18
submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

It has been public knowledge that the CIA was behind it for many years though.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

theres nothing "new" about this. this has been known for what, a couple of decades now?

[-] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

What I've noticed with events like this is that the West is openly doing exactly what they accuse the Chinese of doing, where an assumed narrative is the only "permitted" discourse at least on mainstream platforms, and anyone speaking out of line is banned for being a Chinese shill or something. And people absolutely eat it up and will even go out of their way to enforce that narrative online even when they aren't a paid shill, all while they think they're fighting the evil Chinese dictatorship.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago

And people absolutely eat it up and will even go out of their way to enforce that narrative online even when they aren’t a paid shill, all while they think they’re fighting the evil Chinese dictatorship.

If you haven’t yet, you may want to check out Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing”, and perhaps some related articles.

[-] [email protected] 22 points 3 days ago

Of course it was the CIA. If the agency was founded any earlier, they would have been the mastermind behind the Holocaust.

[-] [email protected] 25 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The first civilian president of the CIA, Allen Dulles, was actually a nazi if you did not know.

Here are some fun quotes I found

What he confessed was this. He had not been serving God, after all, when he followed Allen Dulles. He had been on a satanic quest. These were some of James Jesus Angleton’s dying words. He delivered them between fits of calamitous coughing lung-scraping seizures that still failed to break him of his cigarette habit and soothing sips of tea. “Fundamentally, the founding fathers of U.S. intelligence were liars,” Angleton told Trento in an emotionless voice. “The better you lied and the more you betrayed, the more likely you would be promoted. Outside of their duplicity, the only thing they had in common was a desire for absolute power. I did things that, in looking back on my life, I regret. But I was part of it and loved being in it.” He invoked the names of the high eminences who had run the CIA in his day Dulles, Helms, Wisner. These men were “the grand masters,” he said. “If you were in a room with them, you were in a room full of people that you had to believe would deservedly end up in hell.” Angleton took another slow sip from his steaming cup. “I guess I will see them there soon."

Even as the war still raged, in defiance of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s orders, Dulles took the time for a friendly fireside chat with Wolff in Zurich. Dulles was greatly impressed with Wolff, with whom he struck a secret deal in violation of an agreement among the Allies; Wolff surrendered the German forces in Italy days before the war’s end, enabling American forces to take Trieste. Dulles provided Wolff with U.S. protection, by removing his name from the list of defendants at Nuremberg; thereby saving his life.

Dulles had the highest regard for Germany’s Nazi elite – the Reich’s industrialists, generals, chemists, medical doctors, and engineers – whose research and achievements were mostly in wartime technology, racial hygiene, torture, and genocide. Like the Nazis with whom he had cordial relationships, he had fanatic contempt for Soviet Communism and harbored decidedly anti- Semitic eugenic views. Under the Brothers Dulles’ leadership deadly lawless operations were executed with complete disregard for moral and legal proscriptions, to say nothing about the innocent human casualties that were a consequence of these operations.

However, there was a serpent in this businessmen's Eden, and its name was Adolph Hitler. August Thyssen's son and successor, Fritz Thyssen, was an enthusiastic supporter of Hitler and had been funding the Nazi Party since 1923. Other German industrialists would do the same. It is hard to say to what extent the American investors shared Thyssen's enthusiasm, though it seems likely that most of them were swayed less by ideology than by the prospect that Hitler would be good for business. Either way, the outcome was that many wealthy and powerful Americans wound up supporting a regime that would ultimately become their own nation's enemy, and investing in the very firms that would provide the core of that regime's military machine. Early in 1933, both Dulles brothers attended a meeting in Germany where German industrialists agreed to back Hitler's bid for power in exchange for his pledge to break the German unions. A few months later, John Foster Dulles negotiated a deal with Hitler's economics minister whereby all German trade with the United States would be coordinated through a syndicate headed by Averell Harriman's cousin. With the Nazis enforcing a favorable climate for business, the profits for Thyssen and other companies soared, and the Union Banking Corporation increasingly became a Nazi money-laundering machine. In 1934, George Herbert Walker placed Prescott Bush on Union Bank's board of directors, and Bush and Harriman also began to use the bank as the basis for a complex and deceptive system of holding companies.

The Hamburg-Amerika shipping line, which Harriman and Walker had controlled since 1920, had a particularly high degree of Nazi involvement in its operations. In 1934, a congressional investigation revealed it to have become a front for I.G. Farben's spying, propaganda, and bribery on behalf of the German government. Rather than advising Walker and Harriman to divest themselves of these tainted assets, Prescott Bush hired Allen Dulles to help conceal them. From 1937 on, the Dulles brothers would serve Bush and Harriman in all their covert dealings with Nazi firms. They also performed similar cloaking services for others, like the Rockefellers.

It goes without saying that Harriman, Walker, Bush, and Dulles were morally tainted by their connections with German firms like Thyssen and I.G. Farben, since they both funded and profited from Hitler's crimes against humanity. However, their entire enterprise was corrupt in a more subtle sense as well, in that its very basis was financial fraud on an unprecedented scale. That would have been true even if Hitler had never come to power. The real significance of adding the Nazis to the equation was that it upped the stakes, both increasing the potential rewards for the participants and forcing them into increasingly elaborate deceptions to conceal their frauds.

And this is just the nazi ties, if I got into his guilt elsewhere in the world I'd be here all day

[-] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

i tried to find any information on the website, but cant seem to be successful - no wikipedia no mentions on other sites

is there anything that makes them a credible source?

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

People downvoting you for asking if they are a credible source is...weird. Everyone should always be asking themselves if a particular source of information is a credible source.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago

The sources they referenced were from 1) mainstream Western journalism, 2) original documents from persons/organizations, and 3) declassified government documents; all of which can be independently verified.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

Ah, but you see... no Wikipedia links! And as we all know, in the hallowed halls of Liberal Orthodoxy, only Wikipedia, Star Wars lore, Marvel wikis, and Harry Potter fan theories count as reputable sources.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

thats not what I said; I said that I can find no info whatsoever on the website itself. The website has no Wikipedia and isn't mentioned on any major site.

[-] [email protected] -2 points 1 day ago
[-] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago

what are you trying to achieve here? scare me away from adopting your opinion? being critical about new sources / information is just proper validation; your reaction on the other hand leads me to believe that its a non-credible source and I shouldn't believe what it says; job well done.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

As others explained to you in this very thread, the video provides credible western sources that you chose to ignore while braying about lack of wikipedia links. If you expect people to take you seriously then put an effort into actually engaging in a meaningful way instead of making inane comments. Also, nobody really cares whether you're personally convinced of anything. What's important is to point out the fallacy of your arguments for others.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago

you didnt even read my comments; I never claimed that there are wikipedia links lacking; I said (as explained 3 times by now) that there is nothing that I could find that references this website; the website does not have a wikipedia, it also doesnt get cited by anything meaningful. I can't validate the website itself as a credible source.

The article further references many sources, but it rarely provides exact page numbers, document titles, or direct links, which makes it hard to verify the claims quickly or independently. Also sources confirming the validity of some of the declassified documents are missing. Finally it does not properly discuss its supposed sources, but rather cites passages strengthening its own narrative - this just doesn't look like good scientific/journalistic work; which is why I started questioning its validity.

fuck the cia, they have done a lot of provable harm; but I am not willing to jump to conclusions just because it fits my narrative. which is why I will question the validity of articles like this one that raise red flags in terms of proper scientific/journalistic work. Id love to have more reasons to hate the US for taking influence everywhere in the world, but I want it proven not assumed with a hint of sources.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Thats not how source verification works! Credibility=/= verification! Some nobody citing a lot of firsthand accounts of notable state actors admitting that they did a thing that would be bad for them to admit might be less credible than a mainstream news platform only citing secondary sources but is giving you more verifiable information.

[-] [email protected] -2 points 1 day ago

I fully agree with you, but thats not what I said. I just reiterated my first comment which apparently was misunderstood to explain my initial doubts.

My critique that their sources don't get proper analysis, but they rather cite segments fitting their narrative stands. That is not good scientific work.

The lacking credibility just gave me the initial doubts I had about the site.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

It would be helpful to give specific examples to where you think sources are being misused instead of generally saying that they are being misused.

Could you point out a specific instance where they "they rather cite segments fitting their narrative stands" in a way that misrepresents information?

[-] [email protected] -2 points 1 day ago

They claim that Source 25 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep11967.6?seq=21), which is pro massacre narrative btw., explains that the protestors demolishing tanks had been trained by someone, which is the only thing the article cites from the essay. While earlier in the cited source it is claimed that these students were trained by the Chinese army itself << young urban workers, most of whom either had army or militia training, really did conduct a “People’s War.” >> (page 74 in the essay) - the article just uses the later quote as indication that the CIA could've trained these people.

This is my prime example, the other ones are a bit more iffy. This just stood out directly when I checked the quote as the rest of the cited source partially or directly contradicts the essence of the part it is cited in.

this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
18 points (66.1% liked)

World News

36132 readers
199 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS