"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

29 March 2014

The Appalling Ignorance of Abby Martin

"See, this bombshell leak describes something known as a false-flag operation. A false-flag is a covert military operation designed to appear as if it were carried out by other parties, and is usually used as a pretext for military intervention, with the citizens of the country unaware of their government's premeditated actions. See Gulf of Tonkin used to invade Vietnam, and the Reichstag Fire in Hitler's Germany as a pretext to invade Poland." (Abby Martin, 29 March 2014)

This statement from Abby Martin's Breaking the Set show on Russia Today reveals an appalling carelessness about historical accuracy, and also a certain lamentable bias.

Most strikingly, the claim that the Reichstag Fire was used as a pretext to invade Poland shows that Miss Martin is totally ignorant of the events of the 1930s to which she refers. The Reichstag Fire occurred in 1933 and the invasion of Poland occurred in 1939. The man convicted of setting the fire was from the Netherlands, not Poland. If anybody before Miss Martin ever claimed that the Reichstag Fire was used as a pretext for invading Poland, it is very much a fringe view. Most likely it is a product of Miss Martin's own muddled incomprehension of the history of that period.

Furthermore, the Reichstag Fire is well known not to have been a false-flag operation. The rumor that it was a false-flag operation was circulated by Communists at the time, but it was never really credible since Marinus Van Der Lubbe, a very active Marxist organizer, had been caught inside the Reichstag and confessed his involvement. German authorities did not believe that he had acted alone however, and charged several prominent German Communists as co-conspirators, but ended up acquitting them for lack of evidence. Yes: apparently they got fair trials. The verdict of mainstream historiography has long been that the Reichstag Fire was not a false-flag operation.

The bias that Miss Martin displays is kosher. 

By referring to the Reichstag Fire as a supposed false-flag operation she ultimately reinforces Zionist war-propaganda, which consistently relies on such invidious comparisons to Hitler. The leader of the targeted government is always "another Hitler." The same demonization-propaganda has the very convenient feature for Jews that it represents them as the ultimate unjustly persecuted victims. By endorsing and repeating the old propagandist characterization of Adolf Hitler, Miss Martin is, advertently or inadvertently, helping Zionist Jews to continue their warmongering.
If she had wanted to invoke a genuine example from history, Miss Martin could have referred to one of the generally recognized false-flag operations staged by the State of Israel, like the Lavon Affair, instead of using the same kind of comparison that the Zionist warmongers always use.

I note that Miss Martin also uses the kosher-leftist expression "corporate media," as if all the United States' Middle-East wars were motivated by corporate interests, when in fact it is easy to establish that Jews dominate American mass-media and that it was Zionist Jews who spent fifteen years (1988-2003) agitating for invasion of Iraq.

I say that Miss Martin's bias is kosher, but it seems more a matter of reckless ignorance* than premeditation on her part. The claim that the Reichstag Fire (1933) was used as a pretext for invading Poland (1939)  is so patently ridiculous that it seems unlikely that anyone would say it as a deliberate lie.
* The suggestion that Miss Martin speaks out of ignorance also arose recently after she bit the hand of her Russian employer by declaring in her live show on 3 March 2014 that Russia's intervention in the Crimea (securing Russian interests against the effects of what seems to be a Zionist-instigated coup in the Ukraine) was "wrong." When Russia Today subsequently invited Abby Martin to visit the Crimea to get some knowledge of the situation, she declined the offer, claiming that military intervention was always wrong, thus obviating the need to base her opinion on any real understanding of the situation. (Belfast Telegraph 5 March 2014)

Upload MP3 and download MP3 using free MP3 hosting from Tindeck.


Tony McElveen said...

RT, has failed on many issues and Abby Martin does this quite often

Nick Dean said...

I think Martin has been deliberately misled.

In response to a typical piece of Gordon Duff BS I wrote elsewhere about the Reichstag false-flag-false-flag and the related phenomenon of calling bad Jews 'dual citizens',

"I do not know if the dual citizen claim we all hear so often is a crafted fiction. I only know that whenever I hear it I ask for some evidence and so far I haven’t received any by reply. That makes me wonder if there is any real foundation to the claim – and if there is not, then why is the claim so often made? If the dual citizen claim that we hear routinely from conspindustry writers and broadcasters is bogus and without any foundation whatsoever then its ubiquity suggests it was deliberately embedded into the standard ‘alternative’ debate lore and kept alive by constant repetition.

"It could not happen except by design that so many people in the ‘truth’ movement believe something that’s apparently without foundation. Among a community dedicated to sceptical research such claims could only thrive owing to sustained efforts of people positioned at critical nodes to circulate and popularise these myths and turn them into concrete, unchallenged ‘facts’ through forceful repetition.

"I can think of at least two benefits to disseminating this kind of false claim. The first I outlined above: a significant proportion of the more intelligent and grounded readers/listeners will check out these claims for themselves and find them lacking an evidential basis. This alienates some of the smart and principled fraction that would prove most valuable to any real truth seeking endeavour. The second benefit accrues from the narrative content and message of the lie when others do believe it. In the case of the dual citizenship claim for example, the real problem – of Jews running American policy for Jewish interests, something that happens across the board including over domestic matters – would be obscured and the problem reframed as one of unwelcome Israeli influence over specific foreign policy issues ...

" ... At the previous comment of 1:23AM neither Gordon Duff or wolf had produced evidence for the claim that dual citizens are controlling Homeland Security, the FBI, the State Department and Department of Defense. If subsequently they do, there is still some value in that post as it relates the way other ubiquitous but certainly false claims may be propagated in the conspindustry media for the benefit of Jews.

"I gave another example earlier that demonstrates Jews interests are engaged in just this kind of operation – the commonly made assertion that the Reichstag fire of 1933 was a Nazi-scripted false-flag event. Even the most cursory research into the topic – including the relevant Wikipedia entry ferchrissakes – would show historians generally concluding that the preponderance of evidence implicates the communist Van der Lubbe, just like the Nazis said.

"Yet Alex Jones, Webster Tarpley, Kevin Barrett and many other radio hosts and writers almost daily label the event as a Nazi false-flag operation. Again – this has to be happening by someone’s design. Patently false claims thriving in a ‘truth’ community all about scepticism and independent research doesn’t happen by chance. Someone is controlling the circulating information, keeping certain ideas out of the discussion and making certain ‘facts’ universally known.

"And who else but Jewry is 1) hysterical enough about the Nazi threat of 1933 to lie about it still in 2012 and 2) known to have Jones and Tarpley put out bullshit to protect them (‘Arabs run Hollywood’ says Jones, ‘Israel had nothing to do with 9/11’ says Tarpley)? Have these two embarrassed and prostituted themselves so publicly for the benefit of anyone else?"


I think I'm on to something but 'd certainly welcome any criticism of my argument, Hadding.

Hadding said...

My opinion:

Some of these people are just parroting stupidity that they heard. But the people from whom they heard it are not so innocent.

Some are motivated by the fact that they are getting money from Jews.

In the case of Alex Jones, we know that he is married to a Jew.

Jones started essentially as an imitator of William Cooper. Cooper pushed a kosher, anti-racist form of "patriotism" on shortwave. He appeared to be a Jew, and had support from Jews like Aaron Rousso.

Normally, people will try not to look misinformed. Normally you could expect that showing somebody that he is saying something false would lead to his discontinuing that claim.

The fact that patriotards are so addicted to claiming that the Reichstag Fire was a false-flag operation, when the consensus of history for the past half-century has been that it was not -- which makes these patriotards look like idiots -- shows that somebody is behind the patriotards pushing them to say it.

Same for the story about Hitler taking away everybody's guns. There was a piece on Salon.com a few months back that referenced William Pierce about this, easily refuting the statements of the idiots that listen to the likes of Alex Jones. (I personally informed Jones on that point about 15 years ago, with no effect of course.)