Gentiles).

And in the twenty-eighth jubilee [1324-1372 A.M.]Noah began to enjoin upon his sons' sons the ordinances and commandments, and all the judgments that he knew, and he exhorted his sons to observe righteousness... Jubilees 7:20 in part

Relevantly, Jubilees fails to make reference to Noah having invented, legislated or crafted any laws. Instead it is show that he taught that which was taught him or which he learned just like any man would teach his sons "the laws of the land". (Moses, in contrast, was 'transmitting' a newly-derived set of laws for the Israelites in a specific scenario.) If I were to teach my sons the laws of the land so that they would better prosper, it would seem odd to name the laws after me. Moses was called the 'law giver' because he was involved in the fashioning of a set laws for a specific situation concerning the Israelite after the exodus from Egypt.

Faith, Law & Righteousness
Faith and righteousness are duly associated (as contrasted with justification or righteousness by the law).

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: Hebrews 11:1-9 (KJV)

If one considers that Noah was deemed righteous due to his faith/believing then it becomes clear that the doctrine of righteousness or justification through faith existed prior to the flood! (see Hebrews 11:7 and Jubilees 7:20).

If one considers the facts, the eating of blood, the practice of unholiness doesn't need a deliberative body of men to make determinations because the diseases that can afflict a person are themselves violent. If a billion pathogens laying waste to a person's body from within isn't violent death, what is?

On the topic of the thread, the Nazi's promoted 'work make free' which is in stark contrast to truth makes you free or even to justification or righteousness through faith. It seems that Nazi's toppled orthodox Christianity out of Germany and put Germany under ...



...salvation through labor (alone).

[allodial]

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
The sea of misinformation and misdirection about what happened in Germany seems to be designed to conceal the simple truth. However, as Providence would have it, Daniel, thousands of years ago, foresaw a time when such would occur:

I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom. Daniel 7:21-22

Related:

• Menstrual Blood Spells (Beware Who You Hire for Household Help)
• Noah Became Heir of the Righteousness That Comes By Faith (Hebrews 11:7)
• Hebrews 11 (KJV)
• Why Is Red Meat...Red?