Avatar
Topaz
A cool guys goes to another planet where a hideous female human orders
him around and treats him like crap. In Hollywoodland it's cool for
guys to be ordered around by females and treated like crap.
Then we get to see a hideous female human flying a fighter jet. It's a
really manly female. Hollywood tells us to like that sort of thing and
only sexists like feminine women, that is real women.
Then the cool guy goes out into the alien world where a female alien
tells him to get lost and drop dead. Naturally the cool guy really
likes her and follows her around.
Then the hideous human female from the beginning of the movie gets
injured and is dying. But instead of urinating on her, the cool guy
tries to save her life!
In other words it's a typical Hollywood movie. Other than that, the
movie is pretty good.
http://www.ihr.org/ www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/
http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org
http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/
Feminazi Cuntkins
wrote:
>
>A cool guys goes to another planet where a hideous female human orders
>him around and treats him like crap.
They later become really good friends, and she saves him and takes
care of him.
>Then we get to see a hideous female human flying a fighter jet. It's a
>really manly female.
Oh, yeah, she was so manly that I'd hit her, and I'm not into girls,
it must have been her astonishingly manly rack and ass.
http://bsaidso.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/micheller.jpg
>Then the cool guy goes out into the alien world where a female alien
>tells him to get lost and drop dead. Naturally the cool guy really
>likes her and follows her around.
He's trying to be a spy, it was part of his mission. Also, that girl
was seriously hot.
>Then the hideous human female from the beginning of the movie gets
>injured and is dying. But instead of urinating on her, the cool guy
>tries to save her life!
Actually he'd probably urinated on her a bunch of times, when she was
taking care of him once he got all withdrawn and depressed, somebody
must have been emptying his catheter bag.
>In other words it's a typical Hollywood movie. Other than that, the
>movie is pretty good.
It's Dances of Wovles with a herd of Nightcrawlers and one Nick Fury.
fnc, why would a person remake DWW and cut out Graham Greene?
Topaz
<jaeza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 05:37:24 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>
>>A cool guys goes to another planet where a hideous female human orders
>>him around and treats him like crap.
>
>They later become really good friends, and she saves him and takes
>care of him.
They were friends from the beginning, he was pussy whooped from the
beginning. Oh she takes care of him. Only in Hollywood could a pussy
whooped wuss like that be a cool guy on the screen. Hollywoods motto
is, real men are pussy whooped.
>
>>Then we get to see a hideous female human flying a fighter jet. It's a
>>really manly female.
>
>Oh, yeah, she was so manly that I'd hit her, and I'm not into girls,
>it must have been her astonishingly manly rack and ass.
>
So you like her because you are not into girls. That makes sense,
homo.
>>Then the cool guy goes out into the alien world where a female alien
>>tells him to get lost and drop dead. Naturally the cool guy really
>>likes her and follows her around.
>
>He's trying to be a spy, it was part of his mission. Also, that girl
>was seriously hot.
Real women are seriously hot. Any guy that goes for the manly type is
the next thing to a homo. But granted she was not as bad as the one in
the fighter jet.
>
>>Then the hideous human female from the beginning of the movie gets
>>injured and is dying. But instead of urinating on her, the cool guy
>>tries to save her life!
>
>Actually he'd probably urinated on her a bunch of times, when she was
>taking care of him once he got all withdrawn and depressed, somebody
>must have been emptying his catheter bag.
>
>>In other words it's a typical Hollywood movie. Other than that, the
>>movie is pretty good.
>
>It's Dances of Wovles with a herd of Nightcrawlers and one Nick Fury.
>fnc, why would a person remake DWW and cut out Graham Greene?
I didn't see Dances with Wolves but I heard it was a cool guy who is a
race traitor. Hollywood says cool guys are both pussy whooped and race
traitors.
Here are some quotes from "The Oregon Trail" written by Francis
Parkman. It is a true story about his experiences with Indians. He
travelled to Oregon in 1846 and lived with Indians.
"For the most part, a civilized white man can discover very few
points of sympathy between his own nature and that of an Indian. With
every disposition to do justice to their good qualitites, he must be
conscious that an impassable gulf lies between him and his red
brethren. Nay, so alien to himself do they appear, that, after
breathing the air of the prairie for a few months or weeks, he begins
to look upon them as a troublesome and dangerous species of wild
beasts."
"Assume , in the presence of Indians, a bold bearing, self-confident
yet vigilant, and you will find them tolerably safe neighbors. But
your safety depends on the respect and fear you are able to inspire."
"Against most of the neighboring tribes they cherish a rancorous
hatred... This fierce spirit awakens their most eager aspirations, and
calls forth their greatest energies. It is chiefly this that saves
them from lethargy and utter abasement. Without its powerful stimulous
they would be like the unwarlike tribes beyond the mountains,
scattered among the caves and rocks like beasts, and living on roots
and reptiles. These later have little of humanity except the form"
"Their religion, superstitions and prejudices were the same handed
down to them from immemorial time. They fought with the weapons that
their fathers fought with, and wore the same garments of skins. They
were living representatives of the "stone age"; for though their
lances and arrows were tipped with iron procured from the traders,
they still used the rude stone mallet of the primeval world."
"The surrounding group of savages offered no very attractive
spectacle to a civilized eye. Some were cracking the huge thigh-bones
and devouring the marrow within; others were cutting away pieces of
liver, and other approved morsels, and swallowing them on the spot
with the appetite of wolves. The faces of most of them, besmeared with
blood from ear to ear, looked grim and horrible enough."
"few beings have more curiosity than Indians in regard to subjects
within the ordinary range of thought. As to other matters, indeed,
they seem utterly indifferent. They will not trouble to inquire into
what they cannot comprehend, but are quite contented to place their
hands over their mouths in token of wonder, and exclaim that it is
"great medicine". With this comprehensive solution, an Indian never is
at a loss. He never launches into speculation and conjecture; his
reason moves in its beaten track. His soul is dormant"
Of course the allied "Sky People" in Avatar look a lot like the Jewish
controlled forces who are invading Muslim countries. That would make
the "Sky People" themselves the real race traitors:
The West is the White race.
The goal of America is to destroy the White race. The
multi-culture and pluralism they push is only at the expense of
Whites. No one is trying to push multi-culture in China or Japan or
anyplace but on the Whites. And they promote racial intermarriage.
If things continue as they are the White race is doomed.
And who is doing all of this? It is the USA government and the
media, in other words the Jews.
Many Whites are traitors. They support the USA government and their
own destruction. We should look for allies. And anyone who wants to
remove the Jews from power is our ally. In the past the Japanese were
our allies. Today it is the Muslims.
Osama bin Laden
September 24th statement published in Pakistan
"I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We
are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United
States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic
freedom. This system is totally in control of the American Jews, whose
first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is simply that the
American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced
to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the
punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it
is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the
U.S. is not uttering a single word."
Feminazi Cuntkins
wrote:
>Real women are seriously hot. Any guy that goes for the manly type is
>the next thing to a homo. But granted she was not as bad as the one in
>the fighter jet.
Dude, I've known for a long time that you were a kook, but I never
knew that a good part of it was due to you being unattracted to women.
You'd be better off if you just came out and dealt.
http://poponthepop.com/images/gallery/michelle-rodriguez.jpg
http://bsaidso.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/micheller.jpg
http://www.wallpaperbase.com/wallpapers/celebs/michellerodriguez/michelle_rodriguez_2.jpg
http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2007/gallery/cannes/michelle_rodriguez400.jpg
The only thing she'd be manly to would be a total flamer, and he'd
still appreciate the hair.
FNC, the jewel moniker finally makes sense.
Topaz
<jaeza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Dude, I've known for a long time that you were a kook, but I never
>knew that a good part of it was due to you being unattracted to women.
You are the one unattracted to women:
Not a sexist?
I'm not a sexist said the male, I think women are great, I'm crazy
about them.
The female said. Good, I want to be a drill sergeant to prove to all
those sexists that we women are the same as any men.
The male said, Great, women should do whatever they want. Only sexists
discriminate.
The female says, I know, that's why I have a crew cut and drive this
big pick up truck, did you know women once wore dresses? That was so
sexist.
The man says, That's great, women should do whatever they want. I hate
sexists. I love women.
The female said. I know, that's why I've been pumping iron for ten
years. See my muscles? You like strong women don't you?
The male said, Of course, Only sexists like feminine women. Women are
the same as men in every way.
The female said, I know, I'm have a sex change operation next week to
prove that we are the same as any men.
The male said, Err, well, I like women, do you know any?
>You'd be better off if you just came out and dealt.
>
>http://poponthepop.com/images/gallery/michelle-rodriguez.jpg
>
>http://bsaidso.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/micheller.jpg
>
>http://www.wallpaperbase.com/wallpapers/celebs/michellerodriguez/michelle_rodriguez_2.jpg
>
>http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2007/gallery/cannes/michelle_rodriguez400.jpg
>
>The only thing she'd be manly to would be a total flamer, and he'd
>still appreciate the hair.
>
>FNC, the jewel moniker finally makes sense.
>
We weren't talking about the actress. We were talking about the
character in the Avatar movie. Those who have seen it must know you
are full of crap.
Feminazi Cuntkins
wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:01:48 -0500, Feminazi Cuntkins
><jaeza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Dude, I've known for a long time that you were a kook, but I never
>>knew that a good part of it was due to you being unattracted to women.
>
>You are the one unattracted to women:
Yeah, I'm a girl, so that's how it generally goes. I actually don't
care which way one swings, or both, except when it sources negative
feelings and behaviours like you exhibit. You're not just threatened
by women, you think they are icky because of the b00bies and such.
>>http://poponthepop.com/images/gallery/michelle-rodriguez.jpg
>>
>>http://bsaidso.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/micheller.jpg
>>
>>http://www.wallpaperbase.com/wallpapers/celebs/michellerodriguez/michelle_rodriguez_2.jpg
>>
>>http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2007/gallery/cannes/michelle_rodriguez400.jpg
>>
>>The only thing she'd be manly to would be a total flamer, and he'd
>>still appreciate the hair.
>
>We weren't talking about the actress. We were talking about the
>character in the Avatar movie. Those who have seen it must know you
>are full of crap.
Those who have seen it remember her white t-shirt, unless they were
busy dealing with those funny feelings engendered by all those blue
boy asses.
fnc, mmmm
Topaz
<jaeza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Yeah, I'm a girl, so that's how it generally goes. I actually don't
>care which way one swings, or both, except when it sources negative
>feelings and behaviours like you exhibit. You're not just threatened
>by women, you think they are icky because of the b00bies and such.
You are full of crap. Feminists are shitty but if they have boobs they
have some good points.
>
>Those who have seen it remember her white t-shirt, unless they were
>busy dealing with those funny feelings engendered by all those blue
>boy asses.
>
You just said above that you are the one on the side of the homo's.
All normal men agree with me deep down. They all want real women. If
they tell you they like that female in the fighter jet they are
telling you what you want to hear because they don't have any balls.
Feminazi Cuntkins
wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:40:55 -0500, Feminazi Cuntkins
><jaeza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> You're not just threatened
>>by women, you think they are icky because of the b00bies and such.
>
>You are full of crap. Feminists are shitty but if they have boobs they
>have some good points.
It's cute that you have tried to learn to objectify women in order to
hide your true feelings, but as a girl I have to tell you the above is
really clumsy. You need to try harder, you sound like a drag queen.
>>Those who have seen it remember her white t-shirt, unless they were
>>busy dealing with those funny feelings engendered by all those blue
>>boy asses.
>>
>You just said above that you are the one on the side of the homo's.
>All normal men agree with me deep down. They all want real women. If
>they tell you they like that female in the fighter jet they are
>telling you what you want to hear because they don't have any balls.
Yeah, that's clumsy too. It's okay, you can think about Sam
Worthington's butt all you want; I think he's pretty cute too.
fnc, oooh.
Topaz
<jaeza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>You are full of crap. Feminists are shitty but if they have boobs they
>>have some good points.
>
>It's cute that you have tried to learn to objectify women in order to
>hide your true feelings, but as a girl I have to tell you the above is
>really clumsy. You need to try harder, you sound like a drag queen.
You sound like you have shit for brains.
'There are twice as many men as women with an IQ of 120-plus'
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20061130/ai_n16874397
Independent, The (London), Nov 30, 2006 by Nick Jackson
Dr Paul Irwing is a senior lecturer in organizational psychology at
Manchester University:
All the research I've done points to a gender difference in general
cognitive ability. There is a mean difference of about five IQ points.
The further you go up the distribution the more and more skewed it
becomes. There are twice as many men with an IQ of 120- plus as there
are women, there are 30 times the number of men with an IQ of 170-plus
as there are women.
I don't know why this is, all I can say is that we have a huge amount
of data.
All IQ tests are thoroughly tested and adjusted for bias, so if
anything IQ tests are biased in favor of women not men.
Feminazi Cuntkins
wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:03:29 -0500, Feminazi Cuntkins
><jaeza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>You are full of crap. Feminists are shitty but if they have boobs they
>>>have some good points.
>>
>>It's cute that you have tried to learn to objectify women in order to
>>hide your true feelings, but as a girl I have to tell you the above is
>>really clumsy. You need to try harder, you sound like a drag queen.
>
>You sound like you have shit for brains.
I'll snip the irrelevant stuff you replied with, it doesn't make any
point that you haven't made already. If you really don't want to
discuss your attraction to men, it's okay, I understand that it can be
really hard to deal with. But you should try to not channel these
conflicting feelings into negative and hateful behaviours, it's not
good for your long term well-being.
There's really nothing wrong with it, boys are quite nice and smell
good, and you can like them without being grossed out by girls. Most
people manage it without any trouble at all.
fnc, rainbows and unicorns
Topaz
<jaeza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I'll snip the irrelevant stuff you replied with, it doesn't make any
>point that you haven't made already. If you really don't want to
>discuss your attraction to men,
Pull your head out of your aft end and look at the facts. Those who
like the "female" in the fighter jet are homosexual by definition.
They go for the manly type. You have shit for brains.
> it's okay, I understand that it can be
>really hard to deal with.
You have shit for brains. I don't know why I keep reading. I must be
too curious.
> But you should try to not channel these
>conflicting feelings into negative and hateful behaviours, it's not
>good for your long term well-being.
On second thought you are just a worthless peice a crap. I already
explained that you have shit for brains. You should stop posting.
Feminazi Cuntkins
wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:02:27 -0500, Feminazi Cuntkins
><jaeza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>I'll snip the irrelevant stuff you replied with, it doesn't make any
>>point that you haven't made already. If you really don't want to
>>discuss your attraction to men,
>
>Pull your head out of your aft end and look at the facts. Those who
>like the "female" in the fighter jet are homosexual by definition.
No, see, she has a pretty face, a magnificent rack and girl parts.
Boys who like girls are not homosexual. Boys who think girls are icky
and really don't want to examine why they think that's so while being
kind of obsessed with sex roles and orientation should probably come
to terms with some uncomfortable truths.
>I don't know why I keep reading. I must be too curious.
Well, as a dedicated usenet kook, you are a compulsive responder and
you like the attention of course, but I also think that you are
deriving some comfort from hearing that your feelings are natural and
should just be accepted, like your eye colour or height.
fnc, group hug!
Bob LeChevalier
>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:02:27 -0500, Feminazi Cuntkins
><jaeza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I'll snip the irrelevant stuff you replied with, it doesn't make any
>>point that you haven't made already. If you really don't want to
>>discuss your attraction to men,
>
>Pull your head out of your aft end and look at the facts. Those who
>like the "female" in the fighter jet are homosexual by definition.
Only if they are female themselves, speaking of "facts". A male who
admires the woman with the brains and self-control needed to pilot a
fighter jet (and who incidentally has to be in perfect physical
condition to be sitting in that seat - and females who are in perfect
physical condition seem to have little trouble getting hetero *men* to
appreciate them - as opposed to subhuman Nazi slime)
>They go for the manly type.
Is that why you aren't getting any?
>You have shit for brains.
says the moronic Nazi slime.
Just a hint: she probably has double *your* IQ, if not triple.
>I don't know why I keep reading.
For the same reason you keep posting. You have the self-preservation
instinct of your hero Adolf on the night he shot himself in the head.
>You should stop posting.
Take your own advice. More people appreciate her postings than
appreciate yours.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Topaz
<jaeza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>No, see, she has a pretty face, a magnificent rack and girl parts.
Why don't you stop telling men what we are supposed to like. We don't
like what you like. We like women. Maybe if you were a lesbian you
would at least understand that much. The thing in the jet fighter
acted like a man.
>Boys who like girls are not homosexual.
OK you got one right.
> Boys who think girls are icky
>and really don't want to
I have read enough of your crap. You have shit for brains.
'There are twice as many men as women with an IQ of 120-plus'
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20061130/ai_n16874397
Independent, The (London), Nov 30, 2006 by Nick Jackson
Dr Paul Irwing is a senior lecturer in organizational psychology at
Manchester University:
All the research I've done points to a gender difference in general
cognitive ability. There is a mean difference of about five IQ points.
The further you go up the distribution the more and more skewed it
becomes. There are twice as many men with an IQ of 120- plus as there
are women, there are 30 times the number of men with an IQ of 170-plus
as there are women.
I don't know why this is, all I can say is that we have a huge amount
of data.
All IQ tests are thoroughly tested and adjusted for bias, so if
anything IQ tests are biased in favor of women not men.
Topaz
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>
>>Pull your head out of your aft end and look at the facts. Those who
>>like the "female" in the fighter jet are homosexual by definition.
>
>Only if they are female themselves, speaking of "facts".
First you forgot to mention whether you saw the movie or not. Next you
forgot to mention whether you are a cocksucker or not. Any male who
likes the female in the fighter jet is the next thing to a homo.
> A male who
>admires the woman with the brains and self-control needed to pilot a
>fighter jet (and who incidentally has to be in perfect physical
>condition to be sitting in that seat - and females who are in perfect
>physical condition seem to have little trouble getting hetero *men* to
>appreciate them - as opposed to subhuman Nazi slime)
You have your head up your aft end and probably are a homo.
The Jews made a movie called "The House on Carroll Street". As soon
as the movie begins you notice how White everyone is. It does look
like 1951. It looks great. The main actress is a blonde. It is the
good old days. It is the way America was meant to be. As Archie Bunker
says "Do you remember when, girls were girls and men were men?"
So why are the Hollywood Jews making a movie like this? Well you
soon find out that the "bad guys" in the movie are Nazis.
Look at America now. There are non-Whites and race-mixing
everywhere. Anyone can see Black neighborhoods and not safe and not
where you want to live. America is slowly turning into a third world
country.
The Nazis were fighting for the real America. They were fighting for
civilization.
The Jews make the movies and control the media. You can hardly go to
the movies now without seeing race-mixing and feminism. Nazis aren't
the enemy, Jews are.
Feminazi Cuntkins
wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:34:44 -0500, Feminazi Cuntkins
><jaeza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>No, see, she has a pretty face, a magnificent rack and girl parts.
>
>Why don't you stop telling men what we are supposed to like.
Heterosexual men like pretty faces, magnificent racks and girl parts.
This isn't a controversial statement.
The fact you dispute that shows that you have very little
understanding of what interests heterosexual men. That's kind of sad,
because you have no doubt encountered a fair number of them in your
travels, but I suppose you spend so much time wrestling with your
conflicting feelings that you've never learned to really pass as one.
Which is fine, except for all these negative feelings and behaviours
that you express, it's self-hating and will ultimately hurt you. You
should come to terms with all this before it does. It's not too late
to find your soul mate and connect!
fnc, spreading the love
Bob LeChevalier
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:34:44 -0500, Feminazi Cuntkins
><jaeza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>No, see, she has a pretty face, a magnificent rack and girl parts.
>
>Why don't you stop telling men what we are supposed to like.
Men often do like women with pretty faces, a magnificent rack, and
girl parts. Of course some of us also appreciate their mental and
emotional strengths as well.
>We don't like what you like.
I hope not.
>We like women.
Especially women with pretty faces, a magnificent rack, and girl
parts.
>The thing in the jet fighter acted like a man.
She couldn't possibly do so. She had girl parts. (I guess there are
strap on thingies that can enable them to ACT like a man, but there is
no evidence that fighter pilots are more likely to do that sort of
thing.
> I have read enough of your crap. You have shit for brains.
>
>'There are twice as many men as women with an IQ of 120-plus'
And then there is you, who cannot manage 40.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 03:27:05 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> Any male who likes the female in the fighter jet is the next thing to a homo.
Not according to the pictures I've seen.
>> A male who
>>admires the woman with the brains and self-control needed to pilot a
>>fighter jet (and who incidentally has to be in perfect physical
>>condition to be sitting in that seat - and females who are in perfect
>>physical condition seem to have little trouble getting hetero *men* to
>>appreciate them - as opposed to subhuman Nazi slime)
>
>You have your head up your aft end and probably are a homo.
My wife doesn't think so, with regard to either claim, and she should
know.
> Look at America now. There are non-Whites and race-mixing
>everywhere.
Good!
Topaz
<jaeza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Heterosexual men like pretty faces, magnificent racks and girl parts.
>This isn't a controversial statement.
True, but real women are feminine.
>
>The fact you dispute that shows that you have very little
>understanding of what interests heterosexual men.
> That's kind of sad,
>because you have no doubt encountered a fair number of them in your
>travels, but I suppose you spend so much time wrestling with your
>conflicting feelings that you've never learned to really pass as one.
>
>Which is fine, except for all these negative feelings and behaviours
>that you express, it's self-hating and will ultimately hurt you. You
>should come to terms with all this before it does. It's not too late
>to find your soul mate and connect!
>
>fnc, spreading the love
>
You have shit for brains.
Topaz
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 03:27:05 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
>><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> Any male who likes the female in the fighter jet is the next thing to a homo.
>
>Not according to the pictures I've seen.
>
>>> A male who
>>>admires the woman with the brains and self-control needed to pilot a
>>>fighter jet (and who incidentally has to be in perfect physical
>>>condition to be sitting in that seat - and females who are in perfect
>>>physical condition seem to have little trouble getting hetero *men* to
>>>appreciate them - as opposed to subhuman Nazi slime)
>>
>>You have your head up your aft end and probably are a homo.
>
>My wife doesn't think so, with regard to either claim, and she should
>know.
>
You sound bisexual. Is that why you are a communist?
Feminazi Cuntkins
wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:14:19 -0500, Feminazi Cuntkins
><jaeza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Heterosexual men like pretty faces, magnificent racks and girl parts.
>>This isn't a controversial statement.
>
>True, but real women are feminine.
You sound like a person who is trying to explain the grammar of a
foreign language when you don't speak it yourself. You have some
impression of the correct answers, but you don't grok any of it
personally.
I think that if you came to terms with your own sexuality that you'd
probably understand the relations of others better, but you're
reluctant to address that for fear of what may arise.
It's the new year, be courageous, I understand that it may be scary,
but it really is worth doing, to be comfortable within oneself and not
at constant battle with urges contradictory to what you've decided is
proper. And who knows, once you become happy with yourself, someone
else may love you too, and that's always a good thing.
fnc, hny!
Bob LeChevalier
>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:53:43 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>>You have your head up your aft end and probably are a homo.
>>
>>My wife doesn't think so, with regard to either claim, and she should
>>know.
>>
>
>You sound bisexual.
Purely hetero, and monogamous as well (my wife also approves of that).
>Is that why you are a communist?
I'm not. I'm a moderately successful capitalist, in fact.
Why haven't you committed suicide like the nutcase that you worship,
Nazi? Or moved to Antarctica to be where everything is white, slime?
Michael Ejercito
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:34:44 -0500, Feminazi Cuntkins
>
>
> >No, see, she has a pretty face, a magnificent rack and girl parts.
>
> Why don't you stop telling men what we are supposed to like. We don't
> like what you like. We like women. Maybe if you were a lesbian you
> would at least understand that much. The thing in the jet fighter
> acted like a man.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:02:27 -0500, Feminazi Cuntkins
> ><jaezaeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>I'll snip the irrelevant stuff you replied with, it doesn't make any
> >>point that you haven't made already. If you really don't want to
> >>discuss your attraction to men,
>
> >Pull your head out of your aft end and look at the facts. Those who
> >like the "female" in the fighter jet are homosexual by definition.
>
> Only if they are female themselves, speaking of "facts". A male who
> admires the woman with the brains and self-control needed to pilot a
> fighter jet (and who incidentally has to be in perfect physical
> condition to be sitting in that seat - and females who are in perfect
> physical condition seem to have little trouble getting hetero *men* to
> appreciate them - as opposed to subhuman Nazi slime)
pictures of women who are athletic.
Of course, I suspect that what he wants is not on any dating web
site.
>
> >They go for the manly type.
>
> Is that why you aren't getting any?
>
> >You have shit for brains.
>
> says the moronic Nazi slime.
>
> Just a hint: she probably has double *your* IQ, if not triple.
>
> >I don't know why I keep reading.
>
> For the same reason you keep posting. You have the self-preservation
> instinct of your hero Adolf on the night he shot himself in the head.
>
> >You should stop posting.
>
> Take your own advice. More people appreciate her postings than
> appreciate yours.
>
Indeed.
Another year for Topaz to demonstrate his dishonesty and invincible
ignorance.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 03:27:05 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
>
> <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> >>Pull your head out of your aft end and look at the facts. Those who
> >>like the "female" in the fighter jet are homosexual by definition.
>
> >Only if they are female themselves, speaking of "facts".
>
> First you forgot to mention whether you saw the movie or not. Next you
> forgot to mention whether you are a cocksucker or not. Any male who
> likes the female in the fighter jet is the next thing to a homo.
You wallow around in your invincible ignorance, which is hardly
surprising since you deny the Holocaust.
>
> > A male who
> >admires the woman with the brains and self-control needed to pilot a
> >fighter jet (and who incidentally has to be in perfect physical
> >condition to be sitting in that seat - and females who are in perfect
> >physical condition seem to have little trouble getting hetero *men* to
> >appreciate them - as opposed to subhuman Nazi slime)
>
> You have your head up your aft end and probably are a homo.
You are most likely a pedophile.
>
> The Jews made a movie called "The House on Carroll Street". As soon
> as the movie begins you notice how White everyone is. It does look
> like 1951. It looks great. The main actress is a blonde. It is the
> good old days. It is the way America was meant to be. As Archie Bunker
> says "Do you remember when, girls were girls and men were men?"
>
> So why are the Hollywood Jews making a movie like this? Well you
> soon find out that the "bad guys" in the movie are Nazis.
>
> Look at America now. There are non-Whites and race-mixing
> everywhere. Anyone can see Black neighborhoods and not safe and not
> where you want to live. America is slowly turning into a third world
> country.
>
HERE is how race-mixing is done.
Michael
Topaz
<jaeza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>True, but real women are feminine.
>
>You sound like a person who is trying to explain the grammar of a
>foreign language when you don't speak it yourself. You have some
>impression of the correct answers, but you don't grok any of it
>personally.
It is impossible for normal men to love manly females. They may
pretend to like them, and to say what they want to hear to can get
sex, but that is all. We are not supposed to say we like feminine
women, that is real women, but lesbians say it all the time, look at
their ads in the personals.
Want to see real women? Here are some movies with real women in them.
Liberals must hate these movies:
Logan's Run
Nacho Libre
Rosemary's Baby
The Time Machine (original)
Charade
The Mummy
Jumanji
Journey to the Center of the Earth
12 Monkeys
The 10th Kingdom
Legend
The Bourne Identity
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
River of No Return
The Thirteenth Floor
The Birds
Shane
Labyrinth
Metropolis
King Kong
Universal Soldier
The original Star Trek shows had plenty of real women. Later Star Trek
shows replaced them with manly females. Here are some original Star
Trek's
The City on the Edge of Forever
The Squire of Gothos
Wink of an Eye
Shore Leave
All Our Yesterdays
Metamorphosis
The Empath
The Mark of Gideon
The Menagerie
Where No Man has gone before
Charlie X
The Apple
Requiem for Methuselah
For the World is Hollow
Miri
Who Morns For Adonais
>
>I think that if you came to terms with your own sexuality that you'd
>probably understand the relations of others better, but you're
>reluctant to address that for fear of what may arise.
>
>It's the new year, be courageous, I understand that it may be scary,
>but it really is worth doing, to be comfortable within oneself and not
>at constant battle with urges contradictory to what you've decided is
>proper. And who knows, once you become happy with yourself, someone
>else may love you too, and that's always a good thing.
>
>fnc, hny!
You have shit for brains.
Topaz
The movie is called "Avatar".
Topaz
"There's this hilarious disconnect in the sheeple brain, where they
have been progressively brainwashed over a forty year period into
believing that once they have committed suicide themselves, an
identical civilization will be left behind except with a different
demographic makeup. They will yank the white tablecloth out from under
the dinnerware and the society will remain standing, only
melanin-enriched but otherwise the same.
It's like white people all over the planet were each taking turns
shooting themselves in the head with the same gun, convinced when they
have all killed themselves they will leave the perfect society behind.
I've got bad news for you. What you think of as civilization is joined
at the hip with the Indo-European gene pool. It's not even like oil
and water because it's all an unbroken continuum.
Culture is gene expression. If enough Mexicans inhabit any area on the
planet, that area will look exactly like Mexico in short order.
There's no piece of land on Earth that has a special gas exuded by the
local soil that makes flush toilets, clean running water, air
conditioning and the rule of law. There's no geographic location that
has these properties inherently. Irregardless of whether they are
bright enough to see it and understand why, whites tend to terraform
their surroundings to reflect what is inside them. Everything they
take for granted as the human standard, is in fact a projection of
their own qualities out onto a world that by and large is completely
indifferent to them.
America has already slipped past the demographic failsafe point. There
ain't no going back. Just like the nation formerly known as Rhodesia,
you will hear all sorts of yammering and analysis and whining but
nothing can stop Rhodesia from becoming Zimbabwe once all the
Rhodesians leave. It's a done deal.
There's no legislation. There's no emergency action committee. There's
no orchestrated government reform program. There's no mission
statement. There's no declaration of goals or judicial decision. Once
you change the genetic composition of a country, that country will
come to reflect it's demographics, not the other way around.
I went to high school in Chicago. Trust me, thirty years ago it didn't
look like the background of that news report. That was back when
Chicago schools were the best in the country and had some of the
highest scholastic scores in the nation. Back then, next to nobody
dropped out, ever.
You can't keep the street lights working with only half a nation of
high school graduates. You can't find the manpower to keep the ATM
machines running, to keep the power plant maintained at the dam, to
keep the nuclear reactor running. You can't have good medical care
with no good doctors. You can't have bridges that don't collapse with
no engineers.
America is just like Rhodesia during desegregation. All those
Rhodesians who talked about the coming era of rainbow folk dancing and
singing hand-in-hand with their African friends playing little
ukeleles, where are they now? The wind howls. Tumbleweeds blow past.
Two rabid wild dogs fight over a human ribcage in the streets where
the electricity went off a decade ago and has never come back on.
Where are all those Rhodesians looking forward to an era of peace and
harmony now? Where are they? Answer me. Raped and left for dead.
They're all wormfood now. Their farms burned to the ground, their
children strangled, their wives gangraped and forced to run naked
screaming with burning tire necklaces.
Fools. Dust in the wind. Shot in the back of the head and left for the
buzzards in some ditch on the veldt long ago.
It doesn't matter if I'm the only human being out of six billion on
the planet who knows this. Irregardless of the forcible consensus,
this is the way it will come to pass. I will be demonstrated right and
they will turn out to have been catastrophically wrong. Wishing
otherwise never makes anything so.
In another ten years, Amerikwa will be utterly unrecognizable. I
predict that the first thing that will hit you no matter where you get
off a plane in that country will be the smell. Watch and see."
DonnaGiorno
Topaz
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. The Jews control the mass media in most
Western countries. Most people don't know about the Balfour
Declaration. During World War One, Zionist Jews offered to use their
control of the press to bring America into World War One if Britain
would promise them Palestine. This offer was dubbed the Balfour
Declaration. If the Jews had enough media control and influence to
push America into World War One in 1917, what else have they done with
their power?
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.
Michael Ejercito
> Culture is gene expression. If enough Mexicans inhabit any area on the
> planet, that area will look exactly like Mexico in short order.
>
and private parts blue while at the same time Greeks were building
cities?
Would not the Greeks of that era have viewed the British as
incapable of building any sort of civilization?
Michael
Michael Ejercito
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Herald
March 30, 1992
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/5710/how-does-a-holocaust-happen
ONE DAY 16 OR 17 YEARS AGO, my father, who rarely blows up over
anything, lost his temper over a piece of bread.
It was lunchtime, and my siblings and I were goofing around at the
table. One of us, in play, threw a slice of bread at another. My
father exploded.
"What's the matter with you? That's food! Don't you ever let me see
you treat food like again!"
I remember being startled by his angry outburst. The words, however,
didn't really register. It wasn't until much later -- years later --
that I finally understood that flash of anger: To a man who has lived
through hunger, seen those around him die of starvation, nearly
starved to death himself -- to such a man, a piece of bread is not a
joke.
On Passover, which ended a few days ago, observant Jews do not eat
ordinary bread. Instead they eat matzo -- the dry, flat, unleavened
"bread of affliction" meant to remind them of their forebears'
deliverance from slavery in Egypt. At the ceremonial Passover meal,
they read aloud from the Haggadah, which tells the story of the
Exodus:
For in every single generation generation, they rise against us to
annihilate us.
In all the generations of Jewish history, never did "they" come as
close to succeeding as the Germans did in this very century, one brief
generation ago.
On the last day of Passover in 1944, the Nazis arrived in my father's
village of Legina -- a microscopic dot in the Slovak countryside, hard
by the border with Hungary. The knock on the Jakubovices' window came
on a Sunday morning before daybreak; like Legina's other Jews, they
were ordered to gather their things and be ready to leave in half an
hour's time. They were put on horse-drawn wagons and carried to
Satoraljaujhely ("Ujhely" for short), a large Hungarian town a few
miles away.
For six weeks, they stayed in Ujhely's Jewish ghetto, which grew
increasingly crowded as Jews from all over the region were brought in.
After a month, the transports began. A tenth of the ghetto's
population was removed at a time; my father and his family were taken
away in the third transport. On a Thursday, with only the belongings
they could carry by hand, they and 3,000 other Jews were marched
through the streets to the train station -- to the waiting boxcars. As
each car filled, its doors were chained and padlocked.
They were bound for a place called Auschwitz.
The train heading north into Poland, my father assumed, was taking him
and his family and the other Jews who'd been corralled into Ujhely to
a work site somewhere.
How could he have known otherwise?
How could he have guessed that he and all those boxcars crammed with
Jews were just a tiny fragment of the vast works that had been
constructed to annihilate the Jews of Europe? How could he have
understood that all over the continent, Jews by the millions were
being uprooted from their homelands -- lands, in some cases, where
Jews had dwelled for 900 years -- to be sent to special killing
grounds where all the science, industry, and manpower at Germany's
command would be pooled for purposes of quickly and efficiently
exterminating them? How could he have imagined that the world would
allow this horror to take place -- a horror so unprecedented that a
new word, genocide, had to be invented to contain it? How could he
have dreamed that in less than seven years, two out of every three
Jews in Europe would be a corpse, or the ashes of a corpse?
The train out of Ujhely moved for three days. It stopped early on a
Sunday morning, six weeks exactly since that knock on the window in
Legina. The doors were unchained. Suddenly there were screaming
guards, barking dogs, floodlights. The boxcar opened onto a ramp, at
the top of which a man with a crop in his hand waved people to the
right and to the left.
My grandparents, David and Leah Jakubovic, were waved to the right. So
were their 10-year-old son, Yrvin, and 8-year-old daughter, Alice.
They died in the gas chamber that day.
My father's teen-aged brother, Zoltan, was gassed a few days later.
His sister Franceska suffered horribly for a while; she died the
following spring.
Somehow my father survived Auschwitz, the death march to Mauthausen,
the camps at Melk and Ebensee. Somehow he survived the typhoid fever,
the unstoppable diarrhea, the starvation that reduced him -- at 19
years of age -- to 65 pounds.
I cannot explain the miracle of his survival, let alone the fact that
he can still laugh, and love. That was -- is -- God's doing.
But the Holocaust was man's. The Germans could get away with
systematically butchering 6 million Jews because good men and women,
through their indifference, let them get away with it.
For in every single generation generation, they rise against us to
annihilate us.
Today is Holocaust Remembrance Day, a part of the struggle against
indifference, a reminder that what could never happen has happened.
And can again.
For only one thing can stop a holocaust: memory. On this one day, at
least, let us remember the millions of innocents who died, and honor
the few who survived. But above all let us reflect, if only briefly,
that in the end nothing can shield us from the building of a new
Auschwitz except our undimmed rage at the old Auschwitz.
(Jeff Jacoby is the Boston Herald's chief editorial writer.)
Feminazi Cuntkins
wrote:
>
>It is impossible for normal men
All of your postings have demonstrated that you don't know much about
normal men, however one wants to define normal. You have a severely
skewed impression of this because you can't relate to them but also
can't relate to your true self.
You'll be far better off when you admit that the reason you think
Michelle Rodriguez is icky is because she's a girl, and you've
probably seen _Avatar_ a hundred times already because of those
beautiful blue men with their tiny loin cloths.
fnc, mmmm
Bob LeChevalier
>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:14:20 -0500, Feminazi Cuntkins
><jaeza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>True, but real women are feminine.
>>
>>You sound like a person who is trying to explain the grammar of a
>>foreign language when you don't speak it yourself. You have some
>>impression of the correct answers, but you don't grok any of it
>>personally.
>
>It is impossible for normal men to love manly females.
How would you know? You are about as far from normal as they come.
>They may pretend to like them, and to say what they want to hear to can get
>sex, but that is all.
Why would they want to pretend, if it were impossible to love them,
slime?
>We are not supposed to say we like feminine women,
You say all kinds of things you aren't supposed to say. Most of which
make no sense to anyone sane.
>The original Star Trek shows had plenty of real women.
Uhuru was pretty cool, and quite attractive. But of course Uhuru
wasn't a real woman. She was a character, played by an actress.
> You have shit for brains.
You have shit for gonads, slime.
Bob LeChevalier
>"There's this hilarious disconnect in the sheeple brain, where they
>have been progressively brainwashed over a forty year period into
>believing that once they have committed suicide themselves
Is THAT why Adolf did it?
Bob LeChevalier
>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.
Of course drafting all the unemployed into the army probably had a lot
to do with that. So did abrogating their treaty obligations to pay
various war reparations for the previous war,
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.
The US achieved even greater economic improvement, without changing
its treatment of Jews at all, and blew Germany out of the water by
1945.
>After six years of relentless agitation, the Jews pushed England and
>France into war with Germany.
Which Germany lost, thereby showing its lack of superiority.
>Only two years later, FDR and his cabal of Jews provoked a war with Japan (and Germany).
FDR bombed Pearl Harbor? I doubt it.
Germany declared war on the US, not vice versa.
Topaz
Here are some quotes from Brain Sex, the Real Difference between men
and women
By Anne Moir And David Jessel
They are equal only in their common membership of the species,
humankind. To maintain that they are the same in aptitude, skill or
behavior is to build a society based on a biological and scientific
lie.
The sexes are different because their brains are different. The brain,
the chief administrative and emotional organ of life, is differently
constructed in men and in women; it processes information in a
different way, which results in different perceptions, priorities and
behavior.
Until recently, behavior differences between the sexes have been
explained away by social conditioning - the expectations of parents,
whose own attitudes, in turn, reflect the expectations of society;
little boys are told that they shouldn't cry, and that the way to the
top depends on masculine assertion and aggression. Scant attention was
paid to the biological view that we may be what we are because of the
way we are made. Today, there is too much new biological evidence for
the sociological argument to prevail.
The biggest behavioral difference between men and women is the
natural, innate aggression of men, which explains to a large degree
their historical dominance of the species. Men didn't learn aggression
as one the tactics of the sex war. We do not teach our boy children to
be aggressive - indeed, we try vainly to unteach it. Even researchers
most hostile to the acknowledgement of sex differences agree that this
is a male feature, and one which cannot be explained away by social
conditioning.
There has seldom been a greater divide between what intelligent,
enlightened opinion presumes - that men and women have the same brain
- and what science knows - that they do not.
It cannot be stressed often enough that this book concerns itself
with the average man and the average woman.
The area where the biggest differences have been found lies in what
scientists call 'spatial ability'. That's being able to picture
things, their shape, position, geography and proportion, accurately in
the mind's eye - all skills that are crucial to the practical ability
to work with three-dimensional objects or drawings. One scientist who
has reviewed the extensive literature on the subject concludes, 'The
fact of the male's superiority in spatial ability is not in dispute'.
It is confirmed by literally hundreds of different scientific studies.
99 per cent of all patents applied for today are registered by men.
Scientists know that they walk on social eggshells when they venture
any theory about human behavior. But researchers into sex differences
are increasingly impatient with the polite attempt to find a social
explanation for these differences. As Camilla Benbow now says now says
of her studies showing male superiority in mathematically gifted
children, 'After 15 years looking for an environmental explanation and
getting zero results, I gave up.' She readily admitted to us her
belief that the difference in ability has a biological basis.
The differences are apparent in the very first hours after birth. It
has been shown that girl babies are much more interested than boys in
people and faces; the boys seem just as happy with an object dangled
in front of them.
Embryonic boy babies are exposed to a colossal dose of male hormone at
the critical time when their brains are beginning to take shape.
The brains of male and female mammals, from rodents to primates,
exhibiting hormonally mediated differences in neuro-transmitter
levels, neural connections, and cell and nuclear volume, strongly
suggests that similar sexual dimorphism of structure and function
exists human brains as well.
In women the functional division between the left and the right sides
of the brain is less clearly defined. Both the left and the right
sides of the female brain are involved in verbal and visual abilities.
Men's brains are more specialized.
The left side of the brain is almost exclusively set aside for the
control or verbal abilities, the right side for visual.
And the latest research had shown that the more connections people
have between the left and right hemispheres, the more articulate and
fluent they are. The finding provides a further explanation for
women's verbal dexterity. But could the corpus callosum provide the
answer to another mystery, could it provide a somewhat solution to the
secret of female intuition? Is the physical capacity of a woman to
connect and relate more pieces of information than a man explained not
by witchcraft, after all, but merely by superior switchgear? Since
women are in general better at recognizing the emotional nuances in
voice, gesture and facial expression, a whole range of sensory
information. They can deduce more from such information because they
have a greater capacity than men to integrate and cross-relate verbal
and visual information.
A woman may be less able to separate emotion from reason because of
the way the female brain is organized. The female brain has emotional
capacities on both sides of the brain, plus there is more information
exchanged between the two sides of the brain. The emotional side is
more integrated with the verbal side of the brain.
These discernible, measurable differences in behavior have been
imprinted long before external influences have had a chance to work.
They reflect a basic difference in the newborn brain which we already
know about - the superior male efficiency in spatial ability, the
greater female skill in speech.
Boys want to explore areas, spaces and things because their brain bias
predisposes them to these aspects of the environment. Girls like to
talk and to listen because that is what their brains are better
designed to do.
Even in the Israeli kibbutz, where deliberate attempts have been made
to play down the differences between boys and girls, and where the
engineered society proclaims a virtual interchangeability of the
sexes, it was found that in all age groups, while girls cooperated,
shared and acted affectionately, boys engaged in more acts of conflict
such as seizing other children's toys.
The manifestation of masculine behavior in otherwise fully female
women is a much-debated subject. There are, however, clinical findings
which point the way to a possible explanation. Most of them concern
women who have been exposed to an abnormal level of male hormone in
the womb during the critical period of brain development.
The pursuit of power is overwhelmingly and universally a male trait.
On the math part of tests, boys do significantly better, and the
success ratio of boys to girls increases with the level of difficulty.
On a score of 420+ out of a possible 800, boys beat girls 1.5 : 1. At
500+, the ratio is more than 2 : 1. At 600+ it is over 4 : 1. At the
highest range, of 700+ the ratio is 13 : 1.
Greater freedom of expression has led to a greater awareness of our
differences.. how long will it be before we revert to type, how long
before those same magazines are talking of the New Romanticism - 'At
Last, We Can be Feminine Again' - or running features on the 'Return
of the Macho'?
Diversity is a biological fact, while equality is a political,
ethical, and social precept.
Liberation condemns the sexual double standard - why should sex
outside of marriage be 'all right' for men, all wrong for women? The
standards are indeed double, in that an extra-marital affair does mean
different things, and has a different level of importance, for men and
women. 'It didn't mean anything', mutters the man, when his
indiscretion is revealed - and it almost certainly didn't. He says
that he loves her just as much as ever, and he probably does. But the
wife sees his affair as an assault on what is to her most precious -
intimacy and fidelity. If she were to embark on an affair, you can
bet that is would 'mean' a lot to her. She cannot forgive him; for she
cannot even understand him. Their brains and their hormones have made
them strangers to one another.
The difference between the attitude and proficiency of men and women
as parents again reflects those basic differences of the brain. In
this most intimate of relationships, between parent and child, it is
the mother rather than the father who is more alert to the nuance and
the non-verbal hint, more naturally responsive to a baby's needs.
The Israeli kibbutz was not designed specifically to abolish the
Jewish mother. But in these forcing-houses of social engineering,
girls and boys grew up with virtually interchangeable roles. Children
were reared communally, and the household duties of cooking and
laundry were a community, rather than a family responsibility. The
expectation was that, with the passing of several neutral generations,
sexual differentiation would evaporate, and sexist stereotyping would
become a memory as remote as slavery is to the newest generation of
America's blacks.
But that is not what happened. Three of four generations later, the
children of the kibbutz are still clinging to their traditional
roles..again looking at the experience of the Israeli kibbutzim.
Social engineers worked hard to iron out classic gender stereotypes at
an early age: 'All children are dressed in the same work-clothes..
there is no sex difference in the style of haircut' Even so.. The boys
went on to study physics and become engineers, the girls to study
sociology and become teachers. It is telling proof of what we now know
- that the minds of men and women are different, that ultimately boys
and men live in a world of things and space, girls and women in a
world of people and relationships.
Nobody gets paid without performing. Because men try harder more
often, they will, if not forcibly prevented, succeed more often than
women in attaining highly-paid positions.
Little of this is surprising in the light of what we now know about
the biological springs of aggression and dominance.
Just as there are physical dissimilarities between males and females
(size, body shape, skeleton, teeth, age of puberty, etc.) there are
equally dramatic differences in brain functioning.
There is solid and consistent evidence from scientists all over the
world that a biochemical influence in the womb determines and directs
the structure and function or our brains. Through the influence of the
hormones the brain cells 'acquire a "set".. highly resistant to change
after birth'. Male hormone organizes the developing brain into a male
pattern which leads to male behavior. Absence of the male hormone
means that the brain persists in a female pattern, resulting in a
female pattern of behavior. This organization of the brain into a male
or female neural network is permanent; it can only be modified by
altering the hormonal milieu of the womb.
We can hope for an end to the slogans, for slogans do not change
facts, and an end to the sterile pursuit of artificial equality; an
abandonment of the arduous and unnatural process of denial and ,
instead, the enjoyment of our natural selves; the greening of a new
relationship between men and women; a celebration of the difference.
Topaz
"The first step to understanding the cultural terrorism being
waged against men in this country (the USA) is you must, I
repeat, you must acknowledge that what is occurring is communist
totalitarianism. It is police state activity.
Feminism is homosexuality. Feminism is communism.
When you understand that simple statement above, the rest is
easy.
Feminism rejects masculine roles because masculinity is the glue
that holds any healthy society together. If you contribute to
feminism in any form, you are contributing to the collapse of the
American nation-state system, the greatest nation on this planet
and the nation our founding fathers arranged as a distinct,
masculine country.
Lesbianism is rampant in feminism because feminists believe that
they are men stuck in the body of a woman. Feminists cannot draw
any psychological nor biological distinction that separates them
from men. They simply do not understand their own natural
biological responsibility and responsibility to the culture in
which they were born into. Lesbianism (feminism), and
homosexuality in general, is a direct attack upon the foundations
of society (the family). With the disposal of the family and the
removal of masculinity from the nation-state system, feminists
have learned that they can incorporate a police state in the
heart of America and use judicial oligarchs to make it law...
The instant you
get an American female pregnant you are finished. Life as you
know it will cease to exist. The system knows and
teaches its disciples to have sex freely and without protection
so that either the abortion industry prevails or the child
support system of terror prevails. No matter the outcome, you
will be contributing to the police state if either the two
examples above occur (but if the marginal American female decides
to keep the child you will be terrorized by the police state for
decades)... I don't care how much these women tell you they love you,
want to have a
family, blah blah blah--you will suffer in the end. If the girl
you are with wakes up one morning and no longer wants to be with
you, she has thousands of government employees standing by to
assist her. She has agencies standing by to set her up in a new
home, agencies to help her with divorce, agencies to help her
with lawyers, agencies to help her come after you financially and
you can do nothing about it. Nothing. This is how police states
work and you are living in one right now. The marriage 'contract'
is a FRAUD. It means NOTHING. It is worthless. Don't be conned by
it. American women marry to get 50% of YOUR labor in seven years
of marriage (on average). In seven years of marriage these women
take 50% of all that you own and then go after the 50% you
haven't earned yet. Ask around in any community across America
and see that I am right in tens of thousands of instances. This
is a national system of terror...
spicota
Topaz
<meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So why were people in Britain running around painting their faces
>and private parts blue while at the same time Greeks were building
>cities?
>
> Would not the Greeks of that era have viewed the British as
>incapable of building any sort of civilization?
>
The Jews control your media and your mind.
The Jews Are Our Misfortune
By Dr. William Pierce
If you've been listening to many of my broadcasts you will know that
the issue I talk about most often is that of media control. In nearly
every broadcast I have pointed out that the people who control the
mass media of news and entertainment are able to manipulate the
opinions and attitudes of about 95 per cent of the population. I have
pointed out
that the media bosses do this manipulation deliberately and in
collusion with one another, taking advantage of the compelling need
most people have to conform their ideas and their behavior to a
perceived norm.
The media bosses use their control over the mass media of
entertainment -- and to a lesser extent over the news media -- to
create an artificial norm that is presented to the public through
television, motion pictures, advertising, and other media, and this
artificial norm is the one perceived as real by most of the public.
Through their control of public opinion the media bosses also control
the democratic political process and governmental policy in a way that
is advantageous to them and disadvantageous to the White public. And
these media bosses are overwhelmingly Jews.
That has been the message I have presented over and over again in many
of these broadcasts. I have talked about different facets of Jewish
media control and have presented different specifics, different
details, in various broadcasts. I've discussed a number of different
Hollywood films or television shows as specific examples of the way in
which the Jews use their media control to brainwash the public, to
promote
fashions and styles and behavior that are harmful to our people but
that advance the long-term schemes of the Jews to further dominate and
exploit our society.
(Some of this may be outdated today, but it still explains why things
are the way they are)
I've talked about specific Jews who control various segments of the
mass media, and I've pointed out specific instances of the destructive
way in which they use their control. I've talked about the Jewish
media boss Sumner Redstone and his control of MTV and CBS and the
Hollywood film studio Paramount Pictures. I've talked about the Jewish
media boss Michael Eisner and his control of the Disney Company and
ABC. I've talked about the Jewish media boss Gerald Levin and his
control of Time Warner and CNN. I've talked about the Jewish media
boss Edgar Bronfman and his control of the largest segment of the
popular music industry and Universal Studios in Hollywood. And I've
talked about dozens of other Jewish media bosses and the media they
control and the specific ways in
which they use those media. In particular, during the past few months
I've talked about several recent Hollywood films which deliberately
target teenaged White girls and brainwash them with the notion that it
is fashionable for them to have sex with Black males.
And of course, I've talked about the Jewish control of the news media
as well as the entertainment media. In a way similar to their use of
the entertainment media to set popular fashions, the Jewish media
bosses distort and censor the news in order to give the public a
distorted picture of what is happening in the world. I've given
several very
specific examples of this Jewish management of the news in recent
months.
I've talked about the total blackout at the national level of the news
of the atrocious rape and massacre of Whites in Wichita, Kansas, by
Blacks last December, and I've talked about the almost total
suppression of the news of the Black racial attacks on Whites in
Seattle in the Mardi Gras riot at the end of February this year. I
also talked about
the downplaying of the racial aspects of the Black rioting in
Cincinnati in April of this year, about the failure of the news media
outside the immediate Cincinnati area to mention the deliberate
targeting of Whites, especially White women, by the Black rioters. And
I described the gross distortions in the news coverage of the racial
politics in York,
Pennsylvania, that led to the current White mayor of York being
charged in May with the killing of a Black during a Black race riot in
York 32 years ago.
I have pointed out repeatedly how all of this suppression of the news
and distortion of the news is aimed at creating and maintaining a
false picture in the public mind of racial conflict in the United
States. In this false picture Whites always are the aggressors, Blacks
or other non-Whites are the innocent victims, and the root of all
racial conflict
is White racism.
In a number of my broadcasts I've discussed at length why the Jews do
what they do: why they use their media control in such a deceptive and
destructive way, what their motives are. I've also talked about how
they collaborate. I've pointed out that their propaganda policies are
not formulated independently, but that they have a coherent party line
that
they all follow. I've given a number of specific examples of this.
Well, all of these things that I've talked about have not gone
unnoticed by the Jewish media bosses themselves. When people expose
their activities or their scheming they pay attention. In particular,
they have been paying attention to these American Dissident Voices
broadcasts and to the work of my organization, the National Alliance.
They read what's on our Web sites at natvan.com and natall.com and
resistance.com, and they talk about it among themselves. This shows up
pretty clearly in the uniform way in which their media respond to us.
Whether it's the Associated Press or Time magazine or the Washington
Post or a television news commentator anywhere in the United States,
they always use the same
phrasing in talking about us. They always use the word "hate" in
referring to us. They always say that the National Alliance is the
"most dangerous organized hate group" in America, despite the fact
that all we do is disseminate to the public the truth about what
they're doing. That's what they regard as "dangerous" and as "hate."
If you want to see a current indicator of the fact that they do think
about us, go to the Web site promoting Steven Spielberg's new
movie,A.I. There you'll see a parody of a part of the National
Alliance's Web site in the form of a page headed "Who Is the
Anti-Robot Militia?" It's obviously copied, almost word for word, from
the page "Who Is the National Alliance?" on our Web site. It's
difficult for me to understand what they hoped to accomplish with this
parody. Perhaps they believe that it will make people take us less
seriously.
Somewhat less quirky but much more directly deceptive are their
standard smokescreen responses. It used to be that whenever I would
raise the issue of Jewish monopoly control of the mass media of news
and entertainment during an interview or on a call-in program, I would
hear the response from a Jew or an apologist for the Jews: "What about
Ted
Turner? He's not a Jew," as if that negated everything I had said. Of
course, that response was used before Ted Turner's CNN was taken over
by the very Jewish Time Warner. And now that Ted Turner has been eased
out of all decision-making positions in the cable news network he
built and has been replaced by Jews, one doesn't hear the Ted Turner
response any longer.
The standard responses today, the ones I hear as often as I used to
hear the Ted Turner response, are the "it's the shareholders" and the
"it's the big bankers." Whenever I start naming names -- whenever I
begin talking about the control over the media wielded by Michael
Eisner or Sumner Redstone, for example, a Jew will pop up with the
response:
"Those guys don't control the media. It's the shareholders who control
the media. Eisner and Redstone are just employees. The shareholders
tell them what to do." A variation on this theme is, "Eisner and
Redstone don't own the media. It's the big banks that own all of the
media, and most of the big bankers are Gentiles."
Well, of course, that's not really true, and they know it's not true.
The big Jewish media bosses are mostly quite autonomous. Sumner
Redstone, for example, owns outright two-thirds of the shares in his
media empire. His personal fortune is more than 12 billion dollars,
according to Forbes magazine this month. I'm quite sure he doesn't
check
with any shareholders before he dreams up some new piece of
race-mixing filth for MTV.
As for Gentile bankers telling the Jewish media bosses what kind of
propaganda they must produce for the public, that's total nonsense. I
haven't yet done a study of the investment banking industry to
determine what percentage of Jews and what percentage of Gentiles are
involved in it, but one thing that's certain is that the Gentile
bankers would faint dead away at the thought of telling Jewish media
bosses such as Michael Eisner or the Sulzberger family or the
Newhouses or Sumner Redstone to cut back on the race-mixing
propaganda. Gentile bankers as a class are rich, deracinated capons,
whose only interest is money.
Every Jewish propaganda medium -- CBS or MTV or Time magazine or the
New York Times -- is staffed from top to bottom with Jews, and they
all know what they're doing. They work as a tribe, as a swarm of
termites gnawing at the foundations of our existence. There is total
agreement among the media Jews as to the general thrust of their
propaganda. They may disagree on many of the details -- they may even
compete against each other for a bigger slice of the media pie -- but
all agree on the general goals of degrading and subverting Gentile
civilization, of corrupting Gentile institutions, of mongrelizing our
race. Again, the Jews work as a tribe, and that is the source of their
strength and their success.
Gentile bankers, on the other hand, work only for themselves. They
would not dream of combining and using their financial strength to
protect our people from the Jews. They are terrified of the Jews, of
the media. The more money they have, the more selfish and the more
cowardly they are. The huge difference, the decisive difference,
between the Jews and our people is that they work as a tribe, and we
work as individuals. They
work together, rich Jews and poor Jews, for their common tribal
interests, against us, and until now we have failed to organize
effectively to defend ourselves against them.
Anyway, my point is that their defense against my exposure of their
activities and their power over our government is orchestrated - that
is, they've all gotten together and decided what their defense will be
-- and it's a deliberate lie. As I continue to expose the destructive
activities of the Jewish media bosses, you will continue to hear them
and their apologists respond that they really don't have any power,
that it's the Gentile shareholders and the Gentile bankers who control
the media. A lot of dimwits will believe that lie. A lot of couch
potatoes, a lot of soccer moms, a lot of baseball fans, a lot of
lemmings, will
believe that it's not the Jew Sumner Redstone who deliberately uses
MTV to corrupt White teenagers; instead it's some cabal of Gentile
shareholders and Gentile bankers who tell him what to do, and Redstone
is only an employee who follows their orders.
I think it's time for us to orchestrate our exposure of the Jewish
media. I think it's about time for the public, lemmings and all, to
begin hearing a uniform charge against them, a uniform statement of
our opposition to them. How about this: The Jews are our misfortune.
That's simple, and it's true, and it's easy to remember. Repeat after
me: The
Jews are our misfortune. Let's use that statement. Let's let everyone
hear it. Let's impress it on everyone's consciousness: The Jews are
our misfortune.
Of course, when I say the Jews are our misfortune, I'm not talking
only about the Jewish media bosses. I'm not talking only about the
Jews at the top, such as Sumner Redstone and the Sulzbergers and
Michael Eisner and the others who formulate and direct the propaganda
line against Gentile society; I'm talking about the whole tribe, and I
believe that message comes across in the statement, the Jews are our
misfortune. Let me tell you what the standard lemming response will be
to that statement, the response that they have been taught and will
parrot back.
First, from the religious lemmings it will be something like this:
"Oh, no, the Jews aren't our misfortune, we owe everything to the
Jews. Don't you know that Jesus was a Jew and God was his father? That
makes God a Jew. We must do what the Jews tell us. They are God's
people." I'm sure that argument is embarrassing to some of the more
sophisticated
apologists for the Jews, but many Christian Fundamentalists use it,
and I've heard it often.
From the secular lemmings it will be more like: "Don't you know that
Freud and Einstein and Salk were Jews? We wouldn't have a space
program if it weren't for Einstein. We wouldn't have a cure for polio
if it weren't for Salk. The Jews are our fortune, not our misfortune."
Well, of course, our space program has practically nothing to do with
Einstein or his Jewishness. Gentile thinkers envisioned it and
pioneered both its theoretical basis and its practical development.
The German theoretician, Hermann Oberth, and the Russian, Konstantin
Tsiolkovsky, were two of the Gentiles who independently demonstrated
mathematically the feasibility of space travel in the early years of
the last century. The American rocket pioneer Robert Goddard and the
German Wernher von Braun designed actual rockets and built the
vehicles which were the precursors of today's space ships. Jews didn't
become involved until it became glamorous and profitable. And the
development of a polio vaccine hardly would have missed a beat if
Jonas Salk had gone into the garment business instead of medicine. He
was one of a team, and he got the credit for the work of others as
well as for his own work.
The reasons we hear these silly and groundless claims in the first
place about how much we owe the Jews -- the reasons are Jewish media
control and Jewish tribalism, Jewish support for their own. Freud was
given the enormous buildup he received for his theorizing about anal
personalities and penis envy and the like because he was a Jew, not
because of any genuine merit in his theorizing. Other Jewish writers
recognized him as one of their own and propelled him to a position of
undeserved authority, and his theories ultimately did an enormous
amount of damage to the development of our understanding of psychology
and mental disease. Einstein was a competent mathematical physicist,
but a great deal of the publicity he received was based on the fact
that he was a Jew rather than on the merits of his work. As in the
case of Salk, Jewish publicists gave Einstein credit for the work of
others as well as for his own work.
What we must do is look at the balance sheet. Is the damage done to
our race by Karl Marx and all of his Jewish followers in the communist
movement -- the selective murder of more than 30 million of the best
of our people in Europe during the past century -- offset by whatever
contributions Einstein and Salk and other Jews have made -- even if
they did everything their Jewish boosters claim for them? Certainly,
there have been many other Jews who were competent and creative
engineers and scientists besides Einstein and Salk. Not every clever
Jew became a lawyer or a scriptwriter or a pawn shop owner or a
middleman. Some became chemists or mathematicians or physicists. But
can all of them together make up for the mass murders Lazar Kaganovich
perpetrated
aginst the Ukrainians, for the rapes and murders of German civilians
instigated by Ilya Ehrenburg, for the Eastern European girls still
being forced into sexual slavery on a huge scale today by Israeli
slave dealers?
I think not. And I have not yet put on the balance sheet what the
Jewish masters of America's mass media have done and are doing to us.
What can possibly compensate White Americans for the deliberate,
malevolent corruption of our young people by just one Jewish gangster
like Sumner Redstone and his MTV? The race-mixing, culture-destroying,
hip-hop filth churned out by Sumner Redstone's MTV seven days a week
is the single most destructive influence in American life today. And
of course, Redstone doesn't produce this filth all by himself. He has
thousands of Jews working for him at every level, not only in MTV but
also in CBS and in Paramount Pictures and in all of his other media
properties.
And although MTV, targeting White teenagers as it does, may seem the
most blatantly and maliciously destructive of the Jewish media, it is
hardly much worse than some of the filth being poured into the minds
of the American public by Michael Eisner's Disney empire: especially
by its Miramax films division under the Weinstein brothers. The fact
that much of the entertainment produced by Eisner's Disney Company is
relatively nnocuous does not compensate for the fact that some of it
is pure poison. The poison is being introduced gradually, more and
more each year, and it is having its effect. When the Disney Company
was entirely a Gentile company a few years ago, its output of
ntertainment may sometimes have been excessively bland, but none of it
was poison designed to corrupt White Americans.
And what can possibly compensate on our balance sheet for what the
Jewish news media are doing in their deliberate, calculated distortion
of the picture of the world seen by the American public. It is a
picture which has been designed to confuse White Americans, to
undermine their self-confidence, to induce feelings of racial guilt in
them. Just one example: the systematic suppression of the news of
Black crimes against White people and the exaggeration of the news of
every White crime against non-Whites is not a fluke. It is done
routinely by all of the Jewish news media: by the New York Times, by
the Washington Post, by Time magazine and Newsweek magazine, by CNN
and ABC News and CBS News and NBC News and all the rest. And
interracial crime is just one issue. The relations between the sexes;
immigration; the foreign relations of the United States with the rest
of the world, especially in the Middle East; and a hundred other
important issues are similarly distorted in their portrayal by the
media. This deliberate distortion of the public's view of the world
has done irreparable damage to the American system of government and
to American society. And again: the distortion has been deliberate,
planned, systematic, and intended to do harm to us. No number of funny
Jewish comedians, or successful Jewish entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley
or on Wall Street, or clever Jewish medical researchers can compensate
for this harm.
When we look at the balance sheet the conclusion is clear beyond any
doubt: the Jews are our misfortune. It's way past time for us to
accept this conclusion, to overcome our fears of being labeled
"anti-Semitic" for accepting this conclusion, to brush aside these
fears which have been instilled in us by the propaganda of the mass
media, and then to begin working to improve our fortunes.
Topaz
by Theodore J. O'Keefe
Nothing has been more effective in establishing the authenticity of
the Holocaust story in the minds of Americans than the terrible scenes
US troops discovered when they entered German concentration camps at
the close of World War II.
At Dachau, Buchenwald, Dora, Mauthausen, and other work and detention
camps, horrified US infantrymen encountered heaps of dead and dying
inmates, emaciated and diseased. Survivors told them hair-raising
stories of torture and slaughter, and backed up their claims by
showing the GIs crematory ovens, alleged execution gas chambers,
supposed implements of torture, and even shrunken heads and
lampshades, gloves, and handbags purportedly made from skin flayed
from dead inmates.
US government authorities, mindful that many Americans who remembered
the atrocity stories fed them during World War I still doubted the
Allied propaganda directed against the Hitler regime, resolved to
"document" what the GIs had found in the camps. Prominent newsmen
and politicians were flown in to see the harrowing evidence, while
the US Army Signal Corps filmed and photographed the scenes for
posterity. Famous journalist Edward R. Murrow reported, in tones of
horror, but no longer of disbelief, what he had been told and shown,
and Dachau and
Buchenwald were branded on the hearts and minds of the American
populace as names of infamy unmatched in the sad and bloody history
of this planet.
For Americans, what was "discovered" at the camps -- the dead and the
diseased, the terrible stories of the inmates, all the props of
torture and terror -- became the basis not simply of a transitory
propaganda campaign but of the conviction that, yes, it was true: the
Germans did exterminate six million Jews, most of them in lethal gas
chambers.
What the GIs found was used, by way of films that were mandatory
viewing for the vanquished populace of Germany, to "re-educate" the
German people by destroying their national pride and their will to a
united, independent national state, imposing in their place
overwhelming feelings of collective guilt and political impotence.
And when the testimony, and the verdict, of the Nuremberg Tribunal
incorporated most, if not all, of the horror stories Americans were
told about
Dachau, Buchenwald, and other places captured by the US Army, the
Holocaust could pass for one of the most documented, one of the most
authenticated, one of the most proven historical episodes in the
human record.
A Different Reality
But it is known today that, very soon after the liberation of the
camps, American authorities were aware that the real story of the
camps was quite different from the one in which they were coaching
military public information officers, government spokesmen,
politicians, journalists, and other mouthpieces.
When American and British forces overran western and central Germany
in the spring of 1945, they were followed by troops charged with
discovering and securing any evidence of German war crimes.
Among them was Dr. Charles Larson, one of America's leading forensic
pathologists, who was assigned to the US Army's Judge Advocate
General's Department. As part of a US War Crimes Investigation Team,
Dr. Larson performed autopsies at Dachau and some twenty other German
camps, examining on some days more than 100 corpses. After his grim
work at Dachau, he was
questioned for three days by US Army prosecutors.
Dr. Larson's findings? In an 1980 newspaper interview he said: "What
we've heard is that six million Jews were exterminated. Part of that
is a hoax." And what part was the hoax? Dr. Larson, who told his
biographer that to his knowledge he "was the only forensic pathologist
on duty in the entire European Theater" of Allied military operations,
confirmed that "never was a case of poison gas uncovered."
Typhus, Not Poison Gas
If not by gassing, how did the unfortunate victims at Dachau,
Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen perish? Were they tortured to death or
deliberately starved? The answers to these questions are known as
well.
As Dr. Larson and other Allied medical men discovered, the chief
cause of death at Dachau, Belsen and the other camps was disease,
above all typhus, an old and terrible scourge of mankind that until
recently flourished in places where populations were crowded together
in circumstances where public health measures were unknown or had
broken down. Such was the case in the overcrowded internment camps in
Germany at war's end, where, despite such measures as systematic
delousing, quarantine of the sick and cremation of the dead, the
virtual
collapse of Germany's food, transport, and public health systems led
to catastrophe.
Perhaps the most authoritative statement of the facts as to typhus and
mortality in the camps has been made by Dr. John E. Gordon, M.D.,
Ph.D., a professor of preventive medicine and epidemiology at the
Harvard University School of Public Health, who was with US forces in
Germany in 1945. Dr. Gordon reported in 1948 that "The outbreaks in
concentration camps and prisons made up the great bulk of typhus
infection encountered in Germany." Dr. Gordon summarized the causes
for the outbreaks as follows:
Germany in the spring months of April and May [1945] was an
astounding sight, a mixture of humanity travelling this way and that,
homeless, often hungry and carrying typhus with them ...Germany was in
chaos. The destruction of whole cities and the path left by advancing
armies produced a disruption of living conditions contributing to the
spread of the disease. Sanitation was low grade, public utilities were
seriously disrupted, food supply and food distribution was poor,
housing was inadequate and order and discipline were everywhere
lacking. Still more important, a shifting of populations was occurring
such as few countries and few times have experienced.
Dr. Gordon's findings are corroborated by Dr. Russell Barton, today a
psychiatrist of international repute, who entered Bergen-Belsen with
British forces as a young medical student in 1945. Barton, who
volunteered to care for the diseased survivors, testified under sworn
oath in a Toronto courtroom in 1985 that "Thousands of prisoners who
died at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp during World War II
weren't deliberately starved to death but died from a rash of
diseases."
Dr. Barton further testified that on entering the camp he had credited
stories of deliberate starvation but decided such stories were untrue
after inspecting the well equipped kitchens and the meticulously
maintained ledgers, dating back to 1942, of food cooked and dispensed
each day.
Despite noisily publicized claims and widespread popular notions to
the contrary, no researcher has been able to document a German policy
of extermination through starvation in the German camps.
No 'Human Skin' Lampshades
What of the ghoulish stories of concentration camp inmates skinned for
their tattoos, flayed to make lampshades and handbags, or other
artifacts? What of the innumerable "torture racks," "meathooks,"
whipping posts, gallows, and other tools of torment and death that are
reported to have abounded at every German camp? These allegations, and
even more grotesque ones proffered by Soviet prosecutors, found their
way into the record at Nuremberg.
The lampshade and tattooed-skin charges were made against Ilse Koch,
dubbed by journalists the "Bitch of Buchenwald," who was reported to
have furnished her house with objects manufactured from the tanned
hides of luckless inmates.
But General Lucius Clay, military governor of the US zone of occupied
Germany, who reviewed her case in 1948, told his superiors in
Washington: "There is no convincing evidence that she [Ilse Koch]
selected inmates for extermination in order to secure tattooed skins
or that she possessed any articles made of human skin." In an
interview General Clay gave years later, he stated about the material
for the infamous lampshades: "Well, it turned out actually that it was
goat flesh. But
at the trial it was still human flesh. It was almost impossible for
her to have gotten a fair trial." Ilse Koch hanged herself in a German
jail in 1967.
It would be tedious to itemize and refute the thousands of bizarre
claims as to Nazi atrocities. That there were instances of German
cruelty, however, is clear from the testimony of Dr. Konrad Morgen, a
legal investigator attached to the Reich Criminal Police, whose
statements on the witness stand at Nuremberg have never been
challenged by proponents of the Jewish Holocaust story. Dr. Morgen
informed the court that he had been given full authority by Heinrich
Himmler,
commander of Hitler's SS and the dread Gestapo, to enter any German
concentration camp and investigate instances of cruelty and corruption
on the part of camp personnel. As he explained in sworn testimony at
Nuremberg, Dr. Morgen investigated 800 such cases, resulting in more
than 200 convictions. Punishments included the death penalty for the
worst offenders, including Hermann Florstedt, commandant of Lublin
(Majdanek), and Karl Koch (Ilse's husband), commandant of Buchenwald.
While German camp commandants in certain cases did inflict physical
punishment, such acts had to be approved by authorities in Berlin, and
it was required that a camp physician first certify the good health of
the prisoner to be disciplined, and then be on hand at the actual
beating. After all, throughout most of the war the camps were
important centers of industrial activity. The good health and morale
of the prisoners was critical to the German war effort, as is
evidenced in a January 1943 order issued by SS General Richard Gl�cks,
chief of the office that supervised the
concentration camps. It held the camp commanders "personally
responsible for exhausting every possibility to preserve the physical
strength of the detainees." Camp Survivors: Merely Victims?
US Army investigators, working at Buchenwald and other camps, quickly
ascertained what was common knowledge among veteran inmates: that the
worst offenders, the cruelest denizens of the camps, were not the
guards but the prisoners themselves. Common criminals of the same
stripe as those who populate US prisons today committed many
villainies, particularly when they held positions of authority, and
fanatical Communists, highly organized to combat their many
political enemies among the inmates, eliminated their foes with
Stalinist ruthlessness. Two US Army investigators at Buchenwald, Egon
W. Fleck and Edward A. Tenenbaum, carefully investigated circumstances
in the camp before its liberation. In a detailed report submitted to
their superiors, they revealed, in the words of Alfred Toombs, their
commander, who wrote a preface to the report, "how the prisoners
themselves organized a deadly terror within the Nazi terror."
Fleck and Tenenbaum described the power exercised by criminals and
Communists as follows:
The trusties, who in time became almost exclusively Communist
Germans, had the power of life and death over all other inmates. They
could sentence a man or a group to almost certain death ... The
Communist trusties were directly responsible for a large part of the
brutalities at Buchenwald.
Colonel Donald B. Robinson, chief historian of the American military
government in Germany, summarized the Fleck-Tenenbaum report in an
article published in an American magazine shortly after the war.
Colonel Robinson wrote succinctly of the American investigators'
findings: "It appeared that the prisoners who agreed with the
Communists ate; those who didn't starved to death."
Additional corroboration of inmate brutality has been provided by
Ellis E. Spackman, who, as Chief of Counter-Intelligence Arrests and
Detentions for the US Seventh Army, was involved in the liberation of
Dachau. Spackman, later a professor of history at San Bernardino
Valley College in California, wrote in 1966 that at Dachau "the
prisoners were the actual instruments that inflicted the barbarities
on their fellow prisoners."
'Gas Chambers'
In December 1944 US Army officers Colonel Paul Kirk and Lt. Colonel
Edward J. Gully inspected the German concentration camp at
Struthof-Natzweiler in Alsace. They submitted their findings to their
superiors at the headquarters of the US 6th Army Group, which
subsequently forwarded their report to the US War Crimes Division.
While, significantly, the full text of their report has never been
published, it has been revealed, by a historian supportive of
Holocaust claims, that the two investigators were careful to
characterize equipment exhibited to them by French informants as a
"so-called lethal gas chamber," and to claim it was "allegedly used as
a lethal gas chamber." (Emphasis added)
Both the careful phraseology of the Natzweiler report, and its
effective suppression, stand in stark contrast to the credulity, the
confusion, and the blaring publicity that accompanied official reports
of alleged gas chambers at Dachau. At first, a US Army photo depicting
a GI gazing at a steel door marked with a skull and crossbones and the
German words for: "Caution! Gas! Mortal danger! Don't open!," was
identified as showing the murder weapon.
Later, however, it was evidently decided that the apparatus in
question was merely a standard delousing chamber for clothing, and
another alleged gas chamber, this one cunningly disguised as a shower
room, was exhibited to American congressmen and journalists as the
site where thousands breathed their last. While there exist numerous
reports in the press as to the operation of this second "gas chamber,"
no official report by trained Army investigators has yet surfaced to
reconcile such problems as the function of the shower heads: Were they
"dummies," or did lethal cyanide gas stream through them? (Each theory
has appreciable support in journalistic and
historiographical literature.)
As with Dachau, so with Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, and the other camps
liberated by the Allies in western Germany. There was no end of
propaganda about "gas chambers," "gas ovens," and the like, but so far
not a single detailed description of the murder weapon and its
function, not a single report of the kind that is mandatory for the
successful prosecution of any assault or murder case in America at
that time and today, has come to light.
Furthermore, a number of Holocaust authorities have now publicly
decreed that there were no gassings, no extermination camps in Germany
after all. (We are now told that "gassing" and "extermination" camps
were located exclusively in what is now Poland, in areas captured by
the Soviet Red Army and made off-limits to western investigators.)
Dr. Martin Broszat of the Munich-based Institute for Contemporary
History, which is funded by the German government, stated
categorically in a 1960 letter to the German weekly Die Zeit: "Neither
in Dachau nor in Bergen-Belsen nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other
prisoners gassed." Professional "Nazi hunter" Simon Wiesenthal stated
in 1975 and again in 1993 that "there were no
extermination camps on German soil."
Dachau "gas chamber" No. 2, which was once presented to a stunned and
grieving world as a weapon that claimed hundreds of thousands of
lives, is now described in the brochure issued to tourists at the
modern Dachau "memorial site" in these words: "This gas chamber,
camouflaged as a shower room, was not used."
The Propaganda Intensifies
More than 50 years after American troops entered Dachau, Buchenwald
and other German camps, and trained American investigators established
the facts as to what had gone on in them, the government in
Washington, the entertainment media in Hollywood, and the print media
in New York continue to churn out millions of words and images
annually on the horrors of the camps and the infamy of the Holocaust.
Despite the fact that, with the exception of the defeated Confederacy,
no enemy of America has ever so suffered so complete and devastating
defeat as did Germany in 1945, the mass media and the politicians and
bureaucrats behave as if Hitler, his troops, and his concentration
camps continue to exist in an eternal present, and our opinion makers
continue to distort, through ignorance or malice, the facts about the
camps.
Time for the Truth
It is time that the government and the professional historians reveal
the facts about Dachau, Buchenwald and the other camps. It is time
they let the American public know how the inmates died, and how they
didn't die. It is time that the claims of mass murder by gassing are
clarified and investigated in the same manner as any other claims of
murder. It is time that the free ride certain groups have enjoyed as
the result of unchallenged Holocaust claims be terminated, just as it
is time to end the scapegoating of other groups, including Germans,
eastern Europeans, the
Roman Catholic hierarchy, and the wartime leadership of America and
Britain, either for their alleged role in the Holocaust or their
supposed failure to stop it.
Above all, it is time that the citizens of this great Republic have
the facts about the camps, facts they have a right to know, a right
that is fundamental to the exercise of their authority and their will
in the governance of their country. As citizens and as taxpayers,
Americans of all ethnic backgrounds, of all faiths, have a basic right
and an overriding interest in determining the facts of incidents that
are deemed by those in positions of power to be significant in
determining America's foreign and educational policy, as well as its
selection of past events to be memorialized in our
civic life.
Today the alleged facts of the Holocaust are at issue all over the
civilized world. The truth will be decided only by recourse to the
facts, in the public forum: not by concealing the facts, denying the
truth, stonewalling reality. The truth will out, and it is time the
government of this country, and governments and international bodies
throughout the world, make public the evidence of what actually
transpired in the German concentration camps in the years 1933-1945,
so that we may put paid to the lies, without fear or favor, and carry
out the work of reconciliation and renewal that is and must be the
granite foundation of mutual tolerance between peoples and of a peace
based on justice.
Summary
The conclusions of the early US Army investigations as to the truth
about the wartime German concentration camps have since been
corroborated by all subsequent investigators and can be summarized:
1.The harrowing scenes of dead and dying inmates were not the result
of a German policy of "extermination," but rather the result of
epidemics of typhus and other disease brought about largely by the
effects of Allied aerial attacks.
2.Stories of Nazi supercriminals and sadists who turned Jews and
others into handbags and lampshades for their private profit or
amusement were sick lies or diseased fantasies; indeed, the German
authorities punished corruption and cruelty on the part of camp
commanders and guards.
3.On the other hand, portrayals of the newly liberated inmates as
saints and martyrs of Hitlerism were quite often very far from the
truth; indeed, most of the brutalities inflicted on camp detainees
were the work of their fellow prisoners, in contravention of German
policy and German orders.
4.The alleged homicidal showers and gas chambers were used either for
bathing camp inmates or delousing their clothes; the claim that they
were used to murder Jews or other human beings is a contemptible
fabrication. Orthodox historians and professional "Nazi-hunters" have
quietly dropped claims that inmates were gassed at Dachau, Buchenwald
and other camps in Germany. They continue, however, to keep silent
regarding the lies about Dachau and Buchenwald, as well as to evade an
open discussion of the evidence for homicidal gassing at Auschwitz and
the
other camps captured by the Soviets.
Institute For Historical Review
Post Office Box 2739
Newport Beach, California 92659
Topaz
German leaders believed in death before dishonor. They knew the allies
were subhuman monsters:
Eyewitness account by Mrs. Leonora Geier (nee Cavoa, born Oct 22,
1925, Sao Paulo,
Brazil) to Dr. Trutz Foelsche, Ph.D
Deutsche Nationalzeitung, No. 17-65, p. 7:
"On the morning of February, 16, (1945) a Russian detachment
occupied the RAD (Reichsarbeitsdienst) camp Vilmsee near Neustettin.
The Commissar told me in good German language that the camp was
dissolved and that we, as a unit with uniforms (RAD - German Labour
Service, not military uniforms), would be transported to a collection
camp. Since I, as a Brazilian citizen, belong to an allied nation, he
asked me to take over as a leader of the transport that went to
Neustettin, into the yard of the former iron factory. We were about
500 girls (Maidens of the Reichsarbeitsdienst - German Labour
Service).
He said I could come into the orderly room, which I accepted.
Immediately he directed me to make no further contact with other
women, because they were members of an illegal army. On my response
that this what not true, he cut me off with the remark that I would be
shot immediately, if I would repeat in any form a similar statement.
"Suddenly I heard loud screams, and promptly five girls were brought
in by the two Red Armists. The Commissar ordered them to undress. When
they, in a sense of shame, refused to do so, he ordered me to undress
them and follow him with the girls. We walked through the yard to the
former factory kitchen, which was completely cleared out
except for some tables along the window wall. It was dreadfully cold
and the unfortunate girls trembled. In the huge tiled room several
Russians waited for us who were obviously making obscene remarks
because every word was followed by loud laughter.
The Commissar then directed me to watch how one makes sissies out of
'The Master Race'.
Now two Poles, clad in trousers only, entered the room. At their
sight the girls cried out.
Briskly, they seized the first of the two girls and bent her over with
her back over the edge of the table until her joints cracked. I almost
fainted when one of the men pulled his knife and cut off her right
breast in the presence of the other girls. I have never heard a
human being scream as desperately as this young woman. After this
'operation' both men stabbed her several times in the abdomen,
accompanied by the howling of the Russians.
The next girl cried for mercy, in vain, since she was exceptionally
pretty. I had the impression that the 'work' was carried out very
slowly. The other three girls were completely broken down, cried for
their mothers and begged for a speedy death, but also
fate them overtook.
The last of the girls was still half a child, with barely developed
breasts, one tore the flesh literally from her ribs until the white
bone appeared.
Again, five girls were brought in. This time, they had been selected
carefully. All were developed and pretty. When they saw the bodies of
their predecessors, they began to cry and scream. Weak as they were,
they tried to defend themselves but to no avail; the Poles became more
cruel every time. One of the girls, they cut open her womb and trunk
over the whole length; poured a can of machine oil into the mutilated
body and tried to set fire to it. Another was shot in the genitals by
a Russia, before they cut off her breasts.
A great howling began when someone brought a saw from a toolbox.
Now, using the saw, they set to work to the breasts of the girls to
pieces, which in a short period of time led to the floor being covered
with blood. A blood rage seized the Russians. Continuously
one of them brought more and more girls.
Like a red fog, I saw the gruesome happenings again and again and I
perceived the inhuman screaming at the torture of their breasts and
the load groaning at the mutilation of their private parts. When my
legs failed me I was forced into a chair. The Commissar persistently
watched me to make sure I was looking toward the torture scenes. In
fact, when I had to vomit, they even paused with their tortures. One
girl had not undressed completely, she may have been somewhat older
than the rest of the girls who were about 17-years old. One of the
torturers soaked her bra with oil and ignited it and, while she cried
out, another drove a thin iron rod into her vagina until it emerged at
her naval.
In the yard they liquidated entire groups of girls, after they had
selected the prettiest ones for the torture room. The air was filled
with the death cries of many hundreds of girls. But in view of what
happened here, the slaughter outside could be considered more humane.
It was a dreadful fact that not one of the girls brought into the
torture room lost here consciousness.
In their horror all were equal in their expressions. It was always
the same; the begging for mercy, the high-pitched scream when their
breasts were cut and their genitals mutilated. Several times the
slaughter was interrupted to sweep out the blood and to clear away the
corpses.
That evening I sank into a severe nerve fever. From then on I lack
any recollection until the moment I awoke in a military hospital.
German troops had recaptured Neustettin temporarily, and had liberated
us. As I learned later, approximately 2,000 girls were murdered during
the first three days of the first round of Russian occupation."
Topaz
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>Of course drafting all the unemployed into the army probably had a lot
>to do with that. So did abrogating their treaty obligations to pay
>various war reparations for the previous war,
Here is part of Hitler's speech of April 12, 1921:
"thus we were the first to declare that this peace treaty was a crime.
Then folk abused us as 'agitators.' We were the first to protest
against the failure to present this treaty to the people before it was
signed. Again we called on the masses of the people not to surrender
their arms, for the surrender of one's arms would be nothing less than
the beginning of enslavement. We were called, no, we were cried down
as, 'agitators.' "
>The US achieved even greater economic improvement, without changing
>its treatment of Jews at all, and blew Germany out of the water by
>1945.
Not at all. It was just bigger. Compare the size of Germany to the
size of the Jewish controlled countries, the USA and the USSR. Look at
a map.
>
>Which Germany lost, thereby showing its lack of superiority.
>
>>Only two years later, FDR and his cabal of Jews provoked a war with Japan (and Germany).
>
>FDR bombed Pearl Harbor? I doubt it.
On Nov. 26, 1941, Secretary of War Stimson wrote in his diary about
Japan, "The question was how we should maneuver them into firing the
first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."
" Franklin Delano Roosevelt, dragged America into World War Two on
the wrong
side. FDR was one of the most personally corrupt politicians in world
history. John Toland, a famous author on World War Two, wrote a book
called "Infamy" detailing how FDR had prior knowledge of the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Many people may wonder why FDR would not have warned his own
sailors and
soldier about an upcoming attack. Well, FDR wanted to go down in
history as
a great leader in war time, and the Axis Powers did not want war with
America. FDR was desperately afraid that the Japanese may change
their minds about attacking Pearl Harbor especially if there was any
indication at all that the element of surprise had been lost. For
example, if FDR had plainly told the commander at Pearl Harbor that
there existed intelligence that an attack was imminent, the commander
of Pearl Harbor would have sent out swarms of scout planes around
Pearl Harbor to search out the Japanese
fleet, and he may have ordered all the Battleships to leave harbor.
If the Japanese had no lucrative targets to attack OR if their fleet
had been spotted by a scout plane just one or two days prior to the
attack, there is a very strong chance that Japan would have cancelled
the attack and turned the fleet around. This was FDR's biggest fear:
that
peace might break out instead of war.
FDR literally would prefer to leave Hawaii defenseless and suffer
large casualties than to let the Japanese know that the element of
surprise had been lost. If the Japanese turned back, FDR would never
be a "great war leader" and would instead go down in history as a
failed President, who could not pull America out of the Great
Depression.
FDR probably did not think that the Japanese would be as successful
as they were, but he was willing to let Americans die needlessly
whether the body count was 200,
2000, or even 40,000. One of the most glaring hints that FDR was
aware of the upcoming attack was that NONE of the Navy's aircraft
carriers were in Pearl Harbor on December 7th. The sailors on those
ships were protected while the sailors on the Battleships were
sacrificial lambs for FDR's legacy.
FDR was referred to as the "criminal" by top leaders in the Third
Reich, and the facts surrounding FDR bear this out:
1) Not only did over two thousand American soldiers and sailors
die at Pearl Harbor due to FDR's treachery, another 80,000 American
soldiers in the Philippines were practically unarmed thanks to FDR,
resulting in 40,000 deaths. All their tanks, artillery, and fighters
were stolen from them and sent instead to the English and the
Communists
before Pearl Harbor. Thousands of these soldiers were killed when
they could not resist the Japanese invasion of the Philippines.
About half of these 80,000 American
soldiers were killed in action or died in captivity because FDR sent
weapons, that they desperately needed, to the Communists and the
English.
2) FDR sent 50 destroyers to the English almost at the start of
World War Two in complete defiance of the Neutrality act.
3) FDR sent two billion dollars in tanks, guns, fighters, and
other aid to the communists PRIOR TO PEARL HARBOR even though most
Americans considered
the Soviet Union the worst tyranny on earth and saw no reason to
save it. The Soviet Union probably would have been defeated by Hitler
if it were not for this huge amount of military aid. After Pearl
Harbor, it's well known that Churchill and FDR generously supplied
Stalin to keep him in power, but very few Americans are aware that
aid from FDR prior to Pearl Harbor kept Communism from collapsing
completely in 1941 during
the period from June through early December. This "Saviour of
Communism" title for FDR will eventually be the most damning line if
future accurate biographies of FDR are written in a world returned to
sanity.
4) Most Americans felt that they had fought World War One for
nothing, and there was a strong demand from them that America not
get involved in another war that was not America's business.
5) America passed the "Neutrality Act", which clearly positioned
America as non-involved in the war between Germany, England, and
France that broke out in September 1939.
6) FDR was basically an early version of Bill Clinton. He was one
of the most dishonest and scheming devils ever to be President. While
Clinton spent his dishonest talents on fighting off problems that
resulted from his uncontrolled sex drive, FDR was much more focused,
and actively carried out the will of the Jews and undermined the will
of the
American people.
7) The German General Erwin Rommel most certainly would have
captured the Suez Canal and the Mideast oil fields if it were not for
the massive quantities of tanks and guns sent by FDR to England to
save the corrupt drunk, Winston Churchill, who had secretly become a
stooge of the Jews, when a wealthy Jew took over Churchill's debts (so
that Churchill could both avoid going bankrupt or having to actually
work for a living as
British aristocrats hate to do).
Clearly, FDR behaved shamelessly in ignoring the will of the
American public and deliberately pushed America into World War Two.
FDR had failed miserably to get America out of the Great Depression,
and many Americans were getting tired of his failed attempts and may
have voted him out of office in 1940 if he had not LIED extensively
telling Americans "I hate war" and that he would keep America out of
World War
Two. A real populist with real ideas, Huey Long had been assassinated
before he could challenge FDR for the Democrat nomination (or as a
Third Party candidate)
conveniently eliminating a serious threat to FDR's continued
occupation of the White House.
FDR also provoked the Japanese multiple times by cutting off oil
shipments and scrap iron shipments to Japan, not to mention the
illegal CIA mercenary operation "The Flying Tigers", who were
murdering Japanese pilots for money before America was at war with
Japan. When the Japanese looked at these events, and FDR's support of
Stalin and Churchill, who were fighting Japan's allies, it is no
surprise that the Japanese felt that they had no choice, but to strike
at America before it struck at them.
Curiously, the Bible predicts in Revelations 11 and13 that a world
war will occur in which the devil wages a world war on the saints for
forty-two months and conquers the saints on this planet. FDR waged war
on Germany for exactly forty two months from December 1941 to May"
1945.
88!
Clark Kent
>Germany declared war on the US, not vice versa.
>
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:
The youth of America are again being prepared for 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.
Michael Ejercito
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 06:56:43 -0800 (PST), Michael Ejercito
>
> > So why were people in Britain running around painting their faces
> >and private parts blue while at the same time Greeks were building
> >cities?
>
> > Would not the Greeks of that era have viewed the British as
> >incapable of building any sort of civilization?
>
> The Jews control your media and your mind.
>
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> German leaders believed in death before dishonor.
> They knew the allies
> were subhuman monsters:
Their Japanese allies?
Certainly.
Read about the Rape of Nanking and Unit 731.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> by Theodore J. O'Keefe
>
> Nothing has been more effective in establishing the authenticity of
> the Holocaust story in the minds of Americans than the terrible scenes
> US troops discovered when they entered German concentration camps at
> the close of World War II.
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
April 27, 1995
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/4096/a-suspension-of-barbarity
FIFTY YEARS AGO, they keep saying. Fifty years ago, Auschwitz was
liberated. Fifty years ago, the Nazis were defeated. Fifty years ago,
the survivors emerged from the ash and bones and hell of the death
camps. Fifty years ago, the world, sickened to discover how
unspeakably deep and black was the abyss into which one of the most
cultured nations on earth had systematically ground up 6 million Jews,
swore: Never again. Fifty years ago, the Holocaust ended.
Fifty years ago.
Ended?
In the Cleveland synagogue I grew up in, there was a woman named
Esther, a survivor of the camps. Over the years I watched her mind
slowly disassemble, pulled apart by memories too violent to endure.
She would burst into shouts during the rabbi's sermon and madly rush
to kiss the Torah scroll as it was carried to the ark. When charity
appeals were made from the pulpit, she would wave in the air, of all
things, Czechoslovak stamps, crying out that she had something of
great value to donate. I got hold of one of those stamps once and
looked it up in a catalog. It was worthless.
When, exactly, did the Holocaust end for Esther?
In the same synagogue was a man called B--, an envelope maker who had
no children and who we all somehow knew never would. What B-- lost in
the camps wasn't his life, but something even more precious: all hope
of giving life. During the war, he had been sterilized in one of Dr.
Mengele's sadistic experiments.
When did his Holocaust end?
When did my father's?
On May 7, 1945, the concentration camp at Ebensee, an Austrian town
between Linz and Salzburg, was abandoned by its Nazi guards. Among the
Jews not yet dead in that place was my father. He was 19 years old, he
weighed 65 pounds, and he was nearly gone with starvation and typhoid
fever. Thirteen months and three camps earlier, on his first day in
Auschwitz, he had seen his parents sent to the gas chamber, along with
his 10-year-old brother Yrvin and his little sister Alice, who was 8.
My father's teen-age brother Zoltan was murdered a few days later; his
older sister Franceska by the following spring.
When the Nazis fled Ebensee on that May morning 50 years ago, my
father was left with nothing but the rags he was wearing and a
greenish-blue tattoo on his arm: A-10502.
And feelings of guilt that have lasted for decades.
"I had dreams and nightmares about what happened," he said to me once.
"I always feel sort of guilty, even until now, about not protecting my
younger brother. I was with him together for a just a few hours; then
we were separated. I wonder -- could I have insisted that he stay with
me? I don't know. Coming from a farm, I was naive. I was not
sophisticated."
Between 1940 and 1945, it was a central aim of the German Reich to
exterminate every Jew in Europe -- to bring about, once and for all, a
"Final Solution" to the Jewish "problem." To carry out this policy,
which was given a higher priority than even the war effort, the Nazis
constructed a vast and elaborate machinery, employing tens of
thousands of people and requiring the most detailed and complicated
logistics. It was an industry whose raw material was Jews, which it
imported from lands as far-flung as Greece and Norway, and whose final
product was Jewish corpses, or the greasy smoke of Jewish corpses. To
ensure its success, the Nazis drew on all the resources of wealth,
science, engineering, transportation and manpower at their command.
And my father has felt guilty for 50 years because he didn't know how
to save his brother.
Has his Holocaust ended?
I mistrust this number, this 50. It seems too definitive a milestone,
too complete, too over-and-done-with. When I hear the words "ended 50
years ago," it seems to me I also hear: "Enough already." "Let it go."
"It's history."
Is it?
On an NPR broadcast two weeks ago, an articulate skinhead named Tracy
Gilson was asked why he has Hitler's face tattooed on his neck.
"The Holocaust," replied the young man, who became a skinhead at 13.
"You know what? If it did happen, good. I don't care. I'm glad. I
really -- that's good. That's great. Swell, good. Kill 6 million more,
somebody, please. . . . I wish somebody would do that here, freakin'
decide that they need to get rid of all the trash and start building
death camps. That would be fine with me."
The Holocaust didn't end 50 years ago; it was only suspended. What
separates us from 8-year-old girls gulping death in gas chambers is
nothing more than a thin veneer of civilization, stretched like a
bandage over a bleeding wound, capable of being stripped away in a
twinkling. Germany is the land of Bach and Durer and Goethe, after
all. Yet how readily it became the land of Buchenwald and crematoria
and pits filled with naked, machine-gunned Jews.
There is nothing so evil, so demonic, that people cannot be induced to
do it, or to look the other way while it is being done. Not only storm
troops and skinheads. Nice people. Cultured people. People like us.
Fifty years ago, the Holocaust was suspended. How long it stays
suspended depends on how long we remember to never forget. Fifty years
after the spring of 1945, when even those who survived are almost all
gone and wildflowers grow where dead parents and dead children were
once piled high, we need to remember more urgently than ever.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
Topaz
Bob LeChevalier
>"The first step to understanding the cultural terrorism being
>waged against men in this country (the USA)
I'm a man. I'm not terrorized. I doubt that many men feel
terrorized. Too bad you find the world so threatening to your
masculinity that you collapse limply into slimehood.
>is you must, I
>repeat, you must acknowledge that what is occurring is communist
>totalitarianism.
It is neither communistic nor totalitarian. If it were the latter,
you would be imprisoned merely for posting that message.
>It is police state activity.
Nazis should be experts on police states, but there isn't anything
like a police state in the US.
>Feminism is homosexuality. Feminism is communism.
War is Peace. Evil is Good. Orwell is your God.
>When you understand that simple statement above, the rest is
>easy.
What's to understand? It's nonsense like all the rest of the stuff
you repost repeatedly.
>Feminism rejects masculine roles
No. It does reject idiots like you, though, with good reason.
>because masculinity is the glue that holds any healthy society together.
How would you know? You lack any shred of masculinity.
>If you contribute to
>feminism in any form, you are contributing to the collapse of the
>American nation-state system, the greatest nation on this planet
>and the nation our founding fathers arranged as a distinct,
>masculine country.
I'm sure Abigail Adams had a different perspective than yours.
I personally am happy that we are not a "masculine country". Women
are good to have around, and the only way you could have a masculine
country would be to eliminate them (which would lead to collapse of
the system in about one generation, of course).
[remaining silliness deleted]
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 11:59:48 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>Of course drafting all the unemployed into the army probably had a lot
>>to do with that. So did abrogating their treaty obligations to pay
>>various war reparations for the previous war,
>
> Here is part of Hitler's speech of April 12, 1921:
>
>"thus we were the first to declare that this peace treaty was a crime.
If there had been no peace treaty, Germany would have been far worse
off than it was in 1921.
>>The US achieved even greater economic improvement, without changing
>>its treatment of Jews at all, and blew Germany out of the water by
>>1945.
>
>Not at all. It was just bigger.
So? That doesn't negate any of the above statements.
>Compare the size of Germany to the
>size of the Jewish controlled countries, the USA and the USSR. Look at
>a map.
Poor widdle Germany. Too bad Hitler hadn't grown up in Luxembourg.
>>Which Germany lost, thereby showing its lack of superiority.
>>
>>>Only two years later, FDR and his cabal of Jews provoked a war with Japan (and Germany).
>>
>>FDR bombed Pearl Harbor? I doubt it.
>
>On Nov. 26, 1941, Secretary of War Stimson wrote in his diary about
>Japan, "The question was how we should maneuver them into firing the
>first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."
So? No maneuvering was needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor
<On November 3, 1941, Nagano presented a complete plan for the attack
< on Pearl Harbor to Hirohito.[10] At the Imperial Conference on 5
< November, Hirohito approved the plan for a war against the United
< States, Great Britain and Holland, scheduled to start at the
< beginning of December if an acceptable diplomatic settlement were not
< achieved before then.[11]
> " Franklin Delano Roosevelt, dragged America into World War Two on
>the wrong
> side. FDR was one of the most personally corrupt politicians in world
>history. John Toland, a famous author on World War Two, wrote a book
>called "Infamy" detailing how FDR had prior knowledge of the
>Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate
> FDR was referred to as the "criminal" by top leaders in the Third
>Reich,
Since they were a bunch of criminals and thugs, their opinion is of no
interest.
> 6) FDR was basically an early version of Bill Clinton.
To most, people that is a compliment.
> FDR also provoked the Japanese multiple times by cutting off oil
>shipments and scrap iron shipments to Japan,
So? Nothing wrong with refusing to support a nation engaged in racist
and imperialist mass-murder.
>not to mention the illegal CIA mercenary operation "The Flying Tigers", who were
>murdering Japanese pilots for money before America was at war with
>Japan.
There was no CIA in 1941, silly.
[irrelevant Nazi tripe deleted]
Topaz
Who wrote this?
"Rape is an expression of ... male supremacy ... the age-old economic,
political and cultural exploitation of women by men."
Does this sound like a modern radical feminist? Guess again. It is
from an American Communist Party pamphlet from 1948 entitled "Woman
Against Myth" by Mary Inman.
In a 2002 book, Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of
Women's Liberation, feminist historian Kate Weigand states: "ideas,
activists and traditions that emanated from the Communist movement of
the forties and fifties continued to shape the direction of the new
women's movement of the 1960s and later."
In fact, Weigand, a lecturer at Smith College, shows that modern
feminism is a direct outgrowth of American Communism. There is nothing
that feminists said or did in the 1960's-1980's that wasn't prefigured
in the CPUSA of the 1940's and 1950's. Many second-wave feminist
leaders were "red diaper babies," the children of Communists.
Communists pioneered the political and cultural analysis of woman's
oppression. They originated "women's studies," and advocated public
daycare, birth control, abortion and even children's rights. They
forged key feminist concepts such as "the personal is the political"
and techniques such as "consciousness raising."
In the late 1940's, CPUSA leaders realized that the labor movement was
becoming increasingly hostile to Communism. They began to focus on
women and African Americans. They hoped "male supremacy" would "bring
more women into the organization and into the fight against the
domestic policies of the Cold War."
Communist women who made up 40% of the party wanted more freedom to
attend party meetings. After the publication of "Women Against Myth"
in 1948, the CPUSA initiated a process of "re-educating" men that we
recognize only too well today.
For example, in the party newspaper "The Daily Worker" a photo caption
of a man with a young child read, "Families are stronger and happier
if the father knows how to fix the cereal, tie the bibs and take care
of the youngsters."
The Party ordered men who didn't take the woman question seriously to
complete "control tasks involving study on the woman question." In
1954 the Los Angeles branch disciplined men for "hogging discussion at
club meetings, bypassing women comrades in leadership and making sex
jokes degrading to women."
A film Salt of the Earth, which critic Pauline Kael called "Communist
propaganda", portrayed women taking a decisive role in their husbands'
labor strike. "Against her husband's wishes, Esperanza became a leader
in the strike and for the first time forged a role for herself outside
of her household... [her] political successes persuaded Ramon to
accept a new model of family life."
Portrayals of strong assertive successful women became as common in
the Communist press and schools, as they are in the mass media today.
Communist women formalized a sophisticated Marxist analysis of the
"woman question." The books In Women's Defense (1940) by Mary Inman,
Century of Struggle (1954) by Eleanor Flexner and The Unfinished
Revolution (1962) by Eve Merriam recorded women's oppression and
decried sexism in mass culture and language. For example, Mary Inman
argued that "manufactured femininity" and "overemphasis on beauty"
keeps women in subjection.
The founder of modern feminism, Betty Frieden relied on these texts
when she wrote The Feminine Mystique (1963). These women all hid the
fact that they were long-time Communist activists. In the 1960, their
daughters had everything they needed, including the example of
subterfuge, to start the Women's Liberation Movement.
Feminism's roots in Marxist Communism explain a great deal about this
curious but dangerous movement. It explains:
Why the " woman's movement" hates femininity and imposes a
political-economic concept like "equality" on a personal, biological
and mystical relationship.
Why the "women's movement" also embraces equality of race and class.
Why they want revolution ("transformation") and have a messianic
vision of a gender-less utopia.
Why they believe human nature is infinitely malleable and can be
shaped by indoctrination and coercion.
Why they engage in endless, mind-numbing theorizing, doctrinal
disputes and factionalism.
Why truth for them is a "social construct" defined by whomever has
power, and appearances are more important than reality.
Why they reject God, nature and scientific evidence in favour of their
political agenda.
Why they refuse to debate, don't believe in free speech, and suppress
dissenting views.
Why they behave like a quasi-religious cult, or like the Red Guard.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that feminism is Communism by
another name. Communism is designed to give power to the puppets of
central bankers by fostering division and conflict. Having failed to
peddle class war, Communism promoted gender conflict instead.
The "diversity" and "multicultural" movements represent Communism's
attempt to empower and use other minorities, gays and "people of
color" to further undermine the majority (European, Christian)
culture. Thus, the original CPUSA trio of "race, gender and class" is
very much intact but class conflict was never a big seller.
The term "politically correct" originated in the Russian Communist
Party in the 1920's. Its usage in America today illustrates the extent
society has been subverted. Feminist activists are mostly Communist
dupes. The Communist goal is to destroy Western Civilization and
establish a veiled dictatorship called "world government" run by the
toadies of the central bankers.
We have seen this destruction in the dismantling of the liberal arts
curriculum and tradition of free speech and inquiry at our
universities. We have seen this virus spread to government, business,
the media and the military. This could only happen because the
financial elite in fact sponsors Communism.
"Political correctness" has dulled and regimented our cultural life.
In 2002, here in Winnipeg, Betty Granger, a conservative school
trustee referred to house price increases in Vancouver caused by "the
Asian invasion." Granger was pilloried mercilessly in the press.
People sent hate letters and dumped garbage on her lawn.
At a meeting, the School Board Chairman acknowledged that Granger is
not a racist. He acknowledged that Asians actually have married into
her family. Nonetheless, Granger was censured because, and I quote,
"appearances are more important than reality." This slippage from the
mooring of objective truth is the hallmark of Communism.
The atmosphere at the meeting was charged. Mild mannered Canadians,
all champions of "tolerance," behaved like wild dogs eager to rip
apart a wounded rabbit. Betty Granger repented and voted in favor of
her own censure.
These rituals of denunciation and contrition, typical of Stalinist
Russia or Maoist China, are becoming more common in America. They are
like show trials designed to frighten people into conforming. We have
"diversity officers" and "human rights commissions" and "sensitivity
training" to uphold feminist shibboleths. They talk about
"discrimination" but they freely discriminate against Christians,
white heterosexual men and traditional women. They use the spectre of
"sexual harassment" to fetter male-female relations and purge their
opponents.
In conclusion, the feminist pursuit of "equal rights" is a mask for an
invidious Communist agenda. The Communist MO has always been
deception, infiltration and subversion using social justice issues as
a pretext. Communism can take any form that empowers the puppets of
the central bankers. The goal is the destruction of Western
civilization and creation of a new world order run by monopoly
capital. This has largely been accomplished.
Kate Weigand's Red Feminism demonstrates that the Communist agenda is
alive and well and living under an assumed name.
Topaz
Leon Degrelle
"We have the power. Now our gigantic work begins."
Those were Hitler's words on the night of January 30, 1933, as
cheering crowds surged past him, for five long hours, beneath the
windows of the Chancellery in Berlin.
His political struggle had lasted 14 years. He himself was 43, that
is, physically and intellectually at the peak of his powers. He had
won over millions of Germans and organized them into Germany's largest
and most dynamic political party, a party girded by a human rampart of
hundreds of thousands of storm troopers, three fourths of them members
of the working class. He had been extremely shrewd. All but toying
with his adversaries, Hitler had, one after another, vanquished them
all.
Standing there at the window, his arm raised to the delirious throng,
he must have known a feeling of triumph. But he seemed almost torpid,
absorbed, as if lost in another world.
It was a world far removed from the delirium in the street, a world of
65 million citizens who loved him or hated him, but all of whom, from
that night on, had become his responsibility. And as he knew-as almost
all Germans knew on January 1933 -- that this was a crushing, an
almost desperate responsibility.
Half a century later, few people understand the crisis Germany faced
at that time. Today, it's easy to assume that Germans have always been
well-fed and even plump. But the Germans Hitler inherited were virtual
skeletons.
During the preceding years, a score of "democratic" governments had
come and gone, often in utter confusion. Instead of alleviating the
people's misery, they had increased it, due to their own instability:
it was impossible for them to pursue any given plan for more than a
year or two. Germany had arrived at a dead end. In just a few years
there had been 224,000 suicides - a horrifying figure, bespeaking a
state of misery even more horrifying.
By the beginning of 1933, the misery of the German people was
virtually universal. At least six million unemployed and hungry
workers roamed aimlessly through the streets, receiving a pitiful
unemployment benefit of less than 42 marks per month. Many of those
out of work had families to feed, so that altogether some 20 million
Germans, a third of the country's population, were reduced to trying
to survive on about 40 pfennigs per person per day.
Unemployment benefits, moreover, were limited to a period of six
months. After that came only the meager misery allowance dispensed by
the welfare offices.
Notwithstanding the gross inadequacy of this assistance, by trying to
save the six million unemployed from total destruction, even for just
six months, both the state and local branches of the German government
saw themselves brought to ruin: in 1932 alone such aid had swallowed
up four billion marks, 57 percent of the total tax revenues of the
federal government and the regional states. A good many German
municipalities were bankrupt.
Those still lucky enough to have some kind of job were not much better
off. Workers and employees had taken a cut of 25 percent in their
wages and salaries. Twenty-one percent of them were earning between
100 and 250 marks per month; 69.2 percent of them, in January of 1933,
were being paid less than 1,200 marks annually. No more than about
100,000 Germans, it was estimated, were able to live without financial
worries.
During the three years before Hitler came to power, total earnings had
fallen by more than half, from 23 billion marks to 11 billion. The
average per capita income had dropped from 1,187 marks in 1929 to 627
marks, a scarcely tolerable level, in 1932. By January 1933, when
Hitler took office, 90 percent of the German people were destitute.
No one escaped the strangling effects of the unemployment. The
intellectuals were hit as hard as the working class. Of the 135,000
university graduates, 60 percent were without jobs. Only a tiny
minority was receiving unemployment benefits.
"The others," wrote one foreign observer, Marcel Laloire (in his book
New Germany), "are dependent on their parents or are sleeping in
flophouses. In the daytime they can be seen on the boulevards of
Berlin wearing signs on their backs to the effect that they will
accept any kind of work."
But there was no longer any kind of work.
The same drastic fall-off had hit Germany's cottage industry, which
comprised some four million workers. Its turnover had declined 55
percent, with total sales plunging from 22 billion to 10 billion
marks.
Hardest hit of all were construction workers; 90 percent of them were
unemployed.
Farmers, too, had been ruined, crushed by losses amounting to 12
billion marks. Many had been forced to mortgage their homes and their
land. In 1932 just the interest on the loans they had incurred due to
the crash was equivalent to 20 percent of the value of the
agricultural production of the entire country. Those who were no
longer able to meet the interest payments saw their farms auctioned
off in legal proceedings: in the years 1931-1932, 17,157 farms-with a
combined total area of 462,485 hectares - were liquidated in this way.
The "democracy" of Germany's "Weimar Republic" (1918 -1933) had proven
utterly ineffective in addressing such flagrant wrongs as this
impoverishment of millions of farm workers, even though they were the
nation's most stable and hardest working citizens. Plundered,
dispossessed, abandoned: small wonder they heeded Hitler's call.
Their situation on January 30, 1933, was tragic. Like the rest of
Germany's working class, they had been betrayed by their political
leaders, reduced to the alternatives of miserable wages, paltry and
uncertain benefit payments, or the outright humiliation of begging.
Germany's industries, once renowned everywhere in the world, were no
longer prosperous, despite the millions of marks in gratuities that
the financial magnates felt obliged to pour into the coffers of the
parties in power before each election in order to secure their
cooperation. For 14 years the well-blinkered conservatives and
Christian democrats of the political center had been feeding at the
trough just as greedily as their adversaries of the left..
One inevitable consequence of this ever-increasing misery and
uncertainty about the future was an abrupt decline in the birthrate.
When your household savings are wiped out, and when you fear even
greater calamities in the days ahead, you do not risk adding to the
number of your dependents.
In those days the birth rate was a reliable barometer of a country's
prosperity. A child is a joy, unless you have nothing but a crust of
bread to put in its little hand. And that's just the way it was with
hundreds of thousands of German families in 1932..
Hitler knew that he would be starting from zero. From less than zero.
But he was also confident of his strength of will to create Germany
anew-politically, socially, financially, and economically. Now legally
and officially in power, he was sure that he could quickly convert
that cipher into a Germany more powerful than ever before.
What support did he have?
For one thing, he could count on the absolute support of millions of
fanatical disciples. And on that January evening, they joyfully shared
in the great thrill of victory. Some thirteen million Germans, many of
them former Socialists and Communists, had voted for his party.
But millions of Germans were still his adversaries, disconcerted
adversaries, to be sure, whom their own political parties had
betrayed, but who had still not been won over to National Socialism.
The two sides-those for and those against Hitler-were very nearly
equal in numbers. But whereas those on the left were divided among
themselves, Hitler's disciples were strongly united. And in one thing
above all, the National Socialists had an incomparable advantage: in
their convictions and in their total faith in a leader. Their highly
organized and well-disciplined party had contented with the worst kind
of obstacles, and had overcome them..
In the eyes of the capitalists, money was the sole active element in
the flourishing of a country's economy. To Hitler's way of thinking,
that conception was radically wrong: capital, on the contrary, was
only an instrument. Work was the essential element: man's endeavor,
man's honor, blood, muscles and soul.
Hitler wanted not just to put an to the class struggle, but to
reestablish the priority of the human being, in justice and respect,
as the principal factor in production..
For the worker's trust in the fatherland to be restored, he had to
feel that from now on he was to be (and to be treated) as an equal,
instead of remaining a social inferior. Under the governments of the
so-called democratic parties of both the left and the right, he had
remained an inferior; for none of them had understood that in the
hierarchy of national values, work is the very essence of life; ..
The objective, then, was far greater than merely getting six million
unemployed back to work. It was to achieve a total revolution.
"The people," Hitler declared, "were not put here on earth for the
sake of the economy, and the economy doesn't exist for the sake of
capital. On the contrary, capital is meant to serve the economy, and
the economy in turn to serve the people."
It would not be enough merely to reopen the thousands of closed
factories and fill them with workers. If the old concepts still ruled,
the workers would once again be nothing more than living machines,
faceless and interchangeable..
Nowhere in twentieth-century Europe had the authority of a head of
state ever been based on such overwhelming and freely given national
consent. Prior to Hitler, from 1919 to 1932, those governments piously
styling themselves democratic had usually come to power by meager
majorities, sometimes as low as 51 or 52 percent.
"I am not a dictator," Hitler had often affirmed, "and I never will
be. Democracy will be rigorously enforced by National Socialism."
Authority does not mean tyranny. A tyrant is someone who puts himself
in power without the will of the people or against the will of the
people. A democrat is placed in power by the people. But democracy is
not limited to a single formula. It may be partisan or parliamentary.
Or it may be authoritarian. The important thing is that the people
have wished it, chosen it, established it in its given form.
That was the case with Hitler. He came to power in an essentially
democratic way. Whether one likes it or not, this fact is undeniable.
And after coming to power, his popular support measurably increased
from year to year. The more intelligent and honest of his enemies have
been obliged to admit this, men such as the declared anti-Nazi
historian and professor Joachim Fest, who wrote:
For Hitler was never interested in establishing a mere tyranny. Sheer
greed for power will not suffice as explanation for his personality
and energy-He was not born to be a mere tyrant. He was fixated upon
his mission of defending Europe and the Aryan race ... Never had he
felt so dependent upon the masses as he did at this time, and he
watched their reactions with anxious concern.
These lines weren't written by Dr. Goebbels, but by a stern critic of
Hitler and his career..
When it came time to vote, Hitler was granted plenary powers with a
sweeping majority of 441 votes to 94: he had won not just two thirds,
but 82.44 percent of the assembly's votes. This "Enabling Act" granted
Hitler for four years virtually absolute authority over the
legislative as well as the executive affairs of the government..
After 1945 the explanation that was routinely offered for all this was
that the Germans had lost their heads. Whatever the case, it is a
historical fact that they acted of their own free will. Far from being
resigned, they were enthusiastic. "For the first time since the last
days of the monarchy," historian Joachim Fest has conceded, "the
majority of the Germans now had the feeling that they could identify
with the state."..
"You talk about persecution!" he thundered in an impromptu response to
an address by the Social Democratic speaker. "I think that there are
only a few of us [in our party] here who did not have to suffer
persecutions in prison from your side ... You seem to have totally
forgotten that for years our shirts were ripped off our backs because
you did not like the color . . . We have outgrown your persecutions!"
"In those days," he scathingly continued, "our newspapers were banned
and banned and again banned, our meetings were forbidden, and we were
forbidden to speak, I was forbidden to speak, for years on. And now
you say that criticism is salutary!"..
Hitler's millions of followers had rediscovered the primal strength of
rough, uncitified man, of a time when men still had backbone..
Gustav Noske, the lumberjack who became defense minister - and the
most valiant defender of the embattled republic in the tumultuous
months immediately following the collapse of 1918 - acknowledged
honestly in 1944, when the Third Reich was already rapidly breaking
down, that the great majority of the German people still remained true
to Hitler because of the social renewal he had brought to the working
class..
Here again, well before the collapse of party-ridden Weimar Republic,
disillusion with the unions had become widespread among the working
masses. They were starving. The hundreds of Socialist and Communist
deputies stood idly by, impotent to provide any meaningful help to the
desperate proletariat.
Their leaders had no proposals to remedy, even partially, the great
distress of the people; no plans for large-scale public works, no
industrial restructuring, no search for markets abroad.
Moreover, they offered no energetic resistance to the pillaging by
foreign countries of the Reich's last financial resources: this a
consequence of the Treaty of Versailles that the German Socialists had
voted to ratify in June of 1919, and which they had never since had
the courage effectively to oppose..
In 1930, 1931 and 1932, German workers had watched the disaster grow:
the number of unemployed rose from two million to three, to four, to
five, then to six million. At the same time, unemployment benefits
fell lower and lower, finally to disappear completely. Everywhere one
saw dejection and privation: emaciated mothers, children wasting away
in sordid lodgings, and thousands of beggars in long sad lines.
The failure, or incapacity, of the leftist leaders to act, not to
mention their insensitivity, had stupefied the working class. Of what
use were such leaders with their empty heads and empty hearts-and,
often enough, full pockets?
Well before January 30, thousands of workers had already joined up
with Hitler's dynamic formations, which were always hard at it where
they were most needed. Many joined the National Socialists when they
went on strike. Hitler, himself a former worker and a plain man like
themselves, was determined to eliminate unemployment root and branch.
He wanted not merely to defend the laborer's right to work, but to
make his calling one of honor, to insure him respect and to integrate
him fully into a living community of all the Germans, who had been
divided class against class.
In January 1933, Hitler's victorious troops were already largely
proletarian in character, including numerous hardfisted street
brawlers, many unemployed, who no longer counted economically or
socially.
Meanwhile, membership in the Marxist labor unions had fallen off
enormously: among thirteen million socialist and Communist voters in
1932, no more than five million were union members. Indifference and
discouragement had reached such levels that many members no longer
paid their union dues. Many increasingly dispirited Marxist leaders
began to wonder if perhaps the millions of deserters were the ones who
saw things clearly. Soon they wouldn't wonder any longer.
Even before Hitler won Reichstag backing for his "Enabling Act,"
Germany's giant labor union federation, the ADGB, had begun to rally
to the National Socialist cause. As historian Joachim Fest
acknowledged: "On March 20, the labor federation's executive committee
addressed a kind of declaration of loyalty to Hitler." (J. Fest,
Hitler, p. 413.)
Hitler than took a bold and clever step. The unions had always
clamored to have the First of May recognized as a worker's holiday,
but the Weimar Republic had never acceded to their request. Hitler,
never missing an opportunity, grasped this one with both hands. He did
more than grant this reasonable demand: he proclaimed the First of May
a national holiday..
I myself attended the memorable meeting at the Tempelhof field in
1933. By nine o'clock that morning, giant columns, some of workers,
others of youth groups, marching in cadence down the pavement of
Berlin's great avenues, had started off towards the airfield to which
Hitler had called together all Germans. All Germany would follow the
rally as it was transmitted nationwide by radio..
In the dark, a group of determined opponents could easily have heckled
Hitler or otherwise sabotaged the meeting. Perhaps a third of the
onlookers had been Socialists or Communists only three months
previously. But not a single hostile voice was raised during the
entire ceremony. There was only universal acclamation.
Ceremony is the right word for it. It was an almost magical rite.
Hitler and Goebbels had no equals in the arranging of dedicatory
ceremonies of this sort. First there were popular songs, then great
Wagnerian hymns to grip the audience. Germany has a passion for
orchestral music, and Wagner taps the deepest and most secret vein of
the German soul, its romanticism, its inborn sense of the powerful and
the grand.
Meanwhile the hundreds of flags floated above the rostrum, redeemed
from the darkness by arrows of light.
Now Hitler strode to the rostrum. For those standing at the of the
field, his face must have appeared vanishingly small, but his words
flooded instantaneously across the acres of people in his audience.
A Latin audience would have preferred a voice less harsh, more
delicately expressive. But there was no doubt that Hitler spoke to the
psyche of the German people.
Germans have rarely had the good fortune to experience the enchantment
of the spoken word. In Germany, the tone has always been set by
ponderous speakers, more fond of elephantine pedantry than oratorical
passion. Hitler, as a speaker, was a prodigy, the greatest orator of
his century. He possessed, above all, what the ordinary speaker lacks:
a mysterious ability to project power.
A bit like a medium or sorcerer, he was seized, even transfixed, as he
addressed a crowd. It responded to Hitler's projection of power,
radiating it back, establishing, in the course of myriad exchanges, a
current that both orator and audience gave to and drew from equally.
One had to personally experience him speaking to understand this
phenomenon.
This special gift is what lay at the basis of Hitler's ability to win
over the masses. His high-voltage, lightning-like projection
transported and transformed all who experienced it. Tens of millions
were enlightened, riveted and inflamed by the fire of his anger,
irony, and passion.
By the time the cheering died away that May first evening, hundreds of
thousands of previously indifferent or even hostile workers who had
come to Tempelhof at the urging of their labor federation leaders were
now won over. They had become followers, like the SA stormtroopers
whom so many there that evening had brawled with in recent years.
The great human sea surged back from Tempelhof to Berlin. A million
and a half people had arrived in perfect order, and their departure
was just as orderly. No bottlenecks halted the cars and busses. For
those of us who witnessed it, this rigorous, yet joyful, discipline of
a contented people was in itself a source of wonder. Everything about
the May Day mass meeting had come off as smoothly clockwork.
The memory of that fabulous crowd thronging back to the center of
Berlin will never leave me. A great many were on foot. Their faces
were now different faces, as though they had been imbued with a
strange and totally new spirit. The non-Germans in the crowd were as
if stunned, and no less impressed than Hitler's fellow countrymen.
The French ambassador, Andr� Fran�ois-Poncet, noted:
The foreigners on the speaker's platform as guests of honor were not
alone in carrying away the impression of a truly beautiful and
wonderful public festival, an impression that was created by the
regime's genius for organization, by the night time display of
uniforms, by the play of lights, the rhythm of the music, by the flags
and the colorful fireworks; and they were not alone in thinking that a
breath of reconciliation and unity was passing over the Third Reich.
"It is our wish," Hitler had exclaimed, as though taking heaven as his
witness, "to get along together and to struggle together as brothers,
so that at the hour when we shall come before God, we might say to
him: 'See, Lord, we have changed. The German people are no longer a
people ashamed, a people mean and cowardly and divided. No, Lord! The
German people have become strong in their spirit, in their will, in
their perseverance, in their acceptance of any sacrifice. Lord, we
remain faithful to Thee! Bless our struggle!" (A. Fran�ois-Poncet,
Souvenirs d'une ambassade � Berlin, p. 128.)
Who else could have made such an incantatory appeal without making
himself look ridiculous?
No politician had ever spoken of the rights of workers with such faith
and such force, or had laid out in such clear terms the social plan he
pledged to carry out on behalf of the common people.
The next day, the newspaper of the proletarian left, the "Union
Journal," reported on this mass meeting at which at least two thirds-a
million-of those attending were workers. "This May First was victory
day," the paper summed up.
With the workers thus won over, what further need was there for the
thousands of labor union locals that for so long had poisoned the
social life of the Reich and which, in any case, had accomplished
nothing of a lasting, positive nature?
Within hours of the conclusion of that "victory" meeting at the
Tempelhof field, the National Socialists were able to peacefully take
complete control of Germany's entire labor union organization,
including all its buildings, enterprises and banks. An era of Marxist
obstruction abruptly came to an end : from now on, a single national
organization would embody the collective will and interests of all of
Germany's workers.
Although he was now well on his way to creating what he pledged would
be a true "government of the people," Hitler also realized that great
obstacles remained. For one thing, the Communist rulers in Moscow had
not dropped their guard-or their guns. Restoring the nation would take
more than words and promises, it would take solid achievements. Only
then would the enthusiasm shown by the working class at the May First
mass meeting be an expression of lasting victory.
How could Hitler solve the great problem that had defied solution by
everyone else (both in Germany and abroad): putting millions of
unemployed back to work?
What would Hitler do about wages? Working hours? Leisure time?
Housing? How would he succeed in winning, at long last, respect for
the rights and dignity of the worker?
How could men's lives be improved-materially, morally, and, one might
even say, spiritually? How would he proceed to build a new society fit
for human beings, free of the inertia, injustices and prejudices of
the past?
"National Socialism," Hitler had declared at the outset, "has its
mission and its hour; it is not just a passing movement but a phase of
history."
The instruments of real power now in his hands-an authoritarian state,
its provinces subordinate but nonetheless organic parts of the
national whole-Hitler had acted quickly to shake himself free of the
last constraints of the impotent sectarian political parties.
Moreover, he was now able to direct a cohesive labor force that was no
longer split into a thousand rivulets but flowed as a single, mighty
current.
Hitler was self-confident, sure of the power of his own conviction. He
had no intention, or need, to resort to the use of physical force.
Instead, he intended to win over, one by one, the millions of Germans
who were still his adversaries, and even those who still hated him.
His conquest of Germany had taken years of careful planning and hard
work. Similarly, he would now realize his carefully worked out plans
for transforming the state and society. This meant not merely changes
in administrative or governmental structures, but far-reaching social
programs.
He had once vowed: "The hour will come when the 15 million people who
now hate us will be solidly behind us and will acclaim with us the new
revival we shall create together." Eventually he would succeed in
winning over even many of his most refractory skeptics and
adversaries.
His army of converts was already forming ranks. In a remarkable
tribute, historian Joachim Fest felt obliged to acknowledge
unequivocally:
Hitler had moved rapidly from the status of a demagogue to that of a
respected statesman. The craving to join the ranks of the victors was
spreading like an epidemic, and the shrunken minority of those who
resisted the urge were being visibly pushed into isolation-The past
was dead. The future, it seemed, belonged to the regime, which had
more and more followers, which was being hailed everywhere and
suddenly had sound reasons on its side.
And even the prominent leftist writer Kurt Tucholsky, sensing the
direction of the inexorable tide that was sweeping Germany, vividly
commented: "You don't go railing against the ocean." (J. Fest, Hitler,
pp. 415 f.)
"Our power," Hitler was now able to declare, "no longer belongs to any
territorial fraction of the Reich, nor to any single class of the
nation, but to the people in its totality."
Much still remained to be done, however. So far, Hitler had succeeded
in clearing the way of obstacles to his program. Now the time to build
had arrived.
So many others had failed to tackle the many daunting problems that
were now his responsibility. Above all, the nation demanded a solution
to the great problem of unemployment. Could Hitler now succeed where
others had so dismally failed?..
Unemployment could be combated and eliminated only by giving industry
the financial means to start up anew, to modernize, thus creating
millions of new jobs.
The normal rate of consumption would not be restored, let alone
increased, unless one first raised the starvation-level allowances
that were making purchases of any kind a virtual impossibility. On the
contrary, production and sales would have to be restored before the
six million unemployed could once again become purchasers.
The great economic depression could be overcome only by restimulating
industry, by bringing industry into step with the times, and by
promoting the development of new products..
Nearly ten years earlier, while in his prison cell, Hitler had already
envisioned a formidable system of national highways. He had also
conceived of a small, easily affordable automobile (later known as the
"Volkswagen"), and had even suggested its outline. It should have the
shape of a June bug, he proposed. Nature itself suggested the car's
aerodynamic line.
Until Hitler came to power, a car was the privilege of the rich. It
was not financially within the reach of the middle class, much less of
the worker. The "Volkswagen," costing one-tenth as much as the
standard automobile of earlier years, would eventually become a
popular work vehicle and a source of pleasure after work: a way to
unwind and get some fresh air, and of discovering, thanks to the new
Autobahn highway network, a magnificent country that then, in its
totality, was virtually unknown to the German worker.
From the beginning, Hitler wanted this economical new car to be built
for the millions. The production works would also become one of
Germany's most important industrial centers and employers.
During his imprisonment, Hitler had also drawn up plans for the
construction of popular housing developments and majestic public
buildings.
Some of Hitler's rough sketches still survive. They include groups of
individual worker's houses with their own gardens (which were to be
built in the hundreds of thousands), a plan for a covered stadium in
Berlin, and a vast congress hall, unlike any other in the world, that
would symbolize the grandeur of the National Socialist revolution.
"A building with a monumental dome," historian Werner Maser has
explained, "the plan of which he drew while he was writing Mein Kampf,
would have a span of 46 meters, a height of 220 meters, a diameter of
250 meters, and a capacity of 150 to 190 thousand people standing. The
interior of the building would have been 17 times larger than Saint
Peter's Cathedral in Rome." (W. Maser, Hitler, Adolf, p. 100.)
"That hall," architect Albert Speer has pointed out, "was not just an
idle dream impossible of achievement."
Hitler's imagination, therefore, had long been teeming with a number
of ambitious projects, many of which would eventually be realized.
Fortunately, the needed entrepreneurs, managers and technicians were
on hand. Hitler would not have to improvise.
Historian Werner Maser, although quite anti-Hitler-like nearly all of
his colleagues (how else would they have found publishers?) - has
acknowledged: "From the beginning of his political career, he [Hitler]
took great pains systematically to arrange for whatever he was going
to need in order to carry out his plans."
"Hitler was distinguished," Maser has also noted, "by an exceptional
intelligence in technical matters." Hitler had acquired his knowledge
by devoting many thousands of hours to technical studies from the time
of his youth.
"Hitler read an endless number of books," explained Dr. Schacht. "He
acquired a very considerable amount of knowledge and made masterful
use of it in discussions and speeches. In certain respects he was a
man endowed with genius. He had ideas that no one else would ever have
thought of, ideas that resulted in the ending of great difficulties,
sometimes by measures of an astonishing simplicity or brutality."
Many billions of marks would be needed to begin the great
socioeconomic revolution that was destined, as Hitler had always
intended, to make Germany once again the European leader in industry
and commerce and, most urgently, to rapidly wipe out unemployment in
Germany. Where would the money be found? And, once obtained, how would
these funds be allotted to ensure maximum effectiveness in their
investment?
Hitler was by no means a dictator in matters of the economy. He was,
rather, a stimulator. His government would undertake to do only that
which private initiative could not.
Hitler believed in the importance of individual creative imagination
and dynamism, in the need for every person of superior ability and
skill to assume responsibility.
He also recognized the importance of the profit motive. Deprived of
the prospect of having his efforts rewarded, the person of ability
often refrains from running risks. The economic failure of Communism
has demonstrated this. In the absence of personal incentives and the
opportunity for real individual initiative, the Soviet "command
economy" lagged in all but a few fields, its industry years behind its
competitors.
State monopoly tolls the death of all initiative, and hence of all
progress.
For all men selflessly to pool their wealth might be marvelous, but it
is also contrary to human nature. Nearly every man desires that his
labor shall improve his own condition and that of his family, and
feels that his brain, creative imagination, and persistence well
deserve their reward.
Because it disregarded these basic psychological truths, Soviet
Communism, right to the end, wallowed in economic mediocrity, in spite
of its immense reservoir of manpower, its technical expertise, and its
abundant natural resources, all of which ought to have made it an
industrial and technological giant.
Hitler was always adverse to the idea of state management of the
economy. He believed in elites. "A single idea of genius," he used to
say, "has more value than a lifetime of conscientious labor in an
office."
Just as there are political or intellectual elites, so also is there
an industrial elite. A manufacturer of great ability should not be
restrained, hunted down by the internal revenue services like a
criminal, or be unappreciated by the public. On the contrary, it is
important for economic development that the industrialist be
encouraged morally and materially, as much as possible.
The most fruitful initiatives Hitler would take from 1933 on would be
on behalf of private enterprise. He would keep an eye on the quality
of their directors, to be sure, and would shunt aside incompetents,
quite a few of them at times, but he also supported the best ones,
those with the keenest minds, the most imaginative and bold, even if
their political opinions did not always agree with his own.
"There is no question," he stated very firmly, "of dismissing a
factory owner or director under the pretext that he is not a National
Socialist."
Hitler would exercise the same moderation, the same pragmatism, in the
administrative as well as in the industrial sphere.
What he demanded of his co-workers, above all, was competence and
effectiveness. The great majority of Third Reich functionaries - some
80 percent-were never enrolled in the National Socialist party.
Several of Hitler's ministers, like Konstantin von Neurath and
Schwerin von Krosigk, and ambassadors to such key posts as Prague,
Vienna and Ankara, were not members of the party. But they were
capable..
"Herr Schacht," he said, "we are assuredly in agreement on one point:
no other single task facing the government at the moment can be so
truly urgent as conquering unemployment. That will take a lot of
money. Do you see any possibility of finding it apart from the
Reichsbank?" And after a moment, he added: "How much would it take? Do
you have any idea?"
Wishing to win Schacht over by appealing to his ambition, Hitler
smiled and then asked: "Would you be willing to once again assume
presidency of the Reichsbank?" Schacht let on that he had a
sentimental concern for Dr. Luther, and did not want to hurt the
incumbent's feelings. Playing along, Hitler reassured Schacht that he
would find an appropriate new job elsewhere for Luther.
Schacht then pricked up his ears, drew himself up, and focused his big
round eyes on Hitler: "Well, if that's the way it is," he said, "then
I am ready to assume the presidency of the Reichsbank again."
His great dream was being realized. Schacht had been president of the
Reichsbank between 1923 and 1930, but had been dismissed. Now he would
return in triumph. He felt vindicated. Within weeks, the ingenious
solution to Germany's pressing financial woes would burst forth from
his inventive brain.
"It was necessary," Schacht later explained, "to discover a method
that would avoid inflating the investment holdings of the Reichsbank
immoderately and consequently increasing the circulation of money
excessively."
"Therefore," he went on, "I had to find some means of getting the sums
that were lying idle in pockets and banks, without meaning for it to
be long term and without having it undergo the risk of depreciation.
That was the reasoning behind the Mefo bonds."
What were these "Mefo" bonds? Mefo was a contraction of the
Metallurgische Forschungs-GmbH (Metallurgic Research Company). With a
startup capitalization of one billion marks - which Hitler and Schacht
arranged to be provided by the four giant firms of Krupp, Siemens,
Deutsche Werke and Rheinmetall-this company would eventually promote
many billions of marks worth of investment.
Enterprises, old and new, that filled government orders had only to
draw drafts on Mefo for the amounts due. These drafts, when presented
to the Reichsbank, were immediately convertible into cash. The success
of the Mefo program depended entirely on public acceptance of the Mefo
bonds. But the wily Schacht had planned well. Since Mefo bonds were
short-term bonds that could be cashed in at any time, there was no
real risk in buying, accepting or holding them. They bore an interest
of four percent-a quite acceptable figure in those days-whereas
banknotes hidden under the mattress earned nothing. The public quickly
took all this into consideration and eagerly accepted the bonds.
While the Reichsbank was able to offer from its own treasury a
relatively insignificant 150 million marks for Hitler's war on
unemployment, in just four years the German public subscribed more
than 12 billion marks worth of Mefo bonds!
These billions, the fruit of the combined imagination, ingenuity and
astuteness of Hitler and Schacht, swept away the temporizing and
fearful conservatism of the bankers. Over the next four years, this
enormous credit reserve would make miracles possible.
Soon after the initial billion-mark credit, Schacht added another
credit of 600 million in order to finance the start of Hitler's grand
program for highway construction. This Autobahn program provided
immediate work for 100,000 of the unemployed, and eventually assured
wages for some 500,000 workers.
As large as this outlay was, it was immediately offset by a
corresponding cutback in government unemployment benefits, and by the
additional tax revenue generated as a result of the increase in living
standard (sping) of the newly employed.
Within a few months, thanks to the credit created by the Mefo bonds,
private industry once again dared to assume risks and expand. Germans
returned to work by the hundreds of thousands.
Was Schacht solely responsible for this extraordinary turnaround?
After the war, he answered for himself as a Nuremberg Tribunal
defendant, where he was charged with having made possible the Reich's
economic revival:
I don't think Hitler was reduced to begging for my help. If I had not
served him, he would have found other methods, other means. He was not
a man to give up. It's easy enough for you to say, Mr. Prosecutor,
that I should have watched Hitler die and not lifted a finger. But the
entire working class would have died with him!
Even Marxists recognized Hitler's success, and their own failure. In
the June 1934 issue of the Zeitschrift f�r Sozialismus, the journal of
the German Social Democrats in exile, this acknowledgement appears:
Faced with the despair of proletarians reduced to joblessness, of
young people with diplomas and no future, of the middle classes of
merchants and artisans condemned to bankruptcy, and of farmers
terribly threatened by the collapse in agricultural prices, we all
failed. We weren't capable of offering the masses anything but
speeches about the glory of socialism.
VI. The Social Revolution
Hitler's tremendous social achievement in putting Germany's six
million unemployed back to work is seldom acknowledged today. Although
it was much more than a transitory achievement, "democratic"
historians routinely dismiss it in just a few lines. Since 1945, not a
single objective scholarly study has been devoted to this highly
significant, indeed unprecedented, historical phenomenon.
Similarly neglected is the body of sweeping reforms that dramatically
changed the condition of the worker in Germany. Factories were
transformed from gloomy caverns to spacious and healthy work centers,
with natural lighting, surrounded by gardens and playing fields.
Hundreds of thousands of attractive houses were built for working
class families. A policy of several weeks of paid vacation was
introduced, along with week and holiday trips by land and sea. A
wide-ranging program of physical and cultural education for young
workers was established, with the world's best system of technical
training. The Third Reich's social security and workers' health
insurance system was the world's most modern and complete.
This remarkable record of social achievement is routinely hushed up
today because it is embarrasses those who uphold the orthodox view of
the Third Reich. Otherwise, readers might begin to think that perhaps
Hitler was the greatest social builder of the twentieth century..
Nevertheless, restoring work and bread to millions of unemployed who
had been living in misery for years; restructuring industrial life;
conceiving and establishing an organization for the effective defense
and betterment of the nation's millions of wage earners; creating a
new bureaucracy and judicial system that guaranteed the civic rights
of each member of the national community, while simultaneously holding
each person to his or her responsibilities as a German citizen: this
organic body of reforms was part of a single, comprehensive plan,
which Hitler had conceived and worked out years earlier.
Without this plan, the nation would have collapsed into anarchy.
All-encompassing, this program included broad industrial recovery as
well as detailed attention to even construction of comfortable inns
along the new highway network.
It took several years for a stable social structure to emerge from the
French Revolution. The Soviets needed even more time: five years after
the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, hundreds of thousands of Russians
were still dying of hunger and disease. In Germany, by contrast, the
great machinery was in motion within months, with organization and
accomplishment quickly meshing together..
Hitler personally dug the first spadeful of earth for the first
Autobahn highway, linking Frankfurt-am-Main with Darmstadt. For the
occasion, he brought along Dr. Schacht, the man whose visionary credit
wizardry had made the project possible. The official procession moved
ahead, three cars abreast in front, then six across, spanning the
entire width of the autobahn..
Hitler's plan to build thousands of low-cost homes also demanded a
vast mobilization of manpower. He had envisioned housing that would be
attractive, cozy, and affordable for millions of ordinary German
working-class families. He had no intention of continuing to tolerate,
as his predecessors had, cramped, ugly "rabbit warren" housing for the
German people. The great barracks-like housing projects on the
outskirts of factory towns, packed with cramped families, disgusted
him.
The greater part of the houses he would build were single story,
detached dwellings, with small yards where children could romp, wives
could grow vegetable and flower gardens, while the bread-winners could
read their newspapers in peace after the day's work. These
single-family homes were built to conform to the architectural styles
of the various German regions, retaining as much as possible the
charming local variants.
Wherever there was no practical alternative to building large
apartment complexes, Hitler saw to it that the individual apartments
were spacious, airy and enhanced by surrounding lawns and gardens
where the children could play safely.
The new housing was, of course, built in conformity with the highest
standards of public health, a consideration notoriously neglected in
previous working-class projects.
Generous loans, amortizable in ten years, were granted to newly
married couples so they could buy their own homes. At the birth of
each child, a fourth of the debt was cancelled. Four children, at the
normal rate of a new arrival every two and a half years, sufficed to
cancel the entire loan debt.
Once, during a conversation with Hitler, I expressed my astonishment
at this policy. "But then, you never get back the total amount of your
loans?," I asked. "How so?" he replied, smiling. "Over a period of ten
years, a family with four children brings in much more than our loans,
through the taxes levied on a hundred different items of consumption."
As it happened, tax revenues increased every year, in proportion to
the rise in expenditures for Hitler's social programs. In just a few
years, revenue from taxes tripled. Hitler's Germany never experienced
a financial crisis.
To stimulate the moribund economy demanded the nerve, which Hitler
had, to invest money that the government didn't yet have, rather than
passively waiting-in accordance with "sound" financial principles-for
the economy to revive by itself.
Today, our whole era is dying economically because we have succumbed
to fearful hesitation. Enrichment follows investment, not the other
way around..
Even before the year 1933 had ended, Hitler had succeeded in building
202,119 housing units. Within four years he would provide the German
people with nearly a million and a half (1,458,128) new dwellings!
Moreover, workers would no longer be exploited as they had been. A
month's rent for a worker could not exceed 26 marks, or about an
eighth of the average wage then. Employees with more substantial
salaries paid monthly rents of up to 45 marks maximum.
Equally effective social measures were taken in behalf of farmers, who
had the lowest incomes. In 1933 alone 17,611 new farm houses were
built, each of them surrounded by a parcel of land one thousand square
meters in size. Within three years, Hitler would build 91,000 such
farmhouses..
Everywhere industry was hiring again, with some firms-like Krupp, IG
Farben and the large automobile manufacturers-taking on new workers on
a very large scale. As the country became more prosperous, car sales
increased by more than 80,000 units in 1933 alone. Employment in the
auto industry doubled. Germany was gearing up for full production,
with private industry leading the way.
The new government lavished every assistance on the private sector,
the chief factor in employment as well as production. Hitler almost
immediately made available 500 million marks in credits to private
business.
This start-up assistance given to German industry would repay itself
many times over. Soon enough, another two billion marks would be
loaned to the most enterprising companies. Nearly half would go into
new wages and salaries, saving the treasury an estimated three hundred
million marks in unemployment benefits. Added to the hundreds of
millions in tax receipts spurred by the business recovery, the state
quickly recovered its investment, and more.
Hitler's entire economic policy would be based on the following
equation: risk large sums to undertake great public works and to spur
the renewal and modernization of industry, then later recover the
billions invested through invisible and painless tax revenues. It
didn't take long for Germany to see the results of Hitler's recovery
formula.
Economic recovery, as important as it was, nevertheless wasn't
Hitler's only objective. As he strived to restore full employment,
Hitler never lost sight of his goal of creating a organization
powerful enough to stand up to capitalist owners and managers, who had
shown little concern for the health and welfare of the entire national
community.
Hitler would impose on everyone-powerful boss and lowly wage earner
alike-his own concept of the organic social community. Only the loyal
collaboration of everyone could assure the prosperity of all classes
and social groups.
Consistent with their doctrine, Germany's Marxist leaders had set
class against class, helping to bring the country to the brink of
economic collapse. Deserting their Marxist unions and political
parties in droves, most workers had come to realize that strikes and
grievances their leaders incited only crippled production, and thus
the workers as well.
By the of 1932, in any case, the discredited labor unions were
drowning in massive debt that realistically could never be repaid.
Some of the less scrupulous union officials, sensing the oncoming
catastrophe, had begun stealing hundreds of thousands of marks from
the workers they represented. The Marxist leaders had failed:
socially, financially and morally.
Every joint human activity requires a leader. The head of a factory or
business is also the person naturally responsible for it. He oversees
every aspect of production and work. In Hitler's Germany, the head of
a business had to be both a capable director and a person concerned
for the social justice and welfare of his employees. Under Hitler,
many owners and managers who had proven to be unjust, incompetent or
recalcitrant lost their jobs, or their businesses.
A considerable number of legal guarantees protected the worker against
any abuse of authority at the workplace. Their purpose was to insure
that the rights of workers were respected, and that workers were
treated as worthy collaborators, not just as animated tools. Each
industrialist was legally obliged to collaborate with worker delegates
in drafting shop regulations that were not imposed from above but
instead adapted to each business enterprise and its particular working
conditions. These regulations had to specify "the length of the
working day, the time and method of paying wages, and the safety
rules, and to be posted throughout the factory," within easy access of
both the worker whose interests might be angered and the owner or
manager whose orders might be subverted.
The thousands of different, individual versions of such regulations
served to create a healthy rivalry, with every factory group vying to
outdo the others in efficiency and justice.
One of the first reforms to benefit German workers was the
establishment of paid vacations. In France, the leftist Popular Front
government would noisily claim, in 1936, to have originated legally
mandated paid vacations-and stingy ones at that, only one week per
year. But it was actually Hitler who first established them, in 1933
-- and they were two or three times more generous.
Under Hitler, every factory employee had the legal right to paid
vacation. Previously, paid vacations had not normally exceed four or
five days, and nearly half of the younger workers had no vacation time
at all. If anything, Hitler favored younger workers; the youngest
workers received more generous vacations. This was humane and made
sense: a young person has more need of rest and fresh air to develop
his maturing strength and vigor. Thus, they enjoyed a full 18 days of
paid vacation per year.
Today, more than half a century later, these figures have been
surpassed, but in 1933 they far exceeded European norms.
The standard vacation was twelve days. Then, from the age of 25 on, it
went up to 18 days. After ten years with the company, workers got a
still longer vacation: 21 days, or three times what the French
socialists would grant the workers of their country in 1936.
Hitler introduced the standard forty-hour work week in Europe. As for
overtime work, it was now compensated, as nowhere else in the
continent at the time, at an increased pay rate. And with the
eight-hour work day now the norm, overtime work became more readily
available.
In another innovation, work breaks were made longer: two hours each
day, allowing greater opportunity for workers to relax, and to make
use of the playing fields that large industries were now required to
provide.
Whereas a worker's right to job security had been virtually
non-existent, now an employee could no longer be dismissed at the sole
discretion of the employer. Hitler saw to it that workers' rights were
spelled out and enforced. Henceforth, an employer had to give four
weeks notice before firing an employee, who then had up to two months
to appeal the dismissal. Dismissals could also be annulled by the
"Courts of Social Honor" (Ehrengerichte).
This Court was one of three great institutions that were established
to protect German workers. The others were the "Labor Commissions" and
the "Council of Trust."
The "Council of Trust" (Vertrauensrat) was responsible for
establishing and developing a real spirit of community between
management and labor. "In every business enterprise," the 1934 "Labor
Charter" law stipulated, "the employer and head of the enterprise
(F�hrer), the employees and workers, personnel of the enterprise,
shall work jointly toward the goal of the enterprise and the common
good of the nation."
No longer would either be exploited by the other-neither the worker by
arbitrary whim of the employer, nor the employer through the blackmail
of strikes for political ends.
Article 35 of the "Labor Charter" law stated: "Every member of an
enterprise community shall assume the responsibility required by his
position in said common enterprise." In short, each enterprise would
be headed by a dynamic executive, charged with a sense of the greater
community-no longer a selfish capitalist with unconditional, arbitrary
power.
"The interest of the community may require that an incapable or
unworthy employer be relieved of his duties," the "Labor Charter"
stipulated. The employer was no longer unassailable, an all-powerful
boss with the last word on hiring and firing his staff. He, too, would
be subject to the workplace regulations, which he was now obliged to
respect no less than the least of his employees. The law conferred the
honor and responsibility of authority on the employer only insofar as
he merited it..
In the Third Reich, the worker knew that "exploitation of his physical
strength in bad faith or in violation of his honor" was no longer
tolerated. He had obligations to the community, but he shared these
obligations with every other member of the enterprise, from the chief
executive to the messenger boy. Finally, the German worker had clearly
defined social rights, which were arbitrated and enforced by
independent agencies. And while all this had been achieved in an
atmosphere of justice and moderation, it nevertheless constituted a
genuine social revolution..
Factories and shops, large and small, were altered or transformed to
conform to the strictest standards of cleanliness and hygiene:
interiors, so often dark and stifling, were opened up to light;
playing fields were constructed; rest areas where workers could unbend
during break, were set aside; employee cafeterias and respectable
locker rooms were opened. The larger industrial establishments, in
addition to providing the normally required conventional sports
facilities, were obliged to put in swimming pools!
In just three years, these achievements would reach unimagined
heights: more than two thousand factories refitted and beautified;
23,000 work premises modernized; 800 buildings designed exclusively
for meetings; 1,200 playing fields; 13,000 sanitary facilities; 17,000
cafeterias.
To assure the healthy development of the working class, physical
education courses were instituted for younger workers. Some 8,000 were
eventually organized. Technical training was equally emphasized.
Hundreds of work schools, and thousands of technical courses were
created. There were examinations for professional competence, and
competitions in which generous prizes were awarded to outstanding
masters of their craft.
Eight hundred departmental inspectors and 17,300 local inspectors were
employed to conscientiously monitor and promote these improvements.
To provide affordable vacations for German workers on a hitherto
unprecedented scale, Hitler established the "Strength through Joy"
program. As a result, hundreds of thousands of workers were now able
to make relaxing vacation trips on land and sea each summer.
Magnificent cruise ships were built, and special trains brought
vacationers to the mountains and the seashore. In just a few years,
Germany's working-class tourists would log a distance equivalent to 54
times the circumference of the earth! And thanks to generous state
subsidies, the cost to workers of these popular vacation excursions
was nearly insignificant..
Was Hitler's transformation of the lot of the working class
authoritarian? Without a doubt. And yet, for a people that had grown
sick and tired of anarchy, this new authoritarianism wasn't regarded
as an imposition. In fact, people have always accepted a strong man's
leadership.
In any case, there is no doubt that the attitude of the German working
class, which was still two-thirds non-Nazi at the start of 1933, soon
changed completely. As Belgian author Marcel Laloire noted at the
time:
When you make your way through the cities of Germany and go into the
working-class districts, go through the factories, the construction
yards, you are astonished to find so many workers on the job sporting
the Hitler insignia, to see so many flags with the swastika, black on
a bright red background, in the most densely populated districts.
Hitler's "German Labor Front" (Deutsche Arbeitsfront), which
incorporated all workers and employers, was for the most part eagerly
accepted. The steel spades of the sturdy young lads of the "National
Labor Service" (Reichsarbeitsdienst) could also be seen gleaming along
the highways.
Hitler created the National Labor Service not only to alleviate
unemployment, but to bring together, in absolute equality, and in the
same uniform, both the sons of millionaires and the sons of the
poorest families for several months' common labor and living.
All performed the same work, all were subject to the same discipline;
they enjoyed the same pleasures and benefited from the same physical
and moral development. At the same construction sites and in the same
barracks, Germans became conscious of what they had in common, grew to
understand one another, and discarded their old prejudices of class
and caste.
After a hitch in the National Labor Service, a young worker knew that
the rich man's son was not a pampered monster, while the young lad of
wealthy family knew that the worker's son had no less honor than a
nobleman or an heir to riches; they had lived and worked together as
comrades. Social hatred was vanishing, and a socially united people
was being born.
Hitler could go into factories-something few men of the so-called
Right would have risked in the past-and hold forth to crowds of
workers, at times in the thousands, as at the huge Siemens works. "In
contrast to the von Papens and other country gentlemen," he might tell
them, "in my youth I was a worker like you. And in my heart of hearts,
I have remained what I was then."
During his twelve years in power, no untoward incident ever occurred
at any factory he visited. Hitler was at home when he went among the
people, and he was received like a member of the family returning home
after making a success of himself.
But the Chancellor of the Third Reich wanted more than popular
approval. He wanted that approval to be freely, widely, and repeatedly
expressed by popular vote. No people was ever be more frequently asked
for their electoral opinion than the German people of that era-five
times in five years.
For Hitler, it was not enough that the people voted from time to time,
as in the previous democratic system. In those days, voters were
rarely appealed to, and when they expressed an opinion, they were
often ill-informed and apathetic. After an election, years might go
by, during which the politicians were heedless and inaccessible, the
electorate powerless to vote on their actions.
To enable the German public to express its opinion on the occasion of
important events of social, national, or international significance,
Hitler provided the people a new means of approving or rejecting his
own actions as Chancellor: the plebiscite.
Hitler recognized the right of all the people, men and women alike, to
vote by secret ballot: to voice their opinion of his policies, or to
make a well-grounded judgment on this or that great decision in
domestic or foreign affairs. Rather than a formalistic routine,
democracy became a vital, active program of supervision that was
renewed annually.
The articles of the "Plebiscite Law" were brief and clear:
1.The Reich government may ask the people whether or not it approves
of a measure planned by or taken by the government. This may also
apply to a law.
2. A measure submitted to plebiscite will be considered as established
when it receives a simple majority of the votes. This will apply as
well to a law modifying the Constitution.
3. If the people approves the measure in question, it will be applied
in conformity with article III of the Law for Overcoming the Distress
of the People and the Reich.
The Reich Interior Ministry is authorized to take all legal and
administrative measures necessary to carry out this law.
Berlin, July 14, 1933.
Hitler, Frick..
From the first months of 1933, his accomplishments were public fact,
for all to see. Before end of the year, unemployment in Germany had
fallen from more than 6,000,000 to 3,374,000. Thus, 2,627,000 jobs had
been created since the previous February, when Hitler began his
"gigantic task!" A simple question: Who in Europe ever achieved
similar results in so short a time?..
In his detailed and critical biography of Hitler, Joachim Fest limited
his treatment of Hitler's extraordinary social achievements in 1933 to
a few paragraphs. All the same, Fest did not refrain from
acknowledging:
The regime insisted that it was not the rule of one social class above
all others, and by granting everyone opportunities to rise, it in fact
demonstrated class neutrality-These measures did indeed break through
the old, petrified social structures. They tangibly improved the
material condition of much of the population. (J. Fest, Hitler, pp.
434-435.)
Not without reason were the swastika banners waving proudly throughout
the working-class districts where, just a year ago, they had been
unceremoniously torn down.