Mormons Roast for Eternity

[Anonymous]

Joseph Smith had the temerity to call himself God's Prophet, just as did false prophet
Muhammad. However, worse than Muhammad, who at least creates his own nonsensical tales in
the Koran, Joseph Smith extends his blasphemous ravings to lurid, repulsive fantasies of our
Lord and Savior making pregnant many young women. Jesus certainly did NOT marry a bunch of
poor women and proceed to have children with them.

The Mormons teach this foul screed, and make no mistake that Mitt Romney believes in every bit
of this flying saucer cult that is very closely allied with Scientology at the end of the day. It is no
surprise that Tom Cruise looks like a Mormon.

The putrid Book of Mormon calls "Whitesome and delightsome" the souls they say go to their
heaven. If you are black, you must have many reincarnations before you get a white soul.
Reincarnation is one of their many errors. They baptize the dead, adulterously despoil their
women of their virtue, and lead thousands, maybe millions of innocent people into eternal
damnation. When they steal from your tax dollars they call it "milking the beast". That's all you
are to the Synagogue of Satan in Salt Lake City. Cattle to be milked. They are filling hell to the
brim with the people whom they have seduced.

When your turn comes to be judged, are you going to tell Jesus you voted for a Mormon?

[Syd M]

On Nov 4, 9:26 pm, Anonymous <anonym...@foto.nl1.torservers.net>
wrote:

Lying bigot. Romney will be a great president. maybe as great as GWB.

[Bert]

In
news:4335cdc9-9826-438d...@s12g2000vbw.googlegroups.com

Syd M <pauldav...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Romney will be a great president. maybe as great as GWB.

I think Romney would be just like Obama. Most of his stated positions
are essentially identical.

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[James]

Re: Mormons Roast for Eternity

According to your article, there will be more white meat than dark
meat:)

Actually, God and Hitler don't have anything in common. Hitler may
have roasted humans, but God never even conceived of such a terrible
thing. Jer 7:31,

"They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben
Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire--something I did
not command, nor did it enter my mind." (NIV)

The Bible "hell" is translated from the Hebrew word "sheol" and Greek
word "hades". The World Book Encyclopedia says:

"In Old Testament times, the Israelites believed that all the dead,
both good and evil, went to a dark, unhappy place called Sheol."

James

>Anonymous <anon...@foto.nl1.torservers.net>

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Topaz]

Judeo Christians think it is the "end times" even though it has been
the "end times" for over two thousand years so far. They think the one
and only hope is for Jesus to return and straighten everything out.
And a big part of the plan is the destroy the world. They think wars
and everything being blown up is a great thing because it means Jesus
will return soon.

Marxists were murderous lowlifes but they said religion is the opium
of the masses. There obviously is some truth to that. Enemies often
have some truth in their arguments. On top of the opium there is the
Jewish propaganda started by Scofield.

Christians are great for telling what some of the problems are, such
as homosexual perversion, feminism etc. But to actually solve these
problems one should look elsewhere. Who do Christians hate the most,
first Hitler and then the Muslims. These are the two who actually
solved the problems that Christians are famous for speaking against.
Maybe the Muslims go a little overboard but they are the opposite of
liberalism. There is no way that "Brokeback Mountain" would be shown
in a Muslim country.


http://www.ihr.org/ http://heretical.com/

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com

[elizabeth]

On Nov 5, 4:43 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:

What creeps me out about the mormons is how they feel they can baptize
after death. Clearly a violation of the bible. And ya know, since
all religions are untestable hypotheses at best, memepoisoning at
worst, all are equally valid or invalid, depending on your
interpretation.

But the mormons stuff is so . .. well, it's clear that smith was the
L Ron Hubbard of his times, and once things got going, the Elvis
Syndrome kicks in, that's where you believe your own PR, and it always
ends up with creepy old men fucking children, no matter what the size
of the cult.

[Sanders Kaufman]

"elizabeth" wrote in message
news:18ef0860-b550-451b...@qi10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> What creeps me out about the mormons is how they feel they can baptize
> after death. Clearly a violation of the bible.

What creeps me out about Christians is how they ridicule other religions,
while they themselves worship a frigging ZOMBIE.

[elizabeth]

And what is wrong with worshipping a Zombie? Really! I mean, come
on, ever tried to have a conversation with a CreepyCrowley
Ceremonial? Sheesh! Following a man who ended up insane, dying of
syphilis, broke and despised by all who ever knew you . .. the path
you follow, those you admire, indicate a great deal about you.

I am a religion of one. And you?

[Sanders Kaufman]

"elizabeth" wrote in message
news:be26b113-1654-4cf5...@u4g2000pbo.googlegroups.com...

> I am a religion of one. And you?

I met the Buddah along the road.
I killed him.
That's that.
Null.

[elizabeth]

I was a teenaged existentialist, and then I tried nihilism, but I just
couldn't believe in nothing!

[pnyikos]

On Nov 6, 5:48 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 4:43 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> What creeps me out about the mormons is how they feel they can baptize
> after death.

What creeps me out is how you can nonchalantly play footsie with a
Nazi (or, at best, a Nazi sympathizer who makes no bones about it)
while lambasting decent folk like Dino, Mosco, Osprey, and myself.

I've gone toe to toe with Topaz when even that "nazi turd" addict
Fischer wouldn't touch Topaz with a ten foot pole. Like so many
people who try to smear non-Nazis with the charge "Nazi!" he was
almost always speechless when confronted with the real thing.

> Clearly a violation of the bible.

You are ignorant. In I Corinthians 15 Paul mentions the custom of
being "baptized for the dead" without voicing any disapproval of it.

>  And ya know, since
> all religions are untestable hypotheses at best,

There were tests from time to time. Gideon comes to mind.

Of course, you simply dismiss such accounts on the ground of...your
own private atheistic beliefs.

> memepoisoning at
> worst, all are equally valid or invalid, depending on your
> interpretation.
>
> But the mormons stuff is so  . .. well, it's clear that smith was the
> L Ron Hubbard of his times, and once things got going, the Elvis
> Syndrome kicks in, that's where you believe your own PR, and it always
> ends up with creepy old men fucking children, no matter what the size
> of the cult.

I think what you really hate about the Mormons is that most of them
are family-oriented, very decent, morally upright, law-abiding
people. You love people who wallow in lies and hatred and forgery,
like W.T.S. As for your long-time bosom buddy james g. keegan jr.,
two out of three ain't bad where you are concerned, eh?

By the way, I've stopped keeping track of the abortion newsgroups for
several months now. Have Fischer, or Humphrey, or "Spartakus" given
any clue as to their whereabouts since they vanished without saying
good-bye?

>
>
> > Judeo Christians think it is the "end times" even though it has been
> > the "end times" for over two thousand years so far. They think the one
> > and only hope is for Jesus to return and straighten everything out.
> > And a big part of the plan is the destroy the world. They think wars
> > and everything being blown up is a great thing because it means Jesus
> > will return soon.
>
> >  Marxists were murderous lowlifes but they said religion is the opium
> > of the masses. There obviously is some truth to that. Enemies often
> > have some truth in their arguments. On top of the opium there is the
> > Jewish propaganda started by Scofield.
>
> >   Christians are great for telling what some of the problems are, such
> > as homosexual perversion, feminism etc. But to actually solve these
> > problems one should look elsewhere. Who do Christians hate the most,
> > first Hitler and then the Muslims. These are the two who actually
> > solved the problems that Christians are famous for speaking against.

No comment, elizabeth? Not even the obvious comment that plunging the
world into the bloodiest war ever is hardly a solution to anything?

Maybe you think it had the benefit of decreasing the surplus
population, eh?

> > Maybe the Muslims go a little overboard but they are the opposite of
> > liberalism. There is no way that "Brokeback Mountain" would be shown
> > in a Muslim country.
>
> >http://www.ihr.org/  http://heretical.com/
>
> >http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com

NO sign of him saying anything about Hitler going overboard. You had
a beautiful chance to rip into him, and you didn't give a damn.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[Topaz]

Germany's Declaration of War Against the United States
Here are some quotes from:
Hitler's Reichstag Speech of December 11, 1941
In it the German leader recounted the reasons for the outbreak of war
in September 1939, explained why he decided to strike against the
Soviet Union in June 1941, reviewed the dramatic course of the war
thus far, and dealt at length with President Franklin Roosevelt's
hostile policies toward Germany. Hitler detailed the increasingly
belligerent actions of Roosevelt's government, and then dramatically
announced that Germany was now joining Japan in war against the United
States. The day after it was delivered, an inaccurate and misleading
translation of portions of the address appeared in The New York Times!
Although this historic address should be of particular interest to
Americans, a complete text has apparently never before been made
available in English!
-- Mark Weber

After the repeated rejection of my peace proposal in 1940 by the
British prime minister [Winston Churchill] and the clique that
supports and controls him, it was clear by the fall of that year that
this war would have to be fought through to the end
The German people and its soldiers work and fight today not only for
themselves and their own age, but also for many generations to come. A
historical task of unique dimensions has been entrusted to us by the
Creator that we are now obliged to carry out.
The western armistice which was possible shortly after the conclusion
of the conflict in Norway [in June 1940] compelled the German
leadership, first of all, to militarily secure the most important
political, strategic and economic areas that had been won.
From Kirkenes [in northern Norway] to the Spanish frontier stretches
the most extensive belt of great defense installations and fortresses.
Countless air fields have been built, including some in the far north
that were blasted out of granite.
I am determined to make this European front impregnable against any
enemy attack.
Compelled by bitter necessity, I decided in the fall of 1939 to at
least try to create the prerequisite conditions for a general peace by
eliminating the acute tension between Germany and Soviet Russia [with
the German-Soviet non-aggression pact of August 23, 1939]. This was
psychologically difficult because of the basic attitude toward
Bolshevism of the German people and, above all, of the [National
Socialist] Party.
I may remind you, deputies and men of the German Reichstag, that
throughout the spring and summer of 1939 Britain offered military
alliances to a number of countries, claiming that Germany intended to
invade them and rob them of their freedom. However, the German Reich
and its government could assure them with a clear conscience that
these insinuations did not correspond to the truth in any way.
the best and strongest guarantee against the [Soviet] threat from the
East was Germany. When those countries, on their own initiative, cut
their ties with the German Reich and instead put their trust in
promises of aid from a power [Britain] that, in its proverbial
egotism, has for centuries never given help but has always demanded
it, they were thereby lost. Even so, the fate of these countries
aroused the strongest sympathy of the German people. The winter war of
the Finns [against the Soviet Union, 1939-1940] aroused in us a
feeling of admiration mixed with bitterness: admiration because, as a
soldierly nation, we have a sympathetic heart for heroism and
sacrifice, and bitterness because our concern for the enemy threat in
the West and the danger in the East meant that we were no position to
help.
Already in 1940 it became increasingly clear from month to month that
the plans of the men in the Kremlin were aimed at the domination, and
thus the destruction, of all of Europe. I have already told the nation
of the build-up of Soviet Russian military power in the East during a
period when Germany had only a few divisions in the provinces
bordering Soviet Russia. Only a blind person could fail to see that a
military build-up of unique world-historical dimensions was being
carried out. And this was not in order to protect something that was
being threatened, but rather only to attack that which seemed
incapable of defense.
What we call Europe is the geographic territory of the Occident,
enlightened by Greek culture, inspired by the powerful heritage of the
Roman empire, its territory enlarged by Germanic colonization. Whether
it was the German emperors fighting back invasions from the East on
the Unstrut [river, in 933] or on the Lechfeld [plain, in 955], or
others pushing back Africa from Spain over a period of many years, it
was always a struggle of a developing Europe against a profoundly
alien outside world.
Just as Rome once made her immortal contribution to the building and
defense of the continent, so now have the Germanic peoples taken up
the defense and protection of a family of nations which, although they
may differ and diverge in their political structure and goals,
nevertheless together constitute a racially and culturally unified and
complementary whole.
And from this Europe there have not only been settlements in other
parts of the world, but intellectual-spiritual [geistig] and cultural
fertilization as well, a fact that anyone realizes who is willing to
acknowledge the truth rather than deny it. Thus, it was not England
that cultivated the continent, but rather Anglo-Saxon and Norman
branches of the Germanic nation that moved from our continent to the
[British] island and made possible her development, which is certainly
unique in history. In the same way, it was not America that discovered
Europe, but the other way around. And all that which America did not
get from Europe may seem worthy of admiration to a Jewified mixed
race, but Europe regards that merely as symptomatic of decay in
artistic and cultural life, the product of Jewish or Negroid blood
mixture.
I have to make these remarks because this struggle, which became
obviously unavoidable in the early months of this year, and which the
German Reich, above all, is called upon this time to lead, also
greatly transcends the interests of our own people and nation. When
the Greeks once stood against the Persians, they defended more than
just Greece. When the Romans stood against the Carthaginians, they
defended more than just Rome. When the Roman and Germanic peoples
stood together against the Huns, they defended more than just the
West. When German emperors stood against the Mongols, they defended
more than just Germany. And when Spanish heroes stood against Africa,
they defended not just Spain, but all of Europe as well. In the same
way, Germany does not fight today just for itself, but for our entire
continent.
And it is an auspicious sign that this realization is today so deeply
rooted in the subconscious of most European nations that they
participate in this struggle, either with open expressions of support
or with streams of volunteers.
When I became aware of the possibility of a threat to the east of the
Reich in 1940 through [secret] reports from the British House of
Commons and by observations of Soviet Russian troop movements on our
frontiers, I immediately ordered the formation of many new armored,
motorized and infantry divisions.
We realized very clearly that under no circumstances could we allow
the enemy the opportunity to strike first into our heart.
Nevertheless, in this case the decision [to attack Soviet Russia] was
a very difficult one. When the writers for the democratic newspapers
now declare that I would have thought twice before attacking if I had
known the strength of the Bolshevik adversaries, they show that they
do not understand either the situation or me.
I have not sought war. To the contrary, I have done everything to
avoid conflict. But I would forget my duty and my conscience if I were
to do nothing in spite of the realization that a conflict had become
unavoidable. Because I regarded Soviet Russia as the gravest danger
not only for the German Reich but for all of Europe, I decided, if
possible, to give the order myself to attack a few days before the
outbreak of this conflict.
A truly impressive amount of authentic material is now available which
confirms that a Soviet Russian attack was intended. We are also sure
about when this attack was to take place. In view of this danger, the
extent of which we are perhaps only now truly aware, I can only thank
the Lord God that He enlightened me in time, and has given me the
strength to do what must be done. Millions of German soldiers may
thank Him for their lives, and all of Europe for its existence.
I may say this today: If this wave of more than 20,000 tanks, hundreds
of divisions, tens of thousands of artillery pieces, along with more
than 10,000 airplanes, had not been kept from being set into motion
against the Reich, Europe would have been lost.
If the Slovaks, Hungarians and Romanians had not also acted to defend
this European world, then the Bolshevik hordes would have poured over
the Danube countries as did once the swarms of Attila's Huns,
If Italy, Spain and Croatia had not sent their divisions, then a
European defense front would not have arisen that proclaims the
concept of a new Europe and thereby powerfully inspires all other
nations as well. Because of this awareness of danger, volunteers have
come from northern and western Europe: Norwegians, Danes, Dutch,
Flemish, Belgians and even French. They have all given the struggle of
the allied forces of the Axis the character of a European crusade, in
the truest sense of the word.
And now let me speak about another world, one that is represented by a
man [President Franklin Roosevelt] who likes to chat nicely at the
fireside while nations and their soldiers fight in snow and ice: above
all, the man who is primarily responsible for this war.
When the nationality problem in the former Polish state was growing
ever more intolerable in 1939, I attempted to eliminate the
unendurable conditions by means of a just agreement. For a certain
time it seemed as if the Polish government was seriously considering
giving its approval to a reasonable solution. I may also add here that
in all of these German proposals, nothing was demanded that had not
previously belonged to Germany. In fact, we were willing to give up
much that had belonged to Germany before the [First] World War.
You will recall the dramatic events of that period -- the steadily
increasing numbers of victims among the ethnic Germans [in Poland].
You, my deputies, are best qualified to compare this loss of life with
that of the present war. The military campaign in the East has so far
cost the entire German armed forces about 160,000 deaths, whereas
during just a few months of peace [in 1939] more than 62,000 ethnic
Germans were killed, including some who were horribly tortured. There
is no question that the German Reich had the right to protest against
this situation on its border and to press for its elimination, if for
no other reason than for its own security, particularly since we live
in an age in which [some] other countries [notably, the USA and
Britain] regard their security at stake even in foreign continents. In
geographical terms, the problems to be resolved were not very
important. Essentially they involved Danzig [Gdansk] and a connecting
link between the torn-away province of East Prussia and the rest of
the Reich. Of much greater concern were the brutal persecutions of the
Germans in Poland. In addition, the other minority population groups
[notably the Ukrainians] were subject to a fate that was no less
severe.
During those days in August [1939], when the Polish attitude steadily
hardened, thanks to Britain's blank check of unlimited backing, the
German Reich was moved to make one final proposal. We were prepared to
enter into negotiations with Poland on the basis of this proposal, and
we verbally informed the British ambassador of the proposal text.
Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig-Corridor problem and the
German-Polish minority question:
The situation between the German Reich and Poland is now such that any
further incident could lead to action by the military forces that have
taken position on both sides of the frontier. Any peaceful solution
must be such that the basic causes of this situation are eliminated so
that they are not simply repeated, which would mean that not only
eastern Europe but other areas as well would be subject to the same
tension. The causes of this situation are rooted in, first, the
intolerable border that was specified by the dictated peace of
Versailles [of 1919], and, second, the intolerable treatment of the
minority populations in the lost territories.
In making these proposals, the German Reich government is motivated by
the desire to achieve a permanent solution that will put an end to the
intolerable situation arising from the present border demarcation,
secure to both parties vitally important connecting routes, and which
will solve the minority problem, insofar as that is possible, and if
not, will at least insure a tolerable life for the minority
populations with secure guarantees of their rights.
On the basis of these considerations, we make the following concrete
proposals:
1. The Free City of Danzig returns immediately to the German Reich on
the basis of its purely German character and the unanimous desire of
its population.
2. The territory of the so-called [Polish] Corridor will decide for
itself whether it wishes to belong to Germany or to Poland. This
territory consists of the area between the Baltic Sea [in the north]
to a line marked [in the south] by the towns of Marienwerder,
Graudenz, Kuhn and Bromberg -- including these towns -- and then
westwards to Schoenlanke.
3. For this purpose a plebiscite will be conducted in this territory.
All Germans who lived in this territory on January 1, 1918, or were
born there on or before that date will be entitled to vote in the
plebiscite. Similarly, all Poles, Kashubians, and so forth, who lived
in this territory on or before that date, or were born there before
that date, will also be entitled to vote. Germans who were expelled
from this territory will return to vote in the plebiscite.
4. Not included in this territory is the Polish port of Gdynia, which
is regarded as fundamentally sovereign Polish territory, to the extent
of [ethnic] Polish settlement, but as a matter of principle is
recognized as Polish territory. The specific border of this Polish
port city will be negotiated by Germany and Poland and, if necessary,
established by an international court of arbitration.
7. A simple majority of the votes cast will decide whether the
territory will go to Germany or to Poland.
9. If the Corridor returns to Germany, the German Reich declares that
it is ready to carry out an exchange of population with Poland to the
extent that this would be suitable for the [people of the] Corridor.
13. The German Reich government has protested in the strongest terms
against the Polish treatment of its minority populations. For its
part, the Polish government also believes itself called upon to make
protests against Germany. Accordingly, both sides agree to submit
these complaints to an international investigation commission, which
will be responsible for investigating all complaints of economic and
physical damage as well as other acts of terror.
This is the treaty proposal - as straight-forward and as generous as
has ever been presented by a government - that was made by the
National Socialist leadership of the German Reich.
The former Polish government refused to respond to these proposals in
any way. In this regard, the question presents itself: How is it
possible that such an unimportant state could dare to simply disregard
such proposals and, in addition, carry out further cruelties against
the Germans, the people who have given this land its entire culture,
and even order the general mobilization of its armed forces? A look at
the documents of the [Polish] Foreign Ministry in Warsaw later
provided the surprising explanation. They told of the role of a man
[President Roosevelt] who, with diabolical lack of principle, used all
of his influence to strengthen Poland's resistance and to prevent any
possibility of understanding. These reports were sent by the former
Polish ambassador in Washington, Count [Jerzy] Potocki, to his
government in Warsaw. These documents clearly and shockingly reveal
the extent to which one man and the powers behind him are responsible
for the Second World War. Another question arises: Why had this man
[Roosevelt] developed such a fanatic hostility against a country that,
in its entire history, had never harmed either America or him?
With regard to Germany's relationship with America, the following
should be said:
1. Germany is perhaps the only great power which has never had a
colony in either North or South America. Nor has it been otherwise
politically active there, apart from the emigration of many millions
of Germans with their skills, from which the American continent, and
particularly the United States, has only benefited.
Furthermore, there are no territorial or political conflicts between
the American and German nations that could possibly involve the
existence or even the [vital] interests of the United States. The
forms of government have always been different. But this cannot be a
reason for hostility between different nations, as long as one form of
government does not try to interfere with another, outside of its
naturally ordained sphere.
History itself has rendered its verdict on Wilson. His name will
always be associated with the most base betrayal in history of a
pledge [notably, Wilson's "14 points"]. The result was the ruin of
national life, not only in the so-called vanquished countries, but
among the victors as well. Because of this broken pledge, which alone
made possible the imposed Treaty of Versailles [1919], countries were
torn apart, cultures were destroyed and the economic life of all was
ruined. Today we know that a group of self-serving financiers stood
behind Wilson. They used this paralytic professor to lead America into
a war from which they hoped to profit. The German nation once believed
this man, and had to pay for this trust with political and economic
ruin.
After such a bitter experience, why is there now another American
president who is determined to incite wars and, above all, to stir up
hostility against Germany to the point of war? National Socialism came
to power in Germany in the same year [1933] that Roosevelt came to
power in the United States. At this point it is important to examine
the factors behind the current developments.
First of all, the personal side of things: I understand very well that
there is a world of difference between my own outlook on life and
attitude, and that of President Roosevelt. Roosevelt came from an
extremely wealthy family. By birth and origin he belonged to that
class of people that is privileged in a democracy and assured of
advancement. I myself was only the child of a small and poor family,
and I had to struggle through life by work and effort in spite of
immense hardships. As a member of the privileged class, Roosevelt
experienced the [First] World War in a position under Wilson's shadow
[as assistant secretary of the Navy]. As a result, he only knew the
agreeable consequences of a conflict between nations from which some
profited while others lost their lives. During this same period, I
lived very differently. I was not one of those who made history or
profits, but rather one of those who carried out orders. As an
ordinary soldier during those four years, I tried to do my duty in the
face of the enemy. Of course, I returned from the war just as poor as
when I entered in the fall of 1914. I thus shared my fate with
millions of others, while Mr. Roosevelt shared his with the so-called
upper ten thousand.
After the war, while Mr. Roosevelt tested his skills in financial
speculation in order to profit personally from the inflation, that is,
from the misfortune of others, I still lay in a military hospital
along with many hundreds of thousands of others. Experienced in
business, financially secure and enjoying the patronage of his class,
Roosevelt then finally chose a career in politics. During this same
period, I struggled as a nameless and unknown man for the rebirth of
my nation, which was the victim of the greatest injustice in its
entire history.
Two different paths in life! Franklin Roosevelt took power in the
United States as the candidate of a thoroughly capitalistic party,
which helps those who serve it. When I became the Chancellor of the
German Reich, I was the leader of a popular national movement, which I
had created myself. The powers that supported Mr. Roosevelt were the
same powers I fought against, out of concern for the fate of my
people, and out of deepest inner conviction. The "brain trust" that
served the new American president was made up of members of the same
national group that we fought against in Germany as a parasitical
expression of humanity, and which we began to remove from public life.
And yet, we also had something in common: Franklin Roosevelt took
control of a country with an economy that had been ruined as a result
of democratic influences, and I assumed the leadership of a Reich that
was also on the edge of complete ruin, thanks to democracy. There were
13 million unemployed in the United States, while Germany had seven
million unemployed and another seven million part-time workers. In
both countries, public finances were in chaos, and it seemed that the
spreading economic depression could not be stopped.
From then on, things developed in the United States and in the German
Reich in such a way that future generations will have no difficulty in
making a definitive evaluation of the two different socio-political
theories. Whereas the German Reich experienced an enormous improvement
in social, economic, cultural and artistic life in just a few years
under National Socialist leadership, President Roosevelt was not able
to bring about even limited improvements in his own country. This task
should have been much easier in the United States, with barely 15
people per square kilometer, as compared to 140 in Germany. If
economic prosperity is not possible in that country, it must be the
result of either a lack of will by the ruling leadership or the
complete incompetence of the men in charge. In just five years, the
economic problems were solved in Germany and unemployment was
eliminated. During this same period, President Roosevelt enormously
increased his country's national debt, devalued the dollar, further
disrupted the economy and maintained the same number of unemployed.
But this is hardly remarkable when one realizes that the intellects
appointed by this man, or more accurately, who appointed him, are
members of that same group who, as Jews, are interested only in
disruption and never in order. While we in National Socialist Germany
took measures against financial speculation, it flourished
tremendously under Roosevelt. The New Deal legislation of this man was
spurious, and consequently the greatest error ever experienced by
anyone. If his economic policies had continued indefinitely during
peace time, there is no doubt that sooner or later they would have
brought down this president, in spite of all his dialectical
cleverness. In a European country his career would certainly have
ended in front of a national court for recklessly squandering the
nation's wealth. And he would hardly have avoided a prison sentence by
a civil court for criminally incompetent business management.
Many respected Americans also shared this view. A threatening
opposition was growing all around this man, which led him to think
that he could save himself only by diverting public attention from his
domestic policies to foreign affairs. In this regard it is interesting
to study the reports of Polish Ambassador Potocki from Washington,
which repeatedly point out that Roosevelt was fully aware of the
danger that his entire economic house of cards could collapse, and
that therefore he absolutely had to divert attention to foreign
policy.
The circle of Jews around Roosevelt encouraged him in this. With Old
Testament vindictiveness they regarded the United States as the
instrument that they and he could use to prepare a second Purim
[slaughter of enemies] against the nations of Europe, which were
increasingly anti-Jewish. So it was that the Jews, in all of their
satanic baseness, gathered around this man, and he relied on them.
The American president increasingly used his influence to create
conflicts, intensify existing conflicts, and, above all, to keep
conflicts from being resolved peacefully. For years this man looked
for a dispute anywhere in the world, but preferably in Europe, that he
could use to create political entanglements with American economic
obligations to one of the contending sides, which would then steadily
involve America in the conflict and thus divert attention from his own
confused domestic economic policies.
His actions against the German Reich in this regard have been
particularly blunt. Starting in 1937, he began a series of speeches,
including a particularly contemptible one on October 5, 1937, in
Chicago, with which this man systematically incited the American
public against Germany . He threatened to establish a kind of
quarantine against the so-called authoritarian countries. As part of
this steady and growing campaign of hate and incitement, President
Roosevelt made another insulting statement [on Nov. 15, 1938] and then
called the American ambassador in Berlin back to Washington for
consultations. Since then the two countries have been represented only
by charges d'affaires.
Starting in November 1938, he began systematically and consciously to
sabotage every possibility of a European peace policy. In public he
hypocritically claimed to be interested in peace while at the same
time he threatened every country that was ready to pursue a policy of
peaceful understanding by blocking credits, economic reprisals,
calling in loans, and so forth. In this regard, the reports of the
Polish ambassadors in Washington, London, Paris and Brussels provide a
shocking insight.
This man increased his campaign of incitement in January 1939. In a
message [on Jan. 4, 1939] to the U.S. Congress he threatened to take
every measure short of war against the authoritarian countries.
He repeatedly claimed that other countries were trying to interfere in
American affairs, and he talked a lot about upholding the Monroe
Doctrine. Starting in March 1939 he began lecturing about internal
European affairs that were of no concern of the President of the
United States. In the first place, he doesn't understand these
problems, and secondly, even if he did understand them and appreciated
the historical circumstances, he has no more right to concern himself
with central European affairs than the German head of state has to
take positions on or make judgments about conditions in the United
States.
Mr. Roosevelt went even beyond that. Contrary to the rules of
international law, he refused to recognize governments he didn't like,
would not accept new ones, refused to dismiss ambassadors of
non-existent countries, and even recognized them as legal governments.
He went so far as to conclude treaties with these ambassadors, which
then gave him the right to simply occupy foreign territories
[Greenland and Iceland ].
But now the honorable wife [Eleanor Roosevelt] took his place. She and
her sons [she said] refused to live in a world such as ours. That is
at least understandable, for ours is world of work and not one of
deceit and racketeering. After a short rest, though, he was back at
it. On November 4, 1939, the Neutrality Act was revised and the arms
embargo was repealed in favor of a one-sided supply [of weapons] to
Germany's adversaries. In the same way, he pushed in eastern Asia for
economic entanglements with China that would eventually lead to
effective common interests. That same month he recognized a small
group of Polish emigrants as a so-called government in exile, the only
political basis of which was a few million Polish gold pieces they had
taken from Warsaw.
This man revealed his true attitude in a telegram of June 15 [1940] to
French premier [Paul] Reynaud. Roosevelt told him that the American
government would double its aid to France, on the condition that
France continue the war against Germany. In order to give special
emphasis to his desire that the war continue, he declared that the
American government would not recognize acquisitions brought about by
conquest, which included, for example, the retaking of territories
that had been stolen from Germany. I do not need to emphasize that now
and in the future, the German government will not be concerned about
whether or not the President of the United States recognizes a border
in Europe. I mention this case because it is characteristic of the
systematic incitement of this man, who hypocritically talks about
peace while at the same time he incites to war.
And now he feared that if peace were to come about in Europe, the
billions he had squandered on military spending would soon be
recognized as an obvious case of fraud, because no one would attack
America unless America itself provoked the attack. On June 17, 1940,
the President of the United States froze French assets [in the USA] in
order, so he said, to keep them from being seized by Germany, but in
reality to get hold of the gold that was being brought from Casablanca
on an American cruiser.
In July 1940 Roosevelt began to take many new measures toward war,
such as permitting the service of American citizens in the British air
force and the training of British air force personnel in the United
States. In August 1940 a joint military policy for the United States
and Canada was established. In order to make the establishment of a
joint American-Canadian defense committee plausible to at least the
stupidest people, Roosevelt periodically invented crises and acted as
if America was threatened by immediate attack. He would suddenly
cancel trips and quickly return to Washington and do similar things in
order to emphasize the seriousness of the situation to his followers,
who really deserve pity. He moved still closer to war in September
1940 when he transferred fifty American naval destroyers to the
British fleet, and in return took control of military bases on British
possessions in North and Central America. Future generations will
determine the extent to which, along with all this hatred against
socialist Germany, the desire to easily and safely take control of the
British empire in its hour of disintegration may have also played a
role.
After Britain was no longer able to pay cash for American deliveries
he imposed the Lend-Lease Act on the American people [in March 1941].
As President, he thereby obtained the authority to furnish lend-lease
military aid to countries that he, Roosevelt, decided it was in
America's vital interests to defend. After it became clear that
Germany would not respond under any circumstances to his continued
boorish behavior, this man took another step forward in March 1941.
As early as December 19, 1939, an American cruiser [the Tuscaloosa]
that was inside the security zone maneuvered the [German] passenger
liner Columbus into the hands of British warships. As a result, it had
to be scuttled. On that same day, US military forces helped in an
effort to capture the German merchant ship Arauca. On January 27,
1940, and once again contrary to international law, the US cruiser
Trenton reported the movements of the German merchant ships Arauca, La
Plata and Wangoni to enemy naval forces.
On June 27, 1940, he announced a limitation on the free movement of
foreign merchant ships in US ports, completely contrary to
international law. In November 1940 he permitted US warships to pursue
the German merchant ships Phrygia, Idarwald and Rhein until they
finally had to scuttle themselves to keep from falling into enemy
hands. On April 13, 1941, American ships were permitted to pass freely
through the Red Sea in order to supply British armies in the Middle
East.
In the meantime, in March [1941] all German ships were confiscated by
the American authorities. In the process, German Reich citizens were
treated in the most degrading way, ordered to certain locations in
violation of international law, put under travel restrictions, and so
forth. Two German officers who had escaped from Canadian captivity [to
the United States] were shackled and returned to the Canadian
authorities, likewise completely contrary to international law.
On March 27 [1941] the same president who is [supposedly] against all
aggression announced support for [General Dusan] Simovic and his
clique of usurpers [in Yugoslavia], who had come to power in Belgrade
after the overthrow of the legal government. Several months earlier,
President Roosevelt had sent [OSS chief] Colonel Donovan, a very
inferior character, to the Balkans with orders to help organize an
uprising against Germany and Italy in Sofia [Bulgaria] and Belgrade.
In April he [Roosevelt] promised lend-lease aid to Yugoslavia and
Greece. At the end of April he recognized Yugoslav and Greek emigrants
as governments in exile. And once again, in violation of international
law, he froze Yugoslav and Greek assets. Starting in mid-April [1941]
US naval patrols began expanded operations in the western Atlantic,
reporting their observations to the British. On April 26, Roosevelt
delivered twenty high speed patrol boats to Britain. At the same time,
British naval ships were routinely being repaired in US ports. On May
12, Norwegian ships operating for Britain were armed and repaired [in
the USA], contrary to international law. On June 4, American troop
transports arrived in Greenland to build air fields. And on June 9
came the first British report that a US war ship, acting on orders of
President Roosevelt, had attacked a German submarine near Greenland
with depth charges.
On June 14, German assets in the United States were frozen, again in
violation of international law. On June 17, on the basis of a lying
pretext, President Roosevelt demanded the recall of the German consuls
and the closing of the German consulates. He also demanded the
shutting down of the German "Transocean" press agency, the German
Library of Information [in New York] and the German Reichsbahn
[national railway] office.
On July 6 and 7 [1941], American armed forces acting on orders from
Roosevelt occupied Iceland, which was in the area of German military
operations. He hoped that this action would certainly, first, finally
force Germany into war [against the USA] and, second, also neutralize
the effectiveness of the German submarines, much as in 1915-1916. At
the same time, he promised military aid to the Soviet Union. On July
10 Navy Secretary [Frank] Knox suddenly announced that the US Navy was
under orders to fire against Axis warships. On September 4 the US
destroyer Greer, acting on his orders, operated together with British
airplanes against German submarines in the Atlantic. Five days later,
a German submarine identified US destroyers as escort vessels with a
British convoy.
In a speech delivered on September 11 [1941], Roosevelt at last
personally confirmed that he had given the order to fire against all
Axis ships, and he repeated the order. On September 29, US patrols
attacked a German submarine east of Greenland with depth charges. On
October 17 the US destroyer Kearny, operating as an escort for the
British, attacked a German submarine with depth charges, and on
November 6 US armed forces seized the German ship Odenwald in
violation of international law, took it to an American port, and
imprisoned its crew.
I will overlook as meaningless the insulting attacks and rude
statements by this so-called President against me personally. That he
calls me a gangster is particularly meaningless, since this term did
not originate in Europe, where such characters are uncommon, but in
America. And aside from that, I simply cannot feel insulted by Mr.
Roosevelt because I regard him, like his predecessor Woodrow Wilson,
as mentally unsound [geisteskrank].
We know that this man, with his Jewish supporters, has operated
against Japan in the same way. I don't need to go into that here. The
same methods were used in that case as well. This man first incites to
war, and then he lies about its causes and makes baseless allegations.
He repugnantly wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy, while
at the same time slowly but very steadily leading humanity into war.
And finally, as an old Freemason, he calls upon God to witness that
his actions are honorable. His shameless misrepresentations of truth
and violations of law are unparalleled in history.
I am sure that all of you have regarded it as an act of deliverance
that a country [Japan] has finally acted to protest against all this
in the very way that this man had actually hoped for, and which should
not surprise him now [the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941].
After years of negotiating with this deceiver, the Japanese government
finally had its fill of being treated in such a humiliating way. All
of us, the German people and, I believe, all other decent people
around the world as well, regard this with deep appreciation.
We know the power behind Roosevelt. It is the same eternal Jew that
believes that his hour has come to impose the same fate on us that we
have all seen and experienced with horror in Soviet Russia. We have
gotten to know first hand the Jewish paradise on earth. Millions of
German soldiers have personally seen the land where this international
Jewry has destroyed and annihilated people and property. Perhaps the
President of the United States does not understand this. If so, that
only speaks for his intellectual narrow-mindedness.
And we know that his entire effort is aimed at this goal: Even if we
were not allied with Japan, we would still realize that the Jews and
their Franklin Roosevelt intend to destroy one state after another.
The German Reich of today has nothing in common with the Germany of
the past. For our part, we will now do what this provocateur has been
trying to achieve for years. And not just because we are allied with
Japan, but rather because Germany and Italy with their present
leaderships have the insight and strength to realize that in this
historic period the existence or non-existence of nations is being
determined, perhaps for all time. What this other world has in store
for us is clear. They were able to bring the democratic Germany of the
past [1918-1933] to starvation, and they seek to destroy the National
Socialist Germany of today.
When Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt declare that they want to one day
build a new social order, that's about the same as a bald-headed
barber recommending a tonic guaranteed to make hair grow. Rather than
incite war, these gentlemen, who live in the most socially backward
countries, should have concerned themselves with their own unemployed
people. They have enough misery and poverty in their own countries to
keep themselves busy insuring a just distribution of food there. As
far as the German nation is concerned, it doesn't need charity, either
from Mr. Churchill, Mr. Roosevelt or [British foreign secretary] Mr.
Eden -- but it does demand its rights. And it will do what it must to
insure its right to life, even if a thousand Churchills and Roosevelts
conspire together to prevent it.
Our nation has a history of nearly two thousand years. Never in this
long period has it been so united and determined as it is today, and
thanks to the National Socialist movement it will always be that way.
At the same time, Germany has perhaps never been as far-sighted, and
seldom as conscious of honor. Accordingly, today I had the passports
returned to the American charge d'affaires, and he was bluntly
informed of the following:
President Roosevelt's steadily expanding policy has been aimed at an
unlimited world dictatorship. In pursuing this goal, the United States
and Britain have used every means to deny the German, Italian and
Japanese nations the prerequisites for their vital natural existence.
For this reason, the governments of Britain and the United States of
America have opposed every effort to create a new and better order in
the world, for both the present and the future. Since the beginning of
the war [in September 1939], the American President Roosevelt has
steadily committed ever more serious crimes against international law.
Along with illegal attacks against ships and other property of German
and Italian citizens, there have been threats and even arbitrary
deprivations of personal freedom by internment and such. The
increasingly hostile attacks by the American President Roosevelt have
reached the point that he has ordered the U.S. navy, in complete
violation of international law, to immediately and everywhere attack,
fire upon and sink German and Italian ships. American officials have
even boasted about destroying German submarines in this criminal
manner. American cruisers have attacked and captured German and
Italian merchant ships, and their peaceful crews were taken away to
imprisonment In addition, President Roosevelt's plan to attack Germany
and Italy with military forces in Europe by 1943 at the latest was
made public in the United States [by the Chicago Tribune and several
other newspapers on Dec. 4, 1941], and the American government made no
effort to deny it.
Despite the years of intolerable provocations by President Roosevelt,
Germany and Italy sincerely and very patiently tried to prevent the
expansion of this war and to maintain relations with the United
States. But as a result of his campaign, these efforts have failed.
Faithful to the provisions of the Tripartite Pact of September 27,
1940, German and Italy accordingly now regard themselves as finally
forced to join together on the side of Japan in the struggle for the
defense and preservation of the freedom and independence of our
nations and realms against the United States of America and Britain.
The three powers have accordingly concluded the following agreement,
which was signed today in Berlin:
Article 1. Germany, Italy and Japan will together conduct the war that
has been forced upon them by the United States of America and Britain
with all the means at their command to a victorious conclusion.
Article 2. Germany, Italy and Japan pledge not to conclude an
armistice or make peace with either the United States of America or
Britain unless by complete mutual agreement.
Article 3. Germany, Italy and Japan will also work very closely
together after a victorious conclusion of the war for the purpose of
bringing about a just new order in accord with the Tripartite Pact
concluded by them on September 27, 1940.
Ever since my peace proposal of July 1940 was rejected, we have
clearly realized that this struggle must be fought through to the end.
We National Socialists are not at all surprised that the
Anglo-American, Jewish and capitalist world is united together with
Bolshevism. In our country we have always found them in the same
community. Alone we successfully fought against them here in Germany,
and after 14 years of struggle for power we were finally able to
annihilate our enemies.
When I decided 23 years ago to enter political life in order to lead
the nation up from ruin, I was a nameless, unknown soldier. Many of
you here know just how difficult those first years of that struggle
really were. The way from a small movement of seven men to the taking
of power on January 30, 1933, as the responsible government is so
miraculous that only the blessing of Providence could have made it
possible.
Our adversaries today are the same familiar enemies of more than
twenty years.
When we think of the sacrifice and effort of our soldiers, then every
sacrifice of [those here in] the homeland is completely insignificant
and unimportant. And when we consider the number of all those in past
generations who gave their lives for the survival and greatness of the
German nation, then we are really conscious of the magnitude of the
duty that is ours.
The government of the United States of America, having violated in the
most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of
neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany, and having
continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany
ever since the outbreak of the European war, brought on by the British
declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally
resorted to open military acts of aggression.
On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States of America
publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force
to shoot on sight any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27,
1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force.
Acting under this order, American naval vessels have systematically
attacked German naval forces since early September 1941. Thus,
American destroyers, as for instance, the Greer, the Kearny and the
Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan.
The American Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that
the American destroyers attacked German submarines.
Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States of America, under
order of their government and contrary to international law, have
treated and seized German merchant ships on the high seas as enemy
ships.
The German government therefore establishes the following facts:
Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of
international law in her relations with the United States of America
during every period of the present war, the government of the United
States of America from initial violations of neutrality has finally
proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. It has thereby
virtually created a state of war.
The government of the Reich consequently breaks off diplomatic
relations with the United States of America and declares that under
these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt, Germany too,
as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the
United States of America.

[james g. keegan jr.]

In article
<8ecfd37f-19a9-4ff5...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, the
plagiarist posting as

pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Nov 6, 5:48 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 4:43 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > What creeps me out about the mormons is how they feel they can baptize
> > after death.
>
> What creeps me out is how you can nonchalantly play footsie with a
> Nazi (or, at best, a Nazi sympathizer who makes no bones about it)
> while lambasting decent folk like Dino, Mosco, Osprey, and myself.

this is one of the plagiarist's funniest posts.

[pnyikos]

With his only supporter of any consequence, "elizabeth," in the hot
seat, the man who turned talk.abortion into a hellhole with the help
of scoundrels like her tries vainly to deflect attention from her
failure to blast Topaz when she had a golden opportunity.

Perhaps she was afraid some readers would vote for Romney if they saw
a battle between the two of them just before the election, eh?

On Dec 14, 5:14 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <8ecfd37f-19a9-4ff5-ae92-8175b10f6...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, the
> plagiarist posting as

>
>  pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 5:48 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 5, 4:43 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What creeps me out about the mormons is how they feel they can baptize
> > > after death.
>
> > What creeps me out is how you can nonchalantly play footsie with a
> > Nazi (or, at best, a Nazi sympathizer who makes no bones about it)
> > while lambasting decent folk like Dino, Mosco, Osprey, and myself.
>
> this is one of the plagiarist's funniest posts.

How self-referential can you get, you pathetic clown? YOU did
something way back in 2010 that fits the following definition:

present as new and original an idea or product derived from an
existing source
-- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize

The following post explains how you did it:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/e9b275e21ea18ad4?dmode=source

Sparakus, the person who lied on your behalf about your "plagiarist"
counter-charge, against me, is long gone, and with him your last shred
of credibiliity.

People who have any doubts about the ridiculousness of that counter-
charge can look here:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/e4b0fa01185de9bc

An even more detailed account can be found by using the url at the end
of this post.

Spartakus lied about a definition of "plagiarist" he had pulled from
his ass. Despicable keegan-bootlicker that he is, he lied that this
was MY definition.

You have NEVER dared to repost that ridiculous "definition," have you?

Go ahead. lie through your teeth that it's been reposted hundreds of
times and that you don't see any reason to repost it again. That's
the kind of pathological liar you are.

In fact, your "plagiarist" lie won the following "award":

Subject: Pathological Liar of the Month (July 2010):
http://groups.google.com/group/tx.politics/msg/f91b0bde06325f20

Peter Nyikos

[-]

On Dec 14, 1:17 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> With his only supporter of any consequence, "elizabeth," in the hot
> seat, the man who turned talk.abortion into a hellhole with the help
> of scoundrels like her tries vainly to deflect attention from her
> failure to blast Topaz when she had a golden opportunity.

Wow, those to certifiable wack jobs are still posting?
How pathetic. They have no friends, you would think they would have
gotten
the hint long ago. I'm so glad I got them on a filter. It's almost
depressing
reading the rantings of lunatics.

>
> Perhaps she was afraid some readers would vote for Romney if they saw
> a battle between the two of them  just before the election, eh?
>
> On Dec 14, 5:14 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <8ecfd37f-19a9-4ff5-ae92-8175b10f6...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, the
> > plagiarist posting as
>
> >  pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 5:48 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 5, 4:43 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > What creeps me out about the mormons is how they feel they can baptize
> > > > after death.
>
> > > What creeps me out is how you can nonchalantly play footsie with a
> > > Nazi (or, at best, a Nazi sympathizer who makes no bones about it)
> > > while lambasting decent folk like Dino, Mosco, Osprey, and myself.
>
> > this is one of the plagiarist's funniest posts.
>
> How self-referential can you get, you pathetic clown?  YOU did
> something way back in 2010 that fits the following definition:
>
>   present as new and original an idea or product derived from an
> existing source

>   --http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize
>
> The following post explains how you did it:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/e9b275e21ea18ad4?dmo...

[elizabeth]

On Dec 13, 6:52 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 5:48 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 5, 4:43 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What creeps me out about the mormons is how they feel they can baptize
> > after death.
>
> What creeps me out is how you can nonchalantly play footsie with a
> Nazi (or, at best, a Nazi sympathizer who makes no bones about it)
> while lambasting decent folk like Dino, Mosco, Osprey, and myself.

Who's a Nazi? and do prove it, don't pull a Heishman out of your ass
and insist you have "inside sources" that you won't reveal.

And this is a ng. Never met anyone from this ng ever. So playing
'footsie" is a bit out of the question, don't you think?
Or *don't* you?

> I've gone toe to toe with Topaz when even that "nazi turd" addict
> Fischer wouldn't touch Topaz

Who is "Topaz?" Why should I care about people you dislike?

> with a ten foot pole.  Like so many
> people who try to smear non-Nazis with the charge "Nazi!" he was
> almost always speechless when confronted with the real thing.
>
> > Clearly a violation of the bible.
>
> You are ignorant.  In I Corinthians 15 Paul mentions the custom of
> being "baptized for the dead" without voicing any disapproval of it.

Nope. The Pope even agrees with me on this. And I was told this by a
Jesuit.
So, you know more about the church than the Jesuits, eh?

> >  And ya know, since
> > all religions are untestable hypotheses at best,
>
> There were tests from time to time.  Gideon comes to mind.

That does not constitute a test. Verfiable, falsafiable, etc

> Of course, you simply dismiss such accounts on the ground of...your
> own private atheistic beliefs.

I'm agnostic. Can't prove a negative, which a mathprof would know.
In fact, math is about verifiable proof. No wonder fauxNy is such a
victim of Cognitive Dissonance . ..

> > memepoisoning at
> > worst, all are equally valid or invalid, depending on your
> > interpretation.
>
> > But the mormons stuff is so  . .. well, it's clear that smith was the
> > L Ron Hubbard of his times, and once things got going, the Elvis
> > Syndrome kicks in, that's where you believe your own PR, and it always
> > ends up with creepy old men fucking children, no matter what the size
> > of the cult.

I think you should realize you can't read minds when you have none to
speak of ... sounding very much like Oopsey, eh?

> I think what you really hate about the Mormons is that most of them
> are family-oriented, very decent, morally upright, law-abiding
> people.

Nope. But it's likely that a misogynist would approve of the way
women are treated in that megacult.

> You love people who wallow in lies and hatred and forgery,

Very, very Heishman there, fauxNy.

> like W.T.S.  As for your long-time bosom buddy james g. keegan jr.,
> two out of three ain't bad where you are concerned, eh?

Very, very, very Heishman.

>  By the way, I've stopped keeping track of the abortion newsgroups for
> several months now.

Who cares?

 >Have Fischer, or Humphrey, or "Spartakus" given
> any clue as to their whereabouts since they vanished without saying
> good-bye?

Why don't you look for yourself?

snip

[elizabeth]

On Dec 14, 10:17 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

This is so Heishman!

> With his only supporter of any consequence, "elizabeth," in the hot
> seat,

Um, this is a ng, and I really don't care what a fauxNy, or an Oopsey
has to think of my thoughts.

I'm just grateful I don't know you in real life, for I might feel an
obligation to my species, my nation, and put you out of our misery!

> the man who turned talk.abortion into a hellhole

Hellhole? It's a fucking NEWSGROUP, dude, get a fucking grip!

> with the help
> of scoundrels like her tries vainly to deflect attention from her
> failure to blast Topaz when she had a golden opportunity.
>
> Perhaps she was afraid some readers would vote for Romney if they saw
> a battle between the two of them  just before the election, eh?
>
> On Dec 14, 5:14 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <8ecfd37f-19a9-4ff5-ae92-8175b10f6...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, the
> > plagiarist posting as
>
> >  pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 5:48 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 5, 4:43 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > What creeps me out about the mormons is how they feel they can baptize
> > > > after death.
>
> > > What creeps me out is how you can nonchalantly play footsie with a
> > > Nazi (or, at best, a Nazi sympathizer who makes no bones about it)
> > > while lambasting decent folk like Dino, Mosco, Osprey, and myself.
>
> > this is one of the plagiarist's funniest posts.
>
> How self-referential can you get, you pathetic clown?  YOU did
> something way back in 2010 that fits the following definition:
>
>   present as new and original an idea or product derived from an
> existing source

>   --http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize
>
> The following post explains how you did it:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/e9b275e21ea18ad4?dmo...

>
>  Sparakus, the person who lied on your behalf about your "plagiarist"
> counter-charge, against me, is long gone, and with him your last shred
> of credibiliity.
>
> People who have any doubts about the ridiculousness of that counter-
> charge can look here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/e4b0fa01185de9bc
>
> An even more detailed account can be found by using the url at the end
> of this post.
>
> Spartakus lied about a definition of "plagiarist" he had pulled from
> his ass. Despicable keegan-bootlicker that he is, he lied that this
> was MY definition.
>
> You have NEVER dared to repost that ridiculous "definition," have you?
>
> Go ahead. lie through your teeth that it's been reposted hundreds of
> times and that you don't see any reason to repost it again.  That's
> the kind of pathological liar you are.
>
> In fact,  your "plagiarist" lie won the following "award":
>
> Subject: Pathological Liar of the Month (July 2010):http://groups.google.com/group/tx.politics/msg/f91b0bde06325f20
>

> Peter Nyikos- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[elizabeth]

On Dec 14, 10:24 am, - <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 1:17 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > With his only supporter of any consequence, "elizabeth," in the hot
> > seat, the man who turned talk.abortion into a hellhole with the help
> > of scoundrels like her tries vainly to deflect attention from her
> > failure to blast Topaz when she had a golden opportunity.

Come out of the closet, Robert J. Heishman, stop pretending you're
not who you are.
Although it's clear you have much reason to be ashamed of yourself.

> Wow, those to certifiable wack jobs are still posting?

As if you haven't been following feverishly, Heishman . ..

> How pathetic. They have no friends, you would think they would have
> gotten
> the hint long ago. I'm so glad I got them on a filter.  It's almost
> depressing
> reading the rantings of lunatics.

Oh, the irony . .. since you have to keep coming up with new handles,
and now a lack of handle, to get around filters and killfiles! You
"ploinker[sic]"

[pnyikos]

On Dec 14, 1:24 pm, - <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 1:17 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > With his only supporter of any consequence, "elizabeth," in the hot
> > seat, the man who turned talk.abortion into a hellhole with the help
> > of scoundrels like her tries vainly to deflect attention from her
> > failure to blast Topaz when she had a golden opportunity.
>
> Wow, those to certifiable wack jobs are still posting?

Yup, Topaz, elizabeth, and keegan are still posting. And they seem to
be here for the long haul, even though the three stoutest amigos of
the latter two--Fischer, Humphrey, and above all "Spartakus" -- left
without so much as saying good-bye.

> How pathetic. They have no friends, you would think they would have
> gotten
> the hint long ago. I'm so glad I got them on a filter.  It's almost
> depressing
> reading the rantings of lunatics.

You said a mouthful. By the way, the keeganoid wacko added
talk.abortion, where people haven't had a chance to see my full reply
to the elizabeth wacko. Here it is:

Newsgroups: alt.bible, us.politics, alt.abortion
From: pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:52:28 -0800 (PST)
Local: Thurs, Dec 13 2012 9:52 pm
Subject: Topaz returned, now Nyikos returns for a cameo appearance Re:
Mormons Roast for Eternity
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this
author

On Nov 6, 5:48 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:


> On Nov 5, 4:43 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> What creeps me out about the mormons is how they feel they can baptize
> after death.



What creeps me out is how you can nonchalantly play footsie with a
Nazi (or, at best, a Nazi sympathizer who makes no bones about it)
while lambasting decent folk like Dino, Mosco, Osprey, and myself.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

============= end of included post

[-]

On Dec 14, 8:39 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 1:24 pm, - <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14, 1:17 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > With his only supporter of any consequence, "elizabeth," in the hot
> > > seat, the man who turned talk.abortion into a hellhole with the help
> > > of scoundrels like her tries vainly to deflect attention from her
> > > failure to blast Topaz when she had a golden opportunity.
>
> > Wow, those to certifiable wack jobs are still posting?
>
> Yup, Topaz, elizabeth, and keegan are still posting.  And they seem to
> be here for the long haul, even though the three stoutest amigos of
> the latter two--Fischer, Humphrey, and above all "Spartakus" -- left
> without so much as saying good-bye.

Oh well...at least they aren't on the streets acting like raving
lunatics, like they do in here.

> University of South Carolinahttp://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[pnyikos]

Looks like my statement about Hitler plunging the world into the
bloodiest war of all time had some effect on Topaz. But we don't
really hear from him here; we hear from the Hitler he admires so much.

In thread after thread, Topaz posts long articles highly favorable to
this monster and the people who supported him. And seldom does he get
any kind of counterattack. You'd think the leftists who dominate so
many newsgroups would pillory him in reply to every post he makes;
instead they seem all but speechless against him.

Unfortunately, I have very limited time on my hands before I go on my
usual Usenet posting break to celebrate a long holiday season with my
family. But I couldn't let this latest salvo of Topaz go unanswered,
and I will return in January.

On Dec 13, 10:40 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Germany's Declaration of War Against the United States
> Here are some quotes from:
> Hitler's Reichstag Speech of December 11, 1941

The wording reminded me of something Albert Speer, author of _Inside
the Third Reich_ wrote for one of his reasons for writing the book: he
wanted to show that "Hitler, on the surface, appeared quite normal."

The reason was so that people would not be lulled into thinking that
some present-day politician who also appears normal on the surface
would be incapable of such monstrous actions as Hitler ordered or
sanctioned.

> In it the German leader recounted the reasons for the outbreak of war
> in September 1939,

Recounted the official fiction, you mean.

> explained

alleged, you mean.

> why he decided to strike against the
> Soviet Union in June 1941,

Claims of the following sort, snipped from below:

"A truly impressive amount of authentic material is now available
which
confirms that a Soviet Russian attack was intended."

Like the documents about Snowball that the pigs kept discovering in
_Animal Farm_.

[snip]

> After the repeated rejection of my peace proposal in 1940 by the
> British prime minister [Winston Churchill] and the clique that
> supports and controls him,

Churchill was nobody's stooge. He was the right man in the right
place at the right time.

As for peace proposals: unless you know your history, you would never
guess that this is the same man who guaranteed "peace in our time" by
claiming that the Sudetenland would be his last territorial demand.

> it was clear by the fall of that year that
> this war would have to be fought through to the end
> The German people and its soldiers work and fight today not only for
> themselves and their own age, but also for many generations to come. A
> historical task of unique dimensions has been entrusted to us by the
> Creator that we are now obliged to carry out.

What blasphemy!

[snip]

> Compelled by bitter necessity,

The bitter "necessity" of *Lebensraum*, calling for the dislocation
and outright murder of millions of people in Poland alone.

> I decided in the fall of 1939 to at
> least try to create the prerequisite conditions for a general peace

..which consisted of carving up Poland between Germany and the Soviet
Union, also giving the latter a free hand against the Baltic countries
of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and against Bessarabia and Bukovina,
while Germany had a free hand against Yugoslavia and Greece.

[snip]

> I may remind you, deputies and men of the German Reichstag, that
> throughout the spring and summer of 1939 Britain offered military
> alliances to a number of countries, claiming that Germany intended to
> invade them and rob them of their freedom.

...a claim that Hitler did his best to justify in the succeeding three
years, and would have gone even further had it not been for defeats
beginning with the Battle of Britain and the 1941 Winter offensive of
the Red Army, which ironically began just a few days after this
speech.

> However, the German Reich
> and its government could assure them with a clear conscience that
> these insinuations did not correspond to the truth in any way.

The co-masters (with the Soviets) of the Big Lie technique could do
just about anything with a clear conscience.

[snip]

> The winter war of
> the Finns [against the Soviet Union, 1939-1940] aroused in us a
> feeling of admiration mixed with bitterness:

The irony here is that the Soviet Union justified the war with
transparently phony propaganda about numerous "provocations" [nature
not specified] at and near the border. Similarly, Hitler justified
his war of conquest against Poland with tall tales like the
following:

[snip for focus]

> When the nationality problem in the former Polish state was growing
> ever more intolerable in 1939, I attempted to eliminate the
> unendurable conditions by means of a just agreement. For a certain
> time it seemed as if the Polish government was seriously considering
> giving its approval to a reasonable solution. I may also add here that
> in all of these German proposals, nothing was demanded that had not
> previously belonged to Germany.

So much for the Sudetenland being Hitler's last territorial demand,
eh?

> You will recall the dramatic events of that period -- the steadily
> increasing numbers of victims among the ethnic Germans [in Poland].

With the example of Hitler's subsequent subjugation of Bohemia and
Moravia, the Poles would have been mad to do anything like what is
described next.

> You, my deputies, are best qualified to compare this loss of life with
> that of the present war. The military campaign in the East has so far
> cost the entire German armed forces about 160,000 deaths, whereas
> during just a few months of peace [in 1939] more than 62,000 ethnic
> Germans were killed, including some who were horribly tortured.

Did Hitler actually approach the British government with
documentation of these alleged atrocities? It passes the bounds of
credibility.

>There
> is no question that the German Reich had the right to protest against
> this situation on its border and to press for its elimination,

...and to launch an all-out war against Poland, followed by atrocities
that dwarfed even the alleged 60,000 victims. 100 times that many
Jews alone have been estimated to have died due to Hitler's monstrous
ideas of what people deserved to live and what people deserved to die.

Have you ever thought carefully about all this, Topaz?

Peter Nyikos

[Topaz]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:21:47 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Looks like my statement about Hitler plunging the world into the
>bloodiest war of all time had some effect on Topaz. But we don't
>really hear from him here; we hear from the Hitler he admires so much.
>
>In thread after thread, Topaz posts long articles highly favorable to
>this monster

"He was born into humble circumstances, the son of an obscure civil
servant in a remote corner of a crumbling empire, yet his name
resounds throughout the world to this day.

He was rejected by the universities of his time for formal enrollment
in art and in architecture, and yet he erected mighty buildings and
monuments, and today a simple postcard that he drew in ink or charcoal
fetches staggering sums at auction.

He fought as a front line soldier through all four years of the
greatest war in history up to that time, never rising above the rank
of corporal, but he won both of his country's highest decorations for
bravery under fire and rose to command the mightiest armies on earth.
Almost unique in the history of his century, he was not a lawyer or an
aristocrat or a man of inherited wealth and privilege, but a man who
once earned his daily bread with the labor of his hands, and yet he
conquered politics and rose to the leadership of the most brilliant
and creative nation on earth. So that his people might travel across
the land he loved quickly and cheaply, he created a simple and sturdy
automobile still in use today, and a network of highways that still
spans Germany. His game and forestry laws are still in force, and are
praised by ecologists as a model of environmental protection. His
economic program received the sincerest form of flattery from the
loathsome Roosevelt, who stole it and copied it into the context of
the American Depression as his own.

Every man who ever met him personally, even those who became his
bitterest enemies, spoke of him forever afterwards with awe and
admiration. His courtesy and his gallantry toward women were
legendary. With his power and his prestige he could have had any woman
he wanted, but the woman he chose as his life's partner, and who
eventually died by his side, was a simple and humble daughter of the
people.

He did not drink. He did not smoke. He was a lifelong lover of animals
and children and was happiest in the company of toddlers rather than
statesmen and soldiers, and no one ever overheard him use a profane
word or tell a smutty joke. He lifted his people up from the mud of
defeat and despair and alien domination, and he died trying to do the
same for all of us.

To this day, his memory is kept green by the Aryan peoples of Germany
and the world, even though it means prison, and in some countries
death, to honor him or his legacy within the sight or hearing of the
tyrant. He has been slandered, vilified, lied about, cursed,
distorted, and damned every day since his death by the most powerful
and evil tyranny mankind has ever known, and yet his name and his
Symbol cannot be suppressed by force or by propaganda. As we begin
this new Millennium, his book is read and his name is on more lips
than ever before and his image and his strength fills the hearts of a
whole new generation of young Aryan men and women."


"When your mother has grown older,
When her dear, faithful eyes
no longer see life as they once did,
When her feet, grown tired,
No longer want to carry her as she walks -

Then lend her your arm in support,
Escort her with happy pleasure.
The hour will come when, weeping, you
Must accompany her on her final walk.

And if she asks you something,
Then give her an answer.
And if she asks again, then speak!
And if she asks yet again, respond to her,
Not impatiently, but with gentle calm.

And if she cannot understand you properly
Explain all to her happily.
The hour will come, the bitter hour,
When her mouth asks for nothing more."

Those lines were written by Adolf Hitler, in 1923."


In the Thicket of the Forest at Artois
"It was in the thicket of the Artois Wood.
Deep in the trees, on blood-soaked ground,
Lay stretched a wounded German warrior,
And his cries rang out in the night.
In vain ... no echo answered his plea ...
Will he bleed to death like a beast,
That shot in the gut dies alone?

Then suddenly ...
Heavy steps approach from the right
He hears how they stamp on the forest floor ...
And new hope springs from his soul.
And now from the left ...
And now from both sides ...

Two men approach his miserable bed
A German it is, and a Frenchman.
And each watches the other with distrustful glance, And threatening
they aim their weapons.
The German warrior asks:
"What do you do here?"
"I was touched by the needy one's call for help."
"It's your enemy!"
"It is a man who suffers."

And both, wordless, lowered their weapons.
Then entwined their hands
And, with muscles tensed, carefully lifted
The wounded warrior, as if on a stretcher,
And carried him through the woods.

'Til they came to the German outposts.
"Now it is over. He will get good care."
And the Frenchman turns back toward the woods.
But the German grasps for his hand,
Looks, moved, into sorrow-dimmed eyes
And says to him with earnest foreboding:
"I know not what fate holds for us,
Which inscrutably rules in the stars.
Perhaps I shall fall, a victim of your bullet.
Maybe mine will fell you on the sand
For indifferent is the chance of battles.

Yet, however it may be and whatever may come:
We lived these sacred hours,
Where man found himself in man ...
And now, farewell! And God be with you!"

Adolf Hitler, 1916

> and the people who supported him. And seldom does he get
>any kind of counterattack. You'd think the leftists who dominate so
>many newsgroups would pillory him in reply to every post he makes;
>instead they seem all but speechless against him.
>
>Unfortunately, I have very limited time on my hands before I go on my
>usual Usenet posting break to celebrate a long holiday season with my
>family. But I couldn't let this latest salvo of Topaz go unanswered,
>and I will return in January.
>
>

>The wording reminded me of something Albert Speer, author of _Inside
>the Third Reich_ wrote for one of his reasons for writing the book: he
>wanted to show that "Hitler, on the surface, appeared quite normal."

Speer kissed up to the allies after the war. Not kissing up did have
dire consequences. But nothing he said or wrote afterward should be
taken seriously.

>
>The reason was so that people would not be lulled into thinking that
>some present-day politician who also appears normal on the surface
>would be incapable of such monstrous actions as Hitler ordered or
>sanctioned.

by James Buchanan

Let's say the Germans merely removed the Jews from positions of
political power and banned them from the legal profession. Germany
went from devastating economic poverty in 1932 to full employment just
a couple years later. If an incredible economic improvement can be
achieved, merely by removing the Jews from power (and replacing them
with patriotic nationalists), then every Gentile nation in the world
should give this a try.

Obviously the Jews don't want anyone else getting the idea of removing
them to create prosperity. It was a huge embarrassment for the Jews to
see Germany so prosperous in the mid-1930s after removing them from
power. They considered this a dangerous precedent. To deal with this
"problem" the Jewish World Congress declared war on Germany in 1933.
This declaration of war at least encouraged a world-wide boycott
against Germany and at worst encouraged other nations of the world to
become hostile toward Germany. (The Jews curiously sanctioned the
Germans before the Germans passed any laws restricting the Jews.) More
importantly the Jews pushed vicious anti-German slander in all the
Jewish-owned newspapers in the West in the years leading up to World
War Two. The Communist mass murder of 30 million people in Russia and
the Ukraine received almost no publicity in the Jewish media. Most
people in the West only heard a serious mention of these Communist
mass murders beginning in the 1980s. Instead, the Jewish media focused
all their hatred and agitation against Germany and its allies.

After six years of relentless agitation, the Jews pushed England and
France into war with Germany. Only two years later, FDR and his cabal
of Jews provoked a war with Japan (and Germany).

Naturally, the Jews did not want future historians to say: "World War
Two was provoked by the Jewish media in retaliation for Germany
removing the Jews from power." The Jews needed a new reason for World
War Two. A reason that painted their enemies as unquestionably evil.
So they invented the Holocaust.

The Holocaust stood mostly unchallenged for decades after the war
because people feared being branded "Nazi-sympathizers" for
questioning its details. The truth always comes out in the long run.
Professor Arthur Butz published his famous work "The Hoax of the 20th
Century" in 1977 detailing a very solid argument against this war
propaganda. Dr. Butz pointed out that the world population of Jews
remained at about 16 million before and after the war. He also noted
that half a million Jews remained in Paris after four years of German
occupation. Both these facts strongly suggest the Holocaust is a
fraud, but the political power of the Jews has suppressed and punished
any public questioning of the Holocaust to this day. David Irving
joined the ranks of Revisionist historians several years ago and went
from a famous successful author to a pariah thanks to persecution by
the Jews.

The Institute for Historical Review has done great work exposing the
Holocaust as a great historical fraud. Anyone interested in looking
for historical truth should visit their website. It's a shock for many
people to see how much propaganda we've been force fed.

http://www.ihr.org

>
>> In it the German leader recounted the reasons for the outbreak of war
>> in September 1939,
>
>Recounted the official fiction, you mean.
>
>> explained
>
>alleged, you mean.
>
>> why he decided to strike against the
>> Soviet Union in June 1941,
>
>Claims of the following sort, snipped from below:
>
>"A truly impressive amount of authentic material is now available
>which
>confirms that a Soviet Russian attack was intended."
>
>Like the documents about Snowball that the pigs kept discovering in
>_Animal Farm_.
>

Stalin Prepared for Summer 1941 Attack
Institute for Historical Review
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p501a_Weber.html

.. .. Suvorov assembles impressive evidence to show that Stalin was
preparing to attack Germany in 1941. Suvorov writes that on June 13,
1941, Stalin secretly began "the biggest troop movement in the history
of civilization," transferring enormous military forces to the
Soviet-German frontier. The Soviet troops were deployed there not for
defense, but in preparation for a surprise invasion. "It seems
certain," writes Suvorov, "that the Soviet concentration on the
frontier was due to be completed by July 10. Thus, the German blow
which fell just 19 days earlier found the Red Army in the most
unfavorable situation -- in railway waggons."

The Nazis and Hitler Saved Us
The really bad guys in World War 2 were the western allies, especially
the Americans. The monumental blindness and stupidity, unmatched
barbarism and sadism of America and Britain nearly brought a new Dark
Age upon a world dominated, not by them, but by the Soviet Union and
communism, Although the Nazis and fascists lost the war-their heroic
struggle with hardly any resources against overwhelming odds allowed
western civilization to survive. After 1945, it was the atomic bomb,
far above and beyond everything else, which allowed the west to
survive, even to this day-but before that, it was ADOLF HITLER who
saved us. For that he deserves our eternal gratitude and admiration.
It was HITLER who built and inspired the small coalition of the
willing to fight the good war against communism. By launching the
attack on the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 with only conventional
weapons, HITLER and Germany, and Germany's allies pre-empted STALIN's
well-prepared and massive attack to the west, and postponed a complete
Soviet victory long enough for the US and Britain to finally come to
their senses. The US and Britain eventually took up essentially the
same struggle with nuclear weapons, or at least the threat of nuclear
weapons, even when that meant possible destruction of all life on the
planet.
Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at www.nazigassings.com

>
>> After the repeated rejection of my peace proposal in 1940 by the
>> British prime minister [Winston Churchill] and the clique that
>> supports and controls him,
>
>Churchill was nobody's stooge. He was the right man in the right
>place at the right time.

He was a stooge of the Jews.

>
>As for peace proposals: unless you know your history, you would never
>guess that this is the same man who guaranteed "peace in our time" by
>claiming that the Sudetenland would be his last territorial demand.

Here is a quote from The Nameless War, by Captain A. H. M. Ramsay:

"Can we doubt but that Poland was encouraged to ignore the German note
of March which set forth eminently reasonable suggestions for a
peaceful solution of the problem of the Corridor?

Month after month no reply was vouchsafed by Poland to the German
note. Meanwhile, insult and outrage occurred with suspicious frequency
all along the German frontier, similar to the technique to which the
Jews later introduced the British in Palestine. Day after day the
British public was deluged with war propaganda and misrepresentation
of the situation. Finally their minds were closed against any further
regard to the demands of justice and reason by a new slogan, "You
cannot trust Hitler's word." With this lie the British public was
finally stampeded into throwing all reason and judgement to the winds
and accepting at their face value the war propaganda in the press.

This slogan was founded upon a misrepresentation of Hitler's
assurance given on more than one occasion after a "putsch" such as
that in into Sudetenland, that he "intended to make no further
demands.". The misrepresentation lay in the fact that the press
steadily obscured the major fact, that the "demands" to which Hitler
referred were all along five-fold in character; and covered those five
areas taken from Germany by a dictated peace in which the population
was overwhelmingly German, i.e. Sudetenland, part of Czechoslovakia,
parts of Poland, the Corridor and Danzig.

As German troops occupied each successive section, it is, I
believe, accurate to say that Hitler declared, that he had no
additional demands to make. But here it must be clearly stated in the
interests of justice that he never said that this entailed reducing
the demands which he had originally very clearly delineated, and
repeated on many occasions, namely, the five areas in question.

"The British public was deluded by its press into supposing that
when Hitler said he had no further demands, that there had never been
any statement of his full demands, some of which were still
unfulfilled. They were led to believe that Hitler either never had had
other demands, or that he had abondoned the rest as soon as he had
obtained some of them. When, therefore, the next installment was
added, the press built on this misunderstanding the fallacy that
Hitler's word could not be trusted. Honest dealing needs no such
trickery and and deception. Such methods are only necessary to bolster
up bad or unjust causes. Fortunately we have the calm and
disspassionate judgement in this matter by no less a person than the
late Lord Lothian, recently British Ambassador to the U.S.A. In his
last speech at Chatham House on this subject he remarked: "If the
principle of self-determination had been applied in Germany's favour,
as it was applied agaisnt her, it would have meant the return of the
Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, parts of Poland, the Polish Corridor and
Danzig to the Reich."

Here is a very different presentment of the case to the one which
was foisted upon the British public in 1939: and it is the true one.
Small wonder that these facts had to be withheld from the ordinary
citizen.

Had the British public realized the truth, that each of these
demands of Hilter rested on a foundation of reasonable fairness, the
people of this island would have ruled out any question of war; and it
was war, not truth or justice, upon which international Jewry was
resolved."


Here is another quote from the book:

"The urgent alarm sounded in 1918 by Mr. Oudendyke in his letter
to Mr. Balfour (see page 25), denouncing bolshevism as a Jewish plan,
which if not checked by the combined action of the European powers,
would engulf Europe and the world, was no exaggeration. By the end of
that year the red flag was being hoisted in most of the great cities
of Europe. In Hungary the Jew Bela Kuhn organized and maintained for
some time a merciless and bloody tyranny similar to the one in Russia.
In Germany the Jews, Liebknecht, Barth, Scheidemann, Rosa Luxemburg,
etc., made a desperate bid for power. These and other similar
convulsions shook Europe; but each country in its own way just
frustated the onslaughts.

In most countries concerned a few voices were raised in the
endeavour to expose the true nature of these evils. Only in one,
however, did a political leader and group arise, who grasped to the
full the significance of these happenings, and perceived behind the
mobs of native hooligans the organisation and driving power of world
Jewry. This leader was Adolf Hitler, and his group the National
Socialist Party of Germany.

Never before in history had any country not only repulsed organized
revolution, but discerned Jewry behind it, and faced up to that fact.
We need not wonder that the sewers of Jewish vituperation were flooded
over these men and their leader; nor should we make the mistake of
supposing that Jewry would stick at any lie to deter honest men
everywhere from making a thorough investigation of the facts for
themselves. Nevertheless, if any value liberty, and set out to seek
truth and defend it, this duty of personal investigation is one which
they cannot shirk.

To accept unquestioningly the lies and misrepresentaions of a
Jew-controlled or influenced press, is to spurn truth by sheer
idleness, if for no worse reason."

>
>> it was clear by the fall of that year that
>> this war would have to be fought through to the end
>> The German people and its soldiers work and fight today not only for
>> themselves and their own age, but also for many generations to come. A
>> historical task of unique dimensions has been entrusted to us by the
>> Creator that we are now obliged to carry out.
>
>What blasphemy!
>
>[snip]
>
>> Compelled by bitter necessity,
>
>The bitter "necessity" of *Lebensraum*, calling for the dislocation
>and outright murder of millions of people in Poland alone.

Hitler gave the following communication to the British Ambassador:

"Poland's actual provocations have become intolerable. It makes no
difference who is responsible. If the Polish government denies
responsibility, that only goes to show that it no longer itself
possesses any influence of its subordinate military authorities.

In the preceding night there have been a further twenty-one frontier
incidents; on the German side the greatest discipline has been
maintained. The Polish side has provoked all incidents. Furthermore,
commercial aircraft have been shot at. If the Polish Government stated
that it was not responsible, it showed it was no longer capable of
controlling its on people."

This communication was handed and verbally read out to Sir Neville
Chamberlain, British Ambassador, 1.30pm 25th August 1939

By Mark Weber

Much has already been written about Roosevelt's campaign of deception
and outright lies in getting the United States to intervene in the
Second World War prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in
December 1941. Roosevelt's aid to Britain and the Soviet Union in
violation of American neutrality and international law, his acts of
war against Germany in the Atlantic in an effort to provoke a German
declaration of war against the United States, his authorization of a
vast "dirty tricks" campaign against U.S. citizens by British
intelligence agents in violation of the Constitution, and his
provocations and ultimatums against Japan which brought on the attack
against Pearl Harbor -- all this is extensively documented and
reasonably well known.[1]

Not so well known is the story of Roosevelt's enormous responsibility
for the outbreak of the Second World War itself. This essay focuses on
Roosevelt's secret campaign to provoke war in Europe prior to the
outbreak of hostilities in September 1939. It deals particularly with
his efforts to pressure Britain, France and Poland into war against
Germany in 1938 and 1939.

Franklin Roosevelt not only criminally involved America in a war which
had already engulfed Europe. He bears a grave responsibility before
history for the outbreak of the most destructive war of all time.
This paper relies heavily on a little-known collection of secret
Polish documents which fell into German hands when Warsaw was captured
in September 1939.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html
These documents clearly establish Roosevelt's crucial role in
bringing on the Second World War.

Poland had refused to even negotiate over self-determination for the
German city of Danzig and the ethnic German minority in the so-called
Polish Corridor. Hitler felt compelled to resort to arms when he did
in response to a growing Polish campaign of terror and dispossession
against the one and a half million ethnic Germans under Polish rule.
In my view, if ever a military action was justified, it was the German
campaign against Poland in 1939.

Poland's headstrong refusal to negotiate was made possible because of
a fateful blank check guarantee of military backing from Britain -- a
pledge that ultimately proved completely worthless to the hapless
Poles. Considering the lightning swiftness of the victorious German
campaign, it is difficult to realize today that the Polish government
did not at all fear war with Germany. Poland's leaders foolishly
believed that German might was only an illusion. They were convinced
that their troops would occupy Berlin itself within a few weeks and
add further German territories to an enlarged Polish state. It is also
important to keep in mind that the purely localized conflict between
Germany and Poland was only transformed into a Europe-wide
conflagration by the British and French declarations of war against
Germany.

On 9 February 1938, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Count Jerzy
Potocki, reported to the Foreign Minister in Warsaw on the Jewish role
in making American foreign policy:

The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State
Department is becoming ever more powerful ...

... The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis
which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general
catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent.
in their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created
real chaos: they have mixed together the idea of democracy and
communism and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred
against Nazism.

This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by
every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans
are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which
wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean
of blood.

In conversations with Jewish press representatives I have repeatedly
come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is
inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of
propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation
and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is
growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans
and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be
subdued by the 'democratic world.'

Ambassador Potocki's report from Washington of 9 January 1939 dealt in
large part with President Roosevelt's annual address to Congress:
President Roosevelt acts on the assumption that the dictatorial
governments, above all Germany and Japan, only understand a policy of
force. Therefore he has decided to react to any future blows by
matching them. This has been demonstrated by the most recent measures
of the United States.

The American public is subject to an ever more alarming propaganda
which is under Jewish influence and continuously conjures up the
specter of the danger of war. Because of this the Americans have
strongly altered their views on foreign policy problems, in comparison
with last year.

Of all the documents in this collection, the most revealing is
probably the secret report by Ambassador Potocki of 12 January 1939
which dealt with the domestic situation in the United States. This
report is given here in full:

The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing
hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything
connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews
who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical
press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents
Germany as black as possible-above all religious persecution and
concentration camps are exploited-this propaganda is nevertheless
extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and
knows nothing of the situation in Europe.

It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign
which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia
is almost completely excluded. If mentioned at all, it is only in a
friendly manner and things are presented in such a way as if Soviet
Russia were working with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the
clever propaganda the sympathy of the American public is completely on
the side of Red Spain.

Besides this propaganda, a war psychosis is being artificially
created. The American people are told that peace in Europe is hanging
only by a thread and that war is unavoidable. At the same time the
American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war,
America must also take an active part in order to defend the slogans
of freedom and democracy in the world.

These groups of people who occupy the highest positions in the
American government and want to pose as representatives of 'true
Americanism' and 'defenders of democracy' are, in the last analysis,
connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.
For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the
interests of its race, to portray the President of the United States
as the 'idealist' champion on human rights was a very clever move. In
this manner they have created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and
hostility in this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile
camps. The entire issue is worked out in a masterly manner. Roosevelt
has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy,
and simultaneously has been procuring enormous military stocks for the
coming war, for which the Jews are striving very consciously. With
regard to domestic policy, it is very convenient to divert public
attention from anti-Semitism, which is constantly growing in the
United States, by talking about the necessity of defending religion
and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.

On 16 January 1939, Polish Ambassador Potocki reported to the Warsaw
Foreign Ministry on another lengthy conversation he had with
Roosevelt's personal envoy, William Bullitt

1. The vitalizing of foreign policy under the leadership of President
Roosevelt, who severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian
countries.
2. United States preparations for war on sea, land and air will be
carried out at an accelerated pace and will consume the colossal sum
of 1.25 billion dollars.
3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain
must put an end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian
countries. They must not get into any discussions aiming at any kind
of territorial changes.
4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will abandon
the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the
side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place
its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.
The Polish Ambassador to Paris, Juliusz (Jules) Lukasiewicz, sent a
top secret report to the Foreign Ministry in Warsaw at the beginning
of February 1939 which outlined U.S. policy towards Europe as
explained to him by William Bullitt:

A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, William Bullitt
returned to Paris after a three months' leave in America. Meanwhile, I
have had two conversations with him which enable me to inform you of
his views regarding the European situation and to give a survey of
Washington's policy.

The international situation is regarded by official circles as
extremely serious and in constant danger of armed conflict. Those in
authority are of the opinion that if war should break out between
Britain and France on the one hand, and Germany and Italy on the
other, and should Britain and France be defeated, the Germans would
endanger the real interests of the United States on the American
continent. For this reason, one can foresee right from the beginning
the participation of the United States in the war on the side of
France and Britain, naturally some time after the outbreak of the war.
As Ambassador Bullitt expressed it: 'Should war break out we shall
certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall finish
it.'

On 7 March 1939, Ambassador Potocki sent a remarkably lucid and
perceptive report on Roosevelt's foreign policy to his government in
Warsaw. This document was first made public when leading German
newspapers published it in German translation, along with a facsimile
reproduction of the first page of the Polish original, in their
editions of 28 October 1940. The main National Socialist party
newspaper, the Voelkischer Beobachter, published the Ambassador's
report with this observation:

The document itself needs no commentary. We do not know, and it does
not concern us, whether the internal American situation as reported by
the Polish diplomat is correct in every detail. That must be decided
by the American people alone. But in the interest of historical truth
it is important for us to show that the warmongering activities of
American diplomacy, especially in Europe, are once again revealed and
proven by this document. It still remains a secret just who, and for
what motives, have driven American diplomacy to this course. In any
case, the results have been disastrous for both Europe and America.
Europe was plunged into war and America has brought upon itself the
hostility of great nations which normally have no differences with the
American people and, indeed, have not been in conflict but have lived
for generations as friends and want to remain so.

While the Polish documents alone are conclusive proof of Roosevelt's
treacherous campaign to bring about world war, it is fortunate for
posterity that a substantial body of irrefutable complementary
evidence exists which confirms the conspiracy recorded in the
dispatches to Warsaw

On 19 September 1938 -- that is, a year before the outbreak of war in
Europe -- Roosevelt called Lindsay to a very secret meeting at the
White House. At the beginning of their long conversation, according to
Lindsay's confidential dispatch to London, Roosevelt "emphasized the
necessity of absolute secrecy. Nobody must know I had seen him and he
himself would tell nobody of the interview. I gathered not even the
State Department." The two discussed some secondary matters before
Roosevelt got to the main point of the conference. "This is the very
secret part of his communication and it must not be known to anyone
that he has even breathed a suggestion." The President told the
Ambassador that if news of the conversation was ever made public, it
could mean his impeachment. And no wonder. What Roosevelt proposed was
a cynically brazen but harebrained scheme to violate the U.S.
Constitution and dupe the American people.

The President said that if Britain and France "would find themselves
forced to war" against Germany, the United States would ultimately
also join. But this would require some clever maneuvering. Britain and
France should impose a total blockade against Germany without actually
declaring war and force other states (including neutrals) to abide by
it. This would certainly provoke some kind of German military
response, but it would also free Britain and France from having to
actually declare war. For propaganda purposes, the "blockade must be
based on loftiest humanitarian grounds and on the desire to wage
hostilities with minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of
life and property, and yet bring the enemy to his knees." Roosevelt
conceded that this would involve aerial bombardment, but "bombing from
the air was not the method of hostilities which caused really great
loss of life."

The important point was to "call it defensive measures or anything
plausible but avoid actual declaration of war." That way, Roosevelt
believed he could talk the American people into supporting war against
Germany, including shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by
insisting that the United States was still technically neutral in a
non-declared conflict. "This method of conducting war by blockade
would in his [Roosevelt's] opinion meet with approval of the United
States if its humanitarian purpose were strongly emphasized," Lindsay
reported.[19]

The American Ambassador to Italy, William Phillips, admitted in his
postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt administration was already
committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France in late
1938. "On this and many other occasions," Phillips wrote, "I would
like to have told him [Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister]
frankly that in the event of a European war, the United States would
undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view of my
official position, I could not properly make such a statement without
instructions from Washington, and these I never received."[20]

The fateful British pledge to Poland of 31 March 1939 to go to war
against Germany in case of a Polish-German conflict would not have
been made without strong pressure from the White House

In their nationally syndicated column of 14 April 1939, the usually
very well informed Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S.
Allen reported that on 16 March 1939 Roosevelt had "sent a virtual
ultimatum to Chamberlain" demanding that henceforth the British
government strongly oppose Germany. According to Pearson and Allen,
who completely supported Roosevelt's move, "the President warned that
Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the
sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued."[22] Chamberlain
gave in and the next day, 17 March, ended Britain's policy of
cooperation with Germany in a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing
Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally pledged itself
to war in case of German-Polish hostilities

In a confidential telegram to Washington dated 9 April 1939, Bullitt
reported from Paris on another conversation with Ambassador
Lukasiewicz. He had told the Polish envoy that although U.S. law
prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, it might be possible to
circumvent its provisions. The Roosevelt administration might be able
to supply war planes to Poland indirectly through Britain. "The Polish
Ambassador asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain
financial help and aeroplanes from the United States. I replied that I
believed the Johnson Act would forbid any loans from the United States
to Poland but added that it might be possible for England to purchase
planes for cash in the United States and turn them over to
Poland."[24]

On 25 April 1939, four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt
called American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, chief European
correspondent of the International News Service, to the U.S. embassy
in Paris and told him: "War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland
has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield
to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after
Britain and France enter it."[25]

In a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde Park on 28 May 1939,
Roosevelt assured the former President of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Edvard
Benes, that America would actively intervene on the side of Britain
and France in the anticipated European war.[26]

In June 1939, Roosevelt secretly proposed to the British that the
United States should establish "a patrol over the waters of the
Western Atlantic with a view to denying them to the German Navy in the
event of war." The British Foreign Office record of this offer noted
that "although the proposal was vague and woolly and open to certain
objections, we assented informally as the patrol was to be operated in
our interests."[27]

Many years after the war, Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister
in 1939, confirmed Bullitt's role as Roosevelt's deputy in pushing his
country into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated 26 March 1971,
Bonnet wrote: "One thing is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did
everything he could to make France enter the war."[28] An important
confirmation of the crucial role of Roosevelt and the Jews in pushing
Britain into war comes from the diary of James V. Forrestal, the first
U.S. Secretary of Defense. In his entry for 27 December 1945, he
wrote:

Played golf today with [former Ambassador] Joe Kennedy. I asked him
about his conversations with Roosevelt and [British Prime Minister]
Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain's position in
1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she
could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy's view: That Hitler
would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it
had not been for [William] Bullitt's urging on Roosevelt in the summer
of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the
French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had
not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said,
kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn't fight; Kennedy that
they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says,
stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the
war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of
1939, the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain's
backside.[29]

"In the West," the Ambassador told Szembek, "there are all kinds of
elements openly pushing for war: the Jews, the super-capitalists, the
arms dealers. Today they are all ready for a great business, because
they have found a place which can be set on fire: Danzig; and a nation
that is ready to fight: Poland. They want to do business on our backs.
They are indifferent to the destruction of our country. Indeed, since
everything will have to be rebuilt later on, they can profit from that
as well."[30]

On 24 August 1939, just a week before the outbreak of hostilities,
Chamberlain's closest advisor, Sir Horace Wilson, went to Ambassador
Kennedy with an urgent appeal from the British Prime Minister for
President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally
obligated itself in March to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now
turned in despair to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. He wanted the
American President to "put pressure on the Poles" to change course at
this late hour and open negotiations with Germany. By telephone
Kennedy told the State Department that the British "felt that they
could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that
we could." Presented with this extraordinary opportunity to possibly
save the peace of Europe, Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain's desperate
plea out of hand. At that, Kennedy reported, the Prime Minister lost
all hope. "The futility of it all," Chamberlain had told Kennedy, "is
the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We
can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of
all Europe."[31]

But Roosevelt rejected out of hand this chance to save the peace of
Europe. To a close political crony, he called Kennedy's plea "the
silliest message to me that I have ever received." He complained to
Henry Morgenthau that his London Ambassador was nothing but a pain in
the neck: "Joe has been an appeaser and will always be an appeaser ...
If Germany and Italy made a good peace offer tomorrow, Joe would start
working on the King and his friend the Queen and from there on down to
get everybody to accept it."[33]

Infuriated at Kennedy's stubborn efforts to restore peace in Europe or
at least limit the conflict that had broken out, Roosevelt instructed
his Ambassador with a "personal" and "strictly confidential" telegram
on 11 September 1939 that any American peace effort was totally out of
the question. The Roosevelt government, it declared, "sees no
opportunity nor occasion for any peace move to be initiated by the
President of the United States. The people [sic] of the United States
would not support any move for peace initiated by this Government that
would consolidate or make possible a survival of a regime of force and
aggression."[34]

In the months before armed conflict broke out in Europe, perhaps the
most vigorous and prophetic American voice of warning against
President Roosevelt's campaign to incite war was that of Hamilton
Fish, a leading Republican congressman from New York. In a series of
hard-hitting radio speeches, Fish rallied considerable public opinion
against Roosevelt's deceptive war policy. Here are only a few excerpts
from some of those addresses.[35]

On 6 January 1939, Fish told a nationwide radio audience:
The inflammatory and provocative message of the President to Congress
and the world [given two days before] has unnecessarily alarmed the
American people and created, together with a barrage of propaganda
emanating from high New Deal officials, a war hysteria, dangerous to
the peace of America and the world. The only logical conclusion to
such speeches is another war fought overseas by American soldiers.
All the totalitarian nations referred to by President Roosevelt ...
haven't the faintest thought of making war on us or invading Latin
America.

I do not propose to mince words on such an issue, affecting the life,
liberty and happiness of our people. The time has come to call a halt
to the warmongers of the New Deal, backed by war profiteers,
Communists, and hysterical internationalists, who want us to
quarantine the world with American blood and money.
He [Roosevelt] evidently desires to whip up a frenzy of hate and war
psychosis as a red herring to take the minds of our people off their
own unsolved domestic problems. He visualizes hobgoblins and creates
in the public mind a fear of foreign invasions that exists only in his
own imagination.

On 5 March, Fish spoke to the country over the Columbia radio network:
The people of France and Great Britain want peace but our warmongers
are constantly inciting them to disregard the Munich Pact and resort
to the arbitrament of arms. If only we would stop meddling in foreign
lands the old nations of Europe would compose their own quarrels by
arbitration and the processes of peace, but apparently we won't let
them.

Fish addressed the listeners of the National Broadcasting Company
network on 5 April with these words:

another blood bath in Europe in order to make the world safe for
democracy.

If Hitler and the Nazi government regain Memel or Danzig, taken away
from Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and where the population is 90
percent German, why is it necessary to issue threats and denunciations
and incite our people to war? I would not sacrifice the life of one
American soldier for a half dozen Memels or Danzigs. We repudiated the
Versailles Treaty because it was based on greed and hatred, and as
long as its inequalities and injustices exist there are bound to be
wars of liberation.

The sooner certain provisions of the Versailles Treaty are scrapped
the better for the peace of the world.

I believe that if the areas that are distinctly German in population
are restored to Germany, except Alsace-Lorraine and the Tyrol, there
will be no war in western Europe. There may be a war between the Nazis
and the Communists, but if there is that is not our war or that of
Great Britain or France or any of the democracies.

New Deal spokesmen have stirred up war hysteria into a veritable
frenzy. The New Deal propaganda machine is working overtime to prepare
the minds of our people for war, who are already suffering from a bad
case of war jitters.

President Roosevelt is the number one warmonger in America, and is
largely responsible for the fear that pervades the Nation which has
given the stock market and the American people a bad case of the
jitters.

I accuse the administration of instigating war propaganda and hysteria
to cover up the failure and collapse of the New Deal policies, with 12
million unemployed and business confidence destroyed.
I believe we have far more to fear from our enemies from within than
we have from without. All the Communists are united in urging us to go
to war against Germany and Japan for the benefit of Soviet Russia.
Great Britain still expects every American to do her duty, by
preserving the British Empire and her colonies. The war profiteers,
munitions makers and international bankers are all set up for our
participation in a new world war.

On 21 April, Fish again spoke to the country over nationwide radio:
It is the duty of all those Americans who desire to keep out of
foreign entanglements and the rotten mess and war madness of Europe
and Asia to openly expose the war hysteria and propaganda that is
impelling us to armed conflict.

What we need in America is a stop war crusade, before we are forced
into a foreign war by internationalists and interventionists at
Washington, who seem to be more interested in solving world problems
rather than our own.

In his radio address of 26 May, Fish stated:

He [Roosevelt] should remember that the Congress has the sole power to
declare war and formulate the foreign policies of the United States.
The President has no such constitutional power. He is merely the
official organ to carry out the policies determined by the Congress.
Without knowing even who the combatants will be, we are informed
almost daily by the internationalists and interventionists in America
that we must participate in the next world war.

On 8 July 1939, Fish declared over the National Broadcasting Company
radio network:

If we must go to war, let it be in defense of America, but not in
defense of the munitions makers, war profiteers, Communists, to cover
up the failures of the New Deal, or to provide an alibi for a third
term.

It is well for all nations to know that we do not propose to go to war
over Danzig, power politics, foreign colonies, or the imperialistic
wars of Europe or anywhere in the world.

President Roosevelt could have done little to incite war in Europe
without help from powerful allies. Behind him stood the self-serving
international financial and Jewish interests bent on the destruction
of Germany. The principal organization which drummed up public support
for U.S. involvement in the European war prior to the Pearl Harbor
attack was the cleverly named "Committee to Defend America by Aiding
the Allies." President Roosevelt himself initiated its founding, and
top administration officials consulted frequently with Committee
leaders.[36]

Although headed for a time by an elderly small-town Kansas newspaper
publisher, William Allen White, the Committee was actually organized
by powerful financial interests which stood to profit tremendously
from loans to embattled Britain and from shrewd investments in giant
war industries in the United States.

At the end of 1940, West Virginia Senator Rush D. Holt issued a
detailed examination of the Committee which exposed the base interests
behind the idealistic-sounding slogans:

The Committee has powerful connections with banks, insurance
companies, financial investing firms, and industrial concerns. These
in turn exert influence on college presidents and professors, as well
as on newspapers, radio and other means of communication. One of the
powerful influences used by the group is the '400' and social set. The
story is a sordid picture of betrayal of public interest.
The powerful J.P. Morgan interest with its holdings in the British
Empire helped plan the organization and donated its first expense
money.

Some of the important figures active in the Committee were revealed by
Holt: Frederic R. Coudert, a paid war propagandist for the British
government in the U.S. during the First World War; Robert S. Allen of
the Pearson and Allen syndicated column; Henry R. Luce, the
influential publisher of Time, Life, and Fortune magazines; Fiorella
LaGuardia, the fiery half-Jewish Mayor of Now York City; Herbert
Lehman, the Jewish Governor of New York with important financial
holdings in war industries; and Frank Altschul, an officer in the
Jewish investment firm of Lazard Freres with extensive holdings in
munitions and military supply companies.

If the Committee succeeded in getting the U.S. into war, Holt warned,
"American boys will spill their blood for profiteers, politicians and
'paytriots.' If war comes, on the hands of the sponsors of the White
Committee will be blood-the blood of Americans killed in a needless
war."[37]

In March 1941 a list of most of the Committee's financial backers was
made public. It revealed the nature of the forces eager to bring
America into the European war. Powerful international banking
interests were well represented. J.P. Morgan, John W. Morgan, Thomas
W. Lamont and others of the great Morgan banking house were listed.
Other important names from the New York financial world included Mr.
and Mrs. Paul Mellon, Felix M. and James F. Warburg, and J. Malcolm
Forbes. Chicago department store owner and publisher Marshall Field
was a contributor, as was William Averill Harriman, the railroad and
investment millionaire who later served as Roosevelt's ambassador in
Moscow.

Of course, Jewish names made up a substantial portion of the long
list. Hollywood film czar Samuel Goldwyn of Goldwyn Studios was there,
along with David Dubinsky, the head of the International Ladies
Garment Workers Union. The William S. Paley Foundation, which had been
set up by the head of the giant Columbia Broadcasting System,
contributed to the Committee. The name of Mrs. Herbert H. Lehman, wife
of the New York Governor, was also on the list.[38]

Without an understanding of his intimate ties to organized Jewry,
Roosevelt's policies make little sense. As Jewish historian Lucy
Dawidowicz noted: "Roosevelt himself brought into his immediate circle
more Jews than any other President before or after him. Felix
Frankfurter, Bernard M. Baruch and Henry Morgenthau were his close
advisers. Benjamin V. Cohen, Samuel Rosenman and David K. Niles were
his friends and trusted aides."[39] This is perhaps not so remarkable
in light of Roosevelt's reportedly one-eighth Jewish ancestry.[40]
In his diary entry of 1 May 1941, Charles A. Lindbergh, the American
aviator hero and peace leader, nailed the coalition that was pushing
the United States into war:

The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to
it, but the Administration seems to have 'the bit in its teeth' and
[is] hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the
country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and
radio and most of our motion pictures. There are also the
'intellectuals,' and the 'Anglophiles,' and the British agents who are
allowed free rein, the international financial interests, and many
others.[41]

Joseph Kennedy shared Lindbergh's apprehensions about Jewish power.
Before the outbreak of war he privately expressed concerns about "the
Jews who dominate our press" and world Jewry in general, which he
considered a threat to peace and prosperity. Shortly after the
beginning of hostilities, Kennedy lamented "the growing Jewish
influence in the press and in Washington demanding continuance of the
war "[42]

Roosevelt's efforts to get Poland, Britain and France into war against
Germany succeeded all too well. The result was untold death and misery
and destruction. When the fighting began, as Roosevelt had intended
and planned, the Polish and French leaders expected the American
president to at least make good on his assurances of backing in case
of war. But Roosevelt had not reckoned on the depth of peace sentiment
of the vast majority of Americans. So, in addition to deceiving his
own people, Roosevelt also let down those in Europe to whom he had
promised support.

Seldom in American history were the people as united in their views as
they were in late 1939 about staying out of war in Europe. When
hostilities began in September 1939, the Gallup poll showed 94 percent
of the American people against involvement in war. That figure rose to
96.5 percent in December before it began to decline slowly to about 80
percent in the Fall of 1941. (Today, there is hardly an issue that
even 60 or 70 percent of the people agree upon.)[43]

Roosevelt was, of course, quite aware of the intensity of popular
feeling on this issue. That is why he lied repeatedly to the American
people about his love of peace and his determination to keep the U.S.
out of war, while simultaneously doing everything in his power to
plunge Europe and America into war.

In a major 1940 re-election campaign speech, Roosevelt responded to
the growing fears of millions of Americans who suspected that their
President had secretly pledged United States support to Britain in its
war against Germany. These well-founded suspicions were based in part
on the publication in March of the captured Polish documents. The
speech of 23 October 1940 was broadcast from Philadelphia to the
nation on network radio. In the most emphatic language possible,
Roosevelt categorically denied that he had
pledged in some way the participation of the United States in some
foreign war. I give to you and to the people of this country this most
solemn assurance: There is no secret Treaty, no secret understanding
in any shape or form, direct or indirect, with any Government or any
other nation in any part of the world, to involve this nation in any
war or for any other purpose.[44]

We now know, of course, that this pious declaration was just another
one of Roosevelt's many brazen, bald-faced lies to the American
people.

Roosevelt's policies were more than just dishonest-they were criminal.
The Constitution of the United States grants authority only to the
Congress to make war and peace. And Congress had passed several major
laws to specifically insure U.S. neutrality in case of war in Europe.
Roosevelt continually violated his oath as President to uphold the
Constitution. If his secret policies had been known, the public demand
for his impeachment would very probably have been unstoppable.
The Watergate episode has made many Americans deeply conscious of the
fact that their presidents can act criminally. That affair forced
Richard Nixon to resign his presidency, and he is still widely
regarded as a criminal. No schools are named after him and his name
will never receive the respect that normally goes to every American
president. But Nixon's crimes pale into insignificance when compared
to those of Franklin Roosevelt. What were Nixon's lies compared to
those of Roosevelt? What is a burglary cover-up compared to an illegal
and secret campaign to bring about a major war?

Those who defend Roosevelt's record argue that he lied to the American
people for their own good -- that he broke the law for lofty
principles. His deceit is considered permissible because the cause was
noble, while similar deception by presidents Johnson and Nixon, to
name two, is not. This is, of course, a hypocritical double standard.
And the argument doesn't speak very well for the democratic system. It
implies that the people are too dumb to understand their own best
interests. It further suggests that the best form of government is a
kind of benevolent liberal-democratic dictatorship.

Roosevelt's hatred for Hitler was deep, vehement, passionate -- almost
personal. This was due in no small part to an abiding envy and
jealousy rooted in the great contrast between the two men, not only in
their personal characters but also in their records as national
leaders.

Superficially, the public fives of Roosevelt and Hitler were
astonishingly similar. Both assumed the leadership of their respective
countries at the beginning of 1933. They both faced the enormous
challenge of mass unemployment during a catastrophic worldwide
economic depression. Each became a powerful leader in a vast military
alliance during the most destructive war in history. Both men died
while still in office within a few weeks of each other in April 1945,
just before the end of the Second World War in Europe. But the
enormous contrasts in the lives of these two men are even more
remarkable.

Roosevelt was born into one of the wealthiest families in America. His
was a life utterly free of material worry. He took part in the First
World War from an office in Washington as UnderSecretary of the Navy.
Hitler, on the other hand, was born into a modest provinicial family.
As a young man he worked as an impoverished manual laborer. He served
in the First World War as a front line soldier in the hell of the
Western battleground. He was wounded many times and decorated for
bravery.

In spite of his charming manner and soothing rhetoric, Roosevelt
proved unable to master the great challenges facing America. Even
after four years of his presidency, millions remained unemployed,
undernourished and poorly housed in a vast land richly endowed with
all the resources for incomparable prosperity. The New Deal was
plagued with bitter strikes and bloody clashes between labor and
capital. Roosevelt did nothing to solve the country's deep, festering
racial problems which erupted repeatedly in riots and armed conflict.
The story was very different in Germany. Hitler rallied his people
behind a radical program that transformed Germany within a few years
from an economically ruined land on the edge of civil war into
Europe's powerhouse. Germany underwent a social, cultural and economic
rebirth without parallel in history. The contrast between the
personalities of Roosevelt and Hitler was simultaneously a contrast
between two diametrically different social-political systems and
ideologies.

And yet, it would be incorrect to characterize Roosevelt as merely a
cynical politician and front man for powerful alien interests.
Certainly he did not regard himself as an evil man. He sincerely
believed that he was doing the right and noble thing in pressuring
Britain and France into war against Germany. Like Wilson before him,
and others since, Roosevelt felt himself uniquely qualified and called
upon by destiny to reshape the world according to his vision of an
egalitarian, universalist democracy. He was convinced, as so many
American leaders have been, that the world could be saved from itself
by remodeling it after the United States.

Presidents like Wilson and Roosevelt view the world not as a complex
of different nations, races and cultures which must mutually respect
each others' separate collective identities in order to live together
in peace, but rather according to a selfrighteous missionary
perspective that divides the globe into morally good and evil
countries. In that scheme of things, America is the providentially
permanent leader of the forces of righteousness. Luckily, this view
just happens to correspond to the economic and political interests of
those who wield power in the United States.

President Roosevelt's War

In April 1941, Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota prophetically
predicted that one day the Second World War would be remembered as
Roosevelt's war. "If we are ever involved in this war, it will be
called by future historians by only one title, 'the President's War,'
because every step of his since his Chicago quarantine speech [of 5
October 1937] has been toward war.[45]

The great American historian, Harry Elmer Barnes, believed that war
could probably have been prevented in 1939 if it had not been for
Roosevelt's meddling. "Indeed, there is fairly conclusive evidence
that, but for Mr. Roosevelt's pressure on Britain, France and Poland,
and his commitments to them before September 1939, especially to
Britain, and the irresponsible antics of his agent provocateur,
William C. Bullitt, there would probably have been no world war in
1939, or, perhaps, for many years thereafter."[46] In Revisionism: A
Key to Peace, Barnes wrote:

President Roosevelt had a major responsibility, both direct and
indirect, for the outbreak of war in Europe. He began to exert
pressure on France to stand up to Hitler as early as the German
reoccupation of the Rhineland in March 1936, months before he was
making his strongly isolationist speeches in the campaign of 1936.
This pressure on France, and also England, continued right down to the
coming of the war in September 1939. It gained volume and momentum
after the quarantine speech of October 1937. As the crisis approached
between Munich and the outbreak of war, Roosevelt pressed the Poles to
stand firm against any demands by Germany, and urged the English and
French to back up the Poles unflinchingly.

There is grave doubt that England would have gone to war in September
1939 had it not been for Roosevelt's encouragement and his assurances
that, in the event of war, the United States would enter on the side
of Britain just as soon as he could swing American public opinion
around to support intervention.

Roosevelt had abandoned all semblance of neutrality, even before war
broke out in 1939, and moved as speedily as was safe and feasible in
the face of anti-interventionist American public opinion to involve
this country in the European conflict.[47]

One of the most perceptive verdicts on Franklin Roosevelt's place in
history came from the pen of the great Swedish explorer and author,
Sven Hedin. During the war he wrote:

The question of the way it came to a new world war is not only to be
explained because of the foundation laid by the peace treaties of
1919, or in the suppression of Germany and her allies after the First
World War, or in the continuation of the ancient policies of Great
Britain and France. The decisive push came from the other side of the
Atlantic Ocean.

Roosevelt speaks of democracy and destroys it incessantly. He slanders
as undemocratic and un-American those who admonish him in the name of
peace and the preservation of the American way of life. He has made
democracy into a caricature rather than a model. He talks about
freedom of speech and silences those who don't hold his opinion.
He talks about freedom of religion and makes an alliance with
Bolshevism.

He talks about freedom from want, but cannot provide ten million of
his own people with work, bread or shelter. He talks about freedom
from the fear of war while working for war, not only for his own
people but for the world, by inciting his country against the Axis
powers when it might have united with them, and he thereby drove
millions to their deaths.

This war will go down in history as the war of President
Roosevelt.[48]

Officially orchestrated praise for Roosevelt as a great man of peace
cannot conceal forever his crucial role in pushing Europe into war in
1939.

* * * * *
It is now more than forty years since the events described here took
place. For many they are an irrelevant part of a best-forgotten past.
But the story of how Franklin Roosevelt engineered war in Europe is
very pertinent -- particularly for Americans today. The lessons of the
past have never been more important than in this nuclear age. For
unless at least an aware minority understands how and why wars are
made, we will remain powerless to restrain the warmongers of our own
era.

Notes
1. See, for example: Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and
the Coming of the War 1941 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948);
William Henry Chamberlin, America's Second Crusade (Chicago: Regnery,
1952, 1962); Benjamin Colby, 'Twas a Famous Victory (New Rochelle,
N.Y.: Arlington House, 1979); Frederic R. Sanborn, Design for War (New
York: Devin-Adair, 1951); William Stevenson, A Man Called Intrepid
(New York: Ballantine Books, 1980); Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to
War (Chicago: Regnery, 1952); John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and
Its Aftermath (New York: Doubleday, 1982).
2. Saul Friedlander, Prelude to Downfall: Hitler and the United
States 1939-1941 (New York: Knopf, 1967), pp. 73-77; U.S., Congress,
House, Special Committee on Investigation of Un-American Activities in
the United States, 1940, Appendix, Part II, pp. 1054-1059.
3. Friedlander, pp. 75-76.
4. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1.
5. Ibid., p. 4, and 31 March 1940, p. 1.
6. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1. Baltimore Sun, 30 March
1940, p. 1.
7. A French-language edition was published in 1944 under the
title Comment Roosevelt est Entre en Guerre.
8. Tansill, "The United States and the Road to War in Europe," in
Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell,
Idaho: Caxton, 1953; reprint eds., New York: Greenwood, 1969 and
Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review [supplemented],
1982), p. 184 (note 292). Tansill also quoted from several of the
documents in his Back Door to War, pp. 450-51.
9. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Court Historians Versus Revisionism
(N.p.: privately printed, 1952), p. 10. This booklet is reprinted in
Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets (New York: Arno Press & The New
York Times, 1972), and in Barnes, The Barnes Trilogy (Torrance,
Calif.: Institute for Historical Review, 1979).
10. Chamberlin, p. 60.
11. Edward Raczynski, In Allied London (London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1963), p. 51.
12. Orville H. Bullitt (ad.), For the President: Personal and
Secret (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. x1v [biographical
foreword]. See also Time, 26 October 1936, p. 24.
13. Current Biography 1940, ed. Maxine Block (New York: H.W.
Wilson, 1940), p. 122 ff.
14. Gisleher Wirsing, Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um
die Weltherrschaft (Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942), p. 224.
15. Bullitt obituary in New York Times, 16 February 1967, p. 44.
16. Jack Alexander, "He Rose From the Rich," Saturday Evening
Post, 11 March 1939, p. 6. (Also see continuation in issue of 18 March
1939.) Bullitt's public views on the European scene and what should be
America's attitude toward it can be found in his Report to the
American People (Boston: Houghton Mifflin [Cambridge: Riverside
Press], 1940), the text of a speech he delivered, with the President's
blessing, under the auspices of the American Philosophical Society in
Independence Hall in Philadelphia shortly after the fall of France.
For sheer, hyperventilated stridency and emotionalist hysterics, this
anti-German polemic could hardly be topped, even given the similar
propensities of many other interventionists in government and the
press in those days.
17. Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt (New York: Norton,
1980), pp. 203-04.
18. Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign
Policy 1932-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 31. See
also pp. 164-65.
19. Dispatch No. 349 of 20 September 1938 by Sir. R. Lindsay,
Documents on British Foreign Policy (ed. Ernest L. Woodward), Third
series, Vol. VII (London, 1954), pp. 627-29. See also: Joseph P. Lash,
Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941 (New York: Norton, 1976), pp. 25-27;
Dallek, pp. 164-65; Arnold A. Offner, America and the Ori-, gins of
World War II (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971), p. 61.
20. William Phillips, Ventures in Diplomacy (North Beverly, Mass.:
privately published, 1952), pp. 220-21.
21. Carl Burckhardt, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939 (Munich:
Callwey, 1960), p. 225.
22. Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen, "Washington Daily
Merry-Go-Round," Washington Times-Herald, 14 April 1939, p. 16. A
facsimile reprint of this column appears in Conrad Grieb (ed.),
American Manifest Destiny and The Holocausts (New York: Examiner
Books, 1979), pp. 132-33. See also: Wirsing, pp. 238-41.
23. Jay P. Moffat, The Moffat Papers 1919-1943 (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1956), p. 232.
24. U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United
States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956),
p. 122.
25. "Von Wiegand Says-," Chicago Herald-American, 8 October 1944,
p. 2.
26. Edvard Benes, Memoirs of Dr. Eduard Benes (London: George
Allen & Unwin, 1954), pp. 79-80.
27. Lash, p. 64.
28. Hamilton Fish, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin (Now York:
Vantage, 1976; Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review,
1980), p. 62.
29. James V. Forrestal (ads. Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield), The
Forrestal Diaries (New York: Viking, 1951), pp. 121-22. I have been
privately informed by a colleague who has examined the original
manuscript of the Forrestal diaries that many very critical references
to the Jews were deleted from the published version.
30. Jan Szembek, Journal 1933-1939 (Paris: Plan, 1952), pp.
475-76.
31. David E. Koskoff, Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 207; Moffat, p. 253;
A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London: Hamish
Hamilton, 1961; 2nd ed. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Premier [paperback],
1965), p. 262; U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the
United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 355.
32. Dallek, p. 164.
33. Beschloss, pp. 190-91; Lash, p. 75; Koskoff, pp. 212-13.
34. Hull to Kennedy (No. 905), U.S., Department of State, Foreign
Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington:
1956), p. 424.
35. The radio addresses of Hamilton Fish quoted here were
published in the Congressional Record Appendix (Washington) as
follows: (6 January 1939) Vol. 84, Part 11, pp. 52-53; (5 March 1939)
same, pp. 846-47; (5 April 1939) Vol. 84, Part 12, pp. 1342-43; (21
April 1939) same, pp. 1642-43; (26 May 1939) Vol. 84, Part 13, pp.
2288-89; (8 July 1939) same, pp. 3127-28.
36. Wayne S. Cole, Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against
American Intervention in World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1974), pp. 128, 136-39.
37. Congressional Record Appendix (Washington: 1941), (30 December
1940) Vol. 86, Part 18, pp. 7019-25. See also: Appendix, Vol. 86, Part
17, pp. 5808-14.
38. New York Times, 11 March 1941, p. 10.
39. Lucy Dawidowicz, "American Jews and the Holocaust," The New
York Times Magazine, 18 April 1982, p. 102.
40. "FDR 'had a Jewish great-grandmother'" Jewish Chronicle
(London), 5 February 1982, p. 3.
41. Charles A. Lindbergh, The Wartime Journals of Charles A.
Lindbergh (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970), p. 481.
42. Koskoff, pp. 282, 212. The role of the American press in
fomenting hatred against Germany between 1933 and 1939 is a subject
that deserves much more detailed treatment. Charles Tansill provides
some useful information on this in Back Door to War. The essay by
Professor Hans A. Muenster, "Die Kriegsschuld der Presse der USA" in
Kriegsschuld und Presse, published in 1944 by the German
Reichsdozentenfuehrung, is worth consulting.
43. An excellent essay relating and contrasting American public
opinion measurements to Roosevelt's foreign policy moves in 1939-41 is
Harry Elmer Barnes, Was Roosevelt Pushed Into War By Popular Demand in
1941? (N.p.: privately printed, 1951). It is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
44. Lash, p. 240.
45. New York Times, 27 April 1941, p. 19.
46. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Struggle Against the Historical
Blackout, 2nd ed. (N.p.: privately published, ca. 1948), p. 12. See
also the 9th, final revised and enlarged edition (N.p.: privately
published, ca. 1954), p. 34; this booklet is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
47. Harry Elmer Barnes, "Revisionism: A Key to Peace," Rampart
Journal of Individualist Thought Vol. II, No. 1 (Spring 1966), pp.
29-30. This article was republished in Barnes, Revisionism: A Key to
Peace and Other Essays (San Francisco: Cato Institute [Cato Paper No.
12], 1980).
48. Sven Hedin, Amerika im Kampf der Kontinente (Leipzig: F.A.
Brockhaus, 1943), p. 54.

Bibliography
Listed here are the published editions of the Polish documents, the
most important sources touching on the questions of their authenticity
and content, and essential recent sources on what President Roosevelt
was really-as opposed to publicly-doing and thinking during the
prelude to war. Full citations for all references in the article will
be found in the notes.
Beschloss, Michael R. Kennedy and Roosevelt. New York: Norton, 1980.
Bullitt, Orville H. (ed.). For the President: Personal and Secret.
[Correspondence between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt.]
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
Germany. Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den
Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der
Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943.
Germany. Foreign Office. The German White Paper. [White Book No. 3.]
New York: Howell, Soskin and Co., 1940.
Germany. Foreign Office. Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des
Kriegs. [White Book No. 3.] Berlin: F. Eher, 1940.
Koskoff, David E. Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
Lukasiewicz, Juliusz (Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, ed.). Diplomat in Paris
1936-1939. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970.
Wirsing, Giselher. Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die
Weltherrschaft. Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942.

>
>> I decided in the fall of 1939 to at
>> least try to create the prerequisite conditions for a general peace
>
>..which consisted of carving up Poland between Germany and the Soviet
>Union, also giving the latter a free hand against the Baltic countries
>of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and against Bessarabia and Bukovina,
>while Germany had a free hand against Yugoslavia and Greece.
>
>[snip]
>
>> I may remind you, deputies and men of the German Reichstag, that
>> throughout the spring and summer of 1939 Britain offered military
>> alliances to a number of countries, claiming that Germany intended to
>> invade them and rob them of their freedom.
>
>...a claim that Hitler did his best to justify in the succeeding three
>years, and would have gone even further had it not been for defeats
>beginning with the Battle of Britain and the 1941 Winter offensive of
>the Red Army, which ironically began just a few days after this
>speech.
>
>> However, the German Reich
>> and its government could assure them with a clear conscience that
>> these insinuations did not correspond to the truth in any way.
>
>The co-masters (with the Soviets) of the Big Lie technique could do
>just about anything with a clear conscience.

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies. The
Jewish media took his words out of context and claimed that Hitler was
in favor of big lies. This was in itself a big lie and proof that
Hitler was right. Here is what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and in
context:

"But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity
for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute
responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had
shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the
catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that
hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for
the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took
away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous
enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the
Fatherland to justice. All this was inspired by the principle--which
is quite true in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain
force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always
more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature
than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity
of their minds they are more readily fall victims to the big lie than
the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little
matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It
would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and
they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort
truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so
may be brought clearly to their minds, they still doubt and waver and
will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For
the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it
has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in
this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These
people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest
purposes.
"From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than
any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their
very existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a
religious community, whereas in reality they are a race? And what a
race! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has
branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and
exactly true. He (Schopenhauer) called the Jew 'The Great Master of
Lies'. Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not
wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth
to prevail."

>The irony here is that the Soviet Union justified the war with
>transparently phony propaganda about numerous "provocations" [nature
>not specified] at and near the border. Similarly, Hitler justified
>his war of conquest against Poland with tall tales like the
>following:

The Jews control your media and you mind.


There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of
Their Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran
Hollywood.

Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment".
It is subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are
from the Aug 1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So
What?":

"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish
power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most
influential production executives at each of the major movie studios
will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."

"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt
Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic
attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most
powerful positions."

"When Matsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to
undermine the unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and
all Jewish - management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and
Tom Pollack."

Here is a quote from Steven Spielberg, "film is the greatest weapon
in the world".

Jewish control of the media:
MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, owner of NY Daily News, US News & World Report and
chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American
Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups.
LESLIE MOONVES, president of CBS television, great-nephew of David
Ben-Gurion, and co-chair with Norman Ornstein of the Advisory
Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers,
appointed by Clinton.
JONATHAN MILLER, chair and CEO of AOL division of AOL-Time-Warner
NEIL SHAPIRO, president of NBC News
JEFF GASPIN, Executive Vice-President, Programming, NBC
DAVID WESTIN, president of ABC News
SUMNER REDSTONE, CEO of Viacom, "world's biggest media giant"
(Economist, 11/23/2) owns Viacom cable, CBS and MTVs all over the
world, Blockbuster video rentals and Black Entertainment TV.
MICHAEL EISNER, major owner of Walt Disney, Capitol Cities, ABC.
RUPERT MURDOCH, Owner Fox TV, New York Post, London Times, News of the
World (Jewish mother)
MEL KARMAZIN, president of CBS
DON HEWITT, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes, CBS
JEFF FAGER, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes II. CBS
DAVID POLTRACK, Executive Vice-President, Research and Planning, CBS
SANDY KRUSHOW, Chair, Fox Entertainment
LLOYD BRAUN, Chair, ABC Entertainment
BARRY MEYER, chair, Warner Bros.
SHERRY LANSING. President of Paramount Communications and Chairman of
Paramount Pictures' Motion Picture Group.
HARVEY WEINSTEIN, CEO. Miramax Films.
BRAD SIEGEL., President, Turner Entertainment.
PETER CHERNIN, second in-command at Rupert Murdoch's News. Corp.,
owner of Fox TV
MARTY PERETZ, owner and publisher of the New Republic, which openly
identifies itself as pro-Israel. Al Gore credits Marty with being his
"mentor."
ARTHUR O. SULZBERGER, JR., publisher of the NY Times, the Boston Globe
and other publications.
WILLIAM SAFIRE, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
TOM FRIEDMAN, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post.
Honored by Honest Reporting.com, website monitoring "anti-Israel
media."
RICHARD COHEN, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post
JEFF JACOBY, syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe
NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Inst., regular columnist for USA
Today, news analyst for CBS, and co-chair with Leslie Moonves of the
Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV
Producers, appointed by Clinton.
ARIE FLEISCHER, Dubya's press secretary.
STEPHEN EMERSON, every media outlet's first choice as an expert on
domestic terrorism.
DAVID SCHNEIDERMAN, owner of the Village Voice and the New Times
network of "alternative weeklies."
DENNIS LEIBOWITZ, head of Act II Partners, a media hedge fund
KENNETH POLLACK, for CIA analysts, director of Saban Center for Middle
East Policy, writes op-eds in NY Times, New Yorker
BARRY DILLER, chair of USA Interactive, former owner of Universal
Entertainment
KENNETH ROTH, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch
RICHARD LEIBNER, runs the N.S. Bienstock talent agency, which
represents 600 news personalities such as Dan Rather, Dianne Sawyer
and Bill O'Reilly.
TERRY SEMEL, CEO, Yahoo, former chair, Warner Bros.
MARK GOLIN, VP and Creative Director, AOL
WARREN LIEBERFORD, Pres., Warner Bros. Home Video Div. of AOL-
TimeWarner
JEFFREY ZUCKER, President of NBC Entertainment
JACK MYERS, NBC, chief.NYT 5.14.2
SANDY GRUSHOW, chair of Fox Entertainment
GAIL BERMAN, president of Fox Entertainment
STEPHEN SPIELBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
JEFFREY KATZENBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
DAVID GEFFEN, co-owner of Dreamworks
LLYOD BRAUN, chair of ABC Entertainment
JORDAN LEVIN, president of Warner Bros. Entertainment
MAX MUTCHNICK, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
DAVID KOHAN, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
HOWARD STRINGER, chief of Sony Corp. of America
AMY PASCAL, chair of Columbia Pictures
JOEL KLEIN, chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American operations
ROBERT SILLERMAN, founder of Clear Channel Communications
BRIAN GRADEN, president of MTV entertainment
IVAN SEIDENBERG, CEO of Verizon Communications
WOLF BLITZER, host of CNN's Late Edition
LARRY KING, host of Larry King Live
TED KOPPEL, host of ABC's Nightline
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN Reporter
PAULA ZAHN, CNN Host
MIKE WALLACE, Host of CBS, 60 Minutes
BARBARA WALTERS, Host, ABC's 20-20
MICHAEL LEDEEN, editor of National Review
BRUCE NUSSBAUM, editorial page editor, Business Week
DONALD GRAHAM, Chair and CEO of Newsweek and Washington Post, son of
CATHERINE GRAHAM MEYER, former owner of the Washington Post
HOWARD FINEMAN, Chief Political Columnist, Newsweek
WILLIAM KRISTOL, Editor, Weekly Standard, Exec. Director
Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
RON ROSENTHAL, Managing Editor, San Francisco Chronicle
PHIL BRONSTEIN, Executive Editor, San Francisco Chronicle,
RON OWENS, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
JOHN ROTHMAN, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
MICHAEL SAVAGE, Talk Show Host, KFSO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San
Francisco) Syndicated in 100 markets
MICHAEL MEDVED, Talk Show Host, on 124 AM stations
DENNIS PRAGER, Talk Show Host, nationally syndicated from LA. Has
Israeli flag on his home page.
BEN WATTENBERG, Moderator, PBS Think Tank.
ANDREW LACK, president of NBC
DANIEL MENAKER, Executive Director, Harper Collins
DAVID REMNICK, Editor, The New Yorker
NICHOLAS LEHMANN, writer, the New York
HENRICK HERTZBERG, Talk of the Town editor, The New Yorker
SAMUEL NEWHOUSE JR, and DONALD NEWHOUSE own Newhouse Publications,
includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities; the Conde Nast magazine group,
includes The New Yorker; Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplement;
American City Business Journals, business newspapers published in more
than 30 major cities in America; and interests in cable television
programming and cable systems serving 1 million homes.
DONALD NEWHOUSE, chairman of the board of directors, Associated Press.
PETER R KANN, CEO, Wall Street Journal, Barron's
RALPH J. & BRIAN ROBERTS, Owners, Comcast-ATT Cable TV.
LAWRENCE KIRSHBAUM, CEO, AOL-Time Warner Book Group

The Holocaust Cowing and Milking of Nations By Alex Linder

'Holocaust': The Means by Which the Richest Group in the World
Contrives to Cow and Milk the Rest of the Us in the Guise of Victims
who are Persecuted and Due Eternal Restitution.

Reading through a thousand blog reactions to Duke v Blitzer on CNN, a
generalization crystallizes. People confuse being told something six
million times with knowing something. They are not the same. "It ain't
what you don't know, it's what you know that just ain't so." The
average man 'knows' the Holocaust exists because:

1) everybody uses the term;
2) he has seen photos of stacked bodies;
3) he has read Anne Frank's book;
4) authorities agree that questioning any of this is 'hate.'

In other words, the average man believes in the Holocaust for no
logical reason, but out of simple mammalian conformity.
'Holocaust' is a loaded, dishonest term. You can't debate with
undefined terms without making a joke of yourself, but the average man
does not realize this. It is the part of public school, reinforced by
mass media, to disable his thinking so that he's worse positioned to
defend himself because he can't understand how he is manipulated to
accept the illogical. Debate in the mass media of a democracy is
nothing but the shuffling of loaded terms.

'Holocaust' is no ordinary noun. Rather, it is a loaded gun leveled at
the head of the West and the rest. Give them their money and their
pride of place or get your head and reputation blown off. You will
notice that never, ever does debate in the captive media condescend to
deconstruct the Zionist Privilege embodied in and sanctified by the
designer label 'Holocaust.' Worship the Zionists and submit to their
demands - that is what the term Holocaust means.

A demand for special privilege protected by a shell of pseudo-history;
that is an objective description of the term. The heart of the
'Holocaust,' taking at face value the term's pretension to historical
designation, is the claim that six million Jews were murdered by Nazi
Germany, most of them by gassing. The evidence for the gassing is
never discussed. Photos of crematories and bodies stacked like cord
wood are shown. No context or explanation of the reason for showing
them is given. The connection is to be assumed. But never is any
ordinary evidence, let alone proof, of the gassing allegation
advanced. That Jews were gassed is treated as though it were already
proved and therefore unquestionable, save by the depraved. Thus, the
practical job of the media and the well intentioned everyman is to
smear and ostracize anybody who argues against settled truth. We all
know that Jews were gassed, and that those who say otherwise are
deniers driven by hate. But it ain't so just because "everybody knows"
it is.

We are told repeatedly that the 'Holocaust' is both the worst thing
that ever happened and the best documented thing in human history. We
are to take these assertions on authority, since no genuine debate is
allowed.

There are men who can prove the 'Holocaust' is a Big Lie. You can find
them in jail. Their imprisonment is scarcely mentioned in the mass
media. Their imprisonment goes unlamented by the mass columnists. To
discuss these men and their work would endanger the Propa-sphere the
media construct. They must disappear. But we know, mass media. And
we're not going away. We're getting louder and stronger. And there's
nothing you can do to stop us.

[james g. keegan jr.]

In article
<d332287f-7068-49c9...@10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, the

plagiarist posting as pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Looks like my statement about Hitler plunging the world into the
> bloodiest war of all time had some effect on Topaz.

are you leading up to using the insanity defense for your plagiarism?

[james g. keegan jr.]

In article
<f392a194-3c4c-4e48...@f8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, the

plagiarist posting as pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> With his only supporter of any consequence, "elizabeth," in the hot
> seat, the man who turned talk.abortion into a hellhole with the help
> of scoundrels like her tries vainly to deflect attention from her
> failure to blast Topaz when she had a golden opportunity.

you's rather construct strawmen than deal with your plagiarism and
dishonesty, huh?

[james g. keegan jr.]

In article
<02872ccf-ddbb-4379...@h5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
bobby heishman (osprey/dino) now posting as - <cra...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> Wow

good bobby. you spelled it right too.

[james g. keegan jr.]

In article
<038b3b99-a710-4bdf...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, the

plagiarist posting as pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Yup, Topaz, elizabeth, and keegan are still posting.

that's clearly phd level reporting, plagiarist.

[elizabeth]

On Dec 14, 6:00 pm, - <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:

Wow, Heishman, you really do prove that suicide is the only thing you
need.

> On Dec 14, 8:39 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14, 1:24 pm, - <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 14, 1:17 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > With his only supporter of any consequence, "elizabeth," in the hot
> > > > seat, the man who turned talk.abortion into a hellhole with the help
> > > > of scoundrels like her tries vainly to deflect attention from her
> > > > failure to blast Topaz when she had a golden opportunity.
>
> > > Wow, those to certifiable wack jobs are still posting?
>
> > Yup, Topaz, elizabeth, and keegan are still posting.  And they seem to
> > be here for the long haul, even though the three stoutest amigos of
> > the latter two--Fischer, Humphrey, and above all "Spartakus" -- left
> > without so much as saying good-bye.

At least you're still not working in a prison . . .

> Oh well...at least they aren't on the streets acting like raving
> lunatics, like they do in here.
>

Yes, the ng that you promised to leave forever, Heishman.

> > ============= end of included post- Hide quoted text -

[pnyikos]

On Dec 15, 9:42 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article

> <d332287f-7068-49c9-88cc-de5831d4d...@10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, the

> plagiarist posting as pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Looks like my statement about Hitler plunging the world into the
> > bloodiest war of all time had some effect on Topaz.
>
> are you leading up to using the insanity defense for your plagiarism?

Looks like YOU are leading up to using the insanity defense for your
innumerable libels, including this one. You ran away from the
following documentation with your tail between your legs [poetic
license, figure of speech].

On Dec 14, 5:14 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:

- Show quoted text -

How self-referential can you get, you pathetic clown? YOU did
something way back in 2010 that fits the following definition:

present as new and original an idea or product derived from an
existing source

-- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize

[pnyikos]

On Dec 14, 5:13 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 6:52 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 6, 5:48 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 5, 4:43 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What creeps me out about the mormons is how they feel they can baptize
> > > after death.
>
> > What creeps me out is how you can nonchalantly play footsie with a
> > Nazi (or, at best, a Nazi sympathizer who makes no bones about it)

You were so anxious to salivate the words "prove it", Pavlov-dog
style, that you forgot about the qualifying parenthetical comment to
"Nazi".

Or are you just PRETENDING to have forgotten about it below?

> > while lambasting decent folk like Dino, Mosco, Osprey, and myself.
>
> Who's a Nazi?  and do prove it, don't pull a Heishman out of your ass
> and insist you have "inside sources" that you won't reveal.

You are really going off the deep end here, salivating "prove it" the
way Pavlov's dog salivated even at inappropriate moments [rung bell,
no food nor smell of food].

You left a clearly pro-Hitler, gay-bashing comment in your reply to
"Topaz," completely uncommented on. [See text with multiple
attribution marks going with Topaz's words below.] And you snipped
what I am reposting out of the very post I am replying to now:

______________ begin repost__________________

> > Christians are great for telling what some of the problems are, such
> > as homosexual perversion, feminism etc. But to actually solve these
> > problems one should look elsewhere. Who do Christians hate the most,
> > first Hitler and then the Muslims. These are the two who actually
> > solved the problems that Christians are famous for speaking against.

No comment, elizabeth? Not even the obvious comment that plunging the
world into the bloodiest war ever is hardly a solution to anything?

Maybe you think it had the benefit of decreasing the surplus
population, eh?

> > Maybe the Muslims go a little overboard but they are the opposite of
> > liberalism. There is no way that "Brokeback Mountain" would be shown
> > in a Muslim country.
> >http://www.ihr.org/ http://heretical.com/
> >http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com

NO sign of him saying anything about Hitler going overboard. You had
a beautiful chance to rip into him, and you didn't give a damn.

=========== end of repost

Note also the obviously Nazi url.

What accounts for your silence and preservation of what Topaz wrote?
Did you or your buddy keegan sign a non-agression pact with Topaz?

Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.

Peter Nyikos

[Topaz]

By Mark Weber

Much has already been written about Roosevelt's campaign of deception
and outright lies in getting the United States to intervene in the
Second World War prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in
December 1941. Roosevelt's aid to Britain and the Soviet Union in
violation of American neutrality and international law, his acts of
war against Germany in the Atlantic in an effort to provoke a German
declaration of war against the United States, his authorization of a
vast "dirty tricks" campaign against U.S. citizens by British
intelligence agents in violation of the Constitution, and his
provocations and ultimatums against Japan which brought on the attack

against Pearl Harbor-all this is extensively documented and reasonably

well known.[1]

Not so well known is the story of Roosevelt's enormous responsibility
for the outbreak of the Second World War itself. This essay focuses on
Roosevelt's secret campaign to provoke war in Europe prior to the
outbreak of hostilities in September 1939. It deals particularly with
his efforts to pressure Britain, France and Poland into war against
Germany in 1938 and 1939.

Franklin Roosevelt not only criminally involved America in a war which
had already engulfed Europe. He bears a grave responsibility before
history for the outbreak of the most destructive war of all time.

This paper relies heavily on a little-known collection of secret
Polish documents which fell into German hands when Warsaw was captured
in September 1939.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html
These documents clearly establish Roosevelt's crucial role in bringing
on the Second World War.

Poland had refused to even negotiate over self-determination for the
German city of Danzig and the ethnic German minority in the so-called
Polish Corridor. Hitler felt compelled to resort to arms when he did
in response to a growing Polish campaign of terror and dispossession
against the one and a half million ethnic Germans under Polish rule.
In my view, if ever a military action was justified, it was the German
campaign against Poland in 1939.

Poland's headstrong refusal to negotiate was made possible because of

a fateful blank check guarantee of military backing from Britain-a

knows nothing of the situation in Europe...

for generations as friends and want to remain so...

While the Polish documents alone are conclusive proof of Roosevelt's
treacherous campaign to bring about world war, it is fortunate for
posterity that a substantial body of irrefutable complementary
evidence exists which confirms the conspiracy recorded in the

dispatches to Warsaw...

On 19 September 1938 -- that is, a year before the outbreak of war in

Europe-Roosevelt called Lindsay to a very secret meeting at the White

to war in case of German-Polish hostilities.

The youth of America are again being prepared for another blood bath

people for their own good-that he broke the law for lofty principles.

His deceit is considered permissible because the cause was noble,
while similar deception by presidents Johnson and Nixon, to name two,
is not. This is, of course, a hypocritical double standard. And the
argument doesn't speak very well for the democratic system. It implies
that the people are too dumb to understand their own best interests.
It further suggests that the best form of government is a kind of
benevolent liberal-democratic dictatorship.

Roosevelt's hatred for Hitler was deep, vehement, passionate-almost

It is now more than forty years since the events described here took
place. For many they are an irrelevant part of a best-forgotten past.
But the story of how Franklin Roosevelt engineered war in Europe is

very pertinent-particularly for Americans today. The lessons of the

[elizabeth]

On Dec 17, 10:34 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

fauxNy, whoever is using your handle, you and Heishman just need to
get a room, and post the pics on a gay website, because that might
"cure" a few gays!

[james g. keegan jr.]

In article
<2adc1eea-ea39-4c3c...@f8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, the

plagiarist posting as pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Dec 14, 5:13�pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 13, 6:52�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

[...]

> > Who's a Nazi? �and do prove it, don't pull a Heishman out of your ass
> > and insist you have "inside sources" that you won't reveal.
>
> You are really going off the deep end here, salivating "prove it" the
> way Pavlov's dog salivated even at inappropriate moments [rung bell,
> no food nor smell of food].

granted it doesn't make much sense to ask people like you or heishman to
support your allegations since neither of you ever do so but I'm quite
comfortable viewing elizabeth's request as a simple demonstration of
your dishonesty to anyone who might not already be aware of it,
plagiarist.

[james g. keegan jr.]

In article
<9c36e4b0-54be-418a...@f4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Dec 15, 9:42 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <d332287f-7068-49c9-88cc-de5831d4d...@10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, the
> > plagiarist posting as pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Looks like my statement about Hitler plunging the world into the
> > > bloodiest war of all time had some effect on Topaz.
> >
> > are you leading up to using the insanity defense for your plagiarism?
>
> Looks like YOU are leading up to using the insanity defense for your
> innumerable libels, including this one.

another empty claim, plagiarist. were there a shred of truth to your
lies,you would have made some effort to protect your professional
reputation as well as the image of your university.

have they asked to you retire?

[pnyikos]

On Dec 19, 9:02 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article

> <9c36e4b0-54be-418a-b9f2-8395305e9...@f4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 15, 9:42 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <d332287f-7068-49c9-88cc-de5831d4d...@10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, the
> > > plagiarist posting as pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Looks like my statement about Hitler plunging the world into the
> > > > bloodiest war of all time had some effect on Topaz.
>
> > > are you leading up to using the insanity defense for your plagiarism?
>
> > Looks like YOU are leading up to using the insanity defense for your
> > innumerable libels, including this one.
>
> another empty claim,

The non-aggression pact between you and the Nazi, Topaz, is still
going strong, I see.

> plagiarist.

You keep deleting the evidence that it is YOU who are the plagiarist,
and I am innocent of it.

If someone ever photographed you committing adultery, you'd probably
smash the camera and destroy the chip containing the pictures,
and endlessly call the person who caught you an adulterer.

[idiotic fantasy by keegan deleted]

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Dec 19, 8:58 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article

> <2adc1eea-ea39-4c3c-a80c-78c45eef5...@f8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, the

> plagiarist posting as pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 5:13 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 13, 6:52 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> [...]
> > > Who's a Nazi? and do prove it, don't pull a Heishman out of your ass
> > > and insist you have "inside sources" that you won't reveal.
>
> > You are really going off the deep end here, salivating "prove it" the
> > way Pavlov's dog salivated even at inappropriate moments [rung bell,
> > no food nor smell of food].
>
> granted it doesn't make much sense to ask people like you or heishman to
> support your allegations since

...you will just delete the proof in your reply, and pretend it was
never posted.

You keep doing that with the proof that you plagiarized:

You cited a Frank Rich article in the New York Times that you posted
as evidence that
YOU could FORMULATE intellectual thoughts or opinions:

____________________ begin excerpt, names added in brackets


>[Sparks] > Do you have the ability to formulate an intellectual thought or
> > opinion on the topic under discussion? I don't think I've seen one
> > from you yet.
>[nyikos] He hasn't even tried on this thread, as you can see, thereby
> reinforcing my suspicion that he is incapable of meaningfully adding
> to the propaganda piece he posted.


[keegan]
the poor stupid pretend match professor posts such an ignorant lie
that
is laughable. i began this thread professor.
============================= end of excerpt from

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/972f3e33f2765b3e


And so, you claimed that the Frank Rich article that you posted at
the
beginning of the thread without a single word of your own added, was
a
refutation of my claim about you. That perfectly fits one of the
definitions of "plagiarize" in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:


plagiarize:

present as new and original an idea or product derived from
an existing source

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarizing


And, just to rub in your claim about the Frank Rich article, you
incorporated a shameless lie into a question:


"now do you wonder why no one believes you
are the real peter nyikos?"


The real question is: why do you think ANYONE takes a pathological
liar like you seriously?


Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Dec 15, 9:46 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article

> <038b3b99-a710-4bdf-81ae-0328dbc02...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, the

> plagiarist posting as  pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Yup, Topaz, elizabeth, and keegan are still posting.
>
> that's clearly phd level reporting

You must really be bored with life, if that's the wittiest comment
you've delivered all year.

> plagiarist.


You are trapped in a hell of your own making, obsessively repeating
the charge of plagiarism (hundreds if not thousands of times, by now)
in a way highly suggestive of severe mental illness.

This incessantly repeated slander of yours is based on
the lie that I was plagiarizing Osprey when I wrote the following last
year in direct follow-up to Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey:

The sound of Texas crickets chirping came through at this
point. ;-)

while Osprey's, in direct follow-up to the same Humphrey way back in
2007, when I wasn't even posting to Usenet, was:

<crickets in Texas and California, chirping>


The average 10 year old child who knows Humphrey never tires of
talking about Texas and who knows about the Usenet <crickets
chirping> convention could have come up with the statement I made.

To top it all off, Osprey's statement was a comeback to one by
Keegan's friend and admirer Humphrey, a comeback so blindingly
obvious that an average 8 year old who knows about the conventions
could have come up with it. Here it is in context, with irrelevant
lines deleted:

From: "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com>

Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:30:07 -0500

> "The Chief Instigator" <patr...@eris.io.com> wrote in messagenews:szkfy8l...@eris.io.com...
> > "Pinch" <pi...@cheerful.com> writes:


> >>What's Barnes' real name, Osprey?
> > <crickets in Delaware, chirping>

[...]
Where is the proof of any trailer park that I am supposed to be living
in, that Barnes claimed?

<crickets in Texas and California, chirping>
============================ end of post archived at:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/d015a7ac527fa3c9

Yet your fans want people to think you are a published author!
If you ARE, you know damn well that I didn't commit plagiarism.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

These childish insults show how low you have sunk in your desperate
evasions of the truth about you.

If I were the kind of sleazoid you are, I'd post stuff like the above
about you and Keegan, and it would be far more justifiable, because of
the way he has backed you up in your pretense that Topaz is not at
least a Nazi sympathizer.

You left a clearly pro-Hitler, gay-bashing comment in your reply to
"Topaz," completely uncommented on. [See text with multiple
attribution marks going with Topaz's words below.] And you snipped

what I am reposting, something that clearly shows how you ignored
his comments.

______________ begin repost__________________

> > Christians are great for telling what some of the problems are, such
> > as homosexual perversion, feminism etc. But to actually solve these
> > problems one should look elsewhere. Who do Christians hate the most,
> > first Hitler and then the Muslims. These are the two who actually
> > solved the problems that Christians are famous for speaking against.


No comment, elizabeth? Not even the obvious comment that plunging
the
world into the bloodiest war ever is hardly a solution to anything?

Maybe you think it had the benefit of decreasing the surplus
population, eh?



> > Maybe the Muslims go a little overboard but they are the opposite of
> > liberalism. There is no way that "Brokeback Mountain" would be shown
> > in a Muslim country.
> >http://www.ihr.org/ http://heretical.com/
> >http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com


NO sign of him saying anything about Hitler going overboard. You had
a beautiful chance to rip into him, and you didn't give a damn.
=========== end of repost

I notice how Keegan covered for you when I reposted my, again deleting
the evidence and acting as though it had never been posted.

Note also the obviously Nazi url.

What accounts for your silence and preservation of what Topaz wrote?
Did you or your buddy keegan sign a non-agression pact with Topaz?

You are hate-ravaged, misogynistic [just look at how you wished
Denise, a decent, harmless woman, would be raped unto death] and so
much in love with yourself that you cannot imagine intelligent,
truthful people not thinking highly of you.

And so you make up these transparently insane ideas about how I cannot
possibly be who I am, and how I must have some sort of sexual
relationship with a man I've never met, a man you keep claiming is a
failure.

You've never posted a shred of evidence that Heishman is a failure,
have you? Are you insane enough to think that getting Keegan, Gwen,
and Humphrey to agree with you about this is proof enough?

By the way, the latter two people were a lot more interesting than
Keegan is now. You miss them, don't you?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Dec 14, 11:18 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:21:47 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>

> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Looks like my statement about Hitler plunging the world into the
> >bloodiest war of all time had some effect on Topaz.  But we don't
> >really hear from him here; we hear from the Hitler he admires so much.
>
> >In thread after thread, Topaz posts long articles highly favorable to
> >this monster
>
> "He was born into humble circumstances, the son of an obscure civil
> servant in a remote corner of a crumbling empire, yet his name
> resounds throughout the world to this day.

...as an evil person who was responsible for suffering on a vast
scale.

> He was rejected by the universities of his time for formal enrollment
> in art and in architecture, and yet he erected mighty buildings
> and monuments,

Germans who lived while he ruled erected them, and you are pretending
he did the designing and erecting!

People praised Stalin in similar ways. It would be interesting to see
who was praised first in the ways that are so aptly satirized by
George Orwell in _Animal Farm_, where the animals were saying things
like, "Thanks to our leader, Comrade Napoleon, how good this hay
tastes!"

> > And seldom does [Topaz] get

> >any kind of counterattack.  You'd think the leftists who dominate so
> >many newsgroups would pillory him in reply to every post he makes;
> >instead they seem all but speechless against him.
>
> >Unfortunately, I have very limited time on my hands before I go on my
> >usual Usenet posting break to celebrate a long holiday season with my
> >family.  But I couldn't let this latest salvo of Topaz go unanswered,
> >and I will return in January.

And now, the time has come for me to begin that posting break. But
you posted many false and misleading claims in the 1793 line post to
which I am replying, "Topaz," and the worst of the bunch will be
exposed within a month.

I shall return.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

[james g. keegan jr.]

In article
<2d61bc5c-9145-451e...@c16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, the

plagiarist posting as pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> And now, the time has come for me to begin that posting break.

quite a regular occurrence that posting break. most often comes when you
are under stress from being challenged on too many lies.

[james g. keegan jr.]

In article
<e47d003c-1cdd-4b1d...@h2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, the

plagiarist posting as pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Dec 18, 2:40 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 10:34 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > fauxNy, whoever is using your handle, you and Heishman just need to
> > get a room, and post the pics on a gay website, because that might
> > "cure" a few gays!
>
> These childish insults show how low you have sunk in your desperate
> evasions of the truth about you.

can you cite a single claim you made about elizabeth which you
supported, plagiarist?

[james g. keegan jr.]

In article
<8e63f64c-944a-42ea...@f4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, the

plagiarist posting as pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Dec 15, 9:46 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <038b3b99-a710-4bdf-81ae-0328dbc02...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, the
> > plagiarist posting as  pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Yup, Topaz, elizabeth, and keegan are still posting.
> >

> > that's clearly phd level reporting, plagiarist.

>
> You must really be bored with life, if that's the wittiest comment
> you've delivered all year.

that was phd level reading comprehension, plagiarist.

[james g. keegan jr.]

In article
<36c3e533-b79b-46a2...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Dec 19, 9:02 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <9c36e4b0-54be-418a-b9f2-8395305e9...@f4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >  pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Dec 15, 9:42 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <d332287f-7068-49c9-88cc-de5831d4d...@10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, the
> > > > plagiarist posting as pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Looks like my statement about Hitler plunging the world into the
> > > > > bloodiest war of all time had some effect on Topaz.
> >
> > > > are you leading up to using the insanity defense for your plagiarism?
> >
> > > Looks like YOU are leading up to using the insanity defense for your
> > > innumerable libels, including this one.
> >

> > another empty claim, plagiarist. were there a shred of truth
> > to your lies,you would have made some effort to protect
> > your professional reputation as well as the image of your university.
> >
> > have they asked to you retire?
>

> The non-aggression pact between you and the Nazi, Topaz, is still
> going strong, I see.

not even a good strawman, plagiarist. i must have struck a nerve.

[james g. keegan jr.]

In article
<740b7cde-ac3f-4161...@h2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Dec 19, 8:58 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <2adc1eea-ea39-4c3c-a80c-78c45eef5...@f8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, the
> > plagiarist posting as pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Dec 14, 5:13 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 13, 6:52 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > Who's a Nazi? and do prove it, don't pull a Heishman out of your ass
> > > > and insist you have "inside sources" that you won't reveal.
> >
> > > You are really going off the deep end here, salivating "prove it" the
> > > way Pavlov's dog salivated even at inappropriate moments [rung bell,
> > > no food nor smell of food].
> >
> > granted it doesn't make much sense to ask people like you or

> > heishman to support your allegations since neither of you ever do
> > so but I'm quite comfortable viewing elizabeth's request as a
> > simple demonstration of your dishonesty to anyone who might not
> > already be aware of it, plagiarist.
>

> ...you will just delete the proof in your reply, and pretend it was
> never posted.

not even a good retort, plagiarist.

[-]

No...he wouldn't be that brave cause he knows he would get the shit
kicked out of him.
He would just deny it and call the other person a liar, even with the
pictures right in front of him.

[elizabeth]

On Dec 19, 8:40 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

You know, the original Ny and I pretty much ignored each other.

And since Heishman bragged about using any handle he wanted to, and
since you are posting more like Bobby than who you claim to be, FAI&P
you're an Oopsey by another name.

> You've never posted a shred of evidence that Heishman is a failure,

Already done. And note he is supposed to stay out of the ng, but has
returned many times.

[elizabeth]

On Dec 20, 3:36 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article

> <2d61bc5c-9145-451e-acf2-ed8371291...@c16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, the

> plagiarist posting as pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > And now, the time has come for me to begin that posting break.
>
> quite a regular occurrence that posting break. most often comes when you
> are under stress from being challenged on too many lies.

Yeah, like Heishman, he runs away, then comes back, spews the same
shit, and never gets how no one is buying it.

[elizabeth]

On Dec 20, 10:48 am, - <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 11:04 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 9:02 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <9c36e4b0-54be-418a-b9f2-8395305e9...@f4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > >  pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 15, 9:42 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <d332287f-7068-49c9-88cc-de5831d4d...@10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, the
> > > > > plagiarist posting as pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Looks like my statement about Hitler plunging the world into the
> > > > > > bloodiest war of all time had some effect on Topaz.
>
> > > > > are you leading up to using the insanity defense for your plagiarism?
>
> > > > Looks like YOU are leading up to using the insanity defense for your
> > > > innumerable libels, including this one.
>
> > > another empty claim,
>
> > The non-aggression pact between you and the Nazi, Topaz, is still
> > going strong, I see.
>
> > > plagiarist.
>
> > You keep deleting the evidence that it is YOU who are the plagiarist,
> > and I am innocent of it.
>
> > If someone ever photographed you committing adultery, you'd probably
> > smash the camera and destroy the chip containing the pictures,
> > and endlessly call the person who caught you an adulterer.

And here is Robert "J" Heishman, spewing the same sort of idiot
bravado that has given him the undisputed title of dumbest douche in
the ng:

> > [idiotic fantasy by keegan deleted]
>
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> No...he wouldn't be that brave cause he knows he would get the shit
> kicked out of him.

Oh, my, so brave behind a keyboard, Heishman, considering you're too
chickenshit to even identify yourself!
NOt that anyone is fooled.

> He would just deny it and call the other person a liar, even with the

> pictures right in front of him.- Hide quoted text -

As do you, nonstop, Heishman.

[Topaz]

By Walter Ruthard

I myself was brought up in a small village in the southwest of
Germany. In 1939, when the war broke out, we left for the less exposed
Odenwald area until the possible danger of a French invasion had
passed. Shortly after that my father was transferred to the Ruhr
region. He as requested work as a foreman for the Mauser arms factory.
The government, true to their claims to be national and socialist,
took their promises seriously and provided young people starting a
family, as well as those who already had children, with affordable
housing. The first child brought a reduction of the mortgage by 25
percent, and when the fourth child arrived the mortgage was no more.
My parents already had four children then and thus were eligible for a
free newly built house from the government.

This was but one of the many programs the government established in
order to improve the quality of life for its citizens..

Then there was the "Kinderlandverschickung" program. It was started
before the war and enabled mothers in need of recreation to spend some
time in rural settings together with their children..

Another very popular social program of the government was "Kraft
durch Freude" (strength through joy). Here deserving workers could
take all-inclusive tours on luxury liners that were built especially
for this purpose. On these ships there was only one class and
everybody was treated the same. They visited the Azores and
Spitsbergen among other places. Those ships were not allowed to dock
in and English port however. The reason was that the British
government did not want it's citizens to see what it also could have
done for them..

The most misinterpreted program in Germany was the so-called
"Lebensborn". It was the exact opposite of what people are made to
believe it was, or should I say, of what people like to believe.. The
Lebensborn was the institution to help unwed mothers who did not know
where to turn for help. They were taken care of during their
pregnancies and afterward as well. This was the Lebensborn, and any
other interpretation is plain hogwash..

My father was able to buy not one but three guns plus two pistols,
together with plenty of ammunition. All it took him was proof that he
was indeed a German citizen without a criminal record. Then in 1945,
when the French "liberated" us, they disarmed him. I know that he was
not the only one to have guns at home, because I saw the many, many
arms that were handed over to the French, and this was in a very small
village..

Then, after the war was over, we had our first experience with a real
democracy. The French introduced it and gave us some shining examples;
one was that the lived off the country and stole everything which
wasn't nailed down..

It was not until many years later that I learned that Hitler held at
least five plebiscites during the first half of his rule. In
democratic Germany, from 1945 until today there has never been a
plebiscite.

There were foreign workers employed in Germany during WWII. I knew
one of them. He worked on a farm and was treated exactly like the son
who was in the army. After the war he stayed on and married the
daughter of the house. He was a prisoner of war from Poland and I
never saw him guarded by any policeman. This is how foreigners were
treated in Germany. They earned the same wages as the Germans, they
took part in the social insurance program, had paid-for holidays
including free train fares, and many came back with friends who also
wanted to work for these "horrible" Germans. Today they are called
slave laborer.

Not everyone was entitled to go on to a university. Only good marks
and above-average performance in schools qualified. But good
performers were promoted with all means available. Today we are much
more democratic; everyone is entitled to a university education and if
the parents are wealthy enough, the son or daughter can study until
they are 35..

Germany was also the country to introduce, in 1933, the first-ever
comprehensive animal protection law. Farm animals had to be kept in
strictly natural environments and no animal factories were allowed. Of
course, no testing of products on animals was permitted, and no kosher
slaughter.

If new industrial facilities were built they had to conform to the
highest standards with adequate lighting and air inside, canteens
where the workers were served nutritious meals at affordable prices,
and beautiful lawns outside: all for the benefit of the workers.. In
national socialist Germany, no child labor was allowed as it still was
in other European countries.


And finally, although I could still go on for a while, I would like to
mention that on express orders from Hitler himself, it was strictly
forbidden to use corporal punishment in the army. He was of the
opinion that in was incompatible with the honor of a German to be
punished by such degrading means.

That was the Germany I grew up in, and I am glad that I did.

[Topaz]

An article by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, November 30, 1941

Mr. Roosevelt Cross-Examined
by Joseph Goebbels

"On 28 October, more than a month ago, U.S. President Franklin D.
Roosevelt gave a radio speech which apparently had as its goal
plunging the American people into uncertainty and panic and thus to
prepare gradually for the fateful intervention which the American
president desires, regardless of American public opinion. The speech
differed from all of his previous speeches in that Roosevelt did not
limit himself to the almost traditional and unconscionable and
slanderous attacks on the F�hrer and National Socialist Germany. This
time he made concrete accusations against the policies of the Reich,
which he attempted to prove though compromising documents he allegedly
possessed.

Mr. Roosevelt claimed that he had proof in his hands that the Axis
powers were planning to reorganize South and Central America. They
were planning to transform the existing fourteen countries into five
states that would be under their control. His proof was a secret map
allegedly produced by the Reich government. The American government
also claims to possess another Reich document. According to it, the
Reich government plans, once it has won the war, to abolish the
existing religions of the world-Catholicism, Protestantism,
Mohammedism, Hinduism. Buddhism and Judaism. They are to be replaced
by an international National Socialist church, the cross by the
swastika and God by the F�hrer. That is what he claims.

It is clear to us that Mr. Roosevelt needed this grand swindle to whip
up American public opinion. He needed the heaviest possible
ammunition, since the American people are at the moment more
intelligent than their government and want absolutely nothing to do
with the war in Europe. We really are not all that interested in Mr.
Roosevelt's opinion of the intelligence of his people nor in what he
thinks them capable of believing, and normally would see no need to
reply to his bald-faced and outrageous lies which so clearly bear the
signs of fabrication. In this case, however, it is a matter of a
political falsification which seems to us to have a clear and ominous
purpose, and gave us such an easy chance to show up the liars to the
entire world that we could hardly let the opportunity pass. We had to
overcome our moral scruples, however, to confront the liar and ask him
where he got these alleged documents from, where they can be found,
and if he was ready to show them to the public.

Things went as we expected. Mr. Roosevelt, the president of a nation
of 130 million, dodged our questions. He claimed the authenticity of
the documents was unassailable; he had them. They could not be
published, however, since they were secret and publishing them would
reveal the source. And the map in question that carved up Central and
South America had markings in pencil which could compromise the source
that provided them. He, Roosevelt, did not want to cause any
difficulties for the poor chap who passed them along.

Would that we had such a president! He is a well-meaning soul who
cares for his scoundrels. Given his speeches and actions, he would not
hesitate to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the battlefield,
even perhaps sacrificing them in service to his crazy plans of
conquest, but the thought of causing a fine and honorable traitor any
trouble breaks his heart. As one can imagine, Roosevelt's answer was
not very convincing proof of his hair-raising allegations either at
home or abroad. Our tough questions bore fruit. We used the press and
radio to propose to the American president that he might publish the
incriminating map of Central and South America, perhaps either erasing
the ominous pencil markings or covering them up with paper, and to at
least publish the text of our notorious plan to begin a campaign
against all the world's religions once the war was over, from Jehovah
to Confucius to Christ.

Mr. Roosevelt sank into silence, saying nothing at all. Only one of
his creatures, the former Argentinean bordello-owner and pimp Taborda,
who happened to be visiting him at the time, said that he had been
able to sneak a look at the map, and that all was as Mr. Roosevelt
said. More he could not say, since he had given his word of honor.
One can understand our reluctance to consider the word of honor of so
dubious an underworld figure as absolutely convincing. We looked
further, and since we could learn nothing more given the stubborn
silence of the accuser, we attempted to lure him into a response by
massive attacks. Alas, the normally talkative gentleman seemed to have
forgotten how to speak. Even the attempts of the American press to
learn something more as he visited one of the famous skyscrapers were
in vain.

The Reich government published two formal denials on 1 November, which
boxed Roosevelt's ears so strongly that he had to chose between
revealing his documents or proving himself a forger and liar to the
entire world. He chose the latter. The U.S. press gave headline
treatment to the German denials and asked for a response. Mr.
Roosevelt accepted the blows, rubbed his checks and said nothing. We
made every conceivable suggestion to ease the publication of the
documents, but the U.S. president preferred to be thought a liar and
forger than to prove his absurd accusations.

That's the way things are. We do not flatter ourselves by believing
that we have some way to force Mr. Roosevelt to speak. He apparently
has every reason to hope the matter will be forgotten. When he made
his charges, one could perhaps generously grant that he believed them.
It was at least possible that he had been the victim of some sort of
swindle and had believed in the documents' authenticity. That is no
longer possible, for if he had been acting honestly he would have
provided the evidence supporting his accusations. He has not done so.
That is sufficient proof that he was not the victim of a forgery,
rather that he himself was directly or indirectly involved. This is a
matter of war and peace, and the American public has every right to
examine its president and his actions, to ask him about these
documents, why Mr. Roosevelt has not published them. whether he still
stands by his speech of 28 October, and what he plans to do to restore
the damage done to his reputation by the two German denials that
accuse him of forgery.

One always feels the need to wash one's hands after being forced to
deal with the methods of U.S. interventionism. It is so unpleasant and
filthy that one shudders. One hears the pious nonsense of the
Jewish-ruled world plutocracy over the radio or reads them in the
press, one need only to look behind the scenes to feel pity for the
miseries of mankind. That such a man has the impudence to judge us, to
call on God and the world as his witnesses of the purity of his deeds,
to incite war and send innocent people singing "Onward Christian
Soldiers" to battle for his filthy financial interests can only fill
anyone with even the most primitive sense of decency with the deepest
horror. Were there only such people in the world, one would have to
despise humanity..."

[james g. keegan jr.]

In article
<7dc63e99-d503-45b7...@eo2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

bobby heishman (osprey/dino) posting as - <cra...@comcast.net> wrote:


> No...he wouldn't be that brave cause he knows he would get the shit
> kicked out of him.
> He would just deny it and call the other person a liar, even with the
> pictures right in front of him.

odd seeing something like that coming from the former prison guard who
threatened women and then ran from them when they challenged his limp
threats. of course he also ran from all the males too.

poor bobby

[james g. keegan jr.]

In article
<d183ca70-e94e-43d2...@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

and that prompts the question, is the plagiarist posting as peter nyikos
really the south carolina phd?

[elizabeth]

On Dec 21, 2:15 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article

> <7dc63e99-d503-45b7-80c3-82a12c0f3...@eo2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

> bobby heishman (osprey/dino) posting as - <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > No...he wouldn't be that brave cause he knows he would get the shit
> > kicked out of him.
> > He would just deny it and call the other person a liar, even with the
> > pictures right in front of him.
>
> odd seeing something like that coming from the former prison guard who
> threatened women and then ran from them when they challenged his limp
> threats. of course he also ran from all the males too.
>
> poor bobby

And then posted he would leave the ng forever, kept coming back using
handles already known, new handles going back to one of his many
comcast addies ... then denying his identity, while at the same time
saying the same shit to the same people he's always cyberstalked!

[The Echo Chamber]

You're a good little Nyikos lap dog, Bobby.

[pnyikos]

On Dec 19 2012, 8:58 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> In article
> <2adc1eea-ea39-4c3c-a80c-78c45eef5...@f8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, the

> plagiarist posting as pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 5:13 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 13, 6:52 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> [...]
> > > Who's a Nazi? and do prove it, don't pull a Heishman out of your ass
> > > and insist you have "inside sources" that you won't reveal.
>
> > You are really going off the deep end here, salivating "prove it" the
> > way Pavlov's dog salivated even at inappropriate moments [rung bell,
> > no food nor smell of food].
>
> granted it doesn't make much sense to ask people like you or heishman to
> support your allegations

...since I did support this one, so it would be downright silly to ask
me to support it--redundancy for no good reason.

Keeganoid keeganite and faithful ally of the cowardly "elizabeth" that
you are, you deleted it so you could prove to all the world how
shamelessly dishonest you are.

Here it is again, you elizabeth-bootlicker:


++++++++++++begin compound repost

+++++++++++++ end of compound repost+++++++++++

You were embarrassed by that last question, weren't you? Not only did
you run away from it, you covered your headlong retreat by lying
through your teeth:

> since neither of you ever do so but I'm quite
> comfortable viewing elizabeth's request as a simple demonstration of

...elizabeth's gross insincerity and cowardice, aided and abetted by
you.

> your dishonesty to anyone who might not already be aware of it,
> plagiarist.

If you actually believe this, you are clinically insane.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Dec 21 2012, 5:51 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2:15 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <7dc63e99-d503-45b7-80c3-82a12c0f3...@eo2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > bobby heishman (osprey/dino) posting as - <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > No...he wouldn't be that brave cause he knows he would get the shit
> > > kicked out of him.
> > > He would just deny it and call the other person a liar, even with the
> > > pictures right in front of him.
>
> > odd seeing something like that coming from the former prison guard who
> > threatened women and then ran from them when they challenged his limp
> > threats. of course he also ran from all the males too.
>
> > poor bobby
>
> And then posted he would leave the ng forever, kept coming back using
> handles already known,

Prove it, hypocrite. I came through with flying colors when you asked
me to prove Topaz is pro-Nazi, even proving that you either KNEW that
or that you didn't read words that you left in.

You've been running away from the proof of this ever since, while your
bootlicker keegan keeps lying that I never posted it, while deleting
the proof that he is denying the existence of.

I've been telling people in talk.origins that y'all have made a
hellhole of talk.abortion, and one of them even claimed that
talk.abortion is populated with loonies [he said this while I was on
my 6+ week winter posting break] and that no one takes seriously
anything said in this newsgroup.

His name is Mitchell Coffey, by the way, and his style and substance
are hauntingly like that of Ray Fischer. If y'all can't persuade Ray
to return to the abortion newsgroups, perhaps you would like to
recruit Mitchell.

He's a copious poster, you can find him easily. Despite his claim, I
think he would fit right in with you and keegan.

> new handles going back to one of his many
> comcast addies ...

Prove it.

> then denying his identity,

Prove it was him. Dino denied he was Heishman, let's see your proof
that he is Heishman.

> while at the same time
> saying the same shit to the same people he's always cyberstalked!

Prove it by documenting the use of the same shit by these new monikers
and by Heishman posting either as Eagle49, or Osprey, or seahawk, or
Heishman [did I miss any monikers which he agreed were his?]

Peter Nyikos

[Topaz]

Germany's Declaration of War Against the United States
Here are some quotes from:
Hitler's Reichstag Speech of December 11, 1941
In it the German leader recounted the reasons for the outbreak of war
in September 1939, explained why he decided to strike against the
Soviet Union in June 1941, reviewed the dramatic course of the war
thus far, and dealt at length with President Franklin Roosevelt's
hostile policies toward Germany. Hitler detailed the increasingly
belligerent actions of Roosevelt's government, and then dramatically
announced that Germany was now joining Japan in war against the United
States. The day after it was delivered, an inaccurate and misleading
translation of portions of the address appeared in The New York Times!
Although this historic address should be of particular interest to
Americans, a complete text has apparently never before been made
available in English!
-- Mark Weber

After the repeated rejection of my peace proposal in 1940 by the
British prime minister [Winston Churchill] and the clique that
supports and controls him, it was clear by the fall of that year that
this war would have to be fought through to the end
The German people and its soldiers work and fight today not only for
themselves and their own age, but also for many generations to come. A
historical task of unique dimensions has been entrusted to us by the
Creator that we are now obliged to carry out.
The western armistice which was possible shortly after the conclusion
of the conflict in Norway [in June 1940] compelled the German
leadership, first of all, to militarily secure the most important
political, strategic and economic areas that had been won.
From Kirkenes [in northern Norway] to the Spanish frontier stretches
the most extensive belt of great defense installations and fortresses.
Countless air fields have been built, including some in the far north
that were blasted out of granite.
I am determined to make this European front impregnable against any
enemy attack.
Compelled by bitter necessity, I decided in the fall of 1939 to at
least try to create the prerequisite conditions for a general peace by
eliminating the acute tension between Germany and Soviet Russia [with
the German-Soviet non-aggression pact of August 23, 1939]. This was
psychologically difficult because of the basic attitude toward
Bolshevism of the German people and, above all, of the [National
Socialist] Party.
I may remind you, deputies and men of the German Reichstag, that
throughout the spring and summer of 1939 Britain offered military
alliances to a number of countries, claiming that Germany intended to
invade them and rob them of their freedom. However, the German Reich
and its government could assure them with a clear conscience that
these insinuations did not correspond to the truth in any way.
the best and strongest guarantee against the [Soviet] threat from the
East was Germany. When those countries, on their own initiative, cut
their ties with the German Reich and instead put their trust in
promises of aid from a power [Britain] that, in its proverbial
egotism, has for centuries never given help but has always demanded
it, they were thereby lost. Even so, the fate of these countries
aroused the strongest sympathy of the German people. The winter war of
the Finns [against the Soviet Union, 1939-1940] aroused in us a
feeling of admiration mixed with bitterness: admiration because, as a
soldierly nation, we have a sympathetic heart for heroism and
sacrifice, and bitterness because our concern for the enemy threat in
the West and the danger in the East meant that we were no position to
help.
Already in 1940 it became increasingly clear from month to month that
the plans of the men in the Kremlin were aimed at the domination, and
thus the destruction, of all of Europe. I have already told the nation
of the build-up of Soviet Russian military power in the East during a
period when Germany had only a few divisions in the provinces
bordering Soviet Russia. Only a blind person could fail to see that a
military build-up of unique world-historical dimensions was being
carried out. And this was not in order to protect something that was
being threatened, but rather only to attack that which seemed
incapable of defense.
What we call Europe is the geographic territory of the Occident,
enlightened by Greek culture, inspired by the powerful heritage of the
Roman empire, its territory enlarged by Germanic colonization. Whether
it was the German emperors fighting back invasions from the East on
the Unstrut [river, in 933] or on the Lechfeld [plain, in 955], or
others pushing back Africa from Spain over a period of many years, it
was always a struggle of a developing Europe against a profoundly
alien outside world.
Just as Rome once made her immortal contribution to the building and
defense of the continent, so now have the Germanic peoples taken up
the defense and protection of a family of nations which, although they
may differ and diverge in their political structure and goals,
nevertheless together constitute a racially and culturally unified and
complementary whole.
And from this Europe there have not only been settlements in other
parts of the world, but intellectual-spiritual [geistig] and cultural
fertilization as well, a fact that anyone realizes who is willing to
acknowledge the truth rather than deny it. Thus, it was not England
that cultivated the continent, but rather Anglo-Saxon and Norman
branches of the Germanic nation that moved from our continent to the
[British] island and made possible her development, which is certainly
unique in history. In the same way, it was not America that discovered
Europe, but the other way around. And all that which America did not
get from Europe may seem worthy of admiration to a Jewified mixed
race, but Europe regards that merely as symptomatic of decay in
artistic and cultural life, the product of Jewish or Negroid blood
mixture.
I have to make these remarks because this struggle, which became
obviously unavoidable in the early months of this year, and which the
German Reich, above all, is called upon this time to lead, also
greatly transcends the interests of our own people and nation. When
the Greeks once stood against the Persians, they defended more than
just Greece. When the Romans stood against the Carthaginians, they
defended more than just Rome. When the Roman and Germanic peoples
stood together against the Huns, they defended more than just the
West. When German emperors stood against the Mongols, they defended
more than just Germany. And when Spanish heroes stood against Africa,
they defended not just Spain, but all of Europe as well. In the same
way, Germany does not fight today just for itself, but for our entire
continent.
And it is an auspicious sign that this realization is today so deeply
rooted in the subconscious of most European nations that they
participate in this struggle, either with open expressions of support
or with streams of volunteers.
When I became aware of the possibility of a threat to the east of the
Reich in 1940 through [secret] reports from the British House of
Commons and by observations of Soviet Russian troop movements on our
frontiers, I immediately ordered the formation of many new armored,
motorized and infantry divisions.
We realized very clearly that under no circumstances could we allow
the enemy the opportunity to strike first into our heart.
Nevertheless, in this case the decision [to attack Soviet Russia] was
a very difficult one. When the writers for the democratic newspapers
now declare that I would have thought twice before attacking if I had
known the strength of the Bolshevik adversaries, they show that they
do not understand either the situation or me.
I have not sought war. To the contrary, I have done everything to
avoid conflict. But I would forget my duty and my conscience if I were
to do nothing in spite of the realization that a conflict had become
unavoidable. Because I regarded Soviet Russia as the gravest danger
not only for the German Reich but for all of Europe, I decided, if
possible, to give the order myself to attack a few days before the
outbreak of this conflict.
A truly impressive amount of authentic material is now available which
confirms that a Soviet Russian attack was intended. We are also sure
about when this attack was to take place. In view of this danger, the
extent of which we are perhaps only now truly aware, I can only thank
the Lord God that He enlightened me in time, and has given me the
strength to do what must be done. Millions of German soldiers may
thank Him for their lives, and all of Europe for its existence.
I may say this today: If this wave of more than 20,000 tanks, hundreds
of divisions, tens of thousands of artillery pieces, along with more
than 10,000 airplanes, had not been kept from being set into motion
against the Reich, Europe would have been lost.
If the Slovaks, Hungarians and Romanians had not also acted to defend
this European world, then the Bolshevik hordes would have poured over
the Danube countries as did once the swarms of Attila's Huns,
If Italy, Spain and Croatia had not sent their divisions, then a
European defense front would not have arisen that proclaims the
concept of a new Europe and thereby powerfully inspires all other
nations as well. Because of this awareness of danger, volunteers have
come from northern and western Europe: Norwegians, Danes, Dutch,
Flemish, Belgians and even French. They have all given the struggle of
the allied forces of the Axis the character of a European crusade, in
the truest sense of the word.
And now let me speak about another world, one that is represented by a
man [President Franklin Roosevelt] who likes to chat nicely at the
fireside while nations and their soldiers fight in snow and ice: above
all, the man who is primarily responsible for this war.
When the nationality problem in the former Polish state was growing
ever more intolerable in 1939, I attempted to eliminate the
unendurable conditions by means of a just agreement. For a certain
time it seemed as if the Polish government was seriously considering
giving its approval to a reasonable solution. I may also add here that
in all of these German proposals, nothing was demanded that had not
previously belonged to Germany. In fact, we were willing to give up
much that had belonged to Germany before the [First] World War.
You will recall the dramatic events of that period -- the steadily
increasing numbers of victims among the ethnic Germans [in Poland].
You, my deputies, are best qualified to compare this loss of life with
that of the present war. The military campaign in the East has so far
cost the entire German armed forces about 160,000 deaths, whereas
during just a few months of peace [in 1939] more than 62,000 ethnic
Germans were killed, including some who were horribly tortured. There
is no question that the German Reich had the right to protest against
this situation on its border and to press for its elimination, if for
no other reason than for its own security, particularly since we live
in an age in which [some] other countries [notably, the USA and
Britain] regard their security at stake even in foreign continents. In
geographical terms, the problems to be resolved were not very
important. Essentially they involved Danzig [Gdansk] and a connecting
link between the torn-away province of East Prussia and the rest of
the Reich. Of much greater concern were the brutal persecutions of the
Germans in Poland. In addition, the other minority population groups
[notably the Ukrainians] were subject to a fate that was no less
severe.
During those days in August [1939], when the Polish attitude steadily
hardened, thanks to Britain's blank check of unlimited backing, the
German Reich was moved to make one final proposal. We were prepared to
enter into negotiations with Poland on the basis of this proposal, and
we verbally informed the British ambassador of the proposal text.
Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig-Corridor problem and the
German-Polish minority question:
The situation between the German Reich and Poland is now such that any
further incident could lead to action by the military forces that have
taken position on both sides of the frontier. Any peaceful solution
must be such that the basic causes of this situation are eliminated so
that they are not simply repeated, which would mean that not only
eastern Europe but other areas as well would be subject to the same
tension. The causes of this situation are rooted in, first, the
intolerable border that was specified by the dictated peace of
Versailles [of 1919], and, second, the intolerable treatment of the
minority populations in the lost territories.
In making these proposals, the German Reich government is motivated by
the desire to achieve a permanent solution that will put an end to the
intolerable situation arising from the present border demarcation,
secure to both parties vitally important connecting routes, and which
will solve the minority problem, insofar as that is possible, and if
not, will at least insure a tolerable life for the minority
populations with secure guarantees of their rights.
On the basis of these considerations, we make the following concrete
proposals:
1. The Free City of Danzig returns immediately to the German Reich on
the basis of its purely German character and the unanimous desire of
its population.
2. The territory of the so-called [Polish] Corridor will decide for
itself whether it wishes to belong to Germany or to Poland. This
territory consists of the area between the Baltic Sea [in the north]
to a line marked [in the south] by the towns of Marienwerder,
Graudenz, Kuhn and Bromberg -- including these towns -- and then
westwards to Schoenlanke.
3. For this purpose a plebiscite will be conducted in this territory.
All Germans who lived in this territory on January 1, 1918, or were
born there on or before that date will be entitled to vote in the
plebiscite. Similarly, all Poles, Kashubians, and so forth, who lived
in this territory on or before that date, or were born there before
that date, will also be entitled to vote. Germans who were expelled
from this territory will return to vote in the plebiscite.
4. Not included in this territory is the Polish port of Gdynia, which
is regarded as fundamentally sovereign Polish territory, to the extent
of [ethnic] Polish settlement, but as a matter of principle is
recognized as Polish territory. The specific border of this Polish
port city will be negotiated by Germany and Poland and, if necessary,
established by an international court of arbitration.
7. A simple majority of the votes cast will decide whether the
territory will go to Germany or to Poland.
9. If the Corridor returns to Germany, the German Reich declares that
it is ready to carry out an exchange of population with Poland to the
extent that this would be suitable for the [people of the] Corridor.
13. The German Reich government has protested in the strongest terms
against the Polish treatment of its minority populations. For its
part, the Polish government also believes itself called upon to make
protests against Germany. Accordingly, both sides agree to submit
these complaints to an international investigation commission, which
will be responsible for investigating all complaints of economic and
physical damage as well as other acts of terror.
This is the treaty proposal - as straight-forward and as generous as
has ever been presented by a government - that was made by the
National Socialist leadership of the German Reich.
The former Polish government refused to respond to these proposals in
any way. In this regard, the question presents itself: How is it
possible that such an unimportant state could dare to simply disregard
such proposals and, in addition, carry out further cruelties against
the Germans, the people who have given this land its entire culture,
and even order the general mobilization of its armed forces? A look at
the documents of the [Polish] Foreign Ministry in Warsaw later
provided the surprising explanation. They told of the role of a man
[President Roosevelt] who, with diabolical lack of principle, used all
of his influence to strengthen Poland's resistance and to prevent any
possibility of understanding. These reports were sent by the former
Polish ambassador in Washington, Count [Jerzy] Potocki, to his
government in Warsaw. These documents clearly and shockingly reveal
the extent to which one man and the powers behind him are responsible
for the Second World War. Another question arises: Why had this man
[Roosevelt] developed such a fanatic hostility against a country that,
in its entire history, had never harmed either America or him?
With regard to Germany's relationship with America, the following
should be said:
1. Germany is perhaps the only great power which has never had a
colony in either North or South America. Nor has it been otherwise
politically active there, apart from the emigration of many millions
of Germans with their skills, from which the American continent, and
particularly the United States, has only benefited.
Furthermore, there are no territorial or political conflicts between
the American and German nations that could possibly involve the
existence or even the [vital] interests of the United States. The
forms of government have always been different. But this cannot be a
reason for hostility between different nations, as long as one form of
government does not try to interfere with another, outside of its
naturally ordained sphere.
History itself has rendered its verdict on Wilson. His name will
always be associated with the most base betrayal in history of a
pledge [notably, Wilson's "14 points"]. The result was the ruin of
national life, not only in the so-called vanquished countries, but
among the victors as well. Because of this broken pledge, which alone
made possible the imposed Treaty of Versailles [1919], countries were
torn apart, cultures were destroyed and the economic life of all was
ruined. Today we know that a group of self-serving financiers stood
behind Wilson. They used this paralytic professor to lead America into
a war from which they hoped to profit. The German nation once believed
this man, and had to pay for this trust with political and economic
ruin.
After such a bitter experience, why is there now another American
president who is determined to incite wars and, above all, to stir up
hostility against Germany to the point of war? National Socialism came
to power in Germany in the same year [1933] that Roosevelt came to
power in the United States. At this point it is important to examine
the factors behind the current developments.
First of all, the personal side of things: I understand very well that
there is a world of difference between my own outlook on life and
attitude, and that of President Roosevelt. Roosevelt came from an
extremely wealthy family. By birth and origin he belonged to that
class of people that is privileged in a democracy and assured of
advancement. I myself was only the child of a small and poor family,
and I had to struggle through life by work and effort in spite of
immense hardships. As a member of the privileged class, Roosevelt
experienced the [First] World War in a position under Wilson's shadow
[as assistant secretary of the Navy]. As a result, he only knew the
agreeable consequences of a conflict between nations from which some
profited while others lost their lives. During this same period, I
lived very differently. I was not one of those who made history or
profits, but rather one of those who carried out orders. As an
ordinary soldier during those four years, I tried to do my duty in the
face of the enemy. Of course, I returned from the war just as poor as
when I entered in the fall of 1914. I thus shared my fate with
millions of others, while Mr. Roosevelt shared his with the so-called
upper ten thousand.
After the war, while Mr. Roosevelt tested his skills in financial
speculation in order to profit personally from the inflation, that is,
from the misfortune of others, I still lay in a military hospital
along with many hundreds of thousands of others. Experienced in
business, financially secure and enjoying the patronage of his class,
Roosevelt then finally chose a career in politics. During this same
period, I struggled as a nameless and unknown man for the rebirth of
my nation, which was the victim of the greatest injustice in its
entire history.
Two different paths in life! Franklin Roosevelt took power in the
United States as the candidate of a thoroughly capitalistic party,
which helps those who serve it. When I became the Chancellor of the
German Reich, I was the leader of a popular national movement, which I
had created myself. The powers that supported Mr. Roosevelt were the
same powers I fought against, out of concern for the fate of my
people, and out of deepest inner conviction. The "brain trust" that
served the new American president was made up of members of the same
national group that we fought against in Germany as a parasitical
expression of humanity, and which we began to remove from public life.
And yet, we also had something in common: Franklin Roosevelt took
control of a country with an economy that had been ruined as a result
of democratic influences, and I assumed the leadership of a Reich that
was also on the edge of complete ruin, thanks to democracy. There were
13 million unemployed in the United States, while Germany had seven
million unemployed and another seven million part-time workers. In
both countries, public finances were in chaos, and it seemed that the
spreading economic depression could not be stopped.
From then on, things developed in the United States and in the German
Reich in such a way that future generations will have no difficulty in
making a definitive evaluation of the two different socio-political
theories. Whereas the German Reich experienced an enormous improvement
in social, economic, cultural and artistic life in just a few years
under National Socialist leadership, President Roosevelt was not able
to bring about even limited improvements in his own country. This task
should have been much easier in the United States, with barely 15
people per square kilometer, as compared to 140 in Germany. If
economic prosperity is not possible in that country, it must be the
result of either a lack of will by the ruling leadership or the
complete incompetence of the men in charge. In just five years, the
economic problems were solved in Germany and unemployment was
eliminated. During this same period, President Roosevelt enormously
increased his country's national debt, devalued the dollar, further
disrupted the economy and maintained the same number of unemployed.
But this is hardly remarkable when one realizes that the intellects
appointed by this man, or more accurately, who appointed him, are
members of that same group who, as Jews, are interested only in
disruption and never in order. While we in National Socialist Germany
took measures against financial speculation, it flourished
tremendously under Roosevelt. The New Deal legislation of this man was
spurious, and consequently the greatest error ever experienced by
anyone. If his economic policies had continued indefinitely during
peace time, there is no doubt that sooner or later they would have
brought down this president, in spite of all his dialectical
cleverness. In a European country his career would certainly have
ended in front of a national court for recklessly squandering the
nation's wealth. And he would hardly have avoided a prison sentence by
a civil court for criminally incompetent business management.
Many respected Americans also shared this view. A threatening
opposition was growing all around this man, which led him to think
that he could save himself only by diverting public attention from his
domestic policies to foreign affairs. In this regard it is interesting
to study the reports of Polish Ambassador Potocki from Washington,
which repeatedly point out that Roosevelt was fully aware of the
danger that his entire economic house of cards could collapse, and
that therefore he absolutely had to divert attention to foreign
policy.
The circle of Jews around Roosevelt encouraged him in this. With Old
Testament vindictiveness they regarded the United States as the
instrument that they and he could use to prepare a second Purim
[slaughter of enemies] against the nations of Europe, which were
increasingly anti-Jewish. So it was that the Jews, in all of their
satanic baseness, gathered around this man, and he relied on them.
The American president increasingly used his influence to create
conflicts, intensify existing conflicts, and, above all, to keep
conflicts from being resolved peacefully. For years this man looked
for a dispute anywhere in the world, but preferably in Europe, that he
could use to create political entanglements with American economic
obligations to one of the contending sides, which would then steadily
involve America in the conflict and thus divert attention from his own
confused domestic economic policies.
His actions against the German Reich in this regard have been
particularly blunt. Starting in 1937, he began a series of speeches,
including a particularly contemptible one on October 5, 1937, in
Chicago, with which this man systematically incited the American
public against Germany . He threatened to establish a kind of
quarantine against the so-called authoritarian countries. As part of
this steady and growing campaign of hate and incitement, President
Roosevelt made another insulting statement [on Nov. 15, 1938] and then
called the American ambassador in Berlin back to Washington for
consultations. Since then the two countries have been represented only
by charges d'affaires.
Starting in November 1938, he began systematically and consciously to
sabotage every possibility of a European peace policy. In public he
hypocritically claimed to be interested in peace while at the same
time he threatened every country that was ready to pursue a policy of
peaceful understanding by blocking credits, economic reprisals,
calling in loans, and so forth. In this regard, the reports of the
Polish ambassadors in Washington, London, Paris and Brussels provide a
shocking insight.
This man increased his campaign of incitement in January 1939. In a
message [on Jan. 4, 1939] to the U.S. Congress he threatened to take
every measure short of war against the authoritarian countries.
He repeatedly claimed that other countries were trying to interfere in
American affairs, and he talked a lot about upholding the Monroe
Doctrine. Starting in March 1939 he began lecturing about internal
European affairs that were of no concern of the President of the
United States. In the first place, he doesn't understand these
problems, and secondly, even if he did understand them and appreciated
the historical circumstances, he has no more right to concern himself
with central European affairs than the German head of state has to
take positions on or make judgments about conditions in the United
States.
Mr. Roosevelt went even beyond that. Contrary to the rules of
international law, he refused to recognize governments he didn't like,
would not accept new ones, refused to dismiss ambassadors of
non-existent countries, and even recognized them as legal governments.
He went so far as to conclude treaties with these ambassadors, which
then gave him the right to simply occupy foreign territories
[Greenland and Iceland ].
But now the honorable wife [Eleanor Roosevelt] took his place. She and
her sons [she said] refused to live in a world such as ours. That is
at least understandable, for ours is world of work and not one of
deceit and racketeering. After a short rest, though, he was back at
it. On November 4, 1939, the Neutrality Act was revised and the arms
embargo was repealed in favor of a one-sided supply [of weapons] to
Germany's adversaries. In the same way, he pushed in eastern Asia for
economic entanglements with China that would eventually lead to
effective common interests. That same month he recognized a small
group of Polish emigrants as a so-called government in exile, the only
political basis of which was a few million Polish gold pieces they had
taken from Warsaw.
This man revealed his true attitude in a telegram of June 15 [1940] to
French premier [Paul] Reynaud. Roosevelt told him that the American
government would double its aid to France, on the condition that
France continue the war against Germany. In order to give special
emphasis to his desire that the war continue, he declared that the
American government would not recognize acquisitions brought about by
conquest, which included, for example, the retaking of territories
that had been stolen from Germany. I do not need to emphasize that now
and in the future, the German government will not be concerned about
whether or not the President of the United States recognizes a border
in Europe. I mention this case because it is characteristic of the
systematic incitement of this man, who hypocritically talks about
peace while at the same time he incites to war.
And now he feared that if peace were to come about in Europe, the
billions he had squandered on military spending would soon be
recognized as an obvious case of fraud, because no one would attack
America unless America itself provoked the attack. On June 17, 1940,
the President of the United States froze French assets [in the USA] in
order, so he said, to keep them from being seized by Germany, but in
reality to get hold of the gold that was being brought from Casablanca
on an American cruiser.
In July 1940 Roosevelt began to take many new measures toward war,
such as permitting the service of American citizens in the British air
force and the training of British air force personnel in the United
States. In August 1940 a joint military policy for the United States
and Canada was established. In order to make the establishment of a
joint American-Canadian defense committee plausible to at least the
stupidest people, Roosevelt periodically invented crises and acted as
if America was threatened by immediate attack. He would suddenly
cancel trips and quickly return to Washington and do similar things in
order to emphasize the seriousness of the situation to his followers,
who really deserve pity. He moved still closer to war in September
1940 when he transferred fifty American naval destroyers to the
British fleet, and in return took control of military bases on British
possessions in North and Central America. Future generations will
determine the extent to which, along with all this hatred against
socialist Germany, the desire to easily and safely take control of the
British empire in its hour of disintegration may have also played a
role.
After Britain was no longer able to pay cash for American deliveries
he imposed the Lend-Lease Act on the American people [in March 1941].
As President, he thereby obtained the authority to furnish lend-lease
military aid to countries that he, Roosevelt, decided it was in
America's vital interests to defend. After it became clear that
Germany would not respond under any circumstances to his continued
boorish behavior, this man took another step forward in March 1941.
As early as December 19, 1939, an American cruiser [the Tuscaloosa]
that was inside the security zone maneuvered the [German] passenger
liner Columbus into the hands of British warships. As a result, it had
to be scuttled. On that same day, US military forces helped in an
effort to capture the German merchant ship Arauca. On January 27,
1940, and once again contrary to international law, the US cruiser
Trenton reported the movements of the German merchant ships Arauca, La
Plata and Wangoni to enemy naval forces.
On June 27, 1940, he announced a limitation on the free movement of
foreign merchant ships in US ports, completely contrary to
international law. In November 1940 he permitted US warships to pursue
the German merchant ships Phrygia, Idarwald and Rhein until they
finally had to scuttle themselves to keep from falling into enemy
hands. On April 13, 1941, American ships were permitted to pass freely
through the Red Sea in order to supply British armies in the Middle
East.
In the meantime, in March [1941] all German ships were confiscated by
the American authorities. In the process, German Reich citizens were
treated in the most degrading way, ordered to certain locations in
violation of international law, put under travel restrictions, and so
forth. Two German officers who had escaped from Canadian captivity [to
the United States] were shackled and returned to the Canadian
authorities, likewise completely contrary to international law.
On March 27 [1941] the same president who is [supposedly] against all
aggression announced support for [General Dusan] Simovic and his
clique of usurpers [in Yugoslavia], who had come to power in Belgrade
after the overthrow of the legal government. Several months earlier,
President Roosevelt had sent [OSS chief] Colonel Donovan, a very
inferior character, to the Balkans with orders to help organize an
uprising against Germany and Italy in Sofia [Bulgaria] and Belgrade.
In April he [Roosevelt] promised lend-lease aid to Yugoslavia and
Greece. At the end of April he recognized Yugoslav and Greek emigrants
as governments in exile. And once again, in violation of international
law, he froze Yugoslav and Greek assets. Starting in mid-April [1941]
US naval patrols began expanded operations in the western Atlantic,
reporting their observations to the British. On April 26, Roosevelt
delivered twenty high speed patrol boats to Britain. At the same time,
British naval ships were routinely being repaired in US ports. On May
12, Norwegian ships operating for Britain were armed and repaired [in
the USA], contrary to international law. On June 4, American troop
transports arrived in Greenland to build air fields. And on June 9
came the first British report that a US war ship, acting on orders of
President Roosevelt, had attacked a German submarine near Greenland
with depth charges.
On June 14, German assets in the United States were frozen, again in
violation of international law. On June 17, on the basis of a lying
pretext, President Roosevelt demanded the recall of the German consuls
and the closing of the German consulates. He also demanded the
shutting down of the German "Transocean" press agency, the German
Library of Information [in New York] and the German Reichsbahn
[national railway] office.
On July 6 and 7 [1941], American armed forces acting on orders from
Roosevelt occupied Iceland, which was in the area of German military
operations. He hoped that this action would certainly, first, finally
force Germany into war [against the USA] and, second, also neutralize
the effectiveness of the German submarines, much as in 1915-1916. At
the same time, he promised military aid to the Soviet Union. On July
10 Navy Secretary [Frank] Knox suddenly announced that the US Navy was
under orders to fire against Axis warships. On September 4 the US
destroyer Greer, acting on his orders, operated together with British
airplanes against German submarines in the Atlantic. Five days later,
a German submarine identified US destroyers as escort vessels with a
British convoy.
In a speech delivered on September 11 [1941], Roosevelt at last
personally confirmed that he had given the order to fire against all
Axis ships, and he repeated the order. On September 29, US patrols
attacked a German submarine east of Greenland with depth charges. On
October 17 the US destroyer Kearny, operating as an escort for the
British, attacked a German submarine with depth charges, and on
November 6 US armed forces seized the German ship Odenwald in
violation of international law, took it to an American port, and
imprisoned its crew.
I will overlook as meaningless the insulting attacks and rude
statements by this so-called President against me personally. That he
calls me a gangster is particularly meaningless, since this term did
not originate in Europe, where such characters are uncommon, but in
America. And aside from that, I simply cannot feel insulted by Mr.
Roosevelt because I regard him, like his predecessor Woodrow Wilson,
as mentally unsound [geisteskrank].
We know that this man, with his Jewish supporters, has operated
against Japan in the same way. I don't need to go into that here. The
same methods were used in that case as well. This man first incites to
war, and then he lies about its causes and makes baseless allegations.
He repugnantly wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy, while
at the same time slowly but very steadily leading humanity into war.
And finally, as an old Freemason, he calls upon God to witness that
his actions are honorable. His shameless misrepresentations of truth
and violations of law are unparalleled in history.
I am sure that all of you have regarded it as an act of deliverance
that a country [Japan] has finally acted to protest against all this
in the very way that this man had actually hoped for, and which should
not surprise him now [the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941].
After years of negotiating with this deceiver, the Japanese government
finally had its fill of being treated in such a humiliating way. All
of us, the German people and, I believe, all other decent people
around the world as well, regard this with deep appreciation.
We know the power behind Roosevelt. It is the same eternal Jew that
believes that his hour has come to impose the same fate on us that we
have all seen and experienced with horror in Soviet Russia. We have
gotten to know first hand the Jewish paradise on earth. Millions of
German soldiers have personally seen the land where this international
Jewry has destroyed and annihilated people and property. Perhaps the
President of the United States does not understand this. If so, that
only speaks for his intellectual narrow-mindedness.
And we know that his entire effort is aimed at this goal: Even if we
were not allied with Japan, we would still realize that the Jews and
their Franklin Roosevelt intend to destroy one state after another.
The German Reich of today has nothing in common with the Germany of
the past. For our part, we will now do what this provocateur has been
trying to achieve for years. And not just because we are allied with
Japan, but rather because Germany and Italy with their present
leaderships have the insight and strength to realize that in this
historic period the existence or non-existence of nations is being
determined, perhaps for all time. What this other world has in store
for us is clear. They were able to bring the democratic Germany of the
past [1918-1933] to starvation, and they seek to destroy the National
Socialist Germany of today.
When Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt declare that they want to one day
build a new social order, that's about the same as a bald-headed
barber recommending a tonic guaranteed to make hair grow. Rather than
incite war, these gentlemen, who live in the most socially backward
countries, should have concerned themselves with their own unemployed
people. They have enough misery and poverty in their own countries to
keep themselves busy insuring a just distribution of food there. As
far as the German nation is concerned, it doesn't need charity, either
from Mr. Churchill, Mr. Roosevelt or [British foreign secretary] Mr.
Eden -- but it does demand its rights. And it will do what it must to
insure its right to life, even if a thousand Churchills and Roosevelts
conspire together to prevent it.
Our nation has a history of nearly two thousand years. Never in this
long period has it been so united and determined as it is today, and
thanks to the National Socialist movement it will always be that way.
At the same time, Germany has perhaps never been as far-sighted, and
seldom as conscious of honor. Accordingly, today I had the passports
returned to the American charge d'affaires, and he was bluntly
informed of the following:
President Roosevelt's steadily expanding policy has been aimed at an
unlimited world dictatorship. In pursuing this goal, the United States
and Britain have used every means to deny the German, Italian and
Japanese nations the prerequisites for their vital natural existence.
For this reason, the governments of Britain and the United States of
America have opposed every effort to create a new and better order in
the world, for both the present and the future. Since the beginning of
the war [in September 1939], the American President Roosevelt has
steadily committed ever more serious crimes against international law.
Along with illegal attacks against ships and other property of German
and Italian citizens, there have been threats and even arbitrary
deprivations of personal freedom by internment and such. The
increasingly hostile attacks by the American President Roosevelt have
reached the point that he has ordered the U.S. navy, in complete
violation of international law, to immediately and everywhere attack,
fire upon and sink German and Italian ships. American officials have
even boasted about destroying German submarines in this criminal
manner. American cruisers have attacked and captured German and
Italian merchant ships, and their peaceful crews were taken away to
imprisonment In addition, President Roosevelt's plan to attack Germany
and Italy with military forces in Europe by 1943 at the latest was
made public in the United States [by the Chicago Tribune and several
other newspapers on Dec. 4, 1941], and the American government made no
effort to deny it.
Despite the years of intolerable provocations by President Roosevelt,
Germany and Italy sincerely and very patiently tried to prevent the
expansion of this war and to maintain relations with the United
States. But as a result of his campaign, these efforts have failed.
Faithful to the provisions of the Tripartite Pact of September 27,
1940, German and Italy accordingly now regard themselves as finally
forced to join together on the side of Japan in the struggle for the
defense and preservation of the freedom and independence of our
nations and realms against the United States of America and Britain.
The three powers have accordingly concluded the following agreement,
which was signed today in Berlin:
Article 1. Germany, Italy and Japan will together conduct the war that
has been forced upon them by the United States of America and Britain
with all the means at their command to a victorious conclusion.
Article 2. Germany, Italy and Japan pledge not to conclude an
armistice or make peace with either the United States of America or
Britain unless by complete mutual agreement.
Article 3. Germany, Italy and Japan will also work very closely
together after a victorious conclusion of the war for the purpose of
bringing about a just new order in accord with the Tripartite Pact
concluded by them on September 27, 1940.
Ever since my peace proposal of July 1940 was rejected, we have
clearly realized that this struggle must be fought through to the end.
We National Socialists are not at all surprised that the
Anglo-American, Jewish and capitalist world is united together with
Bolshevism. In our country we have always found them in the same
community. Alone we successfully fought against them here in Germany,
and after 14 years of struggle for power we were finally able to
annihilate our enemies.
When I decided 23 years ago to enter political life in order to lead
the nation up from ruin, I was a nameless, unknown soldier. Many of
you here know just how difficult those first years of that struggle
really were. The way from a small movement of seven men to the taking
of power on January 30, 1933, as the responsible government is so
miraculous that only the blessing of Providence could have made it
possible.
Our adversaries today are the same familiar enemies of more than
twenty years.
When we think of the sacrifice and effort of our soldiers, then every
sacrifice of [those here in] the homeland is completely insignificant
and unimportant. And when we consider the number of all those in past
generations who gave their lives for the survival and greatness of the
German nation, then we are really conscious of the magnitude of the
duty that is ours.
The government of the United States of America, having violated in the
most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of
neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany, and having
continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany
ever since the outbreak of the European war, brought on by the British
declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally
resorted to open military acts of aggression.
On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States of America
publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force
to shoot on sight any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27,
1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force.
Acting under this order, American naval vessels have systematically
attacked German naval forces since early September 1941. Thus,
American destroyers, as for instance, the Greer, the Kearny and the
Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan.
The American Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that
the American destroyers attacked German submarines.
Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States of America, under
order of their government and contrary to international law, have
treated and seized German merchant ships on the high seas as enemy
ships.
The German government therefore establishes the following facts:
Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of
international law in her relations with the United States of America
during every period of the present war, the government of the United
States of America from initial violations of neutrality has finally
proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. It has thereby
virtually created a state of war.
The government of the Reich consequently breaks off diplomatic
relations with the United States of America and declares that under
these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt, Germany too,
as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the
United States of America.


http://www.ihr.org/ http://heretical.com/ http://natvan.com/

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com

[pnyikos]

To paraphrase MacArthur again:

I have returned.

On Feb 5, 7:45 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Did you actually write ANY of this, Topaz?

> Germany's Declaration of War Against the United States
> Here are some quotes from:

You didn't even write the two lines above, did you? They are due to
Mark Weber, aren't they?

Anyway, what Weber wrote needs to be countered, and I see that neither
"keegan" nor "elizabeth" has bothered you about that or about any
little bit of the reams of propaganda you have posted on this thread
in my absence.

Did you sign a nonaggression pact with the two of them?

> Hitler's Reichstag Speech of December 11, 1941
> In it the German leader recounted the reasons for the outbreak of war
> in September 1939,

recounted the reasons = indulged in propaganda about the reasons, just
like the Communists indulged in propaganda about the reasons for
declaring war on Finland in 1940.

> explained why he decided to strike against the
> Soviet Union in June 1941,

In another speech he gave more candid reasons: with the coal of the
Urals, the forests of Siberia, and the grain fields of the Ukraine,
Germany under "National Socialism" would swim in plenty.

He also wanted to dispose of the "Untermenschen" of the Ukraine so
that he could have the whole place as an extension of Germany as a
homeland for the "Master Race."

> reviewed the dramatic course of the war
> thus far, and dealt at length with President Franklin Roosevelt's
> hostile policies toward Germany.

...partly due to Hitler's wholesale bombing of British cities, in
revenge for a far, far smaller air raid on Berlin.

Lamech said to his wives,
"Adah and Zillah, hear my voice,
Lamech's wives, listen to what I have to say:
I killed a man for wounding me,
a boy for striking me.
Sevenfold revenge is taken for Cain,
but seventy-sevenfold for Lamech.
--Genesis 4: 23-24.

In fact, Hitler screamed in the wake of the air raid on Berlin that
for every bomb dropped on Berlin, a hundred bombs would be dropped on
London.

And so it was. The vicious raids on Hamburg, Dresden, etc. were not
even dreamt of when Hitler did his sanctimonious speech.

> Hitler detailed the increasingly
> belligerent actions of Roosevelt's government,

Like the "provocations" by the Finns on the border of the Soviet Union
in 1940, eh?

> and then dramatically
> announced that Germany was now joining Japan in war against the United
> States.

Probably in the mistaken hope that Japan would return the favor by
declaring war on the Soviet Union.

He found out how tragically mistaken he was when the Red Army
destroyed numerous German divisions besieging Moscow only a few days
after he declared war on the USA. I've read that he pleaded with the
Japanese to attack Vladivostok to draw those fresh Red Army units back
from Moscow. To no avail.

> The day after it was delivered, an inaccurate and misleading
> translation of portions of the address appeared in The New York Times!

I doubt that the inaccuracies amounted to a hill of beans.

> Although this historic address should be of particular interest to
> Americans, a complete text has apparently never before been made
> available in English!
> -- Mark Weber

As if that ever made a dime's worth of difference.

I've deleted the text of Hitler's speech, since I am rather pressed
for time this evening. But I will be back later
this week.

[Topaz]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 17:48:20 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


>Did you actually write ANY of this, Topaz?

No

>You didn't even write the two lines above, did you? They are due to
>Mark Weber, aren't they?

Whatever, so far you are the one posting worthless drivel.

>Anyway, what Weber wrote needs to be countered, and I see that neither
>"keegan" nor "elizabeth" has bothered you about that or about any
>little bit of the reams of propaganda you have posted on this thread
>in my absence.
>
>Did you sign a nonaggression pact with the two of them?

no

>recounted the reasons = indulged in propaganda about the reasons, just
>like the Communists indulged in propaganda about the reasons for
>declaring war on Finland in 1940.

The USA and other Jewish controlled countries were allies with the
Communists. The Communists had no reason to attack, but the National
Socialists had excellent reasons to fight back.

>In another speech he gave more candid reasons: with the coal of the
>Urals, the forests of Siberia, and the grain fields of the Ukraine,
>Germany under "National Socialism" would swim in plenty.

And the date of this alleged speech?

Fraudulent Nazi Quotations
By Mark Weber
Fraudulent quotations attributed to Hitler and other Third Reich
leaders have been widely circulated for years. Such quotes are
often...

>
>He also wanted to dispose of the "Untermenschen" of the Ukraine so

Wartime Photo Journal of German Soldier Made Public
Uncover the Truth
http://uncover-the- truth.blogspot.com/
The photo journal of a German soldier who documents his service and
conditions in the occupied Soviet Union during the Second World War
has been made public. The journal dispells myths about wartime German
attitudes and policies in occupied Soviet Ukraine and Russia. It
contains no mention of "superior" Germans, nor of supposedly
"subhuman" Slavs ("Untermenschen"), and shows that religious
expression was not hindered, in contrast to the anti- Christian
policies of the Soviet regime. The soldier's daughter, Christine
Miller, authorized the online publication of the journal, which
includes many photos.

Here is a quote from Goebbels Diary, which is in the movie "the
Goebbels Experiment".
June the 27, 1941
Statements from Russian prisoners of war reveal truly dreadful
ignorance. That is the product of the Bolshevik education system. No
sign of any training or discipline. Many soldiers are shooting
themselves rather than being taken prisoner, because people have put
the fear of God into them about our men. Our broadcast propaganda
isn't getting through, so we need to drop leaflets in order to set
them straight.

>that he could have the whole place as an extension of Germany as a
>homeland for the "Master Race."

Some National Socialists may have said "Herrenvolk"

"'Herrenvolk' can be translated into "noble race" and/or "superior
race". Yet for some reason the English speaking translators chose and
made popular the term 'master race.'"

Heidi

Rudolf Hess, on May 25, 1948, was asked by Dr. Maurice Walsh, U.S.
psychiatrist, if he believed in a Master Race. Hess smiled and replied
that "he had never used the expression", and that they were not used
in Germany.

The speeches of National Socialists are known. All you have to do is
put "Hitler speeches" or "Goebbels Speeches" in your search engine.
But apparently "master race" is not to be found in them anywhere.

The closest thing in Mein Kampf is at the end of the book and simply
tells the truth:

"A State which, in an epoch of racial adulteration, devotes itself
to the duty of preserving the best elements of its racial stock must
one day become ruler of the Earth."

Goebbels wrote:
"The German nation will be the intellectual leader of civilized
humanity."
Joseph Goebbels, "Das Jahr 2000," Das Reich, 25 February 1945, pp.
1-2.

>
>...partly due to Hitler's wholesale bombing of British cities, in
>revenge for a far, far smaller air raid on Berlin.

BERLIN, REICHSTAG
Adolf Hitler
Part of his Speech of May 4, 1941

Even my warnings against night bombings of the civilian
population, as advocated by Mr. Churchill, were interpreted as a sign
of German impotence. He, the most bloodthirsty or amateurish
strategist that history has ever known, actually saw fit to believe
that the reserve displayed for months by the German Air Force could be
looked upon only as proof of their incapacity to fly by night.

So this man for months ordered his paid scribblers to deceive the
British people into believing that the Royal Air Force alone - and no
others - was in a position to wage war in this way, and that thus ways
and means had been found to force the Reich to its knees by the
ruthless onslaught of the British Air Force on the German civilian
population in conjunction with the starvation blockade.

Again and again I uttered these warnings against this specific
type of aerial warfare, and I did so for over three and a half months.
That these warnings failed to impress Mr. Churchill does not surprise
me in the least. For what does this man care for the lives of others?
What does he care for culture or for architecture? When war broke out
he stated clearly that he wanted to have his war, even though the
cities of England might be reduced to ruins. So now he has got his
war.

My assurances that from a given moment every one of his bombs
would be returned if necessary a hundredfold failed to induce this man
to consider even for an instant the criminal nature of his action. He
professes not to be in the least depressed and he even assures us that
the British people, too, after such bombing raids, greeted him with a
joyous serenity, causing him to return to London refreshed by his
visits to the stricken areas.

It is possible that this sight strengthened Mr. Churchill in his
firm determination to continue the war in this way, and we are no less
determined to continue to retaliate, if necessary, a hundred bombs for
every one of his and to go on doing so until the British nation at
last gets rid of this criminal and his methods...

GOD KNOWS THAT I WANTED PEACE. But I can do nothing but protect
the interests of the Reich with those means which, thank God, are at
our disposal...

>
> Lamech said to his wives,
> "Adah and Zillah, hear my voice,
> Lamech's wives, listen to what I have to say:
> I killed a man for wounding me,
> a boy for striking me.
> Sevenfold revenge is taken for Cain,
> but seventy-sevenfold for Lamech.
> --Genesis 4: 23-24.
>
>In fact, Hitler screamed in the wake of the air raid on Berlin that
>for every bomb dropped on Berlin, a hundred bombs would be dropped on
>London.

I posted a real quote.

>
>And so it was. The vicious raids on Hamburg, Dresden, etc. were not
>even dreamt of when Hitler did his sanctimonious speech.
>

>Like the "provocations" by the Finns on the border of the Soviet Union
>in 1940, eh?

The Communists were allies with the USA and the other Jewish
controlled countries.

>Probably in the mistaken hope that Japan would return the favor by
>declaring war on the Soviet Union.
>
>He found out how tragically mistaken he was when the Red Army
>destroyed numerous German divisions besieging Moscow only a few days
>after he declared war on the USA. I've read that he pleaded with the
>Japanese to attack Vladivostok to draw those fresh Red Army units back
>from Moscow. To no avail.

>
>> The day after it was delivered, an inaccurate and misleading
>> translation of portions of the address appeared in The New York Times!
>
>I doubt that the inaccuracies amounted to a hill of beans.

The Jews control your media and your mind.


There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of
Their Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran
Hollywood.

Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment".
It is subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are
from the Aug 1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So
What?":

"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish
power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most
influential production executives at each of the major movie studios
will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."

"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt
Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic
attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most
powerful positions."

"When Matsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to
undermine the unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and
all Jewish - management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and
Tom Pollack."

Here is a quote from Steven Spielberg, "film is the greatest weapon
in the world".

Jewish control of the media:
MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, owner of NY Daily News, US News & World Report and
chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American
Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups.
LESLIE MOONVES, president of CBS television, great-nephew of David
Ben-Gurion, and co-chair with Norman Ornstein of the Advisory
Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers,
appointed by Clinton.
JONATHAN MILLER, chair and CEO of AOL division of AOL-Time-Warner
NEIL SHAPIRO, president of NBC News
JEFF GASPIN, Executive Vice-President, Programming, NBC
DAVID WESTIN, president of ABC News
SUMNER REDSTONE, CEO of Viacom, "world's biggest media giant"
(Economist, 11/23/2) owns Viacom cable, CBS and MTVs all over the
world, Blockbuster video rentals and Black Entertainment TV.
MICHAEL EISNER, major owner of Walt Disney, Capitol Cities, ABC.
RUPERT MURDOCH, Owner Fox TV, New York Post, London Times, News of the
World (Jewish mother)
MEL KARMAZIN, president of CBS
DON HEWITT, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes, CBS
JEFF FAGER, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes II. CBS
DAVID POLTRACK, Executive Vice-President, Research and Planning, CBS
SANDY KRUSHOW, Chair, Fox Entertainment
LLOYD BRAUN, Chair, ABC Entertainment
BARRY MEYER, chair, Warner Bros.
SHERRY LANSING. President of Paramount Communications and Chairman of
Paramount Pictures' Motion Picture Group.
HARVEY WEINSTEIN, CEO. Miramax Films.
BRAD SIEGEL., President, Turner Entertainment.
PETER CHERNIN, second in-command at Rupert Murdoch's News. Corp.,
owner of Fox TV
MARTY PERETZ, owner and publisher of the New Republic, which openly
identifies itself as pro-Israel. Al Gore credits Marty with being his
"mentor."
ARTHUR O. SULZBERGER, JR., publisher of the NY Times, the Boston Globe
and other publications.
WILLIAM SAFIRE, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
TOM FRIEDMAN, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post.
Honored by Honest Reporting.com, website monitoring "anti-Israel
media."
RICHARD COHEN, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post
JEFF JACOBY, syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe
NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Inst., regular columnist for USA
Today, news analyst for CBS, and co-chair with Leslie Moonves of the
Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV
Producers, appointed by Clinton.
ARIE FLEISCHER, Dubya's press secretary.
STEPHEN EMERSON, every media outlet's first choice as an expert on
domestic terrorism.
DAVID SCHNEIDERMAN, owner of the Village Voice and the New Times
network of "alternative weeklies."
DENNIS LEIBOWITZ, head of Act II Partners, a media hedge fund
KENNETH POLLACK, for CIA analysts, director of Saban Center for Middle
East Policy, writes op-eds in NY Times, New Yorker
BARRY DILLER, chair of USA Interactive, former owner of Universal
Entertainment
KENNETH ROTH, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch
RICHARD LEIBNER, runs the N.S. Bienstock talent agency, which
represents 600 news personalities such as Dan Rather, Dianne Sawyer
and Bill O'Reilly.
TERRY SEMEL, CEO, Yahoo, former chair, Warner Bros.
MARK GOLIN, VP and Creative Director, AOL
WARREN LIEBERFORD, Pres., Warner Bros. Home Video Div. of AOL-
TimeWarner
JEFFREY ZUCKER, President of NBC Entertainment
JACK MYERS, NBC, chief.NYT 5.14.2
SANDY GRUSHOW, chair of Fox Entertainment
GAIL BERMAN, president of Fox Entertainment
STEPHEN SPIELBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
JEFFREY KATZENBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
DAVID GEFFEN, co-owner of Dreamworks
LLYOD BRAUN, chair of ABC Entertainment
JORDAN LEVIN, president of Warner Bros. Entertainment
MAX MUTCHNICK, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
DAVID KOHAN, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
HOWARD STRINGER, chief of Sony Corp. of America
AMY PASCAL, chair of Columbia Pictures
JOEL KLEIN, chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American operations
ROBERT SILLERMAN, founder of Clear Channel Communications
BRIAN GRADEN, president of MTV entertainment
IVAN SEIDENBERG, CEO of Verizon Communications
WOLF BLITZER, host of CNN's Late Edition
LARRY KING, host of Larry King Live
TED KOPPEL, host of ABC's Nightline
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN Reporter
PAULA ZAHN, CNN Host
MIKE WALLACE, Host of CBS, 60 Minutes
BARBARA WALTERS, Host, ABC's 20-20
MICHAEL LEDEEN, editor of National Review
BRUCE NUSSBAUM, editorial page editor, Business Week
DONALD GRAHAM, Chair and CEO of Newsweek and Washington Post, son of
CATHERINE GRAHAM MEYER, former owner of the Washington Post
HOWARD FINEMAN, Chief Political Columnist, Newsweek
WILLIAM KRISTOL, Editor, Weekly Standard, Exec. Director
Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
RON ROSENTHAL, Managing Editor, San Francisco Chronicle
PHIL BRONSTEIN, Executive Editor, San Francisco Chronicle,
RON OWENS, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
JOHN ROTHMAN, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
MICHAEL SAVAGE, Talk Show Host, KFSO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San
Francisco) Syndicated in 100 markets
MICHAEL MEDVED, Talk Show Host, on 124 AM stations
DENNIS PRAGER, Talk Show Host, nationally syndicated from LA. Has
Israeli flag on his home page.
BEN WATTENBERG, Moderator, PBS Think Tank.
ANDREW LACK, president of NBC
DANIEL MENAKER, Executive Director, Harper Collins
DAVID REMNICK, Editor, The New Yorker
NICHOLAS LEHMANN, writer, the New York
HENRICK HERTZBERG, Talk of the Town editor, The New Yorker
SAMUEL NEWHOUSE JR, and DONALD NEWHOUSE own Newhouse Publications,
includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities; the Conde Nast magazine group,
includes The New Yorker; Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplement;
American City Business Journals, business newspapers published in more
than 30 major cities in America; and interests in cable television
programming and cable systems serving 1 million homes.
DONALD NEWHOUSE, chairman of the board of directors, Associated Press.
PETER R KANN, CEO, Wall Street Journal, Barron's
RALPH J. & BRIAN ROBERTS, Owners, Comcast-ATT Cable TV.
LAWRENCE KIRSHBAUM, CEO, AOL-Time Warner Book Group

>
>> Although this historic address should be of particular interest to
>> Americans, a complete text has apparently never before been made
>> available in English!
>> -- Mark Weber
>
>As if that ever made a dime's worth of difference.
>
>I've deleted the text of Hitler's speech, since I am rather pressed
>for time this evening. But I will be back later
>this week.
>

Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:

"The man who is not opposed and vilified and slandered in the
Jewish Press is not a staunch German and not a true National
Socialist. The best rule whereby the sincerity of his convictions, his
character and strength of will, can be measured is by the hostility
which his name arouses among the mortal enemies of our people.

"The followers of the movement, and indeed the whole nation,
must be reminded again and again of the fact that, through the medium
of his newspapers, the Jew is always spreading falsehood and that if
he tells the truth on some occasions it is only for the purpose of
masking some greater deceit, which turns the apparent truth into a
deliberate falsehood. The Jew is the Great Master of Lies. Falsehood
and duplicity are the weapons with which he fights.

"Every calumny and falsehood published by the Jews are tokens of
honor which can be worn by our comrades. He whom they decry most is
nearest to our hearts and he whom they mortally hate is our best
friend.

"If a comrade of ours opens a Jewish newspaper in the morning
and does not find himself vilified there, then he has spent yesterday
to no account. For if he had achieved something he would be
persecuted, slandered, derided and abused. Those who effectively
combat this mortal enemy of our people, who is at the same time the
enemy of all Aryan peoples and all culture, can only expect to arouse
opposition on the part of this race and become the object of its
slanderous attacks.

"When these truths become part of the flesh and blood, as it
were, of our members, then the movement will be impregnable and
invincible."

" Then I began to examine my favorite 'World Press', with that fact
before my mind. "The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my
respect for that Press which I formerly admired. Its style became
still more repellant and I was forced to reject its ideas as entirely
shallow and superficial. To claim that in the presentation of facts
and views its attitude was impartial seemed to me to contain more
falsehood than truth. The writers were- Jews.

"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed
to me now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand
things which I had formerly looked at in a different light."

"Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be
secured. This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and
tenacity in getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began
gradually to control public life in its entirety."

[james g. keegan jr.]

In article
<cd208a43-a1ed-428d...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Dec 21 2012, 5:51 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 2:15 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <7dc63e99-d503-45b7-80c3-82a12c0f3...@eo2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > bobby heishman (osprey/dino) posting as - <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > No...he wouldn't be that brave cause he knows he would get the shit
> > > > kicked out of him.
> > > > He would just deny it and call the other person a liar, even with the
> > > > pictures right in front of him.
> >
> > > odd seeing something like that coming from the former prison guard who
> > > threatened women and then ran from them when they challenged his limp
> > > threats. of course he also ran from all the males too.
> >
> > > poor bobby
> >
> > And then posted he would leave the ng forever, kept coming back using
> > handles already known,
>
> Prove it, hypocrite.

previously done several times in posts you responded to, plagiarist.

do everyone a favor and try to come up with some new lies.

[james g. keegan jr.]

In article
<df14d849-5519-4955...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,

pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Dec 19 2012, 8:58�am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <2adc1eea-ea39-4c3c-a80c-78c45eef5...@f8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, the
> > plagiarist posting as pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 14, 5:13 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 13, 6:52 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > Who's a Nazi? and do prove it, don't pull a Heishman out of your ass
> > > > and insist you have "inside sources" that you won't reveal.
> >
> > > You are really going off the deep end here, salivating "prove it" the
> > > way Pavlov's dog salivated even at inappropriate moments [rung bell,
> > > no food nor smell of food].
> >
> > granted it doesn't make much sense to ask people like you or heishman to
> > support your allegations
>
> ...since I did support this one

why do you defend one of your lies with a new lie plagiarist?

[james g. keegan jr.]

In article
<3b5e3215-495d-4b3c...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> To paraphrase MacArthur again:
>
> I have returned.

why? do you feel your short absence make people forget your plagiarism
or your lies?

[pnyikos]

On Feb 9, 3:24 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article

> <cd208a43-a1ed-428d-ac75-06f7fb0e3...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 21 2012, 5:51 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 21, 2:15 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > <7dc63e99-d503-45b7-80c3-82a12c0f3...@eo2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > bobby heishman (osprey/dino) posting as - <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > No...he wouldn't be that brave cause he knows he would get the shit
> > > > > kicked out of him.
> > > > > He would just deny it and call the other person a liar, even with the
> > > > > pictures right in front of him.
>
> > > > odd seeing something like that coming from the former prison guard who
> > > > threatened women and then ran from them when they challenged his limp
> > > > threats. of course he also ran from all the males too.
>
> > > > poor bobby
>
> > > And then posted he would leave the ng forever, kept coming back using
> > > handles already known,
>
> > Prove it, hypocrite.
>
> previously done several times in posts you responded to,

What were these "already known handles," liar? If you include "Dino,"
you lose.

[snip unsupportable claim of Keegan's]

By the way, you never did answer the question of whether you and/or
elizabeth have a nonaggression pact going with Topaz.

What other reason would a leftist like you have for acting as though
Topaz weren't even pro-Nazi?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Feb 6, 7:54 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 17:48:20 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>

> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Did you actually write ANY of this, Topaz?
>
> No
>
> >You didn't even write the two lines above, did you?  They are due to
> >Mark Weber, aren't they?
>
> Whatever, so far you are the one posting worthless drivel.

Your arrogant allegation reminds me of Matt Giwer.

Are you he? There are people in talk.origins who might be interested
if the answer is Yes.

He is a monstrous anti-semite who posted there for many years, and
still maintains a huge website.

> >Anyway, what Weber wrote needs to be countered, and I see that neither
> >"keegan" nor "elizabeth" has bothered you about that or about any
> >little bit of the reams of propaganda you have posted on this thread
> >in my absence.
>
> >Did you sign a nonaggression pact with the two of them?
>
> no

The three of you certainly have a *de facto* non-aggression pact
going. And since Keegan is a known leftist, and elizabeth also seems
like one, the historical parallel is obvious.

> >recounted the reasons = indulged in propaganda about the reasons, just
> >like the Communists indulged in propaganda about the reasons for
> >declaring war on Finland in 1940.
>
> The USA and other Jewish controlled countries were allies with the
> Communists.

"Jewish controlled" is silly. You'd do better to claim control by the
Freeemasons.

You don't mention Finland below, just the Nazis:

>The Communists had no reason to attack, but the National
> Socialists had excellent reasons to fight back.

And to attack in June 1941--see below.

> >In another speech he gave more candid reasons: with the coal of the
> >Urals, the forests of Siberia, and the grain fields of the Ukraine,
> >Germany under "National Socialism" would swim in plenty.
>
> And the date of this alleged speech?

I read about it in a book I no longer have access to: a history of
Europe in modern times. I don't think a date was given.

> Fraudulent Nazi Quotations
> By Mark Weber
> Fraudulent quotations attributed to Hitler and other Third Reich
> leaders have been widely circulated for years. Such quotes are
> often...

I know about that "we need law and order" speech being an acknowledged
fraud. But you give no evidence that the quotation I am paraphrasing
(very closely) is a fraud.

>
>
> >He also wanted to dispose of the "Untermenschen" of the Ukraine so
>
> Wartime Photo Journal of German Soldier Made Public
> Uncover the Truthhttp://uncover-the-truth.blogspot.com/
> The photo journal of a German soldier who documents his service and
> conditions in the occupied Soviet Union during the Second World War
> has been made public. The journal dispells myths about wartime German
> attitudes and policies in occupied Soviet Ukraine and Russia. It
> contains no mention of "superior" Germans, nor of supposedly
> "subhuman" Slavs ("Untermenschen"),

And I am supposed to conclude that ONE man's omission from a photo
journal refutes these concepts? I thought you had more intelligence
than to suggest this.

I snipped a lot of things about the Soviets. They were equally
terrible, in different ways, and if you think an attack on Hitler and
Nazism is a support of Communism, you are like the worst of the people
you argue against.

> >that he could have the whole place as an extension of Germany as a
> >homeland for the "Master Race."
>
>  Some National Socialists may have said  "Herrenvolk"
>
> "'Herrenvolk' can be translated into "noble race" and/or "superior
> race".  Yet for some reason the English speaking translators chose and
> made popular the term 'master race.'"

I know what "Herrenvolk" literally means, also "Untermenschen." It's
the *de facto* reality, about the contrasting treatment of these two
categories, that is at issue.

In other words, the "scare quotes" around "Master Race" were not meant
to indicate a translation of anything.

Remainder deleted, to be replied to when I have more time.

Peter Nyikos

[Topaz]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:48:40 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


>
>Your arrogant allegation reminds me of Matt Giwer.
>
>Are you he? There are people in talk.origins who might be interested
>if the answer is Yes.
>
>He is a monstrous anti-semite who posted there for many years, and
>still maintains a huge website.

Jews say that being "anti-Semitic" is a terrible crime. Do they say
being "anti-Arab" is a terrible crime? What about "anti-Christian", or
"anti-German"? Of course the Jews think
they are special. Any other group could be our enemy, but not the
Jews, they say. The Jews tell us the Arabs are our enemies. The
Jewish controlled media tells us that the Jews are America's only
friend in the Middle East. The truth is that before these Jews America
didn't have any enemies in the Middle East.

No one is moaning because America once fought the British. But
suddenly Jews can not be the enemy under any circumstances. Why is
that? Because the Jews control the media. Think outside the box.

Now that America is ruled by the Jews it is no insult to be called
"anti-Semite". The insult is that they think we care about their self
serving verbiage.

The Jewish controlled media said the French were "cheese eating
surrender monkeys". Why can't the French howl "anti-French" like the
Jews howl "anti-Semite"? Because the French don't control the media,
Jews do.

This is what President Nixon said:

http://www.hnn.us/comments/15664.html

"There may be some truth in that if the Arabs have some complaints
about my policy towards Israel, they have to realize that the Jews in
the U.S. control the entire information and propaganda machine, the
large newspapers, the motion pictures, radio and television, and the
big companies. And there is a force that we have to take into
consideration."

>The three of you certainly have a *de facto* non-aggression pact
>going. And since Keegan is a known leftist, and elizabeth also seems
>like one, the historical parallel is obvious.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, named after Soviet foreign minister
Vyacheslav Molotov and German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop,
refers to the officially-titled Treaty of Non-aggression between
Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

A treaty of non-aggression does not mean they were allies. The USA
really was allies with the Soviet Union but your Jewish controlled
media doesn't instruct you to think about that.

The Germans made radio broadcasts to America from Berlin. This is
part of what they said:

"The world today is divided into two camps. On the one side
Bolshevism, and on the other the forces for civilization. Why is
America on the wrong side?

Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:

"the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is
the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated."

"The largest so-called bourgeois mass meetings were accustomed to
dissolve, and those in attendance would run away like rabbits when
frightened by a dog as soon as a dozen communists appeared on the
scene."

"We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeosie
and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions, and our
aims.
"We chose red for our posters after particular and careful
deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to
arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings--if only
to break them up--so that in this way we got a chance of talking to
the people."

"At meetings, particularly outside Munich, we had in those days from
five to eight hundred opponents against fifteen to sixteen National
Socialists; yet we brooked no interference, for we were ready to be
killed rather than capitulate. More than once a handful of party
colleagues offered a heroic resistance to a raging and violent mob of
Reds. Those fifteen or twenty men would certainly have been
overwhelmed in the end had not the opponents known that three or four
times as many of themselves would first get their skulls cracked. And
that was a risk they were not willing to run."

When Hitler marched through the streets with his Storm Troops he
carried a walking stick. The Reds came to oppose them and throw stones
and things, but when it got very bad Hitler would raise the stick.
This was the signal to his men to clear the streets of the Reds. And
soon there was not a Red left to be found.

>"Jewish controlled" is silly. You'd do better to claim control by the
>Freeemasons.

by Kevin MacDonald

The current situation in the United States is really an awesome
display of Jewish power and influence. People who are very strongly
identified as Jews maintain close ties to Israeli politicians and
military figures and to Jewish activist organizations and pro-Israeli
lobbying groups while occupying influential policy-making positions in
the defense and foreign policy establishment. These same people, as
well as a chorus of other prominent Jews, have routine access to the
most prestigious media outlets in the United States. People who
criticize Israel are routinely vilified and subjected to professional
abuse.

Perhaps the most telling feature of this entire state of affairs is
the surreal fact that in this entire discourse Jewish identity is not
mentioned. When Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Michael Rubin,
William Safire, Robert Satloff, or the legions of other prominent
media figures write their reflexively pro-Israel pieces in the New
York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or the Los Angeles Times, or
opine on the Fox News Network, there is never any mention that they
are Jewish Americans who have an intense ethnic interest in Israel.
When Richard Perle authors a report for an Israeli think tank; is on
the board of directors of an Israeli newspaper; maintains close
personal ties with prominent Israelis, especially those associated
with the Likud Party; has worked for an Israeli defense company; and,
according to credible reports, was discovered by the FBI passing
classified information to Israel - when, despite all of this, he is a
central figure in the network of those pushing for wars to rearrange
the entire politics of the Middle East in Israel's favor, and with
nary a soul having the courage to mention the obvious overriding
Jewish loyalty apparent in Perle's actions, that is indeed a
breathtaking display of power.

One must contemplate the fact that American Jews have managed to
maintain unquestioned support for Israel over the last thirty-seven
years, despite Israel's seizing land and engaging in a brutal
suppression of the Palestinians in the occupied territories - an
occupation that will most likely end with expulsion or complete
subjugation, degradation, and apartheid. During the same period Jewish
organizations in America have been a principal force - in my view the
main force - for transforming America into a state dedicated to
suppressing ethnic identification among Europeans, for encouraging
massive multiethnic immigration into the U.S., and for erecting a
legal system and cultural ideology that is obsessively sensitive to
the complaints and interests of non-European ethnic minorities - the
culture of the Holocaust. All this is done without a whisper of
double standards in the aboveground media...

>
>You don't mention Finland below, just the Nazis:

from Hitler's Reichstag Speech of December 11, 1941

>And to attack in June 1941--see below.
>

>> And the date of this alleged speech?
>
>I read about it in a book I no longer have access to: a history of
>Europe in modern times. I don't think a date was given.

Because it's not a real quote.

>I know about that "we need law and order" speech being an acknowledged
>fraud. But you give no evidence that the quotation I am paraphrasing
>(very closely) is a fraud.

You didn't give the date.

>And I am supposed to conclude that ONE man's omission from a photo
>journal refutes these concepts? I thought you had more intelligence
>than to suggest this.

Germany was always more technologically advanced than Slav countries.
It's a plain fact and the rest is Jewish spin.

>
>I snipped a lot of things about the Soviets. They were equally
>terrible, in different ways, and if you think an attack on Hitler and
>Nazism is a support of Communism, you are like the worst of the people
>you argue against.

Here is a quote from The Nameless War, by Captain A. H. M. Ramsay:

"The urgent alarm sounded in 1918 by Mr. Oudendyke in his letter
to Mr. Balfour (see page 25), denouncing bolshevism as a Jewish plan,
which if not checked by the combined action of the European powers,
would engulf Europe and the world, was no exaggeration. By the end of
that year the red flag was being hoisted in most of the great cities
of Europe. In Hungary the Jew Bela Kuhn organized and maintained for
some time a merciless and bloody tyranny similar to the one in Russia.
In Germany the Jews, Liebknecht, Barth, Scheidemann, Rosa Luxemburg,
etc., made a desperate bid for power. These and other similar
convulsions shook Europe; but each country in its own way just
frustated the onslaughts.

In most countries concerned a few voices were raised in the
endeavour to expose the true nature of these evils. Only in one,
however, did a political leader and group arise, who grasped to the
full the significance of these happenings, and perceived behind the
mobs of native hooligans the organisation and driving power of world
Jewry. This leader was Adolf Hitler, and his group the National
Socialist Party of Germany.

Never before in history had any country not only repulsed organized
revolution, but discerned Jewry behind it, and faced up to that fact.
We need not wonder that the sewers of Jewish vituperation were flooded
over these men and their leader; nor should we make the mistake of
supposing that Jewry would stick at any lie to deter honest men
everywhere from making a thorough investigation of the facts for
themselves. Nevertheless, if any value liberty, and set out to seek
truth and defend it, this duty of personal investigation is one which
they cannot shirk.

To accept unquestioningly the lies and misrepresentaions of a
Jew-controlled or influenced press, is to spurn truth by sheer
idleness, if for no worse reason."

>I know what "Herrenvolk" literally means, also "Untermenschen." It's
>the *de facto* reality, about the contrasting treatment of these two
>categories, that is at issue.
>
>In other words, the "scare quotes" around "Master Race" were not meant
>to indicate a translation of anything.

I give a lot of real translations, rather than Jewish spin.

>
>Remainder deleted, to be replied to when I have more time.
>

[pnyikos]

On Mar 22, 2:20 am, xander <c...@no.one> wrote:
> Topaz Wrote In:

November, IIRC. But truth is timeless, so I'm glad you did reply even
though rather belatedly.

> >Judeo Christians think it is the "end times" even though it has been
> >the "end times" for over two thousand years so far. They think the one
> >and only hope is for Jesus to return and straighten everything out.
> >And a big part of the plan is the destroy the world. They think wars
> >and everything being blown up is a great thing because it means Jesus
> >will return soon.

This accusation was ignorant at best, a calumny against the
overwhelming majority of Judeo-Christians at worst.

> > Marxists were murderous lowlifes but they said religion is the opium
> >of the masses. There obviously is some truth to that. Enemies often
> >have some truth in their arguments. On top of the opium there is the
> >Jewish propaganda started by Scofield.

>
> >  Christians are great for telling what some of the problems are, such
> >as homosexual perversion, feminism etc. But to actually solve these
> >problems one should look elsewhere. Who do Christians hate the most,
> >first Hitler and then the Muslims. These are the two who actually
> >solved the problems that Christians are famous for speaking against.

> >Maybe the Muslims go a little overboard but they are the opposite of
> >liberalism. There is no way that "Brokeback Mountain" would be shown
> >in a Muslim country.

I see you attack Muslims below, but not Hitler? Is there a reason for
that?

Anyway, i"m glad you at least did as much as you did.

> Most muslim countries are terrorists countries. Their religious strictness is an
> act of terror beside their violent terror attacks.

Only the forms that actually produce state violence, like the death
penalty for converting to another religion.

> Homosexuality is also not
> perverted like conservative or religious groups claim.

Would you also say pedophilia isn't perverted? How about bestiality
and necrophilia?

> Commies and Muzzies are
> the biggest terrorists on the globe. Conservative Christians also have a little
> bit of a terrorist mentality.

What makes you think so? What about non-Christians, like the one who
tried to kill someone in the American Family Council?

> >http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com

An avowedly Nazi website. Don't you have a problem with that?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Mar 21, 11:01 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:48:40 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>

> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Your arrogant allegation reminds me of Matt Giwer.
>
> >Are you he?  There are people in talk.origins who might be interested
> >if the answer is Yes.

Failure to answer question noted. You have this *also* in common with
Matt Giwer: you are evasive.

> >He is a monstrous anti-semite who posted there for many years, and
> >still maintains a huge website.
>
>   Jews say that being  "anti-Semitic" is a terrible crime.

Some do, but when I say "monstrous anti-Semite" I speak as a
humanitarian, not as a Jew (which I never was) nor as a spokesman for
them. Here is what I was referring to:

__________excerpt from reply to Giwer___________

>> [Giwer:]
>> > In exchange for the deliberate murder of 34 Americans and the wounding
>> >of 171 Americans and for which the Commander received the CMO for
>> >bravery in the face of the enemy, yes. Fair is fair for murderers like
>> >that.

>> This is chauvinism of the worst sort. In revenge for a small
>> handful of American (soldiers?) dead and some wounded,
>
> Do not forget it was cold blooded murder by the Israeli government.

Which government officials have been implicated?

>> you would have us nuke an entire
>> city with thousands of innocent women and children.

I was understating. Tel Aviv actually has over 10,000 times
as many people as the 34 that were murdered "by the Israeli
government". The total of innocent women and children
combined easily tops 200,000.

> Pulling a statement out of the context of the thread for
>the purpose of misrepresenting it is also a form of lying.

Put the context back if it pleases you--and I mean the
context of your remark,

In exchange for the deliberate murder of 34 Americans
and the wounding of 171 Americans and for which the
Commander received the CMO for bravery in the face
of the enemy, yes. Fair is fair for murderers like that.

======================== end of excerpt
from http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/a42f6783f624ef7c
Message-ID: <2001060820...@kappa.math.sc.edu>
The last three symbols before the @ are 202

His bluffs called, Giwer folded: he left the thread, never to post
there again.

The Israeli government treated the deaths of the 34 as an unfortunate
accident, and Giwer never posted documentation to the contrary.

But that's beside the point: the point is that nuking some 200,000
innocent women and children would be a monstrous act no matter what
ethnic group is involved. Giwer tried to claim it was an expression
merely of anti-Zionism, but even that is not credible in the light of
what he wrote elsewhere.

> Do they say
> being "anti-Arab" is a terrible crime? What about "anti-Christian", or
> "anti-German"?

They should, if it is of a magnitude like that championed by Giwer.

I ask again: are you Matt Giwer?

Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.

Peter Nyikos

[Topaz]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:12:36 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


>
>Failure to answer question noted. You have this *also* in common with
>Matt Giwer: you are evasive.

whatever

>Some do, but when I say "monstrous anti-Semite" I speak as a
>humanitarian, not as a Jew (which I never was) nor as a spokesman for
>them. Here is what I was referring to:
>
>__________excerpt from reply to Giwer___________

>Which government officials have been implicated?

"I ask you to consider the following:

Imagine if the rulers of a Mideast nation such as Syria, and I am not
simply speaking about a gang of radicals in that nation, but the
actual government ministers of this Mideast nation, launched terrorist
attacks against American civilian installations.

Imagine if the Syrian Government sent terrorists into Egypt to
firebomb American theaters and libraries and treacherously plotted to
blame the attacks on Egypt so that the United States would go to war
against that nation.

If successful, the treacherous plan would harm America even more than
the terrorist attacks themselves, because even more American blood and
treasure would be spilled in a devastating war on an innocent nation!

Imagine that the premature explosion of the one of the Syrian agent's
bombs led to the capture of all the Syrian operatives and ultimately
caused a complete exposure of Syria's terrorism against America.

In fact, imagine that the failed plot became so exposed that the
Syrian Defense minister had to resign.

How do you think the United States would respond to these acts of
terrorism committed against Americans by the Syrian government?

Would not at the very least America make military strikes at Syrian
installations?

Remember, that without Iraq committing even a single warlike act
against the United States, America invaded Iraq and spent hundreds of
billions of dollars and suffered great numbers of dead and wounded.

Again, how would America respond to any Mideast nation that clearly
made terrorist attacks against American civilian installations?

After such dastardly terrorist attacks would the American people send
billions of dollars in aid including military weapons to Syria?

After such attacks, how would every Congressman be viewed that took
money from Lobby organizations that support the Syrian government?

Would they not be attacked in the press, would they not be properly
accused of disloyalty to the United States, perhaps even treason?

Imagine that due to the ubiquitous pro-Syrian political and media
power in America that amazingly no actions were taken against Syria
and that military and other aid to Syria continued.

And finally, imagine that years after the attacks, the President of
Syria in an open, public ceremony gives awards to the Syrian
terrorists who bombed American installations and calls them "heroes."

Do you think a free press would keep such an obscene ceremony from the
knowledge of the American public? Or do you think that the Syrian
Government's praising of terrorists who attacked America would unleash
a huge scandal and uproar.

Well, everything I just described to you actually has happened, and I
mean in every detail.

Except it wasn't the Syrian government that launched terrorist attacks
on America, it was Israel.

In the Lavon Affair, the Israeli government sent terrorists to bomb
American installations in Egypt and blame the Egyptians for it. One of
their bombs exploded prematurely which led to the capture of one the
agents and eventually the rounding up of all of them. They confessed
and the Israeli Defense minister Pinhas Lavon was forced to resign
because of the failure and exposure of this Israeli treachery.

This is no fantasy; this is absolute historical fact which you can
verify from numerous major historical sources, including leading
Jewish sources.

Only thing is, you probably haven't even heard of it.

Why not?

And why would America continue to give military weapons and equipment
to a nation that launched terrorist attacks against us?

What does that tell you about Israeli influence over the American
government and the press?"

David Duke
www.davidduke.com

>His bluffs called, Giwer folded: he left the thread, never to post
>there again.
>
>The Israeli government treated the deaths of the 34 as an unfortunate
>accident, and Giwer never posted documentation to the contrary.
>
>But that's beside the point: the point is that nuking some 200,000
>innocent women and children would be a monstrous act no matter what
>ethnic group is involved. Giwer tried to claim it was an expression
>merely of anti-Zionism, but even that is not credible in the light of
>what he wrote elsewhere.
>

>They should, if it is of a magnitude like that championed by Giwer.
>
>I ask again: are you Matt Giwer?

no

>
>Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.

[pnyikos]

I was very busy with talk.origins for a month after the following was
posted, and more recently I was busy with administering and grading
final exams, but now I hope I can reply in more timely fashion.

On Apr 3, 9:50 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:12:36 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>

> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Failure to answer question noted.  You have this *also* in common with
> >Matt Giwer: you are evasive.
>
> whatever

You finally got somewhat less evasive, but your long spiel in reply to
the information I gave, does not match the alleged incident of which

Giwer wrote:

> >Some do, but when I say "monstrous anti-Semite" I speak as a
> >humanitarian, not as a Jew (which I never was) nor as a spokesman for
> >them.  Here is what I was referring to:
>
> >__________excerpt from reply to Giwer___________

REPOST of snipped material_______________

>> [Giwer:]
>> > In exchange for the deliberate murder of 34 Americans and the wounding
>> >of 171 Americans and for which the Commander received the CMO for
>> >bravery in the face of the enemy, yes. Fair is fair for murderers like
>> >that.

>> This is chauvinism of the worst sort. In revenge for a small
>> handful of American (soldiers?) dead and some wounded,

> Do not forget it was cold blooded murder by the Israeli government.

============ end of repost

> >Which government officials have been implicated?

You posted another long spiel by another person, David Duke, but it
was about an incident where no lives were lost, so I am still in the
dark as to what Giwer had been writing about.

> "I ask you to consider the following:
>
> Imagine if the rulers of a Mideast nation such as Syria, and I am not
> simply speaking about a gang of radicals in that nation, but the
> actual government ministers of this Mideast nation, launched terrorist
> attacks against American civilian installations.
>
> Imagine if the Syrian Government sent terrorists into Egypt to
> firebomb American theaters and libraries and treacherously plotted to
> blame the attacks on Egypt so that the United States would go to war
> against that nation.

I've snipped out a lot here, most of which is told in straightforward
fashion on the following Wikipedia site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

> In the Lavon Affair, the Israeli government sent terrorists to bomb
> American installations in Egypt and blame the Egyptians for it. One of
> their bombs exploded prematurely which led to the capture of one the
> agents and eventually the rounding up of all of them. They confessed
> and the Israeli Defense minister Pinhas Lavon was forced to resign
> because of the failure and exposure of this Israeli treachery.
>
> This is no fantasy; this is absolute historical fact which you can
> verify from numerous major historical sources, including leading
> Jewish sources.
>
> Only thing is, you probably haven't even heard of it.
>
> Why not?

> And why would America continue to give military weapons and equipment
> to a nation that launched terrorist attacks against us?
>
> What does that tell you about Israeli influence over the American
> government and the press?"
>
> David Dukewww.davidduke.com
>
> >His bluffs called, Giwer folded: he left the thread, never to post
> >there again.
>
> >The Israeli government treated the deaths of the 34 as an unfortunate
> >accident, and Giwer never posted documentation to the contrary.

Or did it? There are no deaths mentioned by Duke, nor in the
Wikipedia article.

> >But that's beside the point: the point is that nuking some 200,000
> >innocent women and children would be a monstrous act no matter what
> >ethnic group is involved. Giwer tried to claim it was an expression
> >merely of anti-Zionism, but even that is not credible in the light of
> >what he wrote elsewhere.

[small snip for focus]

> >I ask again: are you Matt Giwer?
>
> no

That's a relief. Now, can you tell me what incident Giwer was
referring to?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

I was very busy with talk.origins for a month after the following was
posted, and more recently I was busy with administering and grading
final exams, but now I hope I can reply in more timely fashion.

On Apr 3, 9:50 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:12:36 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos

> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> >Failure to answer question noted. You have this *also* in common with
> >Matt Giwer: you are evasive.

> whatever

You finally got somewhat less evasive, but your long spiel in reply to
the information I gave, does not match the alleged incident of which

> >Some do, but when I say "monstrous anti-Semite" I speak as a
> >humanitarian, not as a Jew (which I never was) nor as a spokesman for
> >them. Here is what I was referring to:

> >__________excerpt from reply to Giwer___________

REPOST of snipped material_______________

>> [Giwer:]
>> > In exchange for the deliberate murder of 34 Americans and the wounding
>> >of 171 Americans and for which the Commander received the CMO for
>> >bravery in the face of the enemy, yes. Fair is fair for murderers like
>> >that.
>> This is chauvinism of the worst sort. In revenge for a small
>> handful of American (soldiers?) dead and some wounded,
> Do not forget it was cold blooded murder by the Israeli government.

============ end of repost

> >Which government officials have been implicated?

You posted another long spiel by another person, David Duke, but it
was about an incident where no lives were lost, so I am still in the
dark as to what Giwer had been writing about.

> "I ask you to consider the following:

> Imagine if the rulers of a Mideast nation such as Syria, and I am not
> simply speaking about a gang of radicals in that nation, but the
> actual government ministers of this Mideast nation, launched terrorist
> attacks against American civilian installations.

> Imagine if the Syrian Government sent terrorists into Egypt to
> firebomb American theaters and libraries and treacherously plotted to
> blame the attacks on Egypt so that the United States would go to war
> against that nation.

I've snipped out a lot here, most of which is told in straightforward
fashion on the following Wikipedia site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

Here is a short summary, still being quoted by you (Topaz) from an
unidentified article by David Duke:

> In the Lavon Affair, the Israeli government sent terrorists to bomb
> American installations in Egypt and blame the Egyptians for it. One of
> their bombs exploded prematurely which led to the capture of one the
> agents and eventually the rounding up of all of them. They confessed
> and the Israeli Defense minister Pinhas Lavon was forced to resign
> because of the failure and exposure of this Israeli treachery.

> This is no fantasy; this is absolute historical fact which you can
> verify from numerous major historical sources, including leading
> Jewish sources.

[small snip]

> David Duke
>http://www.davidduke.com

Not enough of an url -- it just takes us to Duke's home page.

> >His bluffs called, Giwer folded: he left the thread, never to post
> >there again.

I was relying on what others had posted years ago for the following
statement:

> >The Israeli government treated the deaths of the 34 as an unfortunate
> >accident, and Giwer never posted documentation to the contrary.

Now I'm beginning to wonder:
Was there such an incident at all?

There are no deaths mentioned by Duke, nor in the

Wikipedia article about the Lavon affair.

> >But that's beside the point: the point is that nuking some 200,000
> >innocent women and children would be a monstrous act no matter what
> >ethnic group is involved. Giwer tried to claim it was an expression
> >merely of anti-Zionism, but even that is not credible in the light of
> >what he wrote elsewhere.

[small snip for focus]

> >I ask again: are you Matt Giwer?

> no

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

I imagine it's the USS Liberty incident.

Israeli jets attacked an American Navy ship USS Liberty ( a Liberty
class freighter outfitted to conduct signals intelligence) on 6-8-67.
The ship was in the Mediterranean Sea in international waters. The
attack killed 34 and wounded 171.

Israel claimed it was an accident and that they had mistaken the USS
Liberty for an Egyptian warship.

People like Giwer and Topaz, and I should add, more credibly - some of
the crew, claim it was a deliberate attack.

I've heard a number of conspiracy theories that attempt to explain why
Israel would deliberately attack a U.S. ship, and most revolve around
the idea that Israel feared the ship had detected something that the
Israeli's didn't want detected.

The U.S. accepted Israel's explanation that the attack was accidental,
others obviously haven't.

I've no opinion.

And, to answer your question further down in the post... Yes, it's a
real incident.

It seems that who ever you're responding too is jumping between two
events separated by more than a decade, the USS Liberty attack and the
Levon affair.

Nazis do tend toward being scatter brained, after all...

Both events are absolutely real and well documented.

[Topaz]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:32:46 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:


>
>I imagine it's the USS Liberty incident.
>
>Israeli jets attacked an American Navy ship USS Liberty ( a Liberty
>class freighter outfitted to conduct signals intelligence) on 6-8-67.
>The ship was in the Mediterranean Sea in international waters. The
>attack killed 34 and wounded 171.
>
>Israel claimed it was an accident and that they had mistaken the USS
>Liberty for an Egyptian warship.
>
>People like Giwer and Topaz, and I should add, more credibly - some of
>the crew, claim it was a deliberate attack.
>
>I've heard a number of conspiracy theories that attempt to explain why
>Israel would deliberately attack a U.S. ship, and most revolve around
>the idea that Israel feared the ship had detected something that the
>Israeli's didn't want detected.
>
>The U.S. accepted Israel's explanation that the attack was accidental,
>others obviously haven't.
>
>I've no opinion.

It was a clear sunny day and the ship had a huge American flag.

>
>And, to answer your question further down in the post... Yes, it's a
>real incident.
>
>It seems that who ever you're responding too is jumping between two
>events separated by more than a decade, the USS Liberty attack and the
>Levon affair.
>
>Nazis do tend toward being scatter brained, after all...

Actually, I knew it was about the USS Liberty but didn't have a copy
and paste about that. The Levon affair is pretty much the same thing
and I did have a great copy and paste.

>
>Both events are absolutely real and well documented.
>

http://www.ihr.org/ http://nationalvanguard.org/ http://heretical.com/

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com

[pnyikos]

On May 26, 6:07 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:32:46 -0400, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >I imagine it's the USS Liberty incident.
>
> >Israeli jets attacked an American Navy ship USS Liberty ( a Liberty
> >class freighter outfitted to conduct signals intelligence) on 6-8-67.
> >The ship was in the Mediterranean Sea in international waters.  The
> >attack killed 34 and wounded 171.
>
> >Israel claimed it was an accident and that they had mistaken the USS
> >Liberty for an Egyptian warship.
>
> >People like Giwer and Topaz, and I should add, more credibly - some of
> >the crew, claim it was a deliberate attack.

That's pretty serious, all right.

> >I've heard a number of conspiracy theories that attempt to explain why
> >Israel would deliberately attack a U.S. ship, and most revolve around
> >the idea that Israel feared the ship had detected something that the
> >Israeli's didn't want detected.
>
> >The U.S. accepted Israel's explanation that the attack was accidental,
> >others obviously haven't.
>
> >I've no opinion.
>
> It was a clear sunny day and the ship had a huge American flag.
>

Can you document this?

If you are right, the very least one could expect of the Israeli
government is a severe reprimand for negligence, and a demotion of
everyone responsible. Can either of you (Silent Otto, Topaz) find
anything along these lines?

I would also expect resignations in the wake of this, especially if
the Israeli government had good reason to suspect that the attack was
deliberate.

>
> >And, to answer your question further down in the post...  Yes, it's a
> >real incident.
>
> >It seems that who ever you're responding too is jumping between two
> >events separated by more than a decade, the USS Liberty attack and the
> >Levon affair.
>
> >Nazis do tend toward being scatter brained, after all...
>
> Actually, I knew it was about the USS Liberty but didn't have a copy
> and paste about that.

You should have said this in the same post, along with an explanation
like the following:

> The Levon affair is pretty much the same thing
> and I did have a great copy and paste.

Peter Nyikos

[Topaz]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 12:52:54 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


>Can you document this?
>
>If you are right, the very least one could expect of the Israeli
>government is a severe reprimand for negligence, and a demotion of
>everyone responsible. Can either of you (Silent Otto, Topaz) find
>anything along these lines?

The attack, the murder at sea, was in two main phases lasting more
than one hour (as we shall see, an intended third and final phase had
to be aborted); and it was launched after aerial reconnaissance of the
Liberty, in the sunlight of the eastern Mediterranean, over a period
of eight hours. As all television cameramen and still photographers
know, the sunlight in the eastern Mediterranean has almost magical
properties. It is Mother Nature’s assistance for taking perfect
pictures.
Dawn on the morning of Thursday 8 June brought with it the promise of
another beautiful and clear day. Calm sea. Light, warm breezes. The
off-duty crew of the Liberty could not have had it better if they were
holidaymakers on a cruise ship. Many were, in fact, looking forward to
some sunbathing on the deck.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/07/alan-hart-israels-attack-on-the-uss-liberty-the-full-story/

>
>I would also expect resignations in the wake of this, especially if
>the Israeli government had good reason to suspect that the attack was
>deliberate.
>

>> Actually, I knew it was about the USS Liberty but didn't have a copy
>> and paste about that.
>
>You should have said this in the same post, along with an explanation
>like the following:
>
>> The Levon affair is pretty much the same thing
>> and I did have a great copy and paste.
>
>Peter Nyikos
>
>>
>>
>> >Both events are absolutely real and well documented.

[james g. keegan jr.]

In article <966043bd-5e0d-4601...@googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, December 14, 2012 5:14:18 AM UTC-5, james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > In article <8ecfd37f-19a9-4ff5...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, the
> >
> > plagiarist posting as
> > pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > this is one of the plagiarist's funniest posts.
>
> yes, i'm vaguely familiar with his explanation for his false claim... i can't
> recall it in detail, because i dismissed it as utter nonsense....


classic nyikos nonsense.

[james g. keegan jr.]

In article
<9f62df7a-2b87-489d...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> And he calls me "plagiarist" because

..you redefined plagiarism to cover an earlier lie. then you fell into
the trap of being guilty by your own definition.

that never could have happened with the real peter nyikos, plagiarist.