question for history buffs
!social
services which have been denied the benefit of competitive
improvement, why is it that Nazi Germany's military technology was
superior to that of many Allied forces?
I don't intent to troll, or be provacative -- there is likely a simple
answer to the above question -- I'm simply requesting information.
Docky Wocky
"why is it that Nazi Germany's military technology was
superior to that of many Allied forces?..."
________________________________
A head start, mainly.
skyliq
"!social" <brain...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ce359d41.0305...@posting.google.com...
Prisoner #6
--
"Strange times are those in which we live when old and young are
taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell
the truth is called at once a lunatic and a fool" - Plato
Rene
> services which have been denied the benefit of competitive
> improvement, why is it that Nazi Germany's military technology was
> superior to that of many Allied forces?
The poor "products" that Socialism produces are human lives which are
shattered, hope which is destroyed, and bright futures which are wiped out.
Nazi Germany was very good at killing Jews, this is true, and had relatively
efficient technologies for accomplishing that goal. But most rational
people wouldn't thereby leap to the conclusion that Socialism/Nazi Germany
was "good".
Ted Holden
You might want to get yourself a copy of Richard Overy's "Why the Allies
Won" for starters.
Generally, the Germans were guilty of bad decision making in a number of
areas and, contrary to popular theory, the axis societies functioned less
efficiently than ours did under war conditions.
The bad decision making included going after technologies such as the V1 and
V2 which were not capable of effecting the outcome of the war. On top of
that, several of the technologies seen late in the war were basically
nothing more than desparation acts. In particular, Germany, Britain, and
the US all had jet engines by the late 30s. It was years after WW-II
before jets ever had the efficiency or range to be anything more than area
defense fighters, and the deploying of the 262 Messerschmidt by Germany
late in the war only meant that it was their cities getting bombed, and
that they were losing. The true super aircraft of WW-II P51 and the B29.
On top of all that, much of German technology was decidedly inferior and/or
ill thought out. Their lack of anything equivalent to the Browning heavy
machinegun cost them dearly, and the idea of walking into WW-II with
Mausers when the US was moving to the M1 was idiotic.
Russell Ranshaw
----------------------------------------------------------
"What used to be called liberal is now called radical, what used to
be called radical is now called insane, what used to be called
reactionary is now called moderate, and what used to be called insane
is now called solid conservative thinking" (Tony Kushner)
Jeff Ayers
Jeff
"!social" <brain...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ce359d41.0305...@posting.google.com...
Phoenix Rising
attractive, especially to countries that have never experienced it
before and who are ignorant of other countries' experiences with it.
Don't forget that our own wartime economies were heavily socialistic,
if we define socialism as a system involving heavy government
involvement in business, central economic planning, etc.
Russia, China, and Germany all heavily industrialized under
socialist leadership (though Germany at least had a history of
technological prowess beforehand and began industrializing under von
Bismarck). Japan's heavily government-involved economy was one of the
wonders of the Cold War; now they've sort of lost direction. The
problem is that socialism doesn't work in the long term, and the more
pervasive the central planning, the sooner it burns out. America could
not have handled the massive mobilizations of WWI or WWII forever, even
though our GDP skyrocketed and unemployment practically vanished. The
USSR handled it for a long time because their natural resource endowment
was (is) so prodigious that it was able to cover a lot of inefficiencies
for a long time.
In the specific case of Nazi Germany, I think one more factor was
involved: pure nationalism and frustration with the Weimar Republic and
everything that had happened since 1918 were able to offset a large part
of the inherent disincentive for hard work in a socialist system.
Just my $0.02.
--Phoenix Rising
!social wrote:
--
Phoenix Rising
--
"More than anything else, this separates us from the enemy we fight. We value every life. Our enemies value none, not even the innocent, not even their own." --George Bush, Sept. 11th, 2002
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." --Winston Churchill
"When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike you, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him." --Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Steven Litvintchouk
skyliq wrote:
>
> The Soviets had Sputnik.....
which didn't BEGIN to make up for the fact that the U.S. had developed
the atomic bomb ahead of the Soviets. (The Soviets stole the design for
the atomic bomb from America thru their spy network--while their
propagandists and their left-wing Western sympathizers were howling that
the U.S. should unilaterally disarm.)
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlink.net
Steven Litvintchouk
"!social" wrote:
>
> If socialism is bad, that is, if socialism produces poor products and
> services which have been denied the benefit of competitive
> improvement, why is it that Nazi Germany's military technology was
> superior to that of many Allied forces?
First of all, Nazi Germany wasn't a "socialist" economy to anywhere near
the extent that the Soviet bloc was. Nazi Germany continued to have a
very vigorous private sector, in which private military contractors like
Krupp and I.G. Farben continued to thrive.
Secondly, the technology wasn't all that superior. Britain had a real
edge in radar and cryptography. The U.S. was (and still is) the world
leader in long-range heavy bombers: B-17, B-29, B-36, etc.. The Nazi
tanks that rolled into Russia were matched by the Soviet T-34 and
outclassed by the Soviet KV tank. Nazi Germany didn't develop any real
super-weapons (like the jet fighter and V-2) until it was too late.
Thirdly, Germany was good at copying foreign inventions. The Stuka
dive-bomber was a copy of an American invention. And it was a sitting
duck for enemy fighters anyway.
What Nazi Germany did have, was initiative and commitment. Hitler knew
what he wanted to get done, whereas the Allies were defeatist, cynical,
suspicious of their own governments' motives, and unsure of themselves.
So Hitler was always able to attack at a time and place of his own
choosing, while the Allies sat on their asses trying to OUTGUESS where
the next blow would strike.
spank...@beckie.com
>If socialism is bad, that is, if socialism produces poor products and
>services which have been denied the benefit of competitive
>improvement, why is it that Nazi Germany's military technology was
>superior to that of many Allied forces?
a) German "socialism" wasn't Communism. Their "socialism" was directed toward
a national belief they were superior.
b) German capitalism was alive and well in everything ---- including charging the
government for EACH person shipped to the death camps by the railroad. While it is true
the government
dictated what would be produced, ie munitions, etc, it was done on a capitalist system.
---------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 16:08:21 -0500, Christopher Morton
<chr...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>Sorry, I'm a pro-abortion, pro-affirmative action liberal.
No, MORTONLOON
All you are, or ever were, or ever WILL be is a
big, dumb, ass-kicked Gunwhoring chickenshit
usenet moron.
>Yes, and it pisses you off, you crossburning ignoramus.
David D. Workman
I think the answer lies in the fact that Nazism was a rather short
period in Germany's political history. The demand for excellence in
production, including competitive improvement, was already an
established trait in Germany before their society was hijacked by the
Nazis. (Note the demanding and exacting machining culture during the
1800's.) It would be akin to asking why a really stupid, brutal person
gets a thorough tax analysis simply because he is holding a gun to an
accountants head- it does not demonstrate any intelligence on the part
of the brutal man if his return is bigger than yours.
A friend of mine from Ukraine tells the story of working in a meat
factory where pates and sausages were made for export. Theft of product
was widespread, but, lacking bread, they ended up smearing pate on the
sausages, rather than the more traditional crackers.
Hope this helps.
David
otis_p_d...@hotmail.com
>If socialism is bad, that is, if socialism produces poor products and
>services which have been denied the benefit of competitive
>improvement, why is it that Nazi Germany's military technology was
>superior to that of many Allied forces?
Which technology? Tanks? The would be the T-34.
Planes? That would be B-29 bomber, Spitfire, P-51, IL-2
Battle rifles? The Germans used bolt-action mausers. Standard US
issue was the M-1.
The British had ASDIC and RADAR.
The US, of course had the Manhattan Project.
Your Daily Mental Floss
An excellent answer, and a correct one.
Within a few years it was the US who had the better weapons, produced in huge
quantities.
q.e.d.
>
>
>
>
>
>
*********************
"More cube-dwelling technoid ignorANUSES engage in "bad faith" & illogical
argument, accuse their opponents of lying, and get their bigoted
misinformation, on Usenet than on any other forum."
Your Daily Mental Floss
brain...@hotmail.com (!social) wrote:
Well, for starters, you attempt to refute a general proposition with a single
exception.
That works in mathematics and science, but not in the world of human affairs.
A state like Nazi Germany that made military technology their prime aim might
be able to excel AT THAT, but to the detriment of other goods and services.
The Russians are a good example.....they could make one of anything, but a
million of nothing.
sg
"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3ECFE7DF...@earthlink.net...
>
>
> "!social" wrote:
> >
> > If socialism is bad, that is, if socialism produces poor products and
> > services which have been denied the benefit of competitive
> > improvement, why is it that Nazi Germany's military technology was
> > superior to that of many Allied forces?
>
They had Von Braun...
sg
http://stangrimes.com
rAD
> services which have been denied the benefit of competitive
> improvement, why is it that Nazi Germany's military technology was
> superior to that of many Allied forces?
It was all produced by private German firms. German workers and technician
were also superior.
Private Japanese firms also produced some nice products.
Russian designs were mostly copies and the depended on US machine tools and
steel.
John Urie
sg wrote:
> "Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlink.net>
> They had Von Braun...
> sg
> http://stangrimes.com
And we had Oppenheimer, remember? Steve's absolutely right. Germany's
1940's technology wasn't all it was touted to be. In fact, some it was
downright retro. At the start of the war and even into the invasion of the
Soviet Union a helluva a lot of the Wehrmacht's artillery was HORSE-drawn.
Their tanks were rated as about equal to the French tanks, and those were the
German-designed, German-built models. About 1/3 of the tanks the Germans
used in the Battle of France were of Czech origin.
No, the real difference, at least early in the war, was in the generalship.
The Germans had Guderian. The Allies had Gamelin.
That was what really made the difference
skyliq
Apples and oranges.
skyliq
"John Urie" <jtu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3ED035E8...@earthlink.net...
>
>
> sg wrote:
>
> > "Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlink.net>
> > They had Von Braun...
> > sg
> > http://stangrimes.com
>
> And we had Oppenheimer, remember?
BFD. They had Heisenberg.
...and early on, Einstein.
Just think what might have been if Hitler, or for that matter Germany, was
just a little different.
Peace,
-Sky.
Barry Worthington
> >
> > The Soviets had Sputnik.....
>
> which didn't BEGIN to make up for the fact that the U.S. had developed
> the atomic bomb ahead of the Soviets.
You actually think that the U.S. developed the atomic bomb all on its own?
You need to read a good history book...
Dr. Barry Worthington
neptune3
The answer is that Hitler was absolutely correct about everything.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.AmRen.com
neptune3
>The Soviets had Sputnik.....
>
Here is a letter by Otto Deissenroth, Military Post Number 12 827D
In the East, 30.7.1941
Dear Comrade Karl !
I write this letter from the desolation of a Ukrainian forest village,
40 kilometers from Kiev, which we hope to capture in a few days. The
fruitful land of the Ukraine is all around us, but 20 years of
Bolshevist mismanagement have brought it to ruin. The poverty, misery
and filth we have seen and experienced in the past weeks is
indescribable. You back home cannot imagine the terrible results of
Bolshevism in this fruitful land. Everything that we formerly read in
newspapers and books pales in the face of the terrible reality. Our
eyes look in vain for some sign of construction, for a trace of
progress, for a bit of culture. We yearn for the sight of a clean
house, an orderly street, a few tended gardens, a few trees! Wherever
we look there is filth, decay, desolation, misery, death and
suffering! Everywhere we see the ghost of Bolshevism in the tortured
look of farmers, the blank stares of captives, the hundreds of
murdered people, the farm houses of impoverished buildings and ruined
houses. I sometimes think it is all the work of the devil. The land
was rich when it was inhabited by German, Ukrainian, Czech and Polish
farmers. Then Bolshevism came, and with it enormous misery. Everything
that was prosperous or cultured was killed or burned. I spoke with
dozens of people whose family members, fathers, husbands, brothers and
sons perished somewhere in Murmansk, Siberia or the icy north.
Thousands died during the great famine, particularly in 1932-1933.
Thousands more ended up in prisons and jails. The misery of those
freed from Bolshevism is indescribable. Any free expression was
prohibited, any movement banned. Everything in nature that was
beautiful, good and free was destroyed. Everything created by God was
exterminated! They took the blessing from the land and the soul from
the people. They reduced them to the level of animals, impotent,
miserable enslaved animals with no hope of life who did not know if
they would be alive tomorrow, who lived from hand to mouth, and were
happy only when someone killed them. Hell can be no worse that this
"Soviet paradise." There is no hope of salvation. What Bolshevism has
done to humanity is a sin against God, a crime one cannot begin to
understand. Every German who formerly thought Bolshevism was a worthy
idea and who threatened we National Socialists with death and
bloodshed only because we didn't believe in this nonsense should be
ashamed! We were right! We are all shaken and moved as we face this
misery, this suffering, this hopeless Bolshevist life. They stole
everything from these people except the very air they breathed. The
land they inherited from their fathers became a collective, the
property of the state, and they became slaves worse than those of the
darkest Middle Ages in Germany. They had a tiny plot of land of their
own, and even that was heavily taxed. They had to report to the
collective's commissars each morning, work the whole day, even Sunday,
with no free time. They belonged to the state. They were supposedly
paid, but rarely saw the money. They got 33 kopeks a day, about a
third of a Mark. They owned no plow, no spade, no wagon, no yoke.
Everything supposedly belonged to everyone, everything belonged to the
state. The Jews and party bigwigs lived in prosperity, the farmers had
only hunger, misery, work and death. No one felt himself responsible
for the soil, no one felt the love we Germans have for our homeland,
for the soil that is ours. The knowledge of blood and soil had died
out. I spoke with 30-year-olds who did not understand the concept of
property. They had been educated in Soviet schools. That explains why
they had no sense of culture, no need for it. Their homes are empty,
cold and desolate, much poorer than in Poland. No pictures, no flowers
break the desolation. The art of cooking also disappeared, given the
food shortages. The daily diet consists of milk and bread, along with
a bit of honey and a few potatoes. When one see this dismal poverty,
one is reminded that these Bolshevist animals wanted to bring culture
to us industrious, clean and creative Germans. How God has blessed us!
How justified is the Führer's claim to European leadership! The
poorest German village is a pearl in comparison to these ruined
Russian villages. Sometimes as I face the thousands of murdered people
that we found in the cities and villages, and in the numerous
occasions where we found women and children wailing over the corpses
of their family members, or when they asked us to free their men who
had been hauled off just before we arrived, I see the Führer before
me. He saved an enslaved and raped humanity, giving it once more
divine freedom and the blessing of a worthy existence. The last and
deepest reason for this war is to restore the natural and godly order.
It is a battle against slavery, against Bolshevist insanity. I am
proud, deeply proud, that I may fight against this Bolshevist monster,
fighting once again the enemy I fought to destroy during the hard
years of struggle in Germany. I am proud of the wounds I suffered
during the election battles in Germany, and I am proud of my new
wounds, and of the medal that I now wear. It is as if the people here
are awakening from a deep sleep. They cannot yet believe in their new
freedom; they do not know where to begin. They sit down and wait for
orders. Now they have them: "Go back to work, harvest the fields, now
you have your own home." That is what all the posters say, and one
sees the masses at work in the fields. Man and nature are free again,
God has his place once more, his eternal order has been restored. We
National Socialist soldiers of Adolf Hitler have restored the godly
order, though some call us heathens. That is the way life is. And what
did those who spoke about God do? Ask them!"
The Soviet Union was in fact a paradise for one group: the Jews. Even
at times when for foreign policy reasons Jews were less evident in the
government, or when they ruled through straw men, the Jews were always
visible in the middle and lower levels of the administration. During
the whole period of the red dictatorship, they were the beneficiaries.
This was clearest in the small nations that the Soviet Union was using
to prepare for its attack on the Greater German Reich after the
outbreak of Churchill's war, above all in the Baltic states.
Fred Fallnbigl wrote to his Parents in Salzburg, 17.7.41
I wrote in my last two letters about Russian atrocities, and could
fill volumes more.
But a bit more from the Soviet Paradise. I'll especially tell you
about things that happened in Lemberg-Tarnopol and Tromborla.
Tromborla is due south of Tarnopol. I saw the prisons in Lemberg, and
saw things that struck me deeply. There were men with their ears and
noses cut off, etc. They had nailed children alive by their hands and
feet to the wall, butchering them. The blood was ankle deep. It didn't
make any difference if they were alive or dead. They doused the piles
of bodies with gasoline and set them on fire. The stench was terrible.
I saw similar things in Tarnopol and Tromborla. In T. seven Ukrainians
were hauled out of their beds after the Germans had arrived. The next
morning their bodies were found in the woods, beaten until they were
unrecognizable. I have seen all of this myself, they are not matters I
heard about. Feel free to tell them to others, particularly those who
may still think well of the Soviet Union.
I always think how fortunate we are that this scourge of humanity
never made it to our country. I don't think that even years of
preparation would make Germans capable of such atrocities
Paul Rubelt, Military Post Number 34 539 F, wrote to Miss Grete Egger,
Lebring 71, Steieirark:
6.7.1941
"I was in Lemberg yesterday and saw a bloodbath. It was terrible. Many
had their skin stripped off, men were castrated, their eyes poked out,
arms or legs chopped off. Some were nailed to the wall, 30-40 were
sealed into a small room and suffocated. About 650 people in this area
must have died in such ways. The stench can be endured only if one
smokes a cigarette and keeps a handkerchief over one's nose. The Jews
did most of it. Now they have to dig the graves. The culprits will be
shot. Many already died because of the stench. In this city they even
opened graves and defiled the corpses. It is terrible. One can hardly
believe that such people exist."
There are few families in Germany today who do not have a member,
and therefore an eyewitness of Bolshevism. These letters already
circulate within families and factories, villages and party local
groups. Now they reach millions who are working for victory, giving
them a broader picture of the experiences and impressions of their
brothers and sons.
No one will put this pamphlet down without being deeply moved. His
thoughts will then turn to the Führer, the man who in the midst of
Germany's deepest disgrace was the first to recognize and oppose the
communist enemy. The few units of the SA and the SS that opposed the
Bolshevist-Jewish enemy when Moscow's terror still prevailed in the
streets of our great cities, when Red revolution threatened whole
states and provinces of the Reich, and Moscow's Foreign Legion
murdered German men on German soil, now have the whole German people
with them. The enormous columns of German regiments and divisions are
striking Bolshevism deep in Russia. At the right time and with careful
forethought, the Führer, side by side with all the awakened European
nations, gave the command to save the West. The decision was
difficult, the scale of the struggle vast, and the results tremendous.
Everyone today can see that the order given on 22 June 1941 was the
greatest decision in Europe's life. The Bolshevist armies that today
are being destroyed by the blows of the German army, blows from which
they will never recover, were ready to attack Europe. Despite the
treaties, the Bolshevist leaders were ready to attack when the hour
was right. The presumed state of workers and soldiers had secret
agreements with the plutocracies and capitalism. They were preparing
the way for World Jewry to take over Central Europe.
If Stalin's tanks and planes had crossed our borders, it would have
been the end of everything noble and beautiful in the world. Europe
would have been filled with enslaved masses like the prisoners our
soldiers find today in the East. A whole part of the world would have
fallen into filth and misery if Adolf Hitler had not at the last
moment intervened to forever eliminate the criminal danger.
We may not forget it. Moscow's criminals are praised as heroes and
defenders of culture every day by the English and American press.
People in London and New York pray for these animals in human form,
and thousands of Jewish editors, speakers and radio announcers are at
work recruiting American youth to shed their blood for these
subhumans.
This lying and decaying world of plutocracy along with its Bolshevist
allies may not and will not win. No sacrifice is too great in
comparison to what is at risk, and what victory will bring us in the
future.
neptune3
wrote:
>
>
>The poor "products" that Socialism produces are human lives which are
>shattered, hope which is destroyed, and bright futures which are wiped out.
I know you expect no deep expression of feelings, for feelings cannot
be clothed in words. But please imagine this: jobless, without any
money. For two years! For four years! For six years! A desperate
woman, broken in body and soul, with three young children.
How often did I see their hungry eyes looking toward me with vain
expectation. Nothing is more tortuous than such looks from children.
My faith in him, the fanatical fighter, was what kept me and mine from
what lured us - and anyone else in our situation - Suicide!
And today?
A happy mother who is always singing with her children. No one can see
in her the miserable, desperate woman she once was. Instead of three
unhappy hollow-cheeked children, four little devils making noise far
and wide.
Look at them! There may be families with better behaved children, but
none with children as cheerful and happy! That is what the Führer
means to me and mine.
I turned my back very early to a foreign worldview because it left my
whole life meaningless. The Führer gave me his worldview a firm place
to stand, for it is nothing but a knowledge of the eternal laws that
are behind the universe.
His deeds are a joyful fulfillment of these laws. His successes do not
seem to me, as one hears all too often, the result of good luck,
rather as the natural consequences of his nature. This faith, no, this
certainty, enables me to understand the Führer when his actions would
otherwise require blind confidence.
Such obvious confidence is the most wonderful feeling that I can
imagine. Admiration? Recognition? Thanks? They are nothing when
compared to the full understanding of a people of 80 million for the
mission of its Führer. That alone would be crowning of his sacrificial
struggle.
This fulfillment of this wish is my prayer for the Führer."
Fred. Ch., Poppelau
The Führer is everything to us, he is our faith, secirity and hope. As
a bearer of the blood medal, I have always believed in this man, who
guided and inspired us, who led us in the fight for Germany’s
greatness. We, me, my wife and our seven children, believe only in
him, Adolf Hitler. Is there a belief more understandable, more real,
more natural than this?
Has the Führer not done everything for us that one could do for the
good of a family? Did he not give me a job and the ability to decently
feed and clothe my family? Has he not given my children a future that
no other country could so easily give?
The Führer is with us in every situation! Look, sometimes the world is
hard on a family. There are difficult situations that cannot be
overcome. In just such hours I go to my living room, and there is a
picture of my Führer.
I look Adolf Hitler in the face and remember his great struggle, his
great will and accomplishments, and my miserable mood is gone and
thinking of the Führer gives me new strength.
How can I fail when I see the greatness in and around Adolf Hitler?
My children know the Führer as the man who rules all, arranges all,
who built their world. The Führer is the embodiment of what people had
such difficulty describing to us children before. But this is the
enormous difference: The Führer moves among the people so that one can
celebrate him, so that our love for him is rewarded through his ever
new deeds.
The Führer is hope for us in every situation. Look, my dear comrade,
according to the Führer’s own words, raising seven children is a great
responsibility to the state and a holy duty.
To form these young souls, to raise them to be decent adults, is such
a wonderful task only because the Führer has given us the sure
foundations that are necessary. He is our hope, for only through his
generous measures are we with many children also able to "lead an
decent life," as anyone should be able to do. He protects our strength
through the NSV, through subventions for children, through the support
the state gives women and children, through the high status he gave
children.
Once people mocked those with many children. Today people honor them.
Now my wife and I have become respected members of the state. That is
why we have such hope for the future of our children, for the Führer
has provided all that is necessary for them so that they too will be
able to establish families and contribute to the security and
protection of the great Fatherland.
Is it not wonderful to know what a wonderful future awaits our
children. One cannot but remember our own youth during the postwar
period, during the inflation, the days of hunger and so much that had
terrible effects on our youth and development.
Our children have no fears of such things, for they know that our
Führer plans everything, foresees everything, and prepares the best
for us.
Is is not obvious why the Führer means everything to us?
Toni Dominik Sch., Unterammergau
I can still remember the first time I saw and heard the Führer in 1920
in the Zirkus Krone in Munich. This was the introduction: "Adolf
Hitler will speak!" A somewhat slight young man stood before me, with
a short coat, soft collar and crumpled tie, poorly clothed. I was
curious to hear what this man had to say to me.
As I heard his voice, the passion of his words (something unheard of
at the time), the growing tension of his words, it became clear to me:
This man or no one! To this day, this inner feeling has not left me.
The greatness of this man, his deeds, his historic successes seem
enormous to me. But yet I always see him as a man of the people, one
of us in my mind’s eye. It fills me with pride that Providence choice
one of our brothers to fulfill German history.
I honor the great figures of German history, but my feelings for the
Führer are different. I believe that love is the best word to describe
them.
One of us, who came from the people, has done amazing deeds, yet
remained the same from the first day I saw him until today.
I admire this man so much that I would defend him even if he were in
the wrong, but he cannot be wrong since he is truth and justice
themselves.
Gr. F., Munich
>Nazi Germany was very good at killing Jews, this is true, and had relatively
>efficient technologies for accomplishing that goal. But most rational
>people wouldn't thereby leap to the conclusion that Socialism/Nazi Germany
>was "good".
>
"Even cremated bodies leave about 9 pounds of remains.
With millions dead, thousands of tons of ashes should be out there.
What about detailed plans, drawings, and operating manuals for those
specially designed killing chambers? Surely they can be found in the
tons of documents recovered after the war. Studying the Holocaust
should be like tracking a herd of elephants through deep snow; just
look at all those deep tracks and ruts left by those gigantic animals.
But there is no such visible trail left by the gigantic Holocaust.
Professional trackers must be used, and they are needed to point out
the subtle signs of the trail. The most popular are photographs. But
as it turns out, there are no photographs standing alone that prove
anything. All the photographs must be analyzed, properly captioned,
and explained by experts. Hundreds of pictures of dreadful looking
dead bodies are always boldly displayed; but they are usually from
places that were not considered killing centers. Even the Holocaust
experts grudgingly admit people shown in the photographs were not
murdered, but instead died of starvation and disease.
But what of all the other trail evidence? We still need the
professional Holocaust trackers. No building plan was ever found with
any kind of killing device included. Experts must be employed to point
out the places in the plans where gas chambers were located. What
about those written orders and detailed reports about gassings? Not a
single one has been found. In the tons of official documents, in the
thousands of official reports, in the hundreds of personal diaries,
there is not a single mention of gas chambers. In fact, there is very
little outright talk of killing. Again the specially trained
Holocaust experts must be brought in to find "code words" in the
documents which mean kill. What's more, the remains of millions of
bodies of the victims seem to have completely disappeared. The experts
just ignore that.
The very idea that the enormous massacre called the Holocaust
could have happened without leaving mountains of clear and
indisputable evidence is absurd."
Morghus
neptune3
<gram...@att.not.here> wrote:
> Socialism offers a lot of short-term benefits that can make it
>attractive, especially to countries that have never experienced it
>before and who are ignorant of other countries' experiences with it.
> Don't forget that our own wartime economies were heavily socialistic,
>if we define socialism as a system involving heavy government
>involvement in business,
Capitalism and Communism are both evil. The problem with
capitalism is that it is materialistic and puts no special value on
people. Capitalism is based on supply and demand. A capitalist company
that made potato chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y
amount of salt, and Z number of human beings for labor. The human
beings have no more value than the potatoes or the salt. And they
consider it good to pay they humans as little as they possibly can to
increase their profits.
According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must
compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while paying
its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the
sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people. If
there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
need to die off. Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
We have many laws that make things better for people. There are
laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty hours. There
are laws that ensure people will have retirement. Capitalism is for
doing away with the laws so businesses can be free to be as greedy as
possible.
Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue? If
there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
everything while most people would not pay one thin dime. We have
welfare so people all pay their fair share. It is part of having
civilization.
We need to reject both Capitalism and Communism. They are both
materialistic and they are both evil.
>central economic planning, etc.
"We stand for the maintenance of private property...We shall protect
free enterprise as the
most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order." - Adolf
Hitler
>
> Russia, China, and Germany all heavily industrialized under
>socialist leadership (though Germany at least had a history of
>technological prowess beforehand and began industrializing under von
>Bismarck). Japan's heavily government-involved economy was one of the
>wonders of the Cold War; now they've sort of lost direction. The
>problem is that socialism doesn't work in the long term, and the more
>pervasive the central planning, the sooner it burns out. America could
>not have handled the massive mobilizations of WWI or WWII forever, even
>though our GDP skyrocketed and unemployment practically vanished. The
>USSR handled it for a long time because their natural resource endowment
>was (is) so prodigious that it was able to cover a lot of inefficiencies
>for a long time.
>
> In the specific case of Nazi Germany, I think one more factor was
>involved: pure nationalism and frustration with the Weimar Republic and
>everything that had happened since 1918 were able to offset a large part
>of the inherent disincentive for hard work in a socialist system.
>
> Just my $0.02.
>
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.AmRen.com
neptune3
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>First of all, Nazi Germany wasn't a "socialist" economy to anywhere near
>the extent that the Soviet bloc was. Nazi Germany continued to have a
>very vigorous private sector, in which private military contractors like
>Krupp and I.G. Farben continued to thrive.
>
>Secondly, the technology wasn't all that superior. Britain had a real
>edge in radar and cryptography. The U.S. was (and still is) the world
>leader in long-range heavy bombers: B-17, B-29, B-36, etc.. The Nazi
>tanks that rolled into Russia were matched by the Soviet T-34 and
>outclassed by the Soviet KV tank. Nazi Germany didn't develop any real
>super-weapons (like the jet fighter and V-2) until it was too late.
The Germans started work on the Jet in January 1939.
Their He 178 was flown in August 39, well before the Gloster
Meteor's flight in 1941
and even before work on the Gloster Meteor began in August 1940.
See
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~genesis/Level2/Planes/Germany/He178.htm
http://www.raafmuseum.com.au/research/aircraft/a2series/mete.htm
http://www.kotfsc.com/aircraft/meteor.htm
>
>Thirdly, Germany was good at copying foreign inventions. The Stuka
>dive-bomber was a copy of an American invention. And it was a sitting
>duck for enemy fighters anyway.
>
>What Nazi Germany did have, was initiative and commitment. Hitler knew
>what he wanted to get done, whereas the Allies were defeatist, cynical,
>suspicious of their own governments' motives, and unsure of themselves.
>So Hitler was always able to attack at a time and place of his own
>choosing, while the Allies sat on their asses trying to OUTGUESS where
>the next blow would strike.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.AmRen.com
neptune3
<david.d...@verizon.net> wrote:
>I think the answer lies in the fact that Nazism was a rather short
>period in Germany's political history. The demand for excellence in
>production, including competitive improvement, was already an
>established trait in Germany before their society was hijacked by the
>Nazis.
On April 10, 1938 the Germans voted for or against Hitler. 99% of
them voted for Hitler. Here are some quotes from a pamphet urging them
to vote for Hitler:
Do you remember the state of Germany and the German people in the days
before the aged Reich President von Hindenburg chose Adolf Hitler and
his party as the last hope of saving Germany from certain political,
social and economic collapse that would lead to chaos? Tens of
thousands of factories had closed their gates. Millions of workers and
employees lost their jobs and were thrown ruthlessly into the gray
misery of mass unemployment. There seemed no way out...
By the end of 1933, 2 million citizens had jobs again. By September
1936, the number of unemployed had fallen beneath a million. By 1937
unemployment had vanished...
One of the foundations of National Socialism is the knowledge that
only work creates value and prosperity...
But not only the dreadful misery before 1933 reduced the desire of
countless Germans to have children. Crass egotism and materialism also
played a role. The System Era saw having children as foolish and
backward. The transformation that has occurred is clear in the rising
German birth rate...
The National Socialist state gives major tax reductions to fathers for
each child. Families with three or more children receive payments of
10 and 20 marks monthly. By the end of 1937, 510,000 children were
receiving such support...
By the end of 1937, 252,000 mothers had received free vacations...
The Winterhilfswerk is the most beautiful expression of the new German
people's community. It is not the work of a small group of rich
people. No, each German, all of us, rich and poor, manual laborers,
farmers and city-dwellers cooperate in fulfilling the Führer's will:
No German may be hungry or cold!
One does not know whom to admire more: the cheerful willingness of
those who collect, or the rising amount of the gifts, to which even
the poorest contribute their share. The success of the
Winterhilfswerk, written permanently into the law of 1 December 1936,
demonstrates the efforts of the entire German nation. Gifts of money
alone totaled over 920 million marks during the four winters from
1933/34 to 1936/37. An additional 570 million marks of goods were
contributed. 50,000 freight cars alone would have been needed for the
potatoes contributed in the past years. The three million meters of
clothing given out by the WHW would stretch from Berlin to the Middle
East. The two million kilograms of coal would form a wall ten meters
high around all of Germany. These few examples, and more could be
given, prove the strength of the German people's will to be active
socialists..
Another sign of this socialism is the entirely different status of the
German worker in factories. The social honor of each working German is
guaranteed by law. The state's representatives ensure that exploiting
workers is impossible. The legal working conditions correspond to
National Socialism's high opinion of work. Workers have a right to a
vacation and for paid holidays, even hourly and temporary workers.
There is nothing like this elsewhere in the world.
The dignity of labor is evidenced by improvements in the appearance of
the work place. Wherever one looks in Germany, ugly dark buildings are
vanishing. The "Beauty of Labor" movement in today's Germany is not
empty talk or an impossible demand, but living reality. Large sums
that formerly would have been wasted in strikes and lockouts have been
used since 1933 to improve work places. 23,000 places have been
transformed form soulless drudgery to pleasant places to work. 6,000
factory courtyards now offer space for real relaxation, which was not
true in the past. 17,000 canteens and lounges, 13,000 shower and
changing rooms have been transformed. The dirtier the work, the
cleaner the workers. More than 800 community buildings and 1200 sport
facilities , including over 200 swimming pools, have been established.
The crew quarters in over 3500 ships have also been improved.
The NS Society Kraft durch Freude brings cheer and pleasure to
workplaces through concerts and art exhibits. The art exhibits alone
introduced more than 2,5 million workers to the creations of true
German art. Just five years ago, it was obvious that the great works
of German culture belonged to a small group of the upper class.
Besides the factory concerns and art exhibitions, the NS Society Kraft
durch Freude uses theatrical performances, other concerts, singing and
musical groups to introduce the creations of German art to every
working German. 22 million citizens have attended theatrical
performances..
Of no less importance is the KdF's vacation program. Earlier, German
workers did not know what to do with their, at best, five days of
annual vacation. They could not visit the beauties of the German
landscape, much less travel abroad. The NS Society Kraft durch Freude
gave German workers the possibility of vacationing at the beach or in
the mountains, or to explore the homeland. Over 20 million have
participated in KdF trips since 1934. That is more than a quarter of
Germany's population. 19 million citizens participated in 60,000
vacation trips at home. Hand to hand, they would stretch from Berlin
to Tokyo. KdF trains have traveled 2,160,000 kilometers, or 54 times
around the world. The nine large KdF cruise ships have covered a
distance equal to twice the distance from the earth to the moon. They
have carried German workers to Madeira, Italy and Norway, broadening
their horizons and giving them unforgettable experiences. Three
additional ships will be added the KdF's own fleet of four. A KdF
resort is being built on the island of Rügen. It will not be the only
one. A series of other vacation and spa resorts will be built. They
will fulfill the Führer's wishes at the start of the NS Society Kraft
durch Freude: to lead a cheerful, creative and strong people to
success in the world.
The goal of bringing German culture to the entire German people,
regardless of their income, is especially clear with the German radio.
Thanks to the People's Radio Set, a solid, inexpensive and capable
receiver, the number of radio listeners has risen from around 4
million in 1932 to 9.1 million today. The un-German programming of the
System Era has been transformed by National Socialism. Now radio
acquaints the German people with the work of their great masters of
music and literature. Alongside these artistic programs, the
entertaining programming provides for the relaxation of hard-working
people.
Clear proof for the rising prosperity of the German people is provided
by the growing consumption of foodstuffs and luxury items of every
variety. During the prewar year 1913, only a little more than 2.9
million tons of meat were consumed. In 1937, that figure had risen to
3.7 million, up about 5% from 1932. Thanks to the elimination of
unemployment, bread consumption increased by about 10%, sugar by 15%.
Butter consumption rose from 420,000 to 519,000 tons. Milk production,
both for drinking and for making butter and cheese, rose from 23.5 to
25.4 billion liters from 1932 to 1937. Coffee consumption rose from
104,000 to 140,000 tons. Beer consumption has risen from 3.3 to 4.4
billion liters. That is an increase of about 3 billion glasses of
beer...
The growing prosperity and rising consumption of foodstuffs and luxury
items required hard work. A people can only consume what it produces.
In the face of this obvious truth, which however only became clear to
us after 1933, all the parliamentary resolutions, all the decisions of
international conferences and the demands of the international unions
become silly talk. The German people have proved that by our own work.
Germany has worked untiringly since 1933, producing itself the goods
it needs to improve its standard of living.
The rising production in all areas, which has never before been seen,
is the fruit of our work. The foundation of our life is agriculture,
whose task is to guarantee that the nation is fed. When the Führer
took power, agriculture was in a ruinous state. Officers of the court
were regular visitors at German farms. The animals and the harvest
were seized ruthlessly because taxes and interests had risen to
impossible levels that German soil could not meet. Forced auctions
drove tens of thousands of German farmers from their land. Desperation
prevailed in the villages. As a result of the desperate situation,
agriculture could not ensure the feeding of the German nation. The
ghost of hunger threatened.
Here too the Führer set to work immediately. Interest and taxes were
lowered, and the German soil was freed from usurious capital. Between
1927 and 1931, German agricultural debt rose by 2,9 billion marks.
From 1933 to 1936, it fell by 800 million marks. The interest burden,
which was over a billion marks in 1931/32, was reduced by National
Socialist actions to 630 million marks. The crowning achievement was
the creation of the Reich Inherited Farm Law, which guaranteed that
the German family farm will always remain the wellspring of the
nation...
Just as for farmers and agricultural workers, the urban population is
also being cared for. Although more than enough willing and able
workers were available in 1932, and although the housing need was
certainly great, the government put workers on the dole and built only
141,265 dwellings. This was an area in which the need for new jobs was
particularly clear. Even in 1933, the number of new dwellings rose to
178,000, with particular attention being given to small and mid-sized
units for those with limited incomes. This number grew year by year,
reaching 340,000 dwellings in 1937, double the number of 1932. In all,
National Socialist has built more than 1.4 million new, and above all
healthy and affordable, dwellings for the German people since 1933.
This is enough to house the entire population of Berlin...
Growing prosperity and production led to a growth in traffic. The
entirely neglected German highway system had to be repaired and
expanded. 40,000 kilometers of highway have been repaired since 1933.
That is enough to go all the way around the world! Then there are the
Reich Autobahns, the most splendid construction project in the world.
2,000 kilometers were open to traffic by the end of 1937. 1,000
kilometers more will be added yearly, until Germany has a highway
network unique in all the world.
Automobile production has reached a level that no one would have
thought possible a few years ago.
The number of motor vehicles in Germany has doubled, exceeding the 3
million mark in 1937. Thanks to the growing prosperity, broad circles
of our nation can now afford a car. 137,141 of the new vehicles in
1937, well over half, were purchased by workers and employees. 30,015
workers and employees were able to buy a car the previous year. Cars
are becoming both better and cheaper. The increase in cars will be
even more striking when the Volkswagen comes on the market. Enormous
factories are even now being built. The best proof for the quality and
good pricing of German cars is the fact that automobile exports have
increased by a factor of eight since 1932!..
The great improvements in the German transportation system have
resulted in a growing stream of foreign visitors. The pulsing life in
Germany is drawing more and more visitors to the Third Reich. The
number of overnights by foreigners has risen from 2.7 million in 1932
is far above 7 million in 1937. These foreigners, who often come to
Germany with false ideas, see with their own eyes the work of the
Führer and the remarkable efforts of the German people. They return
home as the best witnesses of the greatness and strength of the German
Reich...
The Führer has repeatedly reminded the German people that strong
policies are the absolute prerequisite to our economic, social and
cultural health. Only intentional hostility and stupidity can still
deny that the Führer was right in every respect...
> (Note the demanding and exacting machining culture during the
>1800's.) It would be akin to asking why a really stupid, brutal person
>gets a thorough tax analysis simply because he is holding a gun to an
>accountants head- it does not demonstrate any intelligence on the part
>of the brutal man if his return is bigger than yours.
> A friend of mine from Ukraine tells the story of working in a meat
>factory where pates and sausages were made for export. Theft of product
>was widespread, but, lacking bread, they ended up smearing pate on the
>sausages, rather than the more traditional crackers.
> Hope this helps.
> David
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.AmRen.com
neptune3
wrote:
>On 24 May 2003 11:48:19 -0700, brain...@hotmail.com (!social) wrote:
>
>>If socialism is bad, that is, if socialism produces poor products and
>>services which have been denied the benefit of competitive
>>improvement, why is it that Nazi Germany's military technology was
>>superior to that of many Allied forces?
>>
>>I don't intent to troll, or be provacative -- there is likely a simple
>>answer to the above question -- I'm simply requesting information.
>
>Germany had a long history of quality workmanship, stretching back far
>beyond the rise of Fascism. Hitler didn't invent German quality, he
>merely took advantage of it. Somewhat.
>
>However, that "advantage" was limited. The early Panzers, up through
>the Mk IV, didn't mount machine guns and their armor wasn't all that
>good. They packed heavy main guns, heavier than their opponents, but
>were harder to produce and maintain. The French MBT was better but it
>was deployed poorly. The British tankers used to plink Tigers by
>bouncing an 88 round off the underside of the cupola and into the
>driver's compartment (where the armor was embarrassingly thin); they
>were that good a shot. The US never fielded a MBT as good as the
>Germans' during WWII but they produced theirs by the tens of
>thousands. The US and its allies evolved a different strategy for
>military success, you see, one that didn't require the awesome
>firepower of the Jag Panzer - arguably one of the best tanks of the
>20th century - they depended on speed, mobility, and artillery to take
>win the battle.
>
>You DO know who won WWII, don't you? Hint: German is probably an
>elective subject in your high school.
The Communists and the liberals won. Look at the square miles the
leftists controlled, the size of the USA and Russia, compared to the
axis.
John Urie
skyliq wrote:
Never could have happened.
Here's why.
Many, many of the scientists who gave America the Atomic bomb were Jewish or
had Jewish roots. Edward Teller and Leo Szilard fall into this category.
Enrico Fermi was married to a Jew. All of them chose to emigrate to the US in
response to Hitler ( and Mussolini's ) policies of state-sponsored
anti-Semitism.
And that's the Catch-22.
The Nazi movement could never have succeeded in taking over Germany without
it's anti-Semitic platform. You could rail against the nations that had
saddled Germany with the Versailles treatry until you were blue in the face,
and it wouldn't have captured the nation. They were hated, but they were faw
away. For Nazism to have worked, they needed a home-grown enemy....and the
Jews were right THERE.
Futhermore, when Hitler and the other Nazis spewed out their hate-the-Jew
line, were not just cynically mouthing the words in order to sway the German
people. All of them truly hated the Jews, and all of them really believed
that Germany had been brought low in the First World War by an international
Jewish conspiracy. That was always the central pillar of Nazism, and
everything else was secondary. When the first Jewish scientists began to flee
Germany after being fired from their University positions, Hitler had this to
say about it, "If the emigration of a few Jewish professors means the
elimination of contemporary German science, then we shall do without science
for a few years!"
John Urie
Steven Litvintchouk
OrionCA wrote:
>
> On Sat, 24 May 2003 19:01:48 GMT, "skyliq" <sky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The Soviets had Sputnik.....
>
> Hah. Sputnik was a joke. They blew up half a dozen SL-1s before one
> finally worked and lobbed that beach ball into orbit. It had no
> scientific instruments and just a transmitter that beeped when it went
> overhead. The significance of Sputnik was that the Soviets had
> developed a booster capable of lobbing a payload into low earth orbit
> - such as a nuclear warhead aimed at New York City. The fact that the
> SL-1 was crap wasn't known for 30 years. As I said, they blew up a
> lot of "Sputnik I"'s before they finally got one into orbit; they just
> covered those up. Von Braun's Redstone was a lot more reliable and
> Explorer I had instruments that detected for the first time the Van
> Allen radiation belts
>
> oh, and we weren't in a 'race' with the Soviets at that time. From
> http://www.nytimes.com/partners/aol/special/sputnik/launius.html
>
> >Question: Why was the U.S. behind on its satellite program?
> >
> >Actually it wasn't. I'll elaborate . . . The U.S. operation was acting
> >according to a schedule established in response to the international
> >geophysical year. Let me explain . . .the IGY, as it was called, was an
> >international scientific effor to learn more about earth and it was
> >coordinated to take place during the latter part of 1957 and all of 1958.
> >Launching an earth satellite to gather data was just one part of a larger
> >international effort. The U.S. schedule was right on track to take place in
> >December 1957 so we really weren't behind at all, just working to a different
> >schedule. At the time the U.S. did not view it as a race.
In fact, the U.S. space program was doing quite well with rocket
planes. The Soviets had nothing like the American X-15. And they were
quite concerned about our plans for orbiting military space stations.
Had the U.S. not gone wacko over Sputnik, the Air Force could have had
orbiting space stations with small shuttlecraft to service them,
probably by the late 1960's. Instead the U.S. started switching to
ballistic missiles to "race" to the Moon.
Steven Litvintchouk
>
> "John Urie" <jtu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3ED035E8...@earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> > sg wrote:
> >
> > > "Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlink.net>
> > > They had Von Braun...
> > > sg
> > > http://stangrimes.com
> >
> > And we had Oppenheimer, remember?
>
> BFD. They had Heisenberg.
Recently unearthed papers show that Heisenberg did not really know how
to build a workable atomic bomb. He never figured it all out; he was
miles behind Oppenheimer in that area.
Einstein never really worked on the atomic bomb. But what Einstein did
do, was notify Franklin Roosevelt (in a famous letter) that an atomic
bomb was theoretically possible, and that with war coming closer, FDR
should strongly consider launching a project to develop such a bomb.
Steven Litvintchouk
It wasn't just the generalship. It was the fact that Hitler had the
initiative of the attacker. The Allies put all their effort into
defending against Germany, rather than ever seriously considering
seizing the initiative and attacking themselves.
And that was due to the fact that the European democracies had become
rather pacifist after the bloodletting of World War I. So the Allied
"strategy" was that if Germany should attack the West, the Allied forces
would dash forward to a defensive line running from Belgium and Holland
down thru eastern France, and then just SIT THERE and wait for the
Germans to attack, and hope to bleed the Germans enough that they would
fail. Some strategy. Only a cynical, defeatist, pacifist society could
come up with something like that.
A good book on the subject is "The Collapse of the Third Republic," by
Shirer.
Steven Litvintchouk
John Urie wrote:
>
> skyliq wrote:
>
> > "John Urie" <jtu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:3ED035E8...@earthlink.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > sg wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlink.net>
> > > > They had Von Braun...
> > > > sg
> > > > http://stangrimes.com
> > >
> > > And we had Oppenheimer, remember?
> >
> > BFD. They had Heisenberg.
> >
> > ...and early on, Einstein.
> > Just think what might have been if Hitler, or for that matter Germany, was
> > just a little different.
>
> Never could have happened.
>
> Here's why.
>
> Many, many of the scientists who gave America the Atomic bomb were Jewish or
> had Jewish roots. Edward Teller and Leo Szilard fall into this category.
> Enrico Fermi was married to a Jew. All of them chose to emigrate to the US in
> response to Hitler ( and Mussolini's ) policies of state-sponsored
> anti-Semitism.
Interestingly, Hitler's anti-Semitism got in his way in another
significant but less widely known way.
Hitler had actively lobbied Franco to allow the Wehrmacht to march
through Spain, occupy Gibraltar, and thus close the Strait of Gibraltar
to all Allied shipping. That would have helped to split the British
Empire in two, making life much tougher for the Brits.
Franco said no. And one big reason was that Hitler's anti-Semitism
turned him off. (Franco had Jewish relatives himself.)
neptune3
wrote:
>
>This has largely to do with the fact that socialist systems,
>particularly of the Communist and Fascist varieties, dictatorially
>marshal all of the resources that would normally be used in the
>private, or other sectors of an economy, and use them to build
>offensive military machines.
The Communists did that. But Hitler mainly wanted the opposite. He
said that every year of war kept him from doing what he wanted, making
Germany great and bringing prosperity to his people.
>
>Many leaders in the European democracies, notably Churchill, saw this
>coming, but thought appeasement would curb Hitler's ambitions. Sound
>familiar? This is always a problem when democracies have to go up
>against aggressive Socialist/Communist systems. And you see a lot of
>the very same thinking in these Newsgroups. There's always a very
>large contingent of people in western democracies who view their own
>constitutions and governing systems as a sort of suicide pact. Then
>you always have a very large element of fifth-columnists masquerading
>as patriots. Lot of them in here, too.
Western democracies can built a lot of weapons as well as anyone
else.
>
>Reagan saw this quite clearly with the Soviets and brought them down
>with aggressive defensive measures and brutal economic pressures.
>
America gave tons of wheat and technology to the Communists. I'm
not aware of Reagon doing anything about besides talk. Communism
collapsed all on its own. It's only strange that it lasted as long as
it did.
AD
Your Daily Mental Floss wrote:
> "Docky Wocky" mrc...@verizin.net wrote:
>
> >
> >isocial sez:
> >
> >"why is it that Nazi Germany's military technology was
> >superior to that of many Allied forces?..."
> >________________________________
> >A head start, mainly.
> >
> An excellent answer, and a correct one.
not really
>
>
> Within a few years it was the US who had the better weapons, produced in huge
> quantities.
in some cases yes, in some cases no. The German army was not defeated as much as
it was simply crushed under the weight on sheer numbers of its foes. As a
collector
of ww2 memorabilia from all sides for many decades now, I can state that German
military equipment was second to none.
AD
"!social" wrote:
> If socialism is bad, that is, if socialism produces poor products and
> services which have been denied the benefit of competitive
> improvement, why is it that Nazi Germany's military technology was
> superior to that of many Allied forces?
>
> I don't intent to troll, or be provacative -- there is likely a simple
> answer to the above question -- I'm simply requesting information.
First off, Nazi Germany was a fascist, NOT a socialist state. If you
really are interested in the answer to your question, read "The Arms
Of Krupp" by William Manchester
AD
Barry Worthington wrote:
> Steven Litvintchouk <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3ECFE567...@earthlink.net>...
> > skyliq wrote:
> > >
> > > The Soviets had Sputnik.....
> >
> > which didn't BEGIN to make up for the fact that the U.S. had developed
> > the atomic bomb ahead of the Soviets.
>
> You actually think that the U.S. developed the atomic bomb all on its own?
Well......we had the most brilliant brains in the world, the German Jews that
fled Germany. They are the ones that gave us the Bomb, in conjunction with
our immense industrial power.
otis_p_d...@hotmail.com
Yes, a Fascist state. A government-in-every-aspect-of-life kind of
place. People categorized and placed into groups, no individual
rights...
You might call it a Liberal Utopia!
AD
Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
> "!social" wrote:
> >
> > If socialism is bad, that is, if socialism produces poor products and
> > services which have been denied the benefit of competitive
> > improvement, why is it that Nazi Germany's military technology was
> > superior to that of many Allied forces?
>
> First of all, Nazi Germany wasn't a "socialist" economy to anywhere near
> the extent that the Soviet bloc was. Nazi Germany continued to have a
> very vigorous private sector, in which private military contractors like
> Krupp and I.G. Farben continued to thrive.
Nazi Germany was a classic example of a Fascist government. It was
not in the lease socialist, regardless of what modern right wing
revisionist claim....
>
>
> Secondly, the technology wasn't all that superior. Britain had a real
> edge in radar and cryptography. The U.S. was (and still is) the world
> leader in long-range heavy bombers: B-17, B-29, B-36, etc.. The Nazi
> tanks that rolled into Russia were matched by the Soviet T-34 and
> outclassed by the Soviet KV tank. Nazi Germany didn't develop any real
> super-weapons (like the jet fighter and V-2) until it was too late.
In some cases yes, in some cases no. The Germans had THE finest
light machine gun of ww2, the MG 42. The me 109 and the Fw190
were two of the greatest fighter planes of all time. The Panther tank
was technology the best tank of the war, and served in many militaries
into the 60's. As a collector of ww2 memorabilia for decades now, I can
say with great conviction that all of the major combatants of ww2 in at
last one area had something that was superior to everyone else. And yes,
I am including Italy in that statement:)
>
>
> Thirdly, Germany was good at copying foreign inventions. The Stuka
> dive-bomber was a copy of an American invention. And it was a sitting
> duck for enemy fighters anyway.
A complete myth. See "Warplanes of the 3rd Reich" for a detailed story of
the
JU 87. The US Germany and Japan were the only countries to embrace the
concept of dive bombing. If you look at the operational record of the Stuka,
it was by far the most successful Dive bomber in history. Of course it
requires
air superiority, so does the A-10. And your point?
>
>
> What Nazi Germany did have, was initiative and commitment. Hitler knew
> what he wanted to get done, whereas the Allies were defeatist, cynical,
> suspicious of their own governments' motives, and unsure of themselves.
> So Hitler was always able to attack at a time and place of his own
> choosing, while the Allies sat on their asses trying to OUTGUESS where
> the next blow would strike.
They also had every modern battlefield tactic that we take for granted
today.
The recent Bush oil war was nothing more than a German blitzkrieg from
60 years ago. The Germans were tactical geniuses, and strategic failures.
Most
folks have no idea that victory was truly in their grasp, and they never
really saw it.
AD
otis_p_d...@hotmail.com wrote:
Not exactly........... it appears to be the America that you are trying very
hard
to create..............
Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, wrote an article about
fascism which appeared in Free Inquiry magazine, a journal of humanist
thought. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany),
Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet
(Chile). He found the regimes all had 14 things in common, and he
calls
these the identifying characteristics of fascism.
The article is
"Fascism Anyone?," Lawrence Britt, Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20.
The 14 characteristics are:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make
constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symb ols, songs, and other
paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on
clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of
enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are
persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of
"need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of
torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of
prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The
people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to
eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or
religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists,
etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic
problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of
government
funding, and the domestic agenda i s neglected. Soldiers and military
service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be
almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional
gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as
is
homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled
by
the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled
by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and
executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational
tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist
nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool
to
manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is
common
from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion
are
diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business
aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the
government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial
business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor
is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are
either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to
promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia.
It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored
or
even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and
governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the
police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people
are
often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil
liberties
in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with
virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always
are
governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to
government positions and use governmental power and authority to
protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in
fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be
appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are
a
complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear
campaigns
against or even assassination of opposition candidat es, use of
legislation to control voting numbers or political district
boundaries,
and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use
their
judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
otis_p_d...@hotmail.com
>
>
>otis_p_d...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 May 2003 14:01:49 -0400, AD <blue...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >"!social" wrote:
>> >
>> >> If socialism is bad, that is, if socialism produces poor products and
>> >> services which have been denied the benefit of competitive
>> >> improvement, why is it that Nazi Germany's military technology was
>> >> superior to that of many Allied forces?
>> >>
>> >> I don't intent to troll, or be provacative -- there is likely a simple
>> >> answer to the above question -- I'm simply requesting information.
>> >
>> >First off, Nazi Germany was a fascist, NOT a socialist state. If you
>> >really are interested in the answer to your question, read "The Arms
>> >Of Krupp" by William Manchester
>>
>> Yes, a Fascist state. A government-in-every-aspect-of-life kind of
>> place. People categorized and placed into groups, no individual
>> rights...
>>
>> You might call it a Liberal Utopia!
>
>Not exactly........... it appears to be the America that you are trying very
>hard
>to create..............
Liberals are quite happy to put people into groups (the "wealthy", the
"poor", White, Black etc.
Then they try to assign values to these groups. For liberals, there
are no individual rights.......
Rene
"AD" <blue...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3ED26A67...@bellsouth.net...
Wow! Sounds like what the Democrats were trying to pull in Florida, and
what the Democrats had been doing nationwide (with the aide of their stooges
in the liberal media) until the invention of the Internet (thanks, Al!)
busted up that liberal/Democrat monopoly! Now there are a whole host of
alternative news sources to choose from, and no longer do leftist (and
dishonest, as we now know) newspapers such as the New York Times rule the
roost. Conservative commentators abound on the radio and on the Internet,
so no longer do the Peter Jennings and the Dan Rathers enjoy their leftist
monopoly, now that Rush Limbaugh and others counter the Jennings and the
Rathers.
The Democrats' 14-point heyday you outlined above is OVER!!
Rene
<otis_p_d...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ltq4dvod9t3q93knm...@4ax.com...
> Liberals are quite happy to put people into groups (the "wealthy", the
> "poor", White, Black etc.
>
> Then they try to assign values to these groups. For liberals, there
> are no individual rights.......
EXCELLENT point!
Bud Keith
>
> > On Mon, 26 May 2003 14:01:49 -0400, AD <blue...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >"!social" wrote:
> > >
> > >> If socialism is bad, that is, if socialism produces poor products and
> > >> services which have been denied the benefit of competitive
> > >> improvement, why is it that Nazi Germany's military technology was
> > >> superior to that of many Allied forces?
> > >>
> > >> I don't intent to troll, or be provacative -- there is likely a
simple
> > >> answer to the above question -- I'm simply requesting information.
> > >
> > >First off, Nazi Germany was a fascist, NOT a socialist state. If you
> > >really are interested in the answer to your question, read "The Arms
> > >Of Krupp" by William Manchester
> >
> > Yes, a Fascist state. A government-in-every-aspect-of-life kind of
> > place. People categorized and placed into groups, no individual
> > rights...
> >
> > You might call it a Liberal Utopia!
>
> Not exactly........... it appears to be the America that you are trying
very
> hard
> to create..............
You are accusing him of trying to create a dictatorial state and if that is
so then you are doing exactly the same thing from the other end of the
political spectrum
AD
Rene wrote:
> EXCELLENT point!...........If you are a drooling cretin
Rich Travsky
No. There was a fair bit of ballistic missile work done in the years after
the war, but funding was cut back in the early 50s. It never entirely
died out; the Atlas, for example, was conceived in 1951.
The development of the hydrogen bomb changed that. It was smaller and
would fit on a missile AND the Russkies were working on it. The RAND
folks turned out a report that said we were behind in ICBM development.
In 1954, ICBMs became a high AF priority.
See the very excellent "...the Heavens and the Earth: A Political
History of the Space Age" by Walter McDougall (1986 Pulitzer for history).
PS Space stations and small shuttlecraft by the late 60s? We're still
having trouble with that notion...
Rich Travsky
>
> On Sat, 24 May 2003 19:01:48 GMT, "skyliq" <sky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The Soviets had Sputnik.....
>
> Hah. Sputnik was a joke. They blew up half a dozen SL-1s before one
The mere fact they got it up their sent shock waves all over. If they
could do that, they could deliver a bomb on us...
> finally worked and lobbed that beach ball into orbit. It had no
> scientific instruments and just a transmitter that beeped when it went
> overhead. The significance of Sputnik was that the Soviets had
> developed a booster capable of lobbing a payload into low earth orbit
> - such as a nuclear warhead aimed at New York City. The fact that the
> SL-1 was crap wasn't known for 30 years. As I said, they blew up a
> lot of "Sputnik I"'s before they finally got one into orbit; they just
> covered those up. Von Braun's Redstone was a lot more reliable and
> Explorer I had instruments that detected for the first time the Van
> Allen radiation belts
>
> oh, and we weren't in a 'race' with the Soviets at that time. From
> http://www.nytimes.com/partners/aol/special/sputnik/launius.html
Yes, we were, tho for ICBMs and not necessarily for satellites.
Quintin
>
> If socialism is bad, that is, if socialism produces poor products and
> services which have been denied the benefit of competitive
> improvement, why is it that Nazi Germany's military technology was
> superior to that of many Allied forces?
>
> I don't intent to troll, or be provacative -- there is likely a simple
> answer to the above question -- I'm simply requesting information.
The nazis weren't socialists, they were fascists. Yes I know Socialist was in
their name, but the former East Germany called itself a democratic republic.
Do you see their penchant for irony? I won't bother you with the difference,
I'll just point out that there is a difference. You can research it at you
leisure.
Barry Worthington
> Barry Worthington wrote:
>
> > Steven Litvintchouk <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3ECFE567...@earthlink.net>...
> > > skyliq wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Soviets had Sputnik.....
> > >
> > > which didn't BEGIN to make up for the fact that the U.S. had developed
> > > the atomic bomb ahead of the Soviets.
> >
> > You actually think that the U.S. developed the atomic bomb all on its own?
>
> Well......we had the most brilliant brains in the world, the German Jews that
> fled Germany. They are the ones that gave us the Bomb, in conjunction with
> our immense industrial power.
And all the preliminary work that was done in wartime British
universities, while America was at peace, together with the
international body of scientists associated with the Manhattan
Project? Someone else who needs to read a decent history book...
Thom
<tRrE...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote:
>Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
>>
>> OrionCA wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sat, 24 May 2003 19:01:48 GMT, "skyliq" <sky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >The Soviets had Sputnik.....
>> >
>> > Hah. Sputnik was a joke. They blew up half a dozen SL-1s before one
>> > finally worked and lobbed that beach ball into orbit.
Yes but we also blew up a couple of Vanguard rockets trying to beat
them and after the civilian launcher failed they hasd to ask the Army
to use the Redstone as a basis for the Jupitor C and launch for Nasa.
My Base had a dozen of those things, the F model to be exact and one
of them blew up in the silo (site 6 east of Altus). What a mess but
luck was with us and the Nuke didn't blow or even crack open.
>
>The development of the hydrogen bomb changed that. It was smaller and
>would fit on a missile AND the Russkies were working on it. The RAND
>folks turned out a report that said we were behind in ICBM development.
>
>In 1954, ICBMs became a high AF priority.
second, the IRBM's came first, the Jupitor and the Thor (now called
the Delta), Our first ICBM;s were in fact cruise milliles specifically
the SNARK with a 5000 mile rang followed by the Navy Regulas I and II
which had a shorter range. The Matidor was in there someplace too.
Thom
I think you'll find as I did that the german word socialist doesn't
translate out into english the same way the english word means to us.
Plus we're talking about buzz words here. Its like the DDR, it wasn't
democratic and it certainly wasn't a republic, it was a Russian
puppet.
THOM
Thom
<tRrE...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote:
>OrionCA wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 24 May 2003 19:01:48 GMT, "skyliq" <sky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The Soviets had Sputnik.....
>>
>> Hah. Sputnik was a joke. They blew up half a dozen SL-1s before one
>
>The mere fact they got it up their sent shock waves all over. If they
>could do that, they could deliver a bomb on us...
its funny but we see that as very stone age thinking now. But
hindsight is always 20-20.
neptune3
>
>Nazi Germany was a classic example of a Fascist government. It was
>not in the lease socialist, regardless of what modern right wing
>revisionist claim....
>
>
>In some cases yes, in some cases no. The Germans had THE finest
>light machine gun of ww2, the MG 42. The me 109 and the Fw190
>were two of the greatest fighter planes of all time. The Panther tank
>was technology the best tank of the war, and served in many militaries
>into the 60's. As a collector of ww2 memorabilia for decades now, I can
>say with great conviction that all of the major combatants of ww2 in at
>last one area had something that was superior to everyone else. And yes,
>I am including Italy in that statement:)
>
>A complete myth. See "Warplanes of the 3rd Reich" for a detailed story of
>the
>JU 87. The US Germany and Japan were the only countries to embrace the
>concept of dive bombing. If you look at the operational record of the Stuka,
>
>it was by far the most successful Dive bomber in history. Of course it
>requires
>air superiority, so does the A-10. And your point?
>
>
>They also had every modern battlefield tactic that we take for granted
>today.
>The recent Bush oil war was nothing more than a German blitzkrieg from
>60 years ago. The Germans were tactical geniuses, and strategic failures.
>Most
>folks have no idea that victory was truly in their grasp, and they never
>really saw it.
>
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.AmRen.com
neptune3
>
>First off, Nazi Germany was a fascist, NOT a socialist state. If you
>really are interested in the answer to your question, read "The Arms
>Of Krupp" by William Manchester
>
Moral law examples -- outlaw heroin, outlaw prostitution, outlaw
abortion
Economic law examples-- have a minimum wage, have laws regarding
retirement and overtime
Conservative - For Moral Laws, Against Economic laws
Liberal - Against Moral Laws, For Economic Laws
Libertarian - Against Moral Laws, Against Economic Laws
Fascist - For Moral Laws, For Economic Laws
neptune3
wrote:
>
>Yes, a Fascist state. A government-in-every-aspect-of-life kind of
>place. People categorized and placed into groups, no individual
>rights...
>
>You might call it a Liberal Utopia!
>
"Fascism now throws the noxious theories of so-called Liberalism upon
the rubbish heap.
Fascism...does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and
anti-liberal." - Benito Mussolini
In 1923 Mussolini was asked by an Italian encyclopedia person to
define and explain the word "Fascism" for their new edition. He said
the key concepts of fascism were overt nationalism, and repudiation of
liberalism in all its forms.
But this may be confusing to Americans today. This is what we mean
by "liberal":
The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual
perverts "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.
The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
corrupt the culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
the nation better. There are beaches where normal families will not go
because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
This is example of the freedom liberals want They are like children
who only care about their individual selves and are oblivious to what
should be done to make the nation great. Their philosophy, taken to
its logical conclusion, would not allow the law that drivers have to
stop at the red lights. Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold
on grocery store shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV. Their
philosophy would result in chaos and degeneracy.
Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
that the state can't tell them what they can't do. People don't like
laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathise with
that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
but good laws would make a nation good.
The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to disolve the
government and have an anarchy.
The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about the
present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future like in
Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the
freedom of individuals to be as decadant as they want. They are like
the children in the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
neptune3
>Not exactly........... it appears to be the America that you are trying very
>hard
>to create..............
>
>
>Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, wrote an article about
>fascism which appeared in Free Inquiry magazine, a journal of humanist
>thought. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany),
>Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet
>(Chile). He found the regimes all had 14 things in common, and he
>calls
>these the identifying characteristics of fascism.
>
>The article is
>"Fascism Anyone?," Lawrence Britt, Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20.
>
>The 14 characteristics are:
>
>1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make
>constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symb ols, songs, and other
>paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on
>clothing and in public displays.
>
>2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of
>enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are
>persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of
>"need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of
>torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of
>prisoners, etc.
>
"Having read most of the posts under the recent heading ' Are they
talking torture' I am amazed at the apparent naivety of most of those
posting.- Israel has been using all kinds of torturing methods for
decades, knowingly backed by the USA.
Within the last year there was an excellent program on Channel 4
England which looked in to the methods used in one infamous camp
called Khiam -- a snip below
(Palestinians arrested and 'interrogated' have been and are tortured
in one form or another. Although a place of such ghastly atrocities
that the Israeli government tried to deny it for many years, the
Khiam Detention and Interrogation Centre it maintained in Lebanon
from 1985-1999 during its occupation there is one of the most well
known (3, 4).) Unsnip.
The channel four programme was not easy to watch - from the many
methods described graphically, was that of the wives and children
being
tortured to make the prisoner confess, the TV team were at the now
closed camp - very atmospheric.
One search with Google, showing tens of thousands of different sites
will prove to him and anyone else that those in power must know.
A bit from one site =
Israel Shahak, head of the Israeli League for Human Rights, says:
"Slapping the face, beating the head against the wall, and beating
all parts of the body are common methods."
Victims are usually beaten by stick, boots, and gun butt all over the
body - on the head, limbs, stomach, genitals, accompanied by threats
of detaining or raping family members, or making them lose their
jobs.
But for Rhateb several other methods were used - he was wired up to
electrodes and bolts of high voltage current coursed agonizingly
through
his body. Later, he was hanged from the ceiling by one arm for hours.
After a few days, a man brought a water jug and told Rhateb that he
could drink as much as he wanted. However, acid was diluted in the
water and this caused him intense pain and severe burns.
The deprivation of basic necessities should also be considered as a
part of this torture; food and medical care are not provided and
sleeping is forbidden. Due to such methods, more than 500
Palestinian prisoners have died. More lucky ones suffer diseases
while others are maimed and physically disabled.
Last week, Amnesty International's annual report revealed that
Israeli forces arrested 1,200 Palestinians in 1997 for "security
reasons." Meanwhile, Israel also issued more than 1,900
administrative detention orders and detained 354 Palestinians at the
end of year.
Bear in mind, many of these people are not guilty of any crimes.
But just living on the wrong side in Palestine.
When doing a search just use the words ' Israel and torture', any way
round, you can also use 'camps'
John.
But isn't israel a "democracy"?"
John Bates
>3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The
>people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to
>eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or
>religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists,
>etc.
Hitler was against the Jews mainly because the Jews controlled the
media and because the Jews were behind Communism. Here are some quotes
from Mein Kampf:
"In my eyes the charge against Judaism became a grave one the
moment
I discovered the Jewish activities in the Press, in art, in
literature and
the theatre. All unctuous protests were now more or less futile. One
needed
only to look at the posters announcing the hideous productions of the
cinema and theatre, and study the names of the authors who were
highly
lauded there in order to become permanently adamant on Jewish
questions.
Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was
being
infected. It was worse that the Black Plague of long ago. And in what
mighty doses this poison was manufactured and distributed. Naturally,
the
lower the moral and intellectual level of such an author of artistic
products the more inexhaustible his fecundity. Sometimes it went so
far
that one of these fellows, acting like a sewage pump, would shoot his
filth
directly in the face of other members of the human race. In this
connection
we must remember there is no limit to the number of such people. One
ought
to realize that for one Goethe, Nature may bring into existance ten
thousand such despoilers who act as the worst kind of germ-carriers
in
poisoning human souls. It was a terrible thought, and yet it could
not be
avoided, that the greater number of the Jews seemed specially
destined by
Nature to play this shameful part.
"And is it for this reason that they can be called the chosen
people?
"I began then to investigate carefully the names of all the
fabricators of these unclean products in public cultural life. The
result
of that inquiry was still more disfavourable to the attitude which I
had
hitherto held in regard to the Jews. Though my feelings might rebel a
thousand time, reason now had to draw its own conclusions.
"The fact that nine-tenths of all the smutty literature,
artistic
tripe and theatrical banalities, had to be charged to the account of
people
who formed scarcely one per cent of the nation- that fact could not
be
gainsaid. It was there, and had to be admitted. Then I began to
examine my
favorite 'World Press', with that fact before my mind.
"The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my respect for
that
Press which I formerly admired. Its style became still more repellant
and I
was forced to reject its ideas as entirely shallow and superficial.
To
claim that in the presentation of facts and views its attitide was
impartial seemed to me to contain more falsehood than truth. The
writers
were- Jews.
"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed
to me
now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand things
which I
had formerly looked at in a different light."
"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried
to
read articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in
doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
stuff.
From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I recalled to
mind the
names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then I realized that most
of
them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social Democratic
representatives in
the Imperial Cabinet as well as the secretaries if the Trades Unions
and
the street agitators. Everywhere the same sinister picture presented
itself. I shall never forget the row of names- Austerlitz, David,
Adler,
Ellonbogen, and others. One fact became quite evident to me. It was
that
this alien race held in its hands the leadership of that Social
Democratic
Party with whose minor representatives I had been disputing for
months
past."
>
>4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic
>problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of
>government
>funding, and the domestic agenda i s neglected. Soldiers and military
>service are glamorized.
Hitler himself said on 19 July 1940: "My intention was never to wage
war, but to build a new social state with the highest level of
culture. Each year of war keeps me from this work."
>
>5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be
>almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional
>gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as
>is
>homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
>
>6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled
>by
>the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled
>by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and
>executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
National Socialist Germany was not different from other countries
in regard to free speach laws. The only difference was the right was
in power instead of the left. Before Hitler was in power he had a lot
of his papers banned, and when he was in power he also banned things.
Even today most countries do not have free speech. In leftist Germany
today people get arrested for doubting the holo story and other
things. People in Britain get arrested for politically incorrect
speech or writting. Saying that the races are not all equal in
intelligence is against the law there.
The United States has the most free speech but even here it has
banned things. At one time the play "Merchant of Venice" was banned in
New York because it offended the Jews. People in America were arrested
for their beliefs during WWII. All countries did that.
But the United States does have the most free speech and this was a
great idea. Hitler also had a great idea of removing the Jews from
controlling the media. If we could combine these two ideas we could
have a winning combination. Allowing free speech is not the same as
allowing one unelected group to virtually control all of the media.
The media is the real power, and a minor post such as President of the
United States is like nothing by comparison. Why are we voting for
President and not voting for who will control the media? When it comes
to owning TV stations it is only money that talks, not morality or
virtue.
In the Jews country, which Americans are giving billions of
dollars to, they don't allow non-Jews to own certain media.
National Socialism was mainly about things like making Germany for
the Germans, and rejecting both Communism and Capitalism. But Free
Speech is also a great idea. National Socialists today should make it
clear that Free Speech is sacred and that no party should be allowed
to change that.
>
>7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational
>tool by the government over the masses.
>
>8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist
>nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool
>to
>manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is
>common
>from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion
>are
>diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
>
>9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business
>aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the
>government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial
>business/government relationship and power elite.
In liberal democracies money talks. In authortarian nations there
was another power above the money power. This power was not just for
the workers or just for the business leaders but for the good of all.
>
>10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor
>is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are
>either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .
Unions were replaced by better things that were not leftist like
unions.
>
>11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to
>promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia.
>It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored
>or
>even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and
>governments often refuse to fund the arts.
Here are some quotes from the official NSDAP book on the proceedings
of the 1936 Nuremberg Rally by Dr. Walther Schmitt:
Adolf Hitler's double proclamation to the party rally makes clear the
inner National Socialist unity of political accomplishment and
cultural guidance. That alone says more about the National Socialist
movement than all the intellectual analysts could say with a thousand
essays. The combination of politics and culture in the party rally's
program is clear proof of the enormous confidence that fills the
German renewal movement, and which as always spurs it on to still
greater accomplishments. No matter how splendid and triumphant the
political accomplishments discussed in the morning are, come evening
the party reports on it cultural strengths and achievements. It knows
that great political accomplishments also demand great works of art,
and that only these will justify its position in history. As the
Führer has said, National Socialism sees artistic creations as the
highest expression of a nation's being. This view, which breaks
decisively from the past, was expressed in the conclusion of his
speech about the new German cultural era at Nuremberg in 1936: "Art is
the only truly immortal product of human activity."...
Adolf Hitler announced at the conclusion of the 1936 party rally that
it will in the future become a great German Olympic festival: "What
came of the pitiable rallies of our former opponents! Now we see a
great exhibition of the nation in political, military, spiritual,
cultural and economic arenas. The physical activity of the nation must
also be included in the splendid new facilities of the party rally
grounds. It will be a new Olympia, one in modern form and under a
different name!" Once again the Führer revealed in these words the
greatness of an idea which is not a dead teaching, rather part of our
innermost being, an ever living appeal to all sound feelings and to
the creative strength of each German...
We sense that just as Napoleon transformed Paris into the glittering
center of his state with monumental plans, so too the national capital
of Berlin will become a source of pride and greatness for the entire
nation.
It finally would be improper if the artistic level of the ceremonies
themselves were not of a level keeping with their vast new
surroundings. This was evident both in the youth ceremonies and those
of the Labor Service at the 1936 Party Rally of Honor. Their simple
clarity and almost architectural form were a deep expression of the
new German life. The same was true of the powerful oath of political
leaders of the movement, held under the deep black night sky. As Adolf
Hitler was greeted, spotlights suddenly shot up 150 kilometers into
the heavens, creating a dome of light of unimaginable splendor above
the Zeppelin Field. This political roll call of National Socialism
took place under a symphony of flags, light and disciplined columns,
towered over by the marble platform.
Every moment of this party really demonstrated the creative,
constructive will of the National Socialist movement. Everyone in
Nuremberg felt this and was swept away by its force. The spiritual
strength of the party of construction led to an inevitable
confrontation with Jewish-International Bolshevism, whose systematic
work of destruction has brought one nation after another in Europe to
crisis and misery.
As a proud victor, the Führer in his opening proclamation could list
the accomplishments of his government and the movement, which National
Socialism has done in less than four years since it took power. The
battle against unemployment and the large new economic undertakings
are part of a long series of accomplishments that only four years ago
seemed an impossible dream, but today are already part of a history
that National Socialism hardly speaks about any longer. Yet these
great achievements are not the party's crowning glory. More beautiful
and glorious is the educational work of the movement, its building of
a new German man. The accomplishments thus far have never been rivaled
by any previous government in so short a time..
The Führer spoke of the lessons of political development in recent
years. He spoke as well of the experiences that Germany and the
National Socialist movement have had with the destructive Bolshevist
idea. He proclaimed the iron will of the new Germany to drive back
with force any Bolshevist attack. In this moment the Führer of Germany
became the greatest political prophet in all of Europe.
The National Socialists who heard Germany's Führer know that the words
Adolf Hitler spoke in Nuremberg are the result of serious, mature
reflection, careful observation, and irresistable logic. Here speaks a
man who knows better than anyone else the bestial nature and methods
of Bolshevism. His warning and firm bearing were therefore a political
prophecy that will guide the future development of European politics.
The movement in Nuremberg understood. The thanks and jubilation of his
followers doubled as he called up the old iron laws and virtues of the
National Socialist movement to stand up to Bolshevism, hammering them
once more into the hearts of his followers. Our brown army overcame
Jewish-Bolshevist anarchy in Germany, marching under the eagles of the
National Socialist standards and our red battle flags. The spirit that
led the German war for independence against Moscow will make Germany
strong in the future, defeating any Bolshevist attack on Central
Europe. That is the message of Nuremberg.
>
>12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the
>police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people
>are
>often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil
>liberties
>in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with
>virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
>
>13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always
>are
>governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to
>government positions and use governmental power and authority to
>protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in
>fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be
>appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
The corruption is in the liberal democracies. The authoritian
nations were not led by selfish people.
Here are parts of a post about Mussolini written by a very
anti-Mussolini person. He has done his homework though and cites many
book which are also anti-Mussolini and anti-Fascist. These are some
things they admit:
>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=4087
>Left-wing Fascism: An Intellectual Disorder
>By John J. Ray
(Quotes from Mussolini)
"Fascism has taken up an attitude of complete opposition to the
doctrines of
Liberalism, both in the political field and in the field of
economics".
"Fascism now and always believes in holiness and in heroism; that is
to say
in actions influenced by no economic motive"
"Laissez faire is out of date"
"Our programme is simple. We want to rule Italy".
"He had a profound contempt for those whose overriding ambition was to
be
rich. It was a mania, he thought, a kind of disease, and he comforted
himself with the reflection that the rich were rarely happy"
Here Hibbert (1962, p. 47) is describing a lifelong attitude of
Mussolini
that continued right into his time as Italy's Prime Minister - when he
refused to take his official salary.
"There was much truth in the comment of a Rome newspaper that the new
fasci
did not aim at the defence of the ruling class or the existing State
but
wanted to lead the revolutionary forces into the Nationalist camp so
as to
prevent a victory of Bolshevism.
even after coming
to power, to take drives in the country with his wife and stop at
various
farmhouses on the way for a chat with the family there. He would enjoy
discussing the crops, the weather and all the usual rural topics and
obviously just liked the feeling of being one of the people. His claim
to
represent the people was not just theory but heartfelt. And he never
gave up
his "anti-bourgeois" rhetoric.
His policies were basically protectionist. He
controlled the exchange-rate of the Italian currency and promoted that
old
favourite of the economically illiterate - autarky - meaning that he
tried
to get Italy to become wholly self-sufficient rather than rely on
foreign
trade. He wanted to protect Italian products from competing foreign
products.
By 1939 he had doubled Italy's grain
production from its traditional level, enabling Italy to cut wheat
imports
by 75% (Smith, 1967, p. 92).
He made Capri a bird sanctuary (Smith, 1967, p. 84) and
in 1926 he issued a decree reducing the size of newspapers to save
wood
pulp. And, believe it or not, he even mandated gasohol - i.e. mixing
industrial alcohol with petroleum products to make fuel for cars
(Smith,
1967, p. 87). Mussolini also disliked the population drift from rural
areas
into the big cities and in 1930 passed a law to put a stop to it
unless
official permission was granted
he advocated private enterprise within
a strict set of State controls designed, among other things, to
prevent
abuse of monopoly power (Gregor, 1979, Ch. 5).
Some other clearly Leftist initiatives that Mussolini took were a big
expansion of public works and a great improvement in social insurance
measures. He also set up the "Dopolavoro" (after work) organization to
give
workers cheap recreations of various kinds (cf. the Nazi Kraft durch
Freude
movement). His public health measures (such as the attack on
tuberculosis
and the setting up of a huge maternal and child welfare organization)
were
particularly notable for their rationality and efficiency and, as
such, were
rewarded with great success. For instance, the incidence of
tuberculosis
dropped dramatically and infant mortality declined by more than 20%
(Gregor,
p. 259). Together with big improvements in education and public
infrastructure, such measures gave Fascist Italy what was arguably the
most
advanced welfare State in the world at the time.
And if influential American "liberal" economists such as Galbraith
(1969)
can bemoan the low level of spending on public works as "private
affluence
and public squalor", Mussolini was well ahead on that. As Hibbert
(1962, p.
56) says, Mussolini
"instituted a programme of public works hitherto unrivalled in modern
Europe. Bridges, canals and roads were built, hospitals and schools,
railway
stations and orphanages, swamps were drained and land reclaimed,
forest were
planted and universities were endowed."
In 1929 Mussolini and Pope Pius
12th signed the Lateran treaty - which is still the legal basis for
the
existence of the Vatican State to this day - and Pius in fact at one
stage
called Mussolini "the man sent by Providence". The treaty recognized
Roman
Catholicism as the Italian State religion as well as recognizing the
Vatican
as a sovereign state. What Mussolini got in exchange was acceptance by
the
church - something that was enormously important in the Italy of that
time.
the great hatred that existed in prewar
Germany between the Nazis and the "Reds". And the early Fascists
battled the
"Reds" too, of course.
The 1919 election
manifesto, for instance, contained policies of worker control of
industry,
confiscation of war profits, abolition of the Stock exchange, land for
the
peasants and abolition of the Monarchy and nobility. Further,
Mussolini
never ceased to inveigh against "plutocrats".
He wanted a harmonious and united
Italy for all Italians of all classes and was sure that achieving just
treatment for the workers needed neither revolution nor any kind of
artificially enforced equality.
This made Italian Fascism a much more popular creed than Stalin's
Communism. This
is perhaps most clearly seen by the always persuasive "voting with
your
feet" criterion. Mussolini made no effort to prevent Italians from
emigrating and although some anti-Fascists did, net emigration
actually FELL
under Mussolini. Compare this with Stalin and the Berlin wall.
Mussolini gained
power through political rather than revolutionary means. His famous
march on
Rome was only superficially revolutionary. The King of Italy and the
army
approved of him because of his pragmatic policies so did not oppose
the
march. So this collusion ensured that Mussolini's "revolution" was
essentially bloodless.
His considerable popularity for many years among a wide
range of Italians shows how effective his recipe for achieving that
was.
In his "corporate state", Mussolini was the first to create that very
modern
phenomenon constantly now being advocated by Leftists everywhere - a
system
of capitalism under tight government control. And his corporate state
was
one where the workers had (at least in theory) equal rights with
management.
REFERENCES Amis, M. (2002) Koba the Dread : laughter and the twenty
million.
N.Y.: Talk Miramax
Carsten, F.L. (1967) The rise of Fascism. London: Methuen.
Funk & Wagnall's New Encyclopedia (1983) Funk & Wagnall's
Galbraith, J.K. (1969) The affluent society. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Gilmour, I.H.J.L. (1978) Inside right. London: Quartet.
Greene, N. (1968) Fascism: An anthology. N.Y.: Crowell.
Gregor, A.J. (1979) Italian Fascism and developmental dictatorship
Princeton, N.J.: Univ. Press.
Hagan, J. (1966) Modern History and its themes. Croydon, Victoria,
Australia: Longmans.
Hibbert, C. (1962) Benito Mussolini Geneva: Heron Books. Herzer, I.
(1989)
The Italian refuge: Rescue of Jews during the holocaust. Washington,
D.C.:
Catholic University of America Press
Horowitz, D. (1998) Up from multiculturalism. Heterodoxy, January.
See:
http://www.cspc.org/het/multicul.htm
Lenin, V.I. (1952) "Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder. In:
Selected Works, Vol. II, Part 2. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing
House.
Martino, A. (1998) The modern mask of socialism. 15th John Bonython
lecture,
Centre for Independent Studies, Sydney. See
http://www.cis.org.au/Events/JBL/JBL98.htm
Muravchik, J. (2002) Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism
San
Francisco: Encounter Books.
Smith, D.M. (1967) The theory and practice of Fascism. In: Greene, N.
Fascism: An anthology N.Y.: Crowell.
Steinberg, J. (1990) All or nothing: The Axis and the holocaust
London:
Routledge.
>
>14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are
>a
>complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear
>campaigns
>against or even assassination of opposition candidat es, use of
>legislation to control voting numbers or political district
>boundaries,
proof? didn't think so.
>and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use
>their
>judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
>
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"The fight which Fascist Italy waged against Jewry's three
principal weapons, the profound reasons for which may not of been
consciously understood (though I do not believe this myself) furnishes
the best proof that the poison fangs of that Power which transcends
all State boundaries are being drawn, even though in an indirect way.
The prohibition of Freemasonry and secret societies, the supression of
the supernational Press and the definate abolition of Marxism,
together with the steadily increasing consolidation of the Fascist
concept of the State--all this will enable the Italian Government, in
the course of some years, to advance more and more the interests of
the Italian people without paying any attention to the hissing of the
Jewish world-hydra.
"The English situation is not so favourable. In that country
which has 'the freest democracy' the Jew dictates his will, almost
unrestrained but indirectly, through his influence on public opinion."
neptune3
<OsamaBin...@large.com> wrote:
>
>The nazis weren't socialists, they were fascists. Yes I know Socialist was in
>their name, but the former East Germany called itself a democratic republic.
>Do you see their penchant for irony? I won't bother you with the difference,
>I'll just point out that there is a difference. You can research it at you
>leisure.
Here is excerpt from his memoirs General Leon Degrelle, former
leader of the Belgian contingent of the Waffen-SS:
One of the first labor reforms to benefit the German workers
was the establishment of annual paid vacation. The Socialist French
Popular Front, in 1936, would make a show of having invented the
concept of paid vacation, and stingily at that, only one week per
year. But Adolf Hitler originated the idea, and two or three times as
generously, from the first month of his coming to power in 1933.
Every factory employee from then on would have the legal right
to a paid vacation. Until then, in Germany paid holidays where they
applied at all did not exceed four or five days, and nearly half the
younger workers had no leave entitlement at all. Hitler, on the other
hand, favored the younger workers. Vacations were not handed out
blindly, and the youngest workers were granted time off more
generously. It was a humane action; a young person has more need of
rest and fresh air for the development of his strength and vigor just
coming into maturity. Basic vacation time was twelve
days, and then from age 25 on it went up to 18 days. After ten years
with the company, workers got 21 days, three times what the French
socialists would grant the workers of their country in 1936.
These figures may have been surpassed in the more than half a
century since then, but in 1933 they far exceeded European norms. As
for overtime hours, they no longer were paid, as they were everywhere
else in Europe at that time, at just the regular hourly rate. The
work
day itself had been reduced to a tolerable norm of eight hours,
since
the forty-hour week as well, in Europe, was first initiated by
Hitler.
And beyond that legal limit, each additional hour had to be paid at a
considerably increased rate...
Dismissal of an employee was no longer left as before the the
sole discretion of the employer. In that era, workers' rights to job
security were non-existent. Hitler saw to it that those rights were
strictly spelled out. The employer had to announce any dismissal four
weeks in advance. The employee then had a period of up to two months
in which to lodge a protest. The dismissal could also be annulled by
the Honor of Work Tribunal. What was the Honor of Work Tribunal? Also
called the Tribunal of Social Honor, it was the third of the three
great elements or layers of protection and defense that were to the
benefit of every German worker. The first was the Council
of Trust. The second was the Labor Commission.
The Council of Trust was charged with attending to the
establishment and the development of a real community spirit between
management and labor. In any business enterprise, the Reich law
stated, the employer and head of the enterprise, the employees and
workers, personnel of the enterprise, shall work jointly towards the
goal of the enterprise and the common good of
the nation...
Thus from 1933 on, the German worker had a system of justice
at his disposal that was created especially for him and would
adjudicate all grave infractions of the social duties based on the
idea of the Aryan enterprise community. Examples of these violations
of social honor are cases where the employer, abusing his power,
displayed ill will towards his staff or impugned the honor of his
subordinates, cases where staff members threatened work harmony by
spiteful agitation; the publication by members of the Council of
confidential information regarding the enterprise which they
became cognizant of in the course of discharging their duties.
Thirteen Tribunes of Social Honor were established, corresponding
with
the thirteen commissions...
From then on the worker knew that exploitation of his physical
strength in bad faith or offending his honor would no longer be
allowed. He had to fulfill certain obligations to the community, but
they were obligations that applied to all members of the enterprise,
from the chief executive down to the messenger boy. Germany's workers
at last had clearly established social rights that were arbitrated by
a Labor Commission and enforced by a Tribunal of Honor. Although
effected in an atmosphere of justice and moderation, it was a
revolution.
This was only the end of 1933, and already the first effects
could be felt. The factories and shops large and small were reformed
or transformed in conformity with the strictest standards of
cleanliness and hygiene; the interior areas, so often dilapidated,
opened to light; playing fields constructed; rest areas made
available
where one could converse at one's ease and relax during rest periods;
employee cafeterias; proper dressing rooms.
With time, that is to say in three years, those achievements
would take on dimensions never before imagined; more than 2,000
factories refitted and beautified; 23,000 work premises modernized;
800 buildings designed exclusively for meetings; 1,200 playing
fields;
13,000 sanitary facilities with running water; 17,000 cafeterias.
Eight hundred departmental inspectors and 17,300 local inspectors
would foster and closely and continuously supervise these renovations
and installations.
The large industrial establishments moreover had been given
the obligation of preparing areas not only suitable for sports
activities of all kinds, but provided with swimming pools as well.
Germany had come a long way from the sinks for washing one's face and
the dead tired workers, grown old before their time, crammed into
squalid courtyards during work breaks.
In order to ensure the natural development of the working
class, physical education courses were instituted for the younger
workers; 8,000 such were organized. Technical training would be
equally emphasized, with the creation of hundreds of work schools,
technical courses and examinations of professional competence, and
competitive examinations for the best workers for which large prizes
were awarded.
To rejuvenate young and old alike, Hitler ordered that a
gigantic vacation organization for workers be set up. Hundreds of
thousands of workers would be able every summer to relax on and and
sea. Magnificent cruise ships would be built. Special trains would
carry vacationers to the mountains and to the seashore. The
locomotives that hauled the innumerable worker-tourists in
just a few years of travel in Germany would log a distance equivalent
to fifty-four times around the world!
The cost of these popular excursions was nearly insignificant,
thanks to greatly reduced rates authorized by the Reichsbank.
Didn't these reforms lack something? Were some of them flawed
by errors and blunders? It is possible. But what did a blunder amount
to alongside the immense gains?
That this transformation of the working class smacked of
authoritarianism? That's exactly right. But the German people were
sick and tired of socialism and anarchy. To feel commanded didn't
bother them a bit. In fact, people have always liked having a strong
man guide them. One thing for certain is that the turn of mind of the
working class, which was still almost two-thirds non-Nazi in 1933,
had
completely changed.
The Belgian author Marcel Laloire would note: "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 populous districts." The Labor Front that
Hitler imposed on all of the workers and employers of the Reich was
for the most part received with favor.
And already the steel spades of the sturdy young lads of the
National Labor Service could be seen gleaming along the highways. The
National Labor Service had been created by Hitler out of thin air to
bring together for a few months in absolute equality, and in the same
uniform, both the sons of millionaires and the sons of the poorest
families. All had to perform the same work and were subject to the
same discipline, even the same pleasures and the same physical and
moral development. On the same construction sites and in the same
living quarters, they had become conscious of their commonality, had
come to understand one another, and had swept away their
old prejudices of class and caste. After this hitch in the National
Labor Service they all began to live as comrades, the workers knowing
that the rich man's son was not a monster, and the young lad from the
wealthy family knowing that the worker's son had honor just
like any other young fellow who had been more generously
favored by birth. Social hatred was disappearing, and a socially
united people was being born.
Hitler could already go into factories, something no man of the
so-called Right before him would have risked doing, and hold forth to
the mob of workers, tens of thousands of them at a time, as in the
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." In the
course of his twelve years in power, no incident ever occurred at any
factory Adolf Hitler ever visited. When Hitler was among the people,
he was at home, and he was received like the member of
the family who had been most successful.
neptune3
wrote:
>
>I think you'll find as I did that the german word socialist doesn't
>translate out into english the same way the english word means to us.
>Plus we're talking about buzz words here. Its like the DDR, it wasn't
>democratic and it certainly wasn't a republic, it was a Russian
>puppet.
>
On April 10, 1938 the Germans voted for or against Hitler. 99% of
Thom
wrote:
>On Wed, 28 May 2003 01:30:08 GMT, thoma...@yahoo.com.au (Thom)
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I think you'll find as I did that the german word socialist doesn't
>>translate out into english the same way the english word means to us.
>>Plus we're talking about buzz words here. Its like the DDR, it wasn't
>>democratic and it certainly wasn't a republic, it was a Russian
>>puppet.
>>
>
> On April 10, 1938 the Germans voted for or against Hitler. 99% of
>them voted for Hitler. Here are some quotes from a pamphet urging them
>to vote for Hitler:
I seem to remember he never got more than 33% in any free election,
but after the Reichstag fire there were no real or free elections.
>
>Do you remember the state of Germany and the German people in the days
>before the aged Reich President von Hindenburg chose Adolf Hitler and
>his party as the last hope of saving Germany from certain political,
what bull, he did his best to keep Hitler out and finally had to give
in.
THOM
Bill Jarrell
> On Wed, 28 May 2003 01:30:08 GMT, thoma...@yahoo.com.au (Thom)
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I think you'll find as I did that the german word socialist doesn't
> >translate out into english the same way the english word means to us.
> >Plus we're talking about buzz words here. Its like the DDR, it wasn't
> >democratic and it certainly wasn't a republic, it was a Russian
> >puppet.
> >
>
> On April 10, 1938 the Germans voted for or against Hitler. 99% of
> them voted for Hitler.
And you expect us to accept these results as a real election?
Saddam Hussien did Hitler one better. He got 100% of the vote in his
sham election. I hate to think about what happened to the 1%
opposition.
> Here are some quotes from a pamphet urging them
> to vote for Hitler:
>
As if they didn't have any choice. By 1938 all active opposition
had been suppressed by the Gestapo. Books contradicting Nazi
philosophy had been burned so people weren't exactly being allowed to
think for themselves. I'd be really impressed if you could produce a
German pamphlet from 1938 encouraging people not to vote for Der
Phooey.
> One of the foundations of National Socialism is the knowledge that
> only work creates value and prosperity...
Along with crackpot racism, suppression of free speech, paranoid
anti-semitism, and thug rule.
> But not only the dreadful misery before 1933 reduced the desire of
> countless Germans to have children. Crass egotism and materialism also
> played a role. The System Era saw having children as foolish and
> backward. The transformation that has occurred is clear in the rising
> German birth rate...
In other words people are suppose to breed for the state. How
fascist.
> people. No, each German, all of us, rich and poor, manual laborers,
> farmers and city-dwellers cooperate in fulfilling the Führer's will
It's not like they had any choice. Who were they were going to
complain to?
> No German may be hungry or cold!
Unless they were in Dachau.
> National Socialism's high opinion of work. Workers have a right to a
> vacation and for paid holidays, even hourly and temporary workers.
But they had no right to organize independent trade unions.
> The great improvements in the German transportation system have
> resulted in a growing stream of foreign visitors.
Isn't this where you insert the cliche about the trains running on
time?
The pulsing life in
> Germany is drawing more and more visitors to the Third Reich. The
> number of overnights by foreigners has risen from 2.7 million in 1932
> is far above 7 million in 1937. These foreigners, who often come to
> Germany with false ideas, see with their own eyes the work of the
> Führer and the remarkable efforts of the German people. They return
> home as the best witnesses of the greatness and strength of the German
> Reich...
Can you say "Potemkin village?"
> The Führer has repeatedly reminded the German people that strong
> policies are the absolute prerequisite to our economic, social and
> cultural health. Only intentional hostility and stupidity can still
> deny that the Führer was right in every respect...
>
If he was so right why did he plunge his country into a world war
that destroyed it?
Rich Travsky
This (from McDougall's book) gives some idea of the importance they placed on
this:
"The Atlas program will be reoriented and accelerated to the maximum
extent that technological development will permit. ... The Atlas will
be given the highest program priority in the Air Force. Processing of
any aspect of this program will be given precedence over any others in
the Air Force."
That was June 21 1954 from the Deputy Chief of Staff.
neptune3
wrote:
>
>I seem to remember he never got more than 33% in any free election,
>but after the Reichstag fire there were no real or free elections.
You may remember hearing that from your Jewish controlled media.
However:
The Gemans voted for Hitler to be the "dictator" of Germany.
After the death of Hindenburg on 2 August 1934, Hitler called a
referendum to approve his assumption of full power as Fuehrer and
Chancellor of Germany. 90% of the voters approved Hitler's increased
powers.
Rudolf Hess gave this speech on 14 August 1934, shortly before the 19
August referendum:
"National Socialists! Fellow German citizens!
I have rarely given a speech as difficult as this one. It is a
challenge to attempt to prove the good of something as obvious as
Hitler's assumption of Hindenburg's position. For fourteen years I
have been convinced that he is the only man able to master Germany's
fate. This conviction has grown over the years, as the original
emotional feeling found new support in endless ways that have
demonstrated Adolf Hitler's remarkable leadership abilities. It is
hard for me, now that I see the realization of fourteen years of
hopes, to gather the various reasons that explain how Adolf Hitler has
become the highest and only Fuehrer of the German people.
Whether through good luck or providence, I found in the summer of 1920
a small room in the Sterneckerbräu in which one Adolf Hitler, whom I
had never heard of, gave a speech to a few dozen people. His clear,
logical and persuasive speech laid out a new political program. This
man expressed my own vague feelings as a veteran of the war, making
clear what was necessary for the nation's salvation. He outlined a new
Germany from the heart of a front soldier, a Germany that I suddenly
realized was the one that had to become reality!
This man had driving passion, persuasive logic, and astonishing
knowledge. A powerful faith streamed from him - I had never
experienced its like. What was most remarkable was that I and the
other entirely rational members of the audience did not laugh as he in
all seriousness explained that the flag of the new movement for which
he and his movement fought would one day fly over the Reichstag, over
the Palace of Berlin, indeed over every German building. It would be
the victorious symbol of a new, honorable, nationalist and socialist
Germany.
At that moment in the Sterneckbräu there were really only two
possibilities. Either I would leave this fool immediately, or - as I
did - accept the conviction: This man will save Germany, if anyone
can!
I pledged my conviction to a friend, and on that very evening become
the most passionate admirer and loyal follower of this Fuehrer.
In the long years that followed, the rest of the world laughed and
mocked us, and the newspapers spread their poison and scorn about this
"madman," but nothing could shake my faith and readiness to give my
all for this man, so long as he did not lose faith in himself or his
mission.
I remember well even today a visit I made to Hitler in the small room
he sublet in Munich. He raged against a Munich newspaper that mocked
him and his idea. "I will show them whether I am to be taken seriously
or not," he exclaimed.
Still, his opponents did not take him seriously then, or for many
years after. Luckily so! For the most serious error his enemies made
was that they did not recognize early enough what a danger he was to
them. They missed the opportunity to destroy him and his small
following when it was still possible. The mighty tree of today, able
to withstand any storm, was then only a tender plant.
But like so many other things in the Führer's life, fate probably
determined that those around him were blind enough to lose valuable
time by fighting him only with ridicule. Providence, of which the
Fuehrer often speaks with such faith, preserved him and his movement
from destruction, preserving both for its purposes.
I knew Adolf Hitler as he walked through the streets of Munich in a
shabby gray coat, often hungry, accompanied only by a few friends,
posting flyers. He was armed only with a thick oak walking stick,
which he only too often had to use when his opponents from the then
USPD, or the Spartakus Bund, or some middle class party found the
primitive truths on these flyers unpleasant.
I can still remember how he, at the head of his "whole party" broke up
a meeting of Bavarian separatists, always putting himself in the way
of the greatest danger. Astonishingly, amidst all the daily tasks and
annoyances, he never lost sight of the larger goal. He always
presented his vision vividly to his followers.
In later years I saw this man during the triumphs and defeats of his
movement. At the moments of the worst defeats when his followers often
were near desperation, it was always he who restored the faith of the
doubters, gave them new enthusiasm, new faith. I was with him in the
Landsberg prison, when all seemed lost and his movement disintegrated
as his subordinates fought. I remember when there was the danger that
his parole would be canceled and he would have to stay behind bars for
another four or five years! The chances of realizing his ideas seemed
absolutely nonexistent then, but at that very moment he laid out the
methods he would use to rebuild the movement under the new
circumstances and by rejecting illegal methods. Then as always he
proved himself a master at adapting to new situations, in breaking
radically with methods he saw as outdated or ineffective.
With the certainty of a great leader, in the middle of what seemed to
be the total collapse of all his efforts, he explained to me that he
would need several years to rebuild the movement, and that it would be
seven years before he had the power to force his enemies to bend to
his will. That was in the winter of 1924/25. Seven years later it was
1932!
That was the year in which the forces of the past attempted in vain to
stop the final victory of National Socialism, the year in which every
attempt to stop Adolf Hitler and his movement failed, in which in fact
every shameless lying attack worked in the end to his advantage.
The Fuehrer said more often than in the past: "The others can do what
they want. When an idea is right, when it is fought for consistently,
when the movement that fights for it is well organized, and when the
leadership is determined to go its way regardless of the difficulties,
one day with mathematical certainty it will be victorious! The longer
they succeed in holding back our victory, the more powerful it will
be! It will fall into our laps like overripe fruit!"
These words from the decisive year 1932 explain the sudden and total
National Socialist seizure of power in 1933, which so surprised the
rest of the world.
Looking back I am convinced that our delayed victory, the fourteen
years that sometimes seemed to us as if they would never end, was
fate's way of preparing our people for the seizure of power. It was a
necessity of fate, just as the early death of the Fuehrer's parents
acquainted him with bitter poverty. That poverty forced him to become
a construction worker. He came to understand the poverty of his fellow
human beings and the lot of the "proletariat." The daily struggle for
survival in the primitive cultural conditions of the era gave the
Führer a deep understanding of his fellow working class citizens.
It was also a necessity of fate that he served at the Front during the
World War, for he learned a contempt of danger. He became hard. The
war brought him together with all levels of the German people and
showed him the destructiveness of class and rank. Most importantly, it
taught him to understand the people and to speak their language.
The revolutionary year 1918 was a necessity of fate for Adolf Hitler,
for despite its criminal leadership it cleared away relics of the past
that later would have created difficulties for the National Socialist
Revolution. And the revolt of 1918 brought signs of collapse and
revealed with naked clarity the international forces and their
destructive effects on Germany in a way that created the psychological
prerequisites that enabled the hard measures of the later National
Socialist government to succeed.
The attempt to seize power in November 1923 was ordained by fate, just
as was its bloody collapse. If the Fuehrer had not acted then, the
masses would later have lost faith in him as a Fuehrer when he
constantly called for patience and postponed the seizure of power.
Only his willingness to act resolutely when necessary, as demonstrated
in November 1923, provided the proof that he would when necessary take
the most forceful course. It proved that he chose to renounce force in
the years before 1933 not because he was a coward. And National
Socialism could not have taken power in 1923, since the people were
not yet ready for National Socialism, nor was National Socialism ready
to lead the people. What was obvious to everyone in Germany in 1933
would have seemed arrogance in 1923. The supporters of the parties of
that day had not yet had sufficient time to recognize the weaknesses
of their leaders.
The narrowest chance of fate prevented the Führer from entering the
government in 1932. He would have been joined with men who inwardly
were still his enemies and would have caused great damage as members
of the government.
And surely it was providence that preserved the life of the old Field
Marshall and Reich President to enable his good name and protecting
hand to guard the young National Socialist government until Adolf
Hitler's abilities as a leader had been proven to everyone at home and
abroad, until his reputation was sufficient to assume the full
leadership of the Reich.
Providence has clearly been at work in Adolf Hitler's life. Only so
can we understand how this man, the son of a minor official, withstood
hunger and privation and fought unaided powerful enemies in the press
and business, powerful parties at home and abroad, to become the
Führer of one of the great nations of the world, chancellor of the
German Reich, holder of the office of Reich President. This is a
miracle without precedent in the history of the world. In the midst of
bitter need, a people finds the man to rescue it. There is a force of
history at work here which we still do not understand.
The need of our people was great. A great man was required to meet it.
Providence gave him the gifts and the strength to move on both in good
times and bad, enabling him over the course of time to reach his goal:
the salvation of Germany!
Providence works through in a way both inexplicable yet clear to all
who have the good fortune to be near to him. How often has he said to
me: "I know that my decision or action is correct. I cannot explain at
the moment why, but I feel that it is right and the future will prove
it so." Invariably the course of events proved that the inexplicable
feelings of the Führer led him down a sure path.
The great historian Treitschke held the ability to see things
correctly as the decisive ability of a statesman, more important even
than talent. What leader has ever had this ability more than Adolf
Hitler? The proof is in his speeches, even those from 1920. Rarely
have political conditions and developments been predicted more
accurately, seldom have conclusions been drawn more clearly, thanks to
his ability to see the fundamental nature of the most difficult and
complicated things.
The "simple understanding" of the genius is able to see the essential
and the obvious.
The Fuehrer adds to the ability to see correctly, which the historian
sees as more critical than talent, not only talent, but also genius.
The ability to see correctly, along with genius, to which must be
added the workings of providence, gives us an explanation for the
miracle that has happened before our eyes in the past few years,
particularly since Hitler's assumption of power.
Is not the transformation of our people a miracle! It shows itself in
its return to its essence, to the sources of its strength, in its
reawakening pride and honor, in its will to self assertion in the
world, in its ability to free itself from international poisons and
from signs of corruption in all areas of life! Is it a miracle that
Adolf Hitler won the battle against unemployment in so short a time?
That he put people to work to meet daily needs as well as to advance
culture? The great highways, canals and buildings will proclaim to
coming generations the Hitler Era of the German people. Is it not a
miracle that a nation once divided by class and rank, divided by petty
state pride in Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony and elsewhere-now works
together with mutual understanding for the great common tasks and for
the preservation of the nation and its people?
As I said when I began, I cannot explain why Hitler, and only he, can
be the Fuehrer. Who could suggest someone worthier and more able to
fill the office of Reich President, the highest leader of the Reich?
Someone might say that it is not good to put all power in one hand.
Let me reply that in a difficult time the Romans gave full power to a
young and capable leader - and the Romans knew something about
governing! They knew that "men make history." They knew that in times
of crisis, strong personalities must guide the state, personalities
bound to the living essence of their people.
Someone may say that it is not good to put all power in one hand,
since Adolf Hitler might use his authority arbitrarily and
thoughtlessly!
To that I can only say: The conscience of a moral personality is a far
greater protection against the misuse of an office than is the
supervision of parliament or the separation of powers. I know no one
who has a stronger conscience, or is more true to his people, than
Adolf Hitler.
Over the years I have seem him struggle to make difficult decisions,
always checking again and again with the experts in the field until he
was certain that his decision was absolutely correct. I know how many
sleepless nights his decision to take Germany out of the League of
Nations cost him, how he listened to all who had objections. I know
that he was unable to rest until he had refuted them by clear logic.
Only then did he decide, and accepted the full responsibility.
The Führer's highest court is his conscience and his responsibility to
his people and to history.
He will also from time to time allow the people itself to pass
judgment on his general policy. This will regularly reaffirm his
leadership.
He knows that both his honor and his work are at risk. He cannot pass
the responsibility for his decisions to irresponsible parliamentary
majorities, as do the statesmen of all other nations. That also means
that his freedom of action is not restricted or watered down by
parliamentary bodies or other forces. This above all is why in
desperate times people and nations need an absolute leader - assuming
he possesses the necessary abilities - and why such a leader can be
necessary to the continued existence of the government and people.
Treitschke said that absolute leadership is either the best or the
worst form of government, depending on the personality of the leader.
We know that Adolf Hitler is both born and called to be a leader, and
that he has shown himself through all his actions to be a morally
upright person. As sole ruler he is the best possible form of
government for Germany - and Heaven knows that in its current crisis
Germany needs the best possible form of government!
A Fuehrer whose goal is to serve his people is in times of crisis a
better guarantee of peace to other nations than is a parliamentary
majority, which may lack the will at the critical moment to keep its
people from stumbling into misfortune, as Lloyd George suggested the
nations stumbled into the World War. In recent weeks, Adolf Hitler has
made rapid and firm decisions advancing the cause of peace in Europe
that demonstrate his statesmanship. Those states who today oppose us
may not be willing to admit it, but history will.
German citizens! Consider with all seriousness the international
significance of the referendum on 19 August. Talk with everyone in
your circle of acquaintances-family members, workmates, relatives,
with everyone you come in contact with. Remember that the world is
watching to see if a united German people will be loyal to its
Fuehrer.
Hundreds of thousands of journalists are waiting to announce the
expected collapse of National Socialism to their readers. They will do
this if even a few less Germans go to the polls than did on 12
November of last year. They hope for a collapse of National Socialism,
for they know this would mean the collapse of Germany.
By voting yes on 19 August, the German people will demonstrate to the
world that we see in Adolf Hitler the Fuehrer given to us by
providence. We Germans approve of what he has done at home and abroad
for Germany and trust his decisions for the future. Germany sees Adolf
Hitler as Hindenburg's proper successor. The entire German people now
gives Hitler the name of honor that the National Socialist movement
has long given him: the Fuehrer!
This word is more that a title, it is a confession and a certainty: My
Fuehrer!
Furthermore, the entire German people says to the world: Adolf Hitler
is and will remain our Fuehrer, because his policies are the policies
of the entire German nation. His rule guarantees Germany's stability.
Through him and his movement, Germany has become a unified Reich.
Since we want to remain a united German Reich, we want Adolf Hitler at
our head. Since we know that power struggles between individuals or
interest groups are unthinkable and impossible under his leadership,
we want him as Germany's leader.
Through him, Fate realizes its purpose: Saving Germany from the hunger
of misery of Bolshevism. We firmly believe that saving Germany from
Bolshevism also rescued Europe from the danger of red annihilation. We
Germans see it as our duty to thank Fate by affirming this man as the
Fuehrer of Germany.
One more thing the German people want to say to the world on 19
August: We want the work begun in Hitler's name to continue: the
battle against unemployment, the freeing of our conscience, the moral
renewal of Germany's youth, the strengthening of our sense of honor.
We Germans know that Hitler wants what we all want: economic equality
with the other nations of the world, the political and military peace
with the other peoples of the world, a return to prosperity and
culture after decades of decline and decay.
This we say to our Fuehrer on 19 August: We are bound to you in an
indissoluble unity in the fight for Germany's future. With you, we
long for the preservation of peace and are prepared to follow your
command to defend our people's peace.
We are proud and happy to have one of history's greats, a son of our
people, among us during our life times. The yes that we give affirms
his leadership to the world, and thanks him at the same time.
German workers! I speak particularly to you. Be proud that you may on
19 August affirm as leader of Germany a man of the German working
class. Be proud that you may symbolically say to one of your own on 19
August: We want you, Adolf Hitler, as German Chancellor and German
Reich President, you, a German worker! Where once kings, Kaisers and
presidents ruled Germany, now by our will and the will of the German
people stands for the first time a German worker. He is a worker who
knows how hard the life of his former comrades still is, those who
must struggle daily for their basic needs, and whose goal is above all
to improve their lot as quickly as possible.
My fellow German citizens! You will vote yes for Adolf Hitler! And if
you are asked why you voted for him, you will be able to answer:
We voted for Adolf Hitler:
Because he is the man who from his experiences as a Front soldier
developed a world view that is the foundation for all that is
happening in Germany.
Because his fifteen year struggle against a hostile world is a model
of strength and courage.
Because he always acts at the right moment, thereby showing that he is
a heroic leader.
Because he does nothing for himself, but everything for Germany and
for the future of his people.
Because he has given all of us a new faith in Germany.
Because he has given our lives meaning once more by showing us why we
Germans are on the earth.
Because he is the instrument of the will of a higher power.
In sum, because he is a true Fuehrer!
With our yes votes, we Germans will say on 19 August:
To you, our Fuehrer, we pledge our loyalty - Adolf Hitler, we believe
in you!
>>
>>Do you remember the state of Germany and the German people in the days
>>before the aged Reich President von Hindenburg chose Adolf Hitler and
>>his party as the last hope of saving Germany from certain political,
>
>what bull, he did his best to keep Hitler out and finally had to give
>in.
>
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.AmRen.com
neptune3
wrote:
> And you expect us to accept these results as a real election?
>Saddam Hussien did Hitler one better. He got 100% of the vote in his
>sham election. I hate to think about what happened to the 1%
>opposition.
You believe that because your media is controlled by Jews. Did you
see Triumph of the Will? The Germans were for Hitler.
>
>
>> Here are some quotes from a pamphet urging them
>> to vote for Hitler:
>>
> As if they didn't have any choice. By 1938 all active opposition
>had been suppressed by the Gestapo. Books contradicting Nazi
>philosophy had been burned so people weren't exactly being allowed to
>think for themselves. I'd be really impressed if you could produce a
>German pamphlet from 1938 encouraging people not to vote for Der
>Phooey.
A pamphlet can't lie about what people see for themselves. and be
effective. There were paid vacations for workers etc.
>> One of the foundations of National Socialism is the knowledge that
>> only work creates value and prosperity...
>
> Along with crackpot racism,
The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second
world are the Arabs and China. It is just as racialists would predict.
It is because the White race is on average much more intelligent than
the Black race. The people in Japan are much lighter in color than the
people in India.
All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
intelligent than Blacks. White people invented just about everything
important. Most leftists admit that Whites on average score higher on
the tests. They have their excuses for it, but all of their excuses
are demolished in "My Awakening" by David Duke. Here is an example:
"One of the most powerful direct studies of race and environment
was conducted by psychologists Sandra Scarr, Richard Weinberg and I.
D. Waldman. All three were quite well-known for their environmental
opinions. The study analyzed White, Black, and Mixed-race adopted
children in more than 100 White families in Minnesota. The study was
an egalitarian's dream, because the children's adoptive parents had
prestigious levels of income and education and were anti-racist enough
to adopt a Black child into their own family. Scarr is a strong
defender of racial equality and maintained that environment played an
almost exclusive role in IQ differences between the races. Scarr
supports the importance of heredity in causing individual differences
within a race, but she has argued that between-race differences are
mostly environmental.
The children in the study included Whites, Blacks, and Mulattos as
well as the biological children of the White adoptive couples. At the
age of 7, the children were tested for IQ, and all of the groups
including the Blacks and Mulattos, scored above average in IQ. Scarr
and Weinberg published a paper claiming to have proven the almost
exclusive power of environment over race in IQ, even though they had
to admit that the White children, whether adopted or not, scored well
above the Black and Mulatto children and that the Mulatto children
scored above the Blacks. (88)
A decade later, when the children reached the age of 17, a
follow-up study was conducted that that again included IQ
measurements. As they matured, Black children had dropped back to an
average of 89 in IQ, which is the average IQ for Blacks in the region
of the United States where the study was done. The White adopted
children scored an average of 106 in IQ, 17 points higher than the
Black children, which is consistant with traditional studies of Black
and White IQ differences. In line with genetic theory the half-White,
half-Black Mulatto adopted children scored almost exactly between the
adopted Whites and Blacks. (89)
RESULTS OF MINNESOTA TRANSRACIAL ADOPTION STUDY
IQ
Parental IQ 115.35
Biological Children 109.4
White Adopted children 105.6
Mulatto parents adopted children 98.5
Black parents adopted children 89.4
Scarr and Wienberg reluctantly published their data from the
follow up survey, but they waited close to four years to do so, almost
as if they were embarrassed by what they had found. Through a tortured
reasoning process, they still argued that environment played a
dominant role in IQ. But in their follow-up survey, unlike their first
paper, they also admitted that genes had an important impact as well.
Both Richard Lynn and Michael Levin effectively showed in their
re-analysis of Scarr's own data, that genes clearly comprise the
dominant role in intelligence levels of those adopted children. (90)
(91)"
(88) Scarr, S, & Weinberg R. A. (1976). IQ Test Perfomance of Black
Children Adopted By White Families. American Psychologist. Vol. 31.
p.26-739
(89) Weinberg, R. A. , Scarr, S., & Waldman, I. D. (1992). The
Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. A Follow-Up of IQ Test
Performance at Adolescence, Intelligence. Vol 16.
p.17-135
(90) Lynn, R. (1994). Reinterpretations Of The Minnesota Transracial
Adoption Study. Intelligence. Vol. 19. p.1-27
(91) Levin, M. (1994). Comment on The Minnesota Transracial Adoption
Study. Intelligence Vol. 19. p.3-20
>suppression of free speech, paranoid
>anti-semitism, and thug rule.
Hitler was against the Jews mainly because the Jews controlled the
Ellonbogen, and others. One fact became quite evident to me. It was
that
this alien race held in its hands the leadership of that Social
Democratic
Party with whose minor representatives I had been disputing for
months
past."
>
> In other words people are suppose to breed for the state. How
>fascist.
This speech delivered by Dr. Walter Grob, the head of the Nazi Party's
Office of Racial Policy. He was speaking to a women's meeting at the
Gau Party Rally in Cologne on 13 October 1934. After this speech I
will make my comment on it.
My Dear German Women and Girls!
When Germans come together today to discuss the things that concern us
both as individuals and as a nation, it is a solemn occasion, whether
we wish it to be or not. During the political struggles of the past,
we could speak of party programs or of civilization without any
involvement of our soul.
Now we have forgotten how to approach an issue merely with our
understanding, merely with our mouth, merely with our heart. We have
become whole people once again. When we speak with others, we do so
with our full being.
That is what made the movement strong, and great, and powerful from
its first days. It is also that which the enemy on this side of the
border and the other cannot understand, and which it hates with deadly
strength. As this great and beautiful people's movement began, so too
began a hard and bitter struggle between enemy and German forces,
between an old world that is really long dead and buried, and the new
world that is struggling to reach the light through us. This struggle
has been going on in people's hearts and souls for years, and is
nowhere near its end. The world finds it difficult to understand that
which is at the center of our endeavors:
the value of blood and race.
Our enemies first laughed in pity, then in hatred as we spoke of it.
Let us speak of what we National Socialists mean by that so that it
will become clear why the German woman may be even more concerned
about these matters than the man, his state, and his fighting
organization can be.
There was a time in the past when we were untrue, untrue in the
deepest sense. We were untrue not to other people, or parties, or
states, or kings, but untrue to something far greater, untrue to the
laws of life. As long as the world exists, as long as life grows,
flourishes and perishes, so long will this life have the urge to live
on into the future and win new territory. Whether plant or animal or
man-as we, or I, or you:
wherever there is life, it has the longing to bring forth new life.
It should be unnecessary to speak of such things. We speak of them
only because for a few decades a crazy era ignored, blasphemed and
mocked these greatest, most beautiful and purest dreams of life. This
was an age that made the idol of money supreme and said: "The world
should be governed not be what serves life, rather by what some fool
of an accountant decides is best." We know the results. The great laws
of life were evaluated according to money sacks and checkbooks. When
we think back on our parents, grandparents and great grandparents,
there were many children in the house. It may have been crowded and
hard financially, but we were happy, perhaps because there were so
many of us in so large a family. But the time came when people said:
"As man or woman, as parents or teachers of leaders, you have the duty
to show the people the way to a better future." That better future,
people thought, could only be a richer future, a future in which the
individual had more money. And when they were asked where this money
would come from, a false teaching arose in the last century: "The
fewer people there are, the more an individual child can inherit from
his parents." He who loves his children and wishes a prosperous future
for his nation should therefore see to it that Germany's population is
small, and that only a few children continue the family after he is
gone. That was the terrible teaching of birth control, which Marxism
preached and the bourgeois followed. No one dared stand against it.
That was the doctrine that made us what we are today:
a dying people,
in which fewer children are born each year, in which today more people
die each year than are born. This all was supposed to lead to a happy
future. It understood happiness only in terms of possessions. It was
therefore inherently false. But even in its own terms it was false,
for it forgot something:
When a people begins to die, when a people no longer obeys the laws of
life, when a people values money more than its existence and
posterity, this people is on the path to disaster, both historically
and politically. Within a few decades it will be dead, oppressed by
other peoples who are stronger, closer to life, and who follow life's
laws better than we.
If present trends continue, by the end of the century Germany will be
a nation with only 40-50 million inhabitants,
and we know that on our borders other peoples are growing quickly and
strongly. Sooner or later, these other peoples will come in conflict
with a shrinking and dying German people, and the result of the
supposed doctrine of happiness will be a hard and bitter
national death for our children.
Those who believed that they can give their children a happy and
peaceful future by reducing the number of children err deeply. They
give the children only the promise of a hard and bitter struggle for
Germany's existence as a state and as an idea.
Today when we work to show people that the ideas of yesterday are
false, that the state and nation cannot do without the family, that
the family cannot exist without children, and when we not only provide
economic support to make it easier to begin families and have
children, but also tell people again and again of the sanctity of life
and the necessity of continuing our people into the future, our
enemies on both sides of the border suddenly have insults and hateful
things to say about us. They wish to disturb our work. Suddenly there
are voices saying: "National Socialism's doctrines are inhumane and
barbaric. National Socialism's views on children turn people into
breeding animals. When it says
that it is the duty of men and women to continue the eternal chain of
life, a chain that begins in the distant past and continues into the
future, a chain of which we are only a link leading into the distant
future,
our enemies on both sides of the border claim: "You reject the dignity
and value of humanity. National Socialism holds that men and women
have no value other than that of breeding cattle." It is a shame that
we have to respond to such words, but it is necessary because our
enemies have always tried to persuade women to oppose us, even though
what we say is rooted in the souls of the men and women we speak to.
This is our response: "You are mistaken in accusing us of thinking
that the only purpose of humanity is to continue the species by
passing on our blood to future generations. We know the other values.
We support them and find wherever we can those values that the
individual shows in his work and selfless service. We know well enough
that
each person lives a double life. The first is the one he lives between
birth and death. We are to do as much as we can to make this life
rich, to accomplish that which is good and beautiful, to use our
strengths and gifts for others. That is the duty of the individual.
But as a person you are something more:
You are a member of the chain of life, a drop in the great bloodstream
of your people.
There too you have duties and obligations before the eternity of the
nation. You have the duty to pass on what you received from your
parents and ancestors. I do not believe that such behavior, which
obeys both the laws of reason and of life, is barbaric, hateful or
inhumane. I believe instead that the barbarism is to be found in the
years we have left behind us, when any dirty lout could besmirch the
most valuable, holy life of a man or women in their families, or drag
children through the filth, without anyone defending their culture
against such an attack.
I believe that when we tell people once more of the great value of
blood, and remind them that they have duties not only for the 60-year
span in which they work and serve, but also to the millennia of the
past from which we come and to the millennia of the future to which we
are heading, then we are giving them higher values than those of
yesterday. Let me say also, however, that it is wrong if someone
thinks that only those who found families and bear children are
valuable to our state. We know that is not so. We know there are
reasons why some people leave their people's flow of blood. We know
that some are denied what the nation places great value on. We do not
ignore them or think ourselves their betters. We only say this: "My
friend, you and I must do our duty to our people, and when we cannot
fulfill it in one way, then we must do what we can with even greater
energy and devotion.
When you do your duty, you are one of us,
we extend our hand to you, we honor your humanity and your service for
Germany. Let us work together so that in the future, as many people as
possible will be able to serve the nation in both ways.
That is a piece of the thinking of blood and race that National
Socialism has taught us. And there is another aspect. When we see
people today, we can recognize that we are not all alike. There are
differences in value;
each person does not have the same value as everyone else.
In the past, people believed that these differences were superficial,
the result of the environment in which one grew up. People believed
that what became of a person depended primarily on the house he grew
up in or in his social environment, or the class he came from. They
believed that a person born in a slum, surrounded by shadows, troubles
and poverty, a child lacking in love and affection, could only become
a second-class human being, a physically and psychologically ill
member of the society, someone failed by the society and the state.
One thought that a child growing up in such slum inevitably became
sick, or even criminal. It was because he grew up in such a poor
environment. The Marxists claimed that if every child in Germany grew
up in an environment that gave him all he needed, he would inevitably
become a useful, decent, upright, proud and honest adult. After a few
years or decades, the entire German people would consist of such
decent and useful people. In the past people believed the environment
was responsible even when a person failed miserably.
We recall the days of delirium, when millions of unemployed had been
thrown on the street by a sick political and economic system, made
superfluous. A single person pried the tracks apart and derailed a
train in the middle of the night. Within a minute he murdered 30
innocent people who had never done anything to him, and stole their
money. And what did the world of yesterday say? "He can't help
himself. He is a victim of circumstances. He has Beethoven's hands and
an artistic temperament. We need not put him on the gallows or in
prison to protect us and our children. No, this poor Schlesinger is
only sick because of his environment. Put him in a modern sanitarium,
give him what he needs: radio, a library, a smoking salon, a language
teacher, a pastor, a newspaper room, give him everything he needs to
put him in touch with better things. In a few years, this mass
murderer of 30 people will leave as an ideal human being, so pure and
innocent that one can put him in charge of a kindergarten." That's
what people thought in the past.
Today that seems a bad joke to us, a crazy fantasy, but a few years
ago it was government policy in Germany. Those who did well under such
policies and have joined to fight us think that they can accuse our
doctrines of blood and race as barbaric.
Why do we see things differently? Because we have learned something:
In the end, you are not as important and significant as you thought
yesterday;
your strength and abilities are not as great as you believed during
the liberal era. Oh yes, it was a lovely dream to say: "I will do with
my life what I want, and if I happen to be a teacher, I will teach
what I want, and do what I enjoy, and what I think right." Well, that
was your idea of the environment.
We are a bit more modest, a bit more humble before the laws of fate.
We have learned that what I can do for myself or what you can do for
yourself, or what we can all do to each other, is not as important, or
as deep, as that which a greater power has already done to us. It is
that power that even before our birth gave us a part of our nature,
and laid out our path for us in the world. Here are joined two things:
the knowledge of modern science and the sensitivity and understanding
of a humble person. Suddenly we see that:
What you are, what I am and what I can be in my life is in part
predetermined by that which I have inherited.
If my inheritance is good and strong, and if I am true to it and
develop what is within me, my life will be successful, and perhaps of
benefit and joy to others. If such an inheritance is denied me, or if
for some inexplicable reason fate has given me other, perhaps weak,
perhaps even bad traits, I can struggle against them for my entire
life, and will still not be able to rid myself of that which slumbers
in me because of the actions of a higher power.
We see then that a good part of a people's history is determined by
what it has inherited. If we ask what sorts of physical or
intellectual traits these may be, or what groups there are, we will
see that each people has three groups. The first is a large group of
people with average gifts, the most of us who are able to deal with
the normal problems life presents us with. Next there is a very small
group. This group has received a better inheritance than most of us,
not because of any particular virtue on its part, but simply because
of fate. The leaders of humanity, those who build states, lead people,
or touch the soul, come from this group. And there is a third small
group with particular traits, also not their fault: those who are sick
or genetically defective. They are not up to the challenges of life,
and need outside help to survive.
As humanity of a nation go through the centuries, the decisive fact is
which of these three groups is the strongest. One might say: "That is
not a question at all. The strongest will win, the group from which
the leaders come. This superior group has to be the strongest in the
end, it must gradually have its way." Well, that is how things would
be without people, if people with their little brains did not believe
that they could change the laws of life given to the world by heaven.
Man has interfered in these matters. He has tried to change the laws
of struggle and existence and selection. Those were ancient laws of
life, to which men too were subject:
That which cannot meet the challenges dies.
That is hard, perhaps, but it is also the way that nature makes life
stronger and better. Man has tried more and more to abolish these
laws. He has kept life going by using artificial means in cases where,
left to itself, it would have ended. He used all his understanding,
love and sympathy to keep a person alive, even when it is no joy, but
only a burden and misery. We now keep thousands, even tens of
thousands of unhappy creatures alive through artificial means, those
to whom life itself has denied the right to life. But keeping them
alive was not itself the problem. What is worse is that they were
given the opportunity to pass on their unfortunate physical and mental
characteristics. That was the worst that happened: we took the
physically weak, the mentally ill, the genetically defective criminals
and not only kept them alive and cared for them-that is our duty as
human beings, which we certainly do not want to ignore in the future
either-and gave them the ability to have children with the same
deficiencies, thus doubling or multiplying their misery. The German
people do not know the extent of this misery, it does not know the
depressing spirit of the homes where thousands of cripples live their
lives only by being fed and cared for, poor creatures who are worse
than any animal. The animal at least is as it should be. These poor
creatures are distortions of life, no joy either to themselves or
others. They are a burden throughout their miserable existences, but
thanks to the selfless care and devotion of those who care for them
may live 60, 70 or 80 years. The German people do not realize the
enormous sums that have been spent for decades, money that is taken
from those who are healthy, who could do something useful, but cannot
because the money is lacking.
There was a winter in which children in Bavaria did not even have
wooden shoes to wear as they walked through the snow on their way to
school. They had to walk for hours bare-footed. At the same time, the
government made sure that those unfortunate souls in a large
institution had fresh bananas twice a week so that they got the
necessary vitamins. But these vitamins could not give them joy or
strength or health. But they were thus denied to those somewhere in
the Bavarian forest, or in the Ruhr, or in a poor fishing village on
the Frisian coast, where they could have reduced the poverty and need
in some worker's house. At the same time there was a case where
a single mentally ill Negro of English citizenship lived for 16 years
in an institution in Berlin, costing 26,000 Marks.
26,000 Marks were thrown away on a life that had no meaning. 26,000
Marks that could have been used to prepare a dozen strong, healthy and
gifted children for life and a job.
But I am not speaking of this as a kind of theft. Money is not an end
in itself. Rather, we have here committed a theft of spirit and soul,
because we tried to persuade the nation and humanity that our own
greatness could come from sacrificing for the worst and most helpless.
In the end, we went so far as
to put the sick and the dying before the young, strong, healthy and
promising.
That is against nature and life. A nation going this way is heading
for the abyss. We went so far as to preach year after year to healthy
families that they should have no children, or at most one, else they
sinned against the nation and the spirit of this enlightened age. But
if some imbecile of a whore and a genetically ill criminal had
children, they were not only a financial burden for their entire
lives, but also took the labor of people who our society gave nothing
better to do than to change these poor creatures three times a day and
feed them. That is a perversion of everything great and healthy, and
is a sin against life and the spirit of creation.
With full knowledge of our duties as human beings and the requirements
of pity, we made the decision not to allow such miserable creatures to
pass on their misery to the next generation, multiplied perhaps two or
three or more times. That is a major accomplishment, for which our
children and their children will one day thank us.
I know that there are those who will say: "You are meddling in matters
that are not your concern. You are interfering in an area outside
human control. Life and death are not in the hands of man, but in
those of a higher power. If God wants sick and genetically ill people
to be born, you may not interfere through laws, operations, or any
other measures with God's will. And if you do so-and you have with
your Law to Prevent Inherited Illness-then you are acting against the
will of God, and you are heretics."
This is our answer: "My friend, you are wrong. It is true that we are
subject to a higher power. We humans may never interfere with the
great laws of the Creator. But you are wrong. See the laws the Creator
has established for his world and your life. The great law is that
life must be able to preserve itself, and that if it cannot, it will
collapse. It is the hard, brutal law of the struggle for existence and
of selection and extinction. It was the law we saw day by day, hour by
hour, under all the clouds of heaven and all the stars of the sky, in
which life seemed to find a senseless death, whether plant or animal
or person, whether in distant Africa or near us.
That which cannot meet the challenges of life dies, no matter how much
pain it causes,
and even if your small understanding or mind cannot comprehend it,
these are the great laws of life and the world that God himself gave
us. These are the laws, my German friend, that in our crazy fantasies
we broke in the past."
With overweening human pride and false pity, we broke the great law
and kept those alive who under the laws of God would long since have
perished.
Today we are once more following these old laws, using humane methods,
for they follow a more hard and brutal course in nature according to
God's will. We are doing nothing more than reestablishing the laws of
creation, and bowing to the heavenly order. We are thus showing piety
and true humility-you are the heretics.
This applies as well to the third and last principle of our racial
thinking. This third and last principle is that the people on this
world, in America, Africa or China, are different both in body and
soul. They are not equal, as yesterday's lie had it.
People are different.
They not only speak different languages and look different: no, they
are different in the depths of their hearts and natures, and in their
abilities for good and evil. In the past people believed that these
differences were accidental, the result of climate or civilization,
and that one could overcome these differences and create a unified man
in a unified state in which all would be equally happy. We have
learned that such ideas are false. We have learned that the
differences between the major blood groups of the world, between the
major races, are not the result of human action, but of the laws of
Creation. We have learned that the lines between blood and blood, race
and race, are also the lines between soul and soul and spirit and
spirit. We have learned that the opposite of the old phrase "What God
has brought together, let no man put asunder" is also true. We have
learned:
What God has separated, man should not bring together.
Heaven thought it good not to have only one type of people on the
earth, but different kinds, various racially-bound peoples. That is a
part of Creation. We bow before this truth and respect the borders.
That means that the foundation of our separation of the races is not a
matter of politics or economics, rather it rests on a higher level, to
which we in the end are responsible.
In our Reich, we are separating that which belongs to us, because it
is blood of our blood, from that which does not belong to us, because
it is foreign. We are doing that which is right not only for the
moment, but for eternity.
Believe me, my dear German fellow citizens, it is not true, as some
say, that this doctrine is a sign of arrogance or superiority or
boasting. We do not think ourselves better than the other races on the
earth. No, we do not think ourselves better, nor do we believe that
others are worse than we are. We insist only on one thing-a law
established by the Creator himself:
Man differs from man and race from race in this world.
The others may not be better or worse, but they are different than we
are, and because they are different than we are, there is a kind of
wall between us that is part of the laws of life. That is the core of
National Socialism's racial thinking. Our goal is not to insult
others, to say: "What a great guy I am!" Rather, we hold to the humble
recognition that each healthy piece of life has its corner of the
world, and its special tasks. This is just as true of humans as it is
of plants and animals in all their multiplicity. We know that one type
is no more valuable than another. But we also know that each variety
of life has a right to existence only as long as it keeps itself pure
and strong. Only when a tree bears the proper fruit does it have a
right to live. Otherwise it will be cut down and destroyed. We do not
know why things are the way they are, and it would be foolish to ask
the reason. That is how things are. Our task is to humbly accept the
laws that govern our human existence, and to accept the fact that we
are born Germans in Germany, not as Chinese or Eskimos. That is not
because of our virtues, nor it is our fault, nor was it our will. It
was fate that came from above. We have no choice but to accept this
fate and to develop the abilities that fate has given us according to
necessity and law.
Others may develop in their own way, in their own land. We must listen
to the depths of our own people, to draw from blood and inheritance
the strength we need to build our homeland. A higher power will take
care of the life beyond.
I believe, my dear German fellow citizens, that everyone who is of our
spirit will grant the correctness of our thinking about blood and
race, and will say: "I see now that you are not only on the right
path, but are honest and in the deepest sense true to demands that are
greater than the laws of man."
Let us then together follow the path to a new worldview. Let us go the
path of blood and race, which does not ignore faith and knowledge and
a sense of higher powers. Let us go this path, not a path of matter,
superstition and heresy, rather a path of deep humility and piety
before the laws of God. Let us go along this path together and listen
to the deepest depths where blood and soul rule. Let us draw from
there the strength to build the state, and even more important the
Reich. It will be a Reich not only of politics, a Reich of
organization, or the economy, but a Reich of people. Germany today has
the fortune to find a new way, led by a great Fuehrer. German women
today have the good fortune to see a strong and loyal woman at their
head. Let us together go forward, hand in hand, as befits comrades
building the future, and let us join the strength of men and women,
rooted deep in their blood, to build what the world has never before
seen:
The holy Reich of the German soul.
Heil!
My comment:
The part about the unfit dying may make some people uneasy. It makes
me uneasy also. But he did say:
"we took the physically weak, the mentally ill, the genetically
defective criminals and not only kept them alive and cared for
them-that is our duty as human beings, which we certainly do not want
to ignore in the future either"
We should certainly take care of them. That will not be a problem.
We will save billions of dollars when we stop sending this money to
the Jews country every year.
We should also sterilize them. We will care for them and many work
hours will be done to provide for them, and all we ask in return is
for them not to pass their misfortune onto more generations. We are
not asking to much at all.
It was a great speech. It has policies that would make a nation
unimaginably great. The future would be a heaven on earth. Heil
Hitler.
>
>
>> people. No, each German, all of us, rich and poor, manual laborers,
>> farmers and city-dwellers cooperate in fulfilling the Führer's will
>
>
> It's not like they had any choice. Who were they were going to
>complain to?
>
>
>> No German may be hungry or cold!
>
> Unless they were in Dachau.
>
>
>
>> National Socialism's high opinion of work. Workers have a right to a
>> vacation and for paid holidays, even hourly and temporary workers.
>
> But they had no right to organize independent trade unions.
>
The leftist unions were replaced by better things.
>
>> The great improvements in the German transportation system have
>> resulted in a growing stream of foreign visitors.
>
> Isn't this where you insert the cliche about the trains running on
>time?
That was mostly in Italy, but they were probably on time in Germany.
>The pulsing life in
>> Germany is drawing more and more visitors to the Third Reich. The
>> number of overnights by foreigners has risen from 2.7 million in 1932
>> is far above 7 million in 1937. These foreigners, who often come to
>> Germany with false ideas, see with their own eyes the work of the
>> Führer and the remarkable efforts of the German people. They return
>> home as the best witnesses of the greatness and strength of the German
>> Reich...
>
> Can you say "Potemkin village?"
>
>
>
>> The Führer has repeatedly reminded the German people that strong
>> policies are the absolute prerequisite to our economic, social and
>> cultural health. Only intentional hostility and stupidity can still
>> deny that the Führer was right in every respect...
>>
> If he was so right why did he plunge his country into a world war
>that destroyed it?
The Germans lost some land to Poland after World War One. The
Germans said that their people living on this land were being severely
oppressed by the Polish goverment. This is why Germany fought Poland .
If Florida were taken away from America, Americans would fight to get
it back. Americans will go to war for far less reason than this.
Britain and the other liberal countries then went to war with
Germany even though the Communists also attacked Poland. After they
won the war, Poland was Communist, which shows what the liberals were
fighting for.
Here is a quote from The Nameless War, by Captain A. H. M. Ramsay:
"Can we doubt but that Poland was encouraged to ignore the German note
of March which set forth eminently reasonable suggestions for a
peaceful solution of the problem of the Corridor?
Month after month no reply was vouchsafed by Poland to the German
note. Meanwhile, insult and outrage occurred with suspicious frequency
all along the German frontier, similar to the technique to which the
Jews later introduced the British in Palestine. Day after day the
British public was deluged with war propaganda and misrepresentation
of the situation. Finally their minds were closed against any further
regard to the demands of justice and reason by a new slogan, "You
cannot trust Hitler's word." With this lie the British public was
finally stampeded into throwing all reason and judgement to the winds
and accepting at their face value the war propaganda in the press.
This slogan was founded upon a misrepresentation of Hitler's
assurance given on more than one occasion after a "putsch" such as
that in into Sudetenland, that he "intended to make no further
demands.". The misrepresentation lay in the fact that the press
steadily obscured the major fact, that the "demands" to which Hitler
referred were all along five-fold in character; and covered those five
areas taken from Germany by a dictated peace in which the population
was overwhelmingly German, i.e. Sudetenland, part of Czechoslovakia,
parts of Poland, the Corridor and Danzig.
As German troops occupied each successive section, it is, I
believe, accurate to say that Hitler declared, that he had no
additional demands to make. But here it must be clearly stated in the
interests of justice that he never said that this entailed reducing
the demands which he had originally very clearly delineated, and
repeated on many occasions, namely, the five areas in question.
"The British public was deluded by its press into supposing that
when Hitler said he had no further demands, that there had never been
any statement of his full demands, some of which were still
unfulfilled. They were led to believe that Hitler either never had had
other demands, or that he had abondoned the rest as soon as he had
obtained some of them. When, therefore, the next installment was
added, the press built on this misunderstanding the fallacy that
Hitler's word could not be trusted. Honest dealing needs no such
trickery and and deception. Such methods are only necessary to bolster
up bad or unjust causes. Fortunately we have the calm and
disspassionate judgement in this matter by no less a person than the
late Lord Lothian, recently British Ambassador to the U.S.A. In his
last speech at Chatham House on this subject he remarked: "If the
principle of self-determination had been applied in Germany's favour,
as it was applied agaisnt her, it would have meant the return of the
Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, parts of Poland, the Polish Corridor and
Danzig to the Reich."
Here is a very different presentment of the case to the one which
was foisted upon the British public in 1939: and it is the true one.
Small wonder that these facts had to be withheld from the ordinary
citizen.
Had the British public realized the truth, that each of these
demands of Hilter rested on a foundation of reasonable fairness, the
people of this island would have ruled out any question of war; and it
was war, not truth or justice, upon which international Jewry was
resolved."
Here is another quote from the book:
"The urgent alarm sounded in 1918 by Mr. Oudendyke in his letter
to Mr. Balfour (see page 25), denouncing bolshevism as a Jewish plan,
which if not checked by the combined action of the European powers,
would engulf Europe and the world, was no exaggeration. By the end of
that year the red flag was being hoisted in most of the great cities
of Europe. In Hungary the Jew Bela Kuhn organized and maintained for
some time a merciless and bloody tyranny similar to the one in Russia.
In Germany the Jews, Liebknecht, Barth, Scheidemann, Rosa Luxemburg,
etc., made a desperate bid for power. These and other similar
convulsions shook Europe; but each country in its own way just
frustated the onslaughts.
In most countries concerned a few voices were raised in the
endeavour to expose the true nature of these evils. Only in one,
however, did a political leader and group arise, who grasped to the
full the significance of these happenings, and perceived behind the
mobs of native hooligans the organisation and driving power of world
Jewry. This leader was Adolf Hitler, and his group the National
Socialist Party of Germany.
Never before in history had any country not only repulsed organized
revolution, but discerned Jewry behind it, and faced up to that fact.
We need not wonder that the sewers of Jewish vituperation were flooded
over these men and their leader; nor should we make the mistake of
supposing that Jewry would stick at any lie to deter honest men
everywhere from making a thorough investigation of the facts for
themselves. Nevertheless, if any value liberty, and set out to seek
truth and defend it, this duty of personal investigation is one which
they cannot shirk.
To accept unquestioningly the lies and misrepresentaions of a
Jew-controlled or influenced press, is to spurn truth by sheer
idleness, if for no worse reason."
Thom
when the 577th Missile Sqd at my Base was deactivated they gave 8 of
the Atlas' to NASA (one blew up in the silo previously) and 3 went to
Vandenburg with their crews. They launched all three in simulated
battle conditions. One never left the State, one landed god knows
where and one sorta got to the target. Not a good record.
THOM
Thom
wrote:
>On Thu, 29 May 2003 01:12:24 GMT, thoma...@yahoo.com.au (Thom)
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I seem to remember he never got more than 33% in any free election,
>>but after the Reichstag fire there were no real or free elections.
>
> You may remember hearing that from your Jewish controlled media.
>However:
excuse me butif younoticed my return mail you'd notice that I'm
posting from Australia where Kerry Packer (english) and Rupert Murdock
(Scot) own most of the media and the ABC is run by ulra right wing PM
Johnny Howard who is Church of England.
You were syaing about Jewish controlled????
THOM
Docky Wocky
sitting.
Bill Jarrell
> On 28 May 2003 21:12:55 -0700, bjar...@bellsouth.net (Bill Jarrell)
> wrote:
>
>
> > And you expect us to accept these results as a real election?
> >Saddam Hussien did Hitler one better. He got 100% of the vote in his
> >sham election. I hate to think about what happened to the 1%
> >opposition.
>
> You believe that because your media is controlled by Jews. Did you
> see Triumph of the Will? The Germans were for Hitler.
>
number of Germans followed that sociopathic buffoon, but the results
of the 1938 sham election. Besides Triumph of the Will was a carefully
staged propaganda film, it wasn't an unbiased objective opinion poll
of the German people.
> >
> >
> >> Here are some quotes from a pamphet urging them
> >> to vote for Hitler:
> >>
> > As if they didn't have any choice. By 1938 all active opposition
> >had been suppressed by the Gestapo. Books contradicting Nazi
> >philosophy had been burned so people weren't exactly being allowed to
> >think for themselves. I'd be really impressed if you could produce a
> >German pamphlet from 1938 encouraging people not to vote for Der
> >Phooey.
>
> A pamphlet can't lie about what people see for themselves. and be
> effective. There were paid vacations for workers etc.
>
Along with trains running on time. So what?
>
> National Socialist Germany was not different from other countries
> in regard to free speach laws. The only difference was the right was
> in power instead of the left. Before Hitler was in power he had a lot
> of his papers banned, and when he was in power he also banned things.
But the Nazis took the suppression of free speech and other civil
liberties to new lows. So much so that makes anything you have to say
in this regard the totally bogus words of a complete hypocrite.
> Even today most countries do not have free speech. In leftist Germany
> today people get arrested for doubting the holo story and other
> things. People in Britain get arrested for politically incorrect
> speech or writting. Saying that the races are not all equal in
> intelligence is against the law there.
>
But would you be willing to accord free speech to people advocating
total equality of the races or the joys of interracial sex? The point
is that Nazi Germany didn't and you admire Nazi Germany. That's makes
your litany about hate speech laws in Europe and Britain as
hypocritical as a heroin junkie railing against beer drinking or the
bank robber criticizing someone for shoplifting a candy bar.
> The United States has the most free speech but even here it has
> banned things. At one time the play "Merchant of Venice" was banned in
> New York because it offended the Jews. People in America were arrested
> for their beliefs during WWII. All countries did that.
>
But you're an admirer of Nazi Germany not a J.S.Mill quoting ACLU
advocate of absolute free speech so your point has made with the most
transparent hypocrisy.
> National Socialism was mainly about things like making Germany for
> the Germans, and rejecting both Communism and Capitalism. But Free
> Speech is also a great idea. National Socialists today should make it
> clear that Free Speech is sacred and that no party should be allowed
> to change that.
>
> >
> >> One of the foundations of National Socialism is the knowledge that
> >> only work creates value and prosperity...
> >
> > Along with crackpot racism,
>
>
> The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
> nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second
> world are the Arabs and China. It is just as racialists would predict.
> It is because the White race is on average much more intelligent than
> the Black race. The people in Japan are much lighter in color than the
> people in India.
>
> All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
> intelligent than Blacks.
Even _IF_ that was true it doesn't justify racism, imperialism and
genocide. Ooops, I forgot, you don't acknowledge that the genocide
happened. I know this sounds corny, but has it ever occurred to you
all people are God's children?
Bill Jarrell
Thom
wrote:
>That neptune3 turkey probably read "Mein Kampf" from cover to cover in one
>sitting.
not hard, its in comic book form now.
THOM
>
>
Thom
wrote:
>neptune3 <np...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<p36ddvkns1pg3fv5v...@4ax.com>...
>> On 28 May 2003 21:12:55 -0700, bjar...@bellsouth.net (Bill Jarrell)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > And you expect us to accept these results as a real election?
>> >Saddam Hussien did Hitler one better. He got 100% of the vote in his
>> >sham election. I hate to think about what happened to the 1%
>> >opposition.
>>
>> You believe that because your media is controlled by Jews. Did you
>> see Triumph of the Will? The Germans were for Hitler.
>>
> I've seen Truimph of the Will. I'm not disputing that a large
>number of Germans followed that sociopathic buffoon, but the results
>of the 1938 sham election. Besides Triumph of the Will was a carefully
>staged propaganda film, it wasn't an unbiased objective opinion poll
>of the German people.
When I was in film school I had to study Triumph of the Will. Despite
its evil intent it was a brilliant piece of film. It used some
amazing techniques and broke some barriers in film making. The 2
cameraman and Leni are actually still alive. Too bad the film was
misused.
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >> Here are some quotes from a pamphet urging them
>> >> to vote for Hitler:
>> >>
>> > As if they didn't have any choice. By 1938 all active opposition
>> >had been suppressed by the Gestapo. Books contradicting Nazi
>> >philosophy had been burned so people weren't exactly being allowed to
>> >think for themselves. I'd be really impressed if you could produce a
>> >German pamphlet from 1938 encouraging people not to vote for Der
>> >Phooey.
>>
>> A pamphlet can't lie about what people see for themselves. and be
>> effective. There were paid vacations for workers etc.
>>
> Along with trains running on time. So what?
that was Mussolini
>
>>
snip snip
>>
>> All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
>> intelligent than Blacks.
>
>
> Even _IF_ that was true it doesn't justify racism, imperialism and
>genocide. Ooops, I forgot, you don't acknowledge that the genocide
>happened. I know this sounds corny, but has it ever occurred to you
>all people are God's children?
a lesson in races we have here on earth
-Arabs are not black
-Iranians are not Arabas, they are Persians (and they speak Farcy not
Aribic)
-Egyptians, Jews and Palistinians are all SEMITES, in fact when you
look at Palistinian DNA you find they are much closer to Jews than
Arabs.
All of the above are of the same race as we are HOMOSAPIANS.
THOM
>
>
>Bill Jarrell
neptune3
wrote:
>excuse me butif younoticed my return mail you'd notice that I'm
>posting from Australia where Kerry Packer (english) and Rupert Murdock
From: "news.mw.mediaone.net" <alp...@alpinenterprises.com>
Subject: Who Is Rupert Murdock
Date: Saturday, October 06, 2001 9:36 AM
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/3975/newshist.htm
News Group International
4th April 1999
NGl's assets include the lion's share of BSkyB; Twentieth Century Fox,
and major British newspapers such as The Sun, News of the World; The
Times; The Sunday Times, and the Times Literary and Educational
Supplements. Its Chief Executive, Rupert Murdoch, is usually regarded
as a "Gentile", although he has been described as a "mamzer Jew". His
father, Keith, although only a lowpaid reporter, made a fortuitous
marriage to the daughter of a wealthy Jewish family, Elisabeth Joy
Greene. The family fortune enabled Murdoch Senior to buy himself a
knighthood, a radio station and two Adelaide newspapers, as well as to
educate his son at the fashionable Geelong private school and then to
send him to Oxford.
When his father died and the young Murdoch returned to Australia to
take over the two newspapers. Over the next three years Murdoch
plonked down millions to buy newpapers and radio and TV stations all
over Australia. By 1968 Murdoch's media empire was worth 46 million.
His buying spree continued throughout the 1970s, as he set up in
Britain and then the United States. With his move into satellite TV
and film studios, the last few years have seen Murdoch establish his
influence on a truly global scale, with assets of $14.3 billion.
This remorseless rise owes something to Murdoch's undoubted knack of
identifying and pandering to the lowest tastes of the public, but far
more important has been the backing of four multi-national mega-money
moguls. Murdoch first started to move in these circles when his father
asked Lord Beaverbrook to train young Rupert in the newspaper
business. Beaverbrook introduced Murdoch to Harry Oppenheimer, head of
the massive Anglo-American Corporation and the deBeers diamond and
gold cartel, and Edgar Bronfman. Impressed by the young Murdoch, they
told him to call on them if he ever needed help.
Harry Oppenheimer. One of Murdoch's fantastically rich financial
backers
Within a few years Murdoch was acting as the front-man for media buy-
ups financed by Oppenheimer and Bronfman, as well as being helped by
the conman Armand Hammer and the Rothschild empire. This almost
limitless financial backing is the real force behind Murdoch's
mercurial rise to control, among his other media interests, a yearly
newspaper circulation of 3.5 billion copies.
Nor is Murdoch shy of using this enormous power to further his, and
his backers' own political agenda. As far back as 1972, after
Australian Labour Party leader Whitlam had agreed to pursue a 100
per-cent pro-Israeli policy and to protect Murdoch's media monopoly,
the power of that monopoly was used to run a block-busting campaign
which steamrollered Whitlam into power. When Whitlam promptly reneged
on the deal Murdoch's media turned on him as part of the successful
campaign to have Whitlam removed from office and replaced by the
fervently pro-Zionist Bob Hawke.
More recently, American media mogul Ted Turner was forced to apologise
to the Anti-Defamation League after likening his rival to the "late
Fuehrer", alleging that, like Hitler, Murdoch uses the media outlets
over which he has control to further his political agenda. Included on
that agenda are attacks on Murdoch's enemies, among which he includes
the Germans, the Irish, the Arabs and anti-Zionists, "the supreme
traitors".
In addition to his shadowy backers, a number of the key positions
around the "Dirty Digger" are held by Jews. These include Peter
Chernin, who heads Murdoch's film studio and oversees his TV
production, and David Elstein, Head of Programming at BSkyB until his
recent promotion to the still more powerful post of Chief Executive of
C 5. Chief Executive of BSkyB is Sam Chisholm, while Raymond Jaffe is
the Director of Publicity and Promotion at Sky TV.
The Managing Director of The Sun and News of the World scandal sheets
is A. A. Fischer, while their Managing Editors are William Newman and
Stuart Kuttner respectively. Since becoming Editor of the News of the
World, Wendy Henry has presided over a further degeneration of her
paper, which has to be acknowledged as a remarkable achievement. Her
boss Kuttner has spoken at meetings of the Board of Deputies of
British Jews on the question of sensitisity in the portrayal of Jews
and Israel in the media. The City Editor of the Times is Melvyn
Marckus.
>(Scot) own most of the media and the ABC is run by ulra right wing PM
>Johnny Howard who is Church of England.
Why do you think he is "right wing"? 30% of the clergy of Church of
England are homosexual perverts.
>
>You were syaing about Jewish controlled????
The three people you mentioned are no doubt race traitors who side
with the Jews. No doubt your media has a pro-Jewish bias. What if we
had a nation for White people? Would your media like that as much as
it likes Israel for the Jews? Not likely. This is what the Jews, and
your media, believe:
"One of the most astounding instances of Jewish hypocrisy was uttered
by
a Jew named Isi Leibler, who is no less than the chairman of the
governing board of the World Jewish Congress. Now Isi Leibler is
well-known as a powerful Jew in Australia, where he was for years the
official head of the Jewish community there. He now lives in Israel.
In
an interview with a Jerusalem newspaper, he stated about Israel "This
is
a country which was set up and created as a Jewish country for the
Jews." In an essay he wrote for the World Jewish Congress, he decried
intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews as a kind of racial suicide,
and
likened assimilation with non-Jews as a slow bleeding to death of the
Jewish people. He emphasized that focus of Israeli policy should be to
sharpen and intensify Jewish identity and that even giving up
territory
was acceptable if it meant getting rid of non-Jews and making Israel a
more nearly all-Jewish state. Leibler argues that post-Zionists
threaten
Israel when they publish textbooks that de-emphasize Jewish racial
interests and replace them with "universalist" history. In the
interview
mentioned, Leibler went so far as to say: "Multiculturalism has no
place
in Israel. Israel was created as a Jewish state for the Jews." That's
the Jew Isi Leibler talking about his own people's country, talking
about Israel. [Leibler, Isi: Is the Dream Ending? Post-Zionism and its
Discontents - A Threat to the Jewish Future, Institute of the World
Jewish Congress, Israel]
But what was Isi Leibler saying when he lived in Australia, a White
country, a non-Jewish country? What was Isi Leibler saying when he was
the head of Australia's powerful Jewish minority? Isi Leibler's advice
to Israel is to protect its racial and cultural heritage. Isi
Leibler's
advice to Jews is to avoid intermarriage. Isi Leibler thinks it's just
fine -- even necessary -- to separate non-Jews from Jews in Israel, to
get non-Jews on the other side of a well-defended border, to throw
them
out of Israel. But to Australians Isi Leibler played quite a different
tune. When Australian politician Pauline Hanson was galvanizing White
Australians in 1993 with her questioning of the wisdom of non-White
immigration to that country, Leibler warned that "extremists" were
threatening precious multiculturalism. He said: "There is a need to
sit
together and establish a way in which Australians can recapture that
spirit of multiculturalism which I think we are all proud being part
and
parcel of, and which is really under threat?" [Australian Herald-Sun,
September 27, 2000]
How much clearer does it have to be before you see it? Leibler and his
fellow powerful Jews want racial nationalism for their own people,
because racial nationalism makes them strong and ensures their
survival.
They want racial nationalism because they want their kind to survive
and
racial nationalism is the key to survival. They're not stupid. They
want
what is best for Jews.
But Leibler and his fellow powerful Jews don't want racial nationalism
for White people. In Australia and Europe and South Africa and the
United States -- wherever White people live -- Leibler and his kind in
Jewish organizations and in the Jewish-controlled media do everything
in
their power to destroy racial nationalism for White people, everything
in their power to keep us from having it, everything in their power to
make it disreputable and impossible and illegal. Just the other day,
Leibler said that one of the most important things in the world to him
was Israel's "right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state." [Israel
Insider, November 24, 2002] But Leibler and his co-racialists in the
Jewish ADL and other groups devote their lives and their billions to
preventing White people from claiming their right to sovereign White
states. Keeping Britain British, or keeping America American, or
keeping
France French, is anathema to them, it is the ultimate in evil and
they never let us forget that."
Kevin Alfred Strom
The National Alliance: <http://www.natvan.com>
<http://www.natall.com>
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nowarforisrael.com
neptune3
wrote:
> I've seen Truimph of the Will. I'm not disputing that a large
>number of Germans followed that sociopathic buffoon, but the results
>of the 1938 sham election. Besides Triumph of the Will was a carefully
>staged propaganda film, it wasn't an unbiased objective opinion poll
>of the German people.
Anyone can claim your county has sham elections too. Germany was in
a very bad way before Hitler. Hitler made it great and prosperous.
>>
>> A pamphlet can't lie about what people see for themselves. and be
>> effective. There were paid vacations for workers etc.
>>
> Along with trains running on time. So what?
>
>>
>> National Socialist Germany was not different from other countries
>> in regard to free speach laws. The only difference was the right was
>> in power instead of the left. Before Hitler was in power he had a lot
>> of his papers banned, and when he was in power he also banned things.
>
> But the Nazis took the suppression of free speech and other civil
>liberties to new lows. So much so that makes anything you have to say
>in this regard the totally bogus words of a complete hypocrite.
Everything the Nazis said was right and good. If they banned
people who were wrong and bad you could say that wasn't very fair. I
am for free speech. We can disagree with the Nazis about one issue and
still be for National Socialism. But you overlook what the enemies of
the Nazis were like. Here is an example:
Here is a quote from "The Battle for Berlin" by Joseph Goebbels:
We had no idea of the danger that threatened us then. I myself did not
yet know Marxism well enough to foresee the possible consequences. I
shrugged my shoulders as I read the dark prose of the red press and
awaited expectantly the decisive evening.
Around 8 p.m. we drove in an old rusty car from the city center to
Wedding. A cold gray mist hung under a starless sky. Our hearts were
bursting with impatience and expectation.
As we drove down Müllerstraße it was already clear that the evening
did not bode well. Groups of dark figures stood on every street
corner. They apparently planned to teach our party members a bloody
lesson before they even got to the meeting.
Dark masses of people stood outside the Pharus Hall, expressing their
rage and hate with loud and impudent threats.
The leader of the protective forces cleared a way for us and reported
briefly that the hall had been packed since 7:15 p.m. and had been
closed by police. About two-thirds of the audience were Red Front
Fighters. That was what we wanted. There would be a decision. We were
ready to give it all we had.
Entering the hall, we encountered a warm, stiffling aroma of beer and
tobacco. The hall was hot. A lively roar of voices filled the hall.
People were packed in tightly. We reached the podium only with
difficulty.
No sooner was I recognized than hundreds of voices filled with rage
and revenge thundered in my ears: "Bloodhound! Murder of Workers!"
Those were the mildest words they shouted. But a welcoming group of
some party members and S.A. Men answered with passion. Excited battle
cries sounded from the platform. I saw immediately that we were a
minority, but a minority determined to fight, and therefore win.
It was still our custom then for an S.A. leader to chair all of the
party's public meetings. Here too. Tall as a tree he stood up front
and asked for silence with his upraised arm. That was easier said than
done. Mocking laughter was the answer. Insults flew toward the
platform from every corner of the room. People growled and screamed
and raged. There were world revolutionaries scattered about who
apparently had gained the courage they needed by drinking. It was
impossible to quiet the hall. The class-conscious proletariat had not
come to discuss but to fight, to break things up, to put an end to the
Fascist specter with callused workers' fists.
We were not uncertain, even for a moment. We also knew that if the
enemy did not succeed this time in what he had threatened, the future
success of the movement in Berlin was assured.
Fifteen or twenty S.A. and S.S. men stood before the platform in
uniforms and arm bands, an impudent and direct provocation to the Red
Front Fighters. Behind me was a select group of reliable people ready
at any moment to risk their lives to defend me from the onrushing red
mob with brutal force
The Communists made an obvious mistake in their tactics. They had
scattered small groups throughout the hall, but clumped most of the
rest in the right rear of the hall. I recognized immediately that
there was the center of unrest, and if anything was to be done, we
first had to deal ruthlessly with them. Whenever the chair tried to
open the meeting, a dark chap stood up on a stool and shouted "Point
of Order!" Hundreds of others yelled the same after him.
If one takes from the mass their leader or also their seducer, they
are leaderless and easily controlled. Our tactic therefore was to
silence this cowardly troublemaker at any cost. He felt secure back
there, surrounded by his comrades. We tried to do this peacefully a
few times. The chair shouted over the uproar: "There will be
discussion afterward! But we determine the rules of order!"
That was an ineffective attempt at an unsuitable object. The screamer
wanted to throw the meeting into confusion by his endless shouts and
bring things to the boiling point. Then a general melee would result.
As our efforts to bring the meeting to order peacefully proved
unsuccessful, I took the head of the defensive forces to the side, and
immediately after groups of his men slipped through the thundering
Communist masses. Before the astonished and surprised Red Front troops
realized what was happening, our comrades had hauled the troublemaker
down from his stool and brought him through the raging crowd to the
podium. That was unexpected, but what followed was no surprise. A beer
glass flew through the air and crashed to the floor. That was the
signal for the first major meeting hall battle. Chairs were broken and
legs ripped from tables. Glasses and bottles suddenly appeared and all
hell broke loose. The battle raged for ten minutes. Glasses, bottles,
table and chair legs flew randomly through the air. A deafening roar
rose; the red beast was set free and wanted its victims.
At first it looked as if we were lost. The Communist attack was sudden
and explosive, completely unexpected. But soon the S.A. and S.S. men
distributed throughout the hall and in front of the platform recovered
from their surprise and counterattacked with bold courage. It quickly
became clear that although the Communist Party had masses behind it,
these masses became cowards when faced with a firmly disciplined and
determined opponent. They ran. In short order the red mob that had
come to break up our meeting had been driven from the hall. The order
that could not be secured by good will was gained by brute force.
Usually one is not aware of the stages of a meeting hall battle. Only
later does one recall them. I still remember a scene that I will never
forget; on the podium stood a young S.A. man whom I did not know. He
was hurling his missiles into the on-coming red mob. Suddenly a beer
glass thrown from the distance hit him on the head. A wide stream of
blood ran down his face. He sank with a cry. After a few seconds he
stood up again, grabbed water bottle from the table and threw it into
the hall, where it clattered against the head of an opponent.
The face of this young man is engraved in my memory. This
lightening-fast moment is unforgettable. This gravely-wounded S.A. man
would soon, and indeed for all times, become my most reliable and
loyal comrade.
Only after the red mob had been driven howling, growling and cursing
from the field could one tell how serious and costly the battle had
been. Ten lay in their blood on the platform, most with head injuries,
two with severe concussions. The table and stairs to the platform were
covered in blood. The whole hall resembled a field of ruins.
In the midst of this bloody and ruined wasteland, our tree-high S.A.
leader resumed his place and declared with iron calm: "The meeting
will continue. The speaker has the floor."
Never before or since have I spoken under such dramatic conditions.
Behind me, groaning in pain and bleeding, were seriously injured S.A.
comrades. Around me were broken chair legs, shattered beer glasses and
blood. The whole meeting was icily silent.
We lacked then a medical corps. Since we were in a proletarian
district, we had to have our seriously wounded carried out by
so-called worker volunteers. There were scenes outdoors of
unimaginable inhumanity. The bestial people who were supposedly
fighting for universal brotherhood insulted our poor and defenseless
injured with phases like: "Isn't that pig dead yet?"
Under such conditions it was impossible to give a coherent speech.
Scarcely had I begun to speak when another group of volunteers entered
the hall to carry off a seriously wounded S.A. man on a stretcher. One
of them, encountering the brutal apostles of humanity outside the door
and their unflattering and crude language, shouted for me in
desperation. His voice could be heard loudly and unmistakably on the
platorm I interrupted my speech and went through the hall, where there
were still scattered Communist commando groups. Still surprised by
what had happened, they stood quietly and shyly to the side. I bade
farewell to the seriously wounded S.A. comrades.
> But would you be willing to accord free speech to people advocating
>total equality of the races or the joys of interracial sex?
Yes I would.
>The point
>is that Nazi Germany didn't and you admire Nazi Germany.
I say that racial mixing would result in the ruin of civilization
and be a great castrophe for the planet earth from which we may never
recover. I certainly would have stood along side the brown shirts and
fought with them even if I am for free speech. Goebbels said that
people didn't have to totally agree with him on everything to be in
the party.
>That's makes
>your litany about hate speech laws in Europe and Britain as
>hypocritical as a heroin junkie railing against beer drinking
OK, National Socialism was weak in the free speech area. That
doesn't mean they weren't right about everything else. I am for
Nationalism. I am for Socialism. I am against the Jews. I don't know
what else I would call myself. But yes, I agree with you about free
speech.
>or the
>bank robber criticizing someone for shoplifting a candy bar.
I think that is a bad example but don't want to bring up to many
subjects in one post.
>
>
>> The United States has the most free speech but even here it has
>> banned things. At one time the play "Merchant of Venice" was banned in
>> New York because it offended the Jews. People in America were arrested
>> for their beliefs during WWII. All countries did that.
>>
> But you're an admirer of Nazi Germany not a J.S.Mill quoting ACLU
>advocate of absolute free speech so your point has made with the most
>transparent hypocrisy.
It would be paradise to live in Nazi Germany. I certainly admire
it. But I agree with you about free speech. If Hitler asked me what I
thought I would say free speech would be better. But I would still be
a strong supporter of Hitler.
> Even _IF_ that was true it doesn't justify racism, imperialism and
>genocide. Ooops, I forgot, you don't acknowledge that the genocide
>happened. I know this sounds corny, but has it ever occurred to you
>all people are God's children?
>
The only people we are against is the Jews. We don't wish any harm
to other races even if Whites are superior to them. But Jews don't
want the White race to live. They are enemies.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nowarforisrael.com
Thom
wrote:
so because Murdock is consider a Jew he shouldn't have any rights?
How Nazi of you. Did you look at Packer?
Thom
wrote:
>On 30 May 2003 14:13:17 -0700, bjar...@bellsouth.net (Bill Jarrell)
>wrote:
>
>
>> I've seen Truimph of the Will. I'm not disputing that a large
>>number of Germans followed that sociopathic buffoon, but the results
>>of the 1938 sham election. Besides Triumph of the Will was a carefully
>>staged propaganda film, it wasn't an unbiased objective opinion poll
>>of the German people.
>
> Anyone can claim your county has sham elections too. Germany was in
>a very bad way before Hitler. Hitler made it great and prosperous.
I noticed that from the ruins of Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden, etc etc.
and what was left of the Extermination and concentration camps.
THOM
neptune3
wrote:
In the Jews country they don't allow non-Jews to own certain media.
We should have a White nation, and we should not allow our enemies
to controll our media. The Jews are our enemies. This is what Jews
neptune3
wrote:
>> Anyone can claim your county has sham elections too. Germany was in
>>a very bad way before Hitler. Hitler made it great and prosperous.
>
>I noticed that from the ruins of Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden, etc etc.
>and what was left of the Extermination and concentration camps.
Hitler made it great and prosperous, before it was destroyed by the
Communists and the liberals.
otis_p_d...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On Fri, 30 May 2003 21:33:51 -0500, neptune3 <np...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 30 May 2003 14:13:17 -0700, bjar...@bellsouth.net (Bill Jarrell)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I've seen Truimph of the Will. I'm not disputing that a large
>>>number of Germans followed that sociopathic buffoon, but the results
>>>of the 1938 sham election. Besides Triumph of the Will was a carefully
>>>staged propaganda film, it wasn't an unbiased objective opinion poll
>>>of the German people.
>>
>> Anyone can claim your county has sham elections too. Germany was in
>>a very bad way before Hitler. Hitler made it great and prosperous.
>
>I noticed that from the ruins of Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden, etc etc.
>and what was left of the Extermination and concentration camps.
Not to mention the Ukraine, etc etc
The original poster is a sorry soul....
Thom
wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 06:28:18 GMT, thoma...@yahoo.com.au (Thom)
>wrote:
>
>
>>> Anyone can claim your county has sham elections too. Germany was in
>>>a very bad way before Hitler. Hitler made it great and prosperous.
>>
>>I noticed that from the ruins of Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden, etc etc.
>>and what was left of the Extermination and concentration camps.
>
> Hitler made it great and prosperous, before it was destroyed by the
>Communists and the liberals.
Eisenhower a liberal? Churchill a liberal???
Thom
wrote:
One of the great cons of the Nazi ear was that Hitler made the people
feel that all their nasty little predjudices were great and pure.
THOM
>
>
>
neptune3
wrote:
>Eisenhower a liberal? Churchill a liberal???
Why do you say they weren't?
neptune3
wrote:
>One of the great cons of the Nazi ear was that Hitler made the people
>feel that all their nasty little predjudices were great and pure.
>
Here are some quotes from a German pamphlet titled "Why the Aryan
Law?":
"In 1793 the famous philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, author of
"Speeches to the German Nation," wrote a pamphlet titled "A
Contribution to Correcting Judgments about the French Revolution." It
contained the following significant sentence:
"In nearly all the nations of Europe, a powerful, hostile government
is growing, and is at war with all the others, and sometimes oppresses
the people in dreadful ways: It is Jewry!"
The French Revolution, with its "ideas for the improvement of
humanity" thundered past, and in the noise the people who had believed
in world brotherhood entirely missed this serious warning. What Fichte
warned the word about then has today become fact in nearly all the
nations of the world. The Jewish people, once only tolerated, knew how
to raise a hue and cry about discrimination and persecution, winning
the sympathy of the world for the "poor Jews." They increasingly
infiltrated deep within our national organism, growing to have power
over every single area of our national life. The old saga, the "Edda,"
observes that one blocks a river at its source. The failure to do that
was the great mistake of the German people. Thank God, it is not too
late. Our Fuehrer Adolf Hitler recognized the importance of the
problem for Germany's rebirth, and outlined its solution in his
program.
Martin Luther wrote this of the Jews in his book "The Jews and their
Lies": "They hold we Christians captive in our own land. They have
seized our goods by their cursed usury, they mock and insult us
because we work. They are our lords, and we and our goods belong to
them." If in the coming days the Jewish race is driven out of the
non-Jewish world, it will have at least this consolation: It has made
clear to them for all time the value of maintaining the purity of race
and blood in clear, understandable and unforgettable ways.
National Socialist racial legislation has reduced the influence of
Jewry in all professions, and above all excluded them from the leading
offices of the nation. That is an important step in the relationship
between Germans and Jews, but one cannot ignore the fact that we have
not yet fully eliminated the influence of the Jewish foreign body in
German national life. It is not a question of German-Jewish
coexistence, rather of making as great as possible a separation
between blood and blood.
Three things are involved here:
A knowledge of the basic principles of National Socialist racial
thinking,
An understanding of the growth and expansion of Jewry,
The dominant sociological position of Jewry, to show how it dominated
the German people economically, intellectually and politically..."
"In discussing the Jewish Question, even today one encounters
resistance and misunderstandings, especially in intellectual circles.
This can only be explained by the intellectual education of the
political past. This is especially evident when one discusses the
fundamental issues.
Whenever a new thought arises in the world and calls people to
practical action, the old world resists because it feels its
foundations threatened. Its old standpoint has ruled for decades, and
it looks uncomprehendingly at a new idea that does not fit into the
accustomed patterns of thinking. That is natural. When the new idea
and worldview are truly revolutionary, they are on a different level
of human thought and feeling, and there can be no compromise. Its
realization depends on people who support it, and who are ready to
fight to transform the life of the individual and of the nation in
every way..."
"In the long run, no idea is better suited to guarantee peace between
nations than National Socialist racial thinking, which calls for the
furtherance and maintenance of one's own race and one's own people,
and supports similar efforts on the part of other nations..."
"The new Germany that views its own race and ethnicity positively must
therefore distinguish within its territory between one race and
another, between one people and another. Mixing of blood harms both
sides. Race is an issue for every people if they are to live according
to their nature. The German people is not so arrogant as to believe
that is is the chosen people. The familiar quotation from Geibel, "The
world should enjoy German ways," should be understood in the context
of the dreams of world betterment of those past days.
The National Socialist racial viewpoint has clear consequences for the
relationship between Germans and Jews. People have often said that
National Socialism's approach to the racial question is purely
negative and destructive, and that its essential characteristic is
radical anti-Semitism. One must grant that we made the Jewish question
clearer than anyone else, and taught an entire generation that had
been taught to see all people the same to recognize the importance of
the Jewish question not only for our people, but for the entire world.
Our treatment of the Jewish problem in the years before we took power
must be seen as the political education of the German people, which
had lost its racial instincts to a dangerous degree.
The question took on its own nature in Germany, Many citizens had
their eyes opened, and the simultaneous appeal to all the heroic and
manly virtues of the German man resulted in a racial selection of
political fighters who today stand at the head of the new state.
Formerly, the Jewish question, as seen by the state, was a matter of
complete equality and the unhindered immigration of Jews from the
East. This is the best proof of how racial feeling and consciousness
had been lost. Our tone was not purely negative or the simple
rejection of others, rather the emphasis was on the positive values of
our own people. This does require noting that Jewry through its
Marxist class struggle leadership role and its international financial
measures aimed at Germany supported every kind of anti-national action
in the cultural and political fields. Jewry should not complain if its
anti-German activities, which have no counterpart in any other
country, call forth from the people the defensive reaction of
anti-Semitism.
The starting point of the discussion is the scientific fact that the
Jew is different than the German. This is neither arrogant nor
boastful, it simply is the way things are. For us, the Jewish question
is a question between two peoples. Its characteristics are determined
by the racially determined differences between the two, and through
the unusual sociological and numerical development of Jewry in the
course of its history, developments that are particularly evident in
the last decades through a constantly growing process of foreign
infiltration that has reached an intolerable level for the German
people.
More than once over its history, the German people has absorbed
foreign elements, but they were racially identical or similar
population groups, as for example was the case with the Huguenots.
With the Jews, things are fundamentally different. They are seen
everywhere as foreigners, and see themselves that way as well. Walter
Rathenau said it most clearly as early as 1897: "How strange! In the
middle of German life there is a separate, foreign tribe that stands
out in every way with its hot-tempered behavior. An Asiatic horde has
settled on the sands of Mark Brandenburg." Einstein said something in
1931: "I have to laugh when I hear the phrase 'German citizen of the
Jewish faith.' These citizens first of all want nothing to do with my
poor Eastern European brothers, and second do not want to be sons of
my (Jewish) people, but only members of the Jewish cultural community.
Is that honest? Can a non-Jew respect such people? I am not a German
citizen. I am a Jew, and am happy to belong to the Jewish people."
The most remarkable thing about Jewry is that it has not disappeared
over the millennia, even though it lacks its own territory and
language. Even more remarkable is that it lacks the main
characteristic of a minority population, its own pockets of settlement
to which it could if necessary retreat. Only time will tell if
Palestine will someday fill this gap. That question is made more
difficult by the fact that the Arabs maintain their claim on
Palestine. Whatever the twists of history, the Jew has always remained
the same, whether as a grain speculator in ancient Rome or as a bank
or stock exchange potentate in the modern era. They were always able
to control the wealth of whole nations. Nations and peoples once their
contemporaries have vanished, leaving only words and crumbled
monuments behind; only the Jew remains. In ancient days we see him
carrying on his business in the trading centers of the Mediterranean.
In the Middle Ages he provided money for German nobles and free
cities. Today he rules the banks and stock exchanges of the whole
world, forcing the nations under the yoke of financial capitalism. The
power of this people of 15 million rests on these international
relations. This is how they seem to fulfill the commandment of Jehovah
- the world domination of the chosen people.
The secret of the Jewish people, which has enabled them to survive
through all of history's twists and turns, is that it has always
recognized the laws of blood, even anchoring them in the laws of its
religion. The consciousness of blood and family that believing Jews
have has been stronger than all the other forces of history, giving us
a unique example of a people without its own land and language, which
still meets the criteria for being a people, and which has outlasted
many other peoples.
This historic manifestation of Jewry, which is unique, brings to the
fore the question of the relationship between the host and guest
peoples. It has been answered in differing ways throughout history,
depending on the worldview and thinking then predominant.
Since the Jews were dispersed they have been held together by the laws
of their religion and their faith that they were the chosen people.
Until the middle of the 18th Century, Germans and Jews lived apart
from each other. The Jews had no opportunity to become involved in the
religious of political-intellectual life of their host people. On the
other hand, they could practice their own customs without
interference. They had their own religion and their own laws. During
the Middle Ages, the Ghetto was the way Jewry could maintain itself in
the midst of other peoples and fulfill its Jewish duties, which grew
out of its race, origins and laws. The values and ideals of other
peoples were not affected. This separation was only possible because
the views of the host people were as strong as those of the Jews.
According to the writer Grau: "There was no racial defilement or
baptism, no attempt to join a nation that one could never be a member
of, and no attempt to intellectually silence the host people." In the
Ghetto of the Middle Ages, the Jew developed his nature and
characteristics, which were later to become significant, while
maintaining the community of blood and race. The latter is
particularly important, since the strict physical separation between
the host and guest peoples maintained the foreign nature that we daily
see so clearly, now that the barriers between have long since fallen.
Even in the Middle Ages, the most important thing was not the
difference between the Christian and Mosaic faiths. Rather, there was
on the one hand the natural sense that the Jew was of a foreign race,
and on the other hand the strict law of blood which demanded a clear
separation if the Jews were to fulfill Jehovah's mission, which had
guided them from the beginning. Just this has always been kept in the
background by historians, who present the Ghetto as a tolerated asylum
for Jewish martyrs persecuted on account of their faith. There is a
gap to be filled here. The task of historians writing from our new
viewpoint will be to examine the portrait of the Ghetto of the Middle
Ages to discover its importance for the development of Jewry and the
relationship between the guest and host peoples. Even the Jewish side
is demanding that. O. Karbach criticizes historical writing because it
"in significant ways conceals the historical fact that the Jews in the
centuries before their emancipation possessed a legal standing that
was better than the greater part of the rest of the population, namely
complete or partial agricultural freedom. (Ordnung in der Judenfrage,
edited by E. Czermak, Reinhold, Vienna, 1933).
The barriers between Germans and Jews fell as a result of the
Enlightenment and the French Revolution. The path to Jewish world
domination would take a different direction than pious, observant Jews
had expected. Emancipation made it possible to build Jewish dominance
through secular means. With the disappearance of racial consciousness,
only religious differences seemed to remain. It seemed at the time
unjust to give someone a preferred position only because of his
religious beliefs, which are an entirely personal matter. At the time,
this was tied to a belief in human equality and freedom. It was
revolutionary. It shattered the church dogmas that had ruled for
centuries and was the foundation of liberal thinking during the last
two hundred years. The new goal was humanity itself, and nothing stood
in the way of racial mixing. Some had the quiet hope that assimilation
would mean the absorption of Jewry. Jewry itself, however, was more
than willing to use the opportunities of religious assimilation, which
opened the path to all important positions, even to political
leadership. As H. Heine said, "baptism was the ticket to European
culture." Gradually, an intermixing with the German people developed,
particularly in its cultural elite. Foreign blood infiltrated to a
degree that we realize only today now that the "Law to Reestablish a
Professional Bureaucracy" has exposed numerous sources of foreign
blood. This process has greatly accelerated during the last fourteen
years.
Today the age of raceless thinking is being displaced by the ideals of
human variability. Values are rooted in origin and territory, and each
group has a historic mission based on its own unique and eternal
values. Such new racial thinking will of course secure the opposition
of those who either through faith or reason still believe in the unity
of humanity in culture, social order and organization. The Jews will
naturally oppose any discussion of race, since the denial of any
significant differences between people is the foundation of his
infiltration of Western European society. The Jew finds any mention of
the racial question as an attack on his current existence. His leading
role in every anti-national area is characteristic of his mimicry, and
is necessary for his continued existence. That explains the phrase
"German citizen of the Jewish faith."
The recognition that the Jew is of a foreign and different race along
with the reawakening of German racial consciousness must necessarily
lead to a change in the relations between Germans and Jews.
There is one point to keep in mind before examining the statistics.
Only those people who claimed to be Jews and were members of the
Mosaic faith were counted as Jews, not those who for internal or
external reasons belonged to another religion, or those who claimed to
be dissident Jews and therefore did not belong to the standard groups.
This is regrettable for our purposes, since we are interested not in
the influence of those who still claimed the Jewish religion, rather
those who belonged to the Jewish race! That includes all Jews, whether
of the Mosaic faith or baptized Christians. That is just what the
supporters of the Talmud and the Old Testament always said. They
complained that the state opened all offices to those "without
character," to "Christmas Jews," even admitting them to the officer
corps! The statistics given here must therefore be increased
significantly. The Jews are a race, and baptism does not in any way
change the foreign characteristics that are hostile to the German
people..."
Of course, the intellectual atmosphere that enabled the Jew to
infiltrate the German body politic quickly led the Jew himself to see
that conditions for his advancement were favorable, and that the way
to the top was open. He also realized what the population statistics
meant, indeed they were particularly clear to him, since 2/3 of his
kind lived in the big cities, the centers of the liberal worldview..."
"Nothing shows the differences between our people and the Jews more
clearly than their likes and dislikes for certain occupations. In some
occupations, particularly those that are most important for the nation
as a whole, the foreign influence on German life has reached an
intolerable extent not seen elsewhere in Europe. The preference for
certain occupations also gives us an interesting insight into the
spiritual nature of Jewry.
The following figures show how much critical occupations in Germany
have been infiltrated.
112,188 Jews, or 58.8%, far more than half, are employed in the area
of "commerce and transportation, including restaurants and taverns,"
but only 17.11% (3,248,145) of the population as a whole. In the area
of "industry and craft work, including mining and construction,"
19,318 Jews (25.85%) were employed, including 31.82% of foreigners.
For the population as a whole, the figure was 40.94% (7,771,799).
The figures in the field of "public administration, the judiciary, the
army and navy, churches, legal professionals and the independent
professions." 11,324 Jews were employed there, or 5.94% , over against
921,048 (4.85%) in the general population..."
In 1925, 0.81% of Jews were active as civil servants and the army and
navy, as opposed to 2.3% of the general population. In the church,
religious occupations, the legal system and the other independent
professions, the Jewish percentage is 4.3% as opposed to 2% of the
general population. This shows that the Jews are over-represented when
compared to the general population, particularly in the independent
professions.
The percentage of the Jewish population in government positions may
seem less than that of the general population, but the difference is
not as great as the figures first suggest. The most recent figures,
not yet entirely complete, suggest that a not insignificant number of
them are baptized Jews or dissidents formerly of the Jewish faith who
denied their Jewishness to gain an official position.
4.35% of Jews are employed in the medical and health care system,
including welfare, and 2.0% of foreign Jews. The figure for the
general population is 1.88%. The Jewish percentage is thus 2 1/2 times
as high as that of the general population.
In summary, Jewish occupational patterns differ from those of the rest
of the population. Jewry seems to have an aversion to agricultural
work, industrial labor and crafts. They are greatly over-represented
in commerce and transportation, including the entire banking system.
They are also over-represented in the independent professions and the
health care system. These figures alone demonstrate a clear difference
between the native German population and alien Jewry.
Very similar conditions prevail in all Western European nations and
also in North America, since Jews have spread throughout the world in
areas with growing industry and in cities that are centers of economic
and financial power. It is not true, as is often claimed, that the Jew
was systematically forced into commerce by the laws of the various
nations; rather, commerce particularly suits the Jew's nature. This is
supported by Dr. Arthur Ruppin, a scholar respected by the Jews. He
writes in his book The Jews of the Present (2nd edition, Cologne and
Leipzig, 1911, p. 45):
"Thanks to their significant commercial gifts (!), the Jews soon
enjoyed great success in commerce and industry. For 2000 years they
have seemed predestined to work in commerce. It is false to claim, as
some do, that Jews became merchants primarily because the Christians
denied them other occupations during the Middle Ages. The Jews did not
become merchants in Europe, rather they entered the profession in
growing numbers ever since the Babylonian Captivity in Syria, Egypt
and Babylon [because they dislike labor and prefer to have others work
for them! The Editor]. In Palestine until the dispersion they did live
primarily by agriculture. In the Diaspora, there was hardly anywhere
that the Jews lived by agriculture. The Middle Ages did not make them
into merchants. It only affirmed legally that which history had
already established. It is after all the rule that economic laws
generally do not create new conditions, but only legalize and regulate
that which already exists. The law would never have limited the Jews
to commerce in Europe if they had not already immigrated primarily as
merchants..."
Nearly all national economists agree that the Jews owe their role as
merchants not to chance, but to their excellent abilities as
merchants. As W. Sombart wrote: "The Jewish race is by nature the
incarnation of the capitalism-mercantile spirit." (Der moderne
Kapitalismus, Vol. 2, p. 349. Leipzig, 1902). Many others agree..."
"Similarly differences in the relative proportion of Jews by the
self-employed are evident in the medical field, which employs 0.5% of
the general population but 2.8% of the Jews, nearly six times as many.
Similar statistics are found in the cultural area (theater, film,
radio, education, teaching, etc.). The 0.4% of the general population
are employed there, 2.6% of the Jews, also about six times as many.
In the area of public administration and the judiciary, the percentage
of Jews in high positions is 2.0%, over against 1.3% of the general
population, nearly twice as high. The significance of these figures
becomes clear that when one realizes that the 2.3% of professional
Jews in public administration and the judiciary are in a branch where
the Jewish percentage of employees is only 0.81%. That means that the
Jews are especially represented in the important positions that
influence the whole government and leading branches of the economy.."
"The statistics may be interesting. The Jewish workers included 11,406
in industry, 2,220 in commerce and transportation, and 726 in
agriculture.
The following figures show most clearly the different social structure
of Jewry in Prussia over against the general population, and reveal
clearly Jewry's leading role in public life:.."
"On 19 May 1933 Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler gave an interview to
Bernard Ridder, an American journalist for the New York State
Newspaper. Discussing the Jewish Question in Germany, he said: "Should
I allow thousands of German-blooded people to be destroyed so that the
Jews can live and work in luxury while millions starve, falling victim
to Bolshevism out of desperation?"
Can the justice of his words be doubted when one recalls that,
according to the Prussian census of 16 June 1925 6.9% of all
independent pharmacists, 17.9% of all independent physicians, 4.8% of
all independent artists, 27% of all independent attorneys, 4.6% of
editors, 11% of theater directors, 7.5% of actors, and 14.8% of all
independent dentists were Jews! And these huge figures when the Jews
were only 1% of the population! Is that anything other than a
Jewdification of our entire cultural system?! And what would these
figures look like if one had had the ability to include baptized Jews
and dissidents?..."
"Berlin is the Jewish metropolis in Germany. The process of
Jewdification is considerably further along. That is understandable,
since one is in the immediate vicinity of the protective arms of
democracy and social democracy, where developments can occur
unhindered. Thus in Berlin on 16 June 1925 32.2% of the pharmacists
were Jews, as were 49.9% of the physicians, 7.5 of the graphic
artists, 50.2% of the attorneys, 8.5% of the editors, 14.2% of the
directors and theater heads, 12.3% of the actors and 37.5% of the
dentists.
These figures cry out for legal limitations on Jewry, and it is
surprising that former governments did not take the appropriate action
to tell the Jews "this far and no further."
The Jewish influence gave the rest of the world an entirely false
impression of the nature of the German people. Inside the Reich, they
poisoned the soul of the people, and all social and political
relationships. Until the national uprising, the leaders of the
National Socialist movement were persecuted, defamed and suppressed by
a system that was a willing tool in the hands of a foreign and
different race. The national revolution freed the German people from
this foreign influence, which had also dominated and ruined the German
press and public life in significant ways.
He who wants to understand the German revolution of 1933 must
understand that it had this goal: 'Germany must be governed by Germans
for Germans.' The central idea of the National Socialist revolution
was the longing of the German people to once more be master in every
area of its own life. As a great, confident people, we demand only
this of the other peoples: that they permit us, as their equals, to
govern ourselves as we wish and find our own way to happiness (Reich
Minister of the Interior Dr. Frick)..."
"The Jewdification of our colleges and universities over the years has
reached almost frightening proportions. We begin with a publication
from 1931. Karl Hoppmann, in his volume "On the State of Jewdification
in the Academic professions" found the following figures:
1. University of Berlin:
Medical faculty . . . . over 50%
Philosophical faculty . . . . 25%
2. University of Göttingen, 32% of the professors were Jewish:
Legal Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47.0%
Medical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.0%
Philosophical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40.0%
Mathematics and Natural Sciences . . . 23.0%
3. University of Breslau
Legal Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30.0%
Medical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.0%
Philosophical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.0%
4. University of Frankfurt (Main)
Legal Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55.0%
Philosophical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0%
Mathematics and Natural Sciences . . . 28.0%
Medical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.0%
Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.0%
Jewry has a dominating role on the stock exchange. The board of the
Berlin stock exchange is almost exclusively Jewish. In the various
committees, the percentage of the Jewish race is sometimes many times
as high as the Aryan. The committees include:
That means that 117 or 147 members are Jews, or nearly 80%.
The extent of the Jewdification of German theater and film is evident
from 1931 figures. Of 234 theater directors, 118 (50.4%) were Jews, 92
(39.3%) were non-Jewish.
Berlin led in this area as well, with 23 of 29 theater directors (80%)
Jewish.
The situation in film is similar. The Viennese Catholic periodical
"Schönere Zukunft," which certainly cannot be accused of
anti-Semitism, wrote the following in its 3 February 1929 issue:
"The percentage of Jewry in today's film industry is so high, at least
by us in Germany, that there is only a tiny part left for Christian
firms."
Jewry has long sought political influence as well. This formerly
happened in covert ways, mostly through direct or indirect control of
money matters. Nearly every noble once had his financial Jew. Since
1848, the birth of political parties in Germany, Jewry has openly
sought to become a political power. The Jew Marx was the founder of
Marxist doctrine, the Jew Lassalle was the founder of the Social
Democratic Party. The founders of the Independent Social Democratic
Party of Germany were the Jews Bernstein, Haase, Kautsky, Hilferding,
Cohn, Davidsohn, Simon, Rosenfeld, Eisner, Levi, etc. Carl Liebknecht
and Rosa Luxemberg were the leaders of the Communist Party, and
recently the Jews Rosenfeld and Seydewitz founded the Socialist
Workers Party. Jews sat in the press offices and the various editorial
offices of party newspapers, and above all in the various
parliamentary factions..."
"We think it necessary to mention that the Communist wave that
threatened to destroy Germany politically, economically and
intellectually can primarily be traced back to Jewry.
Is it any wonder that the Jew is arrogant? The greater the Jewish
influence the more secure they feel, and the more ominously and
clearly their character and goals becomes clear: Pride, intolerance
and superiority on the one hand, a drive for world domination on the
other. Several pointed Jewish statements are examples:
Hochmut: The familiar "Dorfgeschichte"-Auerbach says: "We Jews are the
most intelligent race." "We are the chosen ones," says Dr. Berhard
Cohn (Jüdisch-Politische Streitfragen, 20, 22). He continues: "We may
carry our head high and demand particular respect. We must not only be
treated equally, but better. We deserve the particular respect of
other peoples."
Rabbi Dr. Rulf wrote a book ("Aruchas bar-Ammni," Israel's Healing,
Frankfurt a. M. 1883) in which he says: "The Jewish people is a
blessing for all peoples. The blessing has followed on the heels of
the Jews. A whole world lives from the Jews, who feed everyone, and
everywhere spread wealth and pleasure, comfort and prosperity. Only
the commerce of the Jews creates value. Work alone does not do that.
Half of the world's population would starve without the Jews."
The Jew Dr. Duschak wrote: "The world could not exist without the
Jews." The well-known Jew Sacher-Masoch explained the hatred of
anti-Semites against the Jews in this way: It is the same hatred a
Negro feels against the whites because of their superiority.
That the Jews even went so far as to suggest to Bismark that he make
the Jewish Day of Atonement a national holiday is certainly no sign of
modesty.
Intolerance: The Jew Klausner (Society, edited by Conrad, Volume 12)
wrote: "Anti-Semitism and criminality are nearly the same thing. There
are criminals who were not anti-Semites, but no anti-Semites who were
not criminals."
The work by Dr. E. Fuchs. "The Future of the Jews," (Berlin,
Philo-Verlag, 1924) judges our greatest historians, Hartmann and
Treitschke, who see the Jews as our misfortune: "Men blinded by
prejudice and hatred. Small, tiny men."
World Domination: The Jewish attorney Maurthner in Vienna said back in
the 1880's: "It is not just a matter of fighting anti-Semitism. We
want to oppose it with Jewish domination!"
They made the attempt. If the German people had not recovered their
senses at the last moment, and if they had not had a Fuehrer and
Chancellor named Adolf Hitler who recognized the danger and woke the
German people, we would have fallen into slavery. As we have already
noted, the Jew has always known how to rouse sympathy when things were
rough for him. Consider this report from the meeting of the PEN Club
in Ragusa at the end of May of last year: "Schalom Asch in his keynote
address noted that the suffering of the Jews in Germany had aroused
the sympathy of the entire world. Only the German government remained
untouched. He claimed the Jews has given Germany its deepest thoughts,
its most beautiful songs, its greatest poets, artists and
philosophers. Today one had crucified them in Germany and covered them
with their own blood." Mr. Schalom Asch began crying in the midst of
these outrageous lies. He spoke in the hope that his words would be
heard for the sake of justice and humanity throughout the world.
The Jew Asch cries! The German people are not moved. They want no
torture or persecution, but also no unjustified sympathy, only
justice! Remember always the worlds of Field Marshall Moltke: "The Jew
is a state within the state." Remember also the works of our great
historian Mommsen: "In antiquity too the Jew was the ferment of
cosmopolitanism and national decomposition." And remember Goethe: "The
Israelites have never done much; they possess few virtues, and most of
the deficiencies of other peoples!"
The Racial Question has an important role in the laws of other
nations, though other peoples and races are affected than in the
German Reich. It is in no way new or unusual that the German Reich is
active in this area. Contrary to opinions that surface here and there,
our laws are in no way directed against the Jewish religion, its
practice, or the freedom of the Jewish faith.
The German Reich has done nothing but introduce constitutional
legislation to provide the kind of civil service necessary to
guarantee the secure administration of the Reich. The laws do not
render it impossible for a citizen of a foreign state to become a
civil servant. Indeed, if he is appointed to such a position, he
receives full citizenship in the Reich. German civil servants should
however be of Aryan descent. The so-called Aryan Law requires that
each civil servant be of German blood. Since the vast majority of
non-Aryan civil servants were Jews, the first guidelines to the law
paid particular attention to those who were members of the Jewish
race. But we did not simply throw out the non-Aryan civil servants,
but retired them with honor and a pension. The people's state could
hardly proceed in a more legal and mild manner. Germany did not want
to attack Jewry wildly, rather only deal with its results, is clear
from the fact that the Law of 7 April 1933 left untouched all
non-Aryan civil servants who had been appointed before 1 August 1914,
and by the fact that the private sphere not affected. Some complain
that the law extends to half and quarter Aryans. The answer is that
the foreign influence in the civil service had grown to such a
dangerous extent that it was almost impossible for young Germans to
enter these professions." (Reich Minister of the Interior Dr.
Frick..."
Dimitry
> If socialism is bad, that is, if socialism produces poor products and
> services which have been denied the benefit of competitive
> improvement, why is it that Nazi Germany's military technology was
> superior to that of many Allied forces?
>
> I don't intent to troll, or be provacative -- there is likely a simple
> answer to the above question -- I'm simply requesting information.
You are absolutely right. Centralized economies are just fine for
producing military hardware - competition is largely non-existent in
this field in any real term of the word and the military complex
functions the same way in any industrial country. I am a defense
engineer. When we get something to work, it's not because of
"competition" with LockMart, but because we "figured it out". All you
need for great military hardware is a good education system, a
developed industrial base and a government who is willing to spend
money and resources. Often, the presence of even limited competition
is detrimental, because in the end the quality suffers when really
complex "on the edge" systems are built to a price point. In my work,
I don't compete with other defense contractors, just with physics, and
certainly never even think of budgets. In the end, the government
will happily buy Patriots at a million dollars a copy (or so), because
that's the price for what they ordered. If they forced it to cost
half that - it wouldn't work well at all and would be, in fact, near
worthless. The profits on them are not that great, either. Adding
competition isn't going to help anyone find a cheaper way to hit
missles with missles - its' a completely different type of problem
than making a $100 CD player into a $50 CD player.
Many fields function better in the non-competitive or low-competitive
commercial environment - high-tech weapons industry, space technology,
medical services, teaching, public utilities, government services,
creation of art. Many other fields, (essentially various forms of
consumer goods and services, i.e., widgets of various complexities
with no "soul") work best in an environment of cut-throat competition.
The current American infatuation with "marketizing" everything under
the sun is a misguided attempt to find a universal solution for a
system that is far too complex to be fitted into a single mould.
Humans always go for extremes, though, - we are pattern seeking
animals.
Most posts in this thread appear to be largely off the mark.
sqidword
> On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 00:33:53 GMT, thoma...@yahoo.com.au (Thom)
> wrote:
>
>
> >Eisenhower a liberal? Churchill a liberal???
>
> Why do you say they weren't?
>
> The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with
> the original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual
> perverts "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.
>
> The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
> prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
> good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
> corrupt the culture of the nation.
It also creates crime, unneccesarily.
>
> Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
> harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
> that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
> Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
> perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
Leftist believe in total government and that induviduality is bad.
> Leftists care only
> about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
> the nation better.
wrong!
>There are beaches where normal families will not go
> because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
> This is example of the freedom liberals want They are like children
> who only care about their individual selves and are oblivious to what
> should be done to make the nation great. Their philosophy, taken to
> its logical conclusion, would not allow the law that drivers have to
> stop at the red lights. Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold
> on grocery store shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV. Their
> philosophy would result in chaos and degeneracy.
Actually it was the Liberals that outlawed alcohol and narcotics. Only
after it was painfully obvious that prohibition was bad did thy
decriminalize alcohol. Since more people get drunk than high, the Harris
Narcotics Act of 1904(?) was left intact. Thus the crime rate we suffer
today is directly related to the laws that outlaw narcotics. But that is
government for you.
>
> Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
> Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
> as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
> that the state can't tell them what they can't do. People don't like
> laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathise with
> that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
> want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
> but good laws would make a nation good.
Libertarians are more right-wing than mainstream conservatives are. Meaning
that the farther right you go, the smaller you want government to be. This
makes Anarchist the true right-wing-extremist.
>
> The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
> freedom.
Freedom of goverment, yes.
>In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
> the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people.
No. Anarchist and communist are on the opposite ends of the political
scale. I find it ironic that they aided each other.
> The Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
> that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
> Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to disolve the
> government and have an anarchy.
>
>
> The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about the
> present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future like in
> Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
> interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the
> freedom of individuals to be as decadant as they want. They are like
> the children in the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
You too should right a book. It would be work of fiction.
If you want government to grow, you are a Liberal.
If you want to slow/stop the growth of government you are a Conservative.
If you want to minimize government you are a Libertarian.
If you want no government you are an Anarchist.
Be careful with labels. I can call myself a concert pianist all I want. If
I can't play the piano this means that I am not one.
This goes for political labels, sexuality labels,etc.
tootles
sqidword
"Dimitry" <s...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:513403cb.03060...@posting.google.com...
> brain...@hotmail.com (!social) wrote in message
news:<ce359d41.0305...@posting.google.com>...
> > If socialism is bad, that is, if socialism produces poor products and
> > services which have been denied the benefit of competitive
> > improvement, why is it that Nazi Germany's military technology was
> > superior to that of many Allied forces?
> >
> > I don't intent to troll, or be provacative -- there is likely a simple
> > answer to the above question -- I'm simply requesting information.
German equipment was not superior. The Russians outclassed them in Armour
and the Americans outclassed everyone in aircraft and ships. German
equipment was generally to complicated and broke down often. Plus Hitler
was always there to screw things up. It was the German soldier that got
them through the war. They were very good.
Leadership and people are what wins wars.
tootles
neptune3
>
>It also creates crime, unneccesarily.
>
>Leftist believe in total government and that induviduality is bad.
>
>
>wrong!
>
>Actually it was the Liberals that outlawed alcohol and narcotics. Only
>after it was painfully obvious that prohibition was bad did thy
>decriminalize alcohol. Since more people get drunk than high, the Harris
>Narcotics Act of 1904(?) was left intact. Thus the crime rate we suffer
>today is directly related to the laws that outlaw narcotics. But that is
>government for you.
>
>
>Libertarians are more right-wing than mainstream conservatives are. Meaning
>that the farther right you go, the smaller you want government to be. This
>makes Anarchist the true right-wing-extremist.
>
>
>Freedom of goverment, yes.
>
>
>No. Anarchist and communist are on the opposite ends of the political
>scale. I find it ironic that they aided each other.
>
>You too should right a book. It would be work of fiction.
> If you want government to grow, you are a Liberal.
>If you want to slow/stop the growth of government you are a Conservative.
In other words you don't agree with my definitions. That is fine. I
thought if people agreed on the meaning of words it would be easier to
communicate.
As for goverment I say it depends on which goverment we are talking
about. For example the government of the USA should be destroyed.
>If you want to minimize government you are a Libertarian.
>If you want no government you are an Anarchist.
These are true. A movie which shows the kind of society libertarians
and anarchists are fighting for is "8mm". The snuff part would only be
in the anarchy, but the rest of it is what liberarianism stands for.
>
>Be careful with labels. I can call myself a concert pianist all I want. If
>I can't play the piano this means that I am not one.
>This goes for political labels, sexuality labels,etc.
>
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nowarforisrael.com
Thom
wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 00:33:53 GMT, thoma...@yahoo.com.au (Thom)
>wrote:
>
>
>>Eisenhower a liberal? Churchill a liberal???
>
> Why do you say they weren't?
>
> The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed.
has and is changing all the time.
>I stay with
>the original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual
>perverts "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.
>
> The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
>prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things.
Why do you lump in a physical trait (being bi or gay) with choices
like drugs etc etc???
> It puts the
>good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
>corrupt the culture of the nation.
>
> Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
>harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
>that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
>Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
>perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
Just as an experiment, I e-mail 5 of my so called liberal friends and
they have never heard of the "Bible of liberalism" or the "Rede of
Witchcraft". And I then e-mailed a white witch friend in Denver and
she'se never heard of "Rede of Witchcraft".
>
> The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
>about individual freedom
yes, like our liberal founding fathers intended. Freedom of speech
and religion, no gun control etc etc. Nations are unimportant, people
come first.
>and are opposed to any laws that would make
>the nation better. There are beaches where normal families will not go
>because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
Theres beaches I will not go to because they are infested with noisy,
rowdy kids when what I seek is peace and calm.
>This is example of the freedom liberals want They are like children
>who only care about their individual selves and are oblivious to what
>should be done to make the nation great.
Or a great corporation?
THOM
Thom
wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 00:33:54 GMT, thoma...@yahoo.com.au (Thom)
>wrote:
>
>
>>One of the great cons of the Nazi ear was that Hitler made the people
>>feel that all their nasty little predjudices were great and pure.
>>
>Here are some quotes from a German pamphlet titled "Why the Aryan
>Law?":
Like I said, One of the great cons of the Nazi ear was that Hitler
made the people feel that all their nasty little predjudices were
great and pure.
But your not alone, modern day republicans and fundamentalist
protestants seem to hate a lot of the things you guys do or did. Now
they have their own Fuhrur to love.... George Bush.
THOM
sqidword
All government is the same. All you argue is the degree of abuse from
government. The bigger the government, the greater the abuse. This is why
they all should be kept as small as possible until we humans figure out how
to live with each other. Until then we will need some kind of government.
>
> >If you want to minimize government you are a Libertarian.
> >If you want no government you are an Anarchist.
>
> These are true. A movie which shows the kind of society libertarians
> and anarchists are fighting for is "8mm". The snuff part would only be
> in the anarchy, but the rest of it is what liberarianism stands for.
Wrong. Most libertarians will allow enough government to give a way to deal
with assault and theft. But no more.
Anarchy, like total socialism cannot exist because they both depend on
perfection. And perfection just doesn't exist.
tootles
neptune3
>All government is the same. All you argue is the degree of abuse from
>government. The bigger the government, the greater the abuse. This is why
>they all should be kept as small as possible until we humans figure out how
>to live with each other. Until then we will need some kind of government.
That may be what you want. Other people don't want that. Governments
are different. The USA promotes homosexual pervesion and feminism.
National Socialist Germany outlawed them. I am for government as long
as it is the latter.
>>
>> These are true. A movie which shows the kind of society libertarians
>> and anarchists are fighting for is "8mm". The snuff part would only be
>> in the anarchy, but the rest of it is what liberarianism stands for.
>
>Wrong. Most libertarians will allow enough government to give a way to deal
>with assault and theft. But no more.
>
>Anarchy, like total socialism cannot exist because they both depend on
>perfection. And perfection just doesn't exist.
>
I suppose that means you didn't see the movie.
neptune3
wrote:
>has and is changing all the time.
>
>Why do you lump in a physical trait (being bi or gay) with choices
>like drugs etc etc???
They are things we could either allow, or we could outlaw.
>
>Just as an experiment, I e-mail 5 of my so called liberal friends and
>they have never heard of the "Bible of liberalism" or the "Rede of
>Witchcraft". And I then e-mailed a white witch friend in Denver and
>she'se never heard of "Rede of Witchcraft".
The first one is common. The second one is strange. The philosophy
of libertarians is the same as the philosophy of witchcraft, whether
they know it or not. All you have to do is put "Witchcraft Rede" is
your search engine.
>
>yes, like our liberal founding fathers intended. Freedom of speech
>and religion, no gun control etc etc. Nations are unimportant, people
>come first.
People are nothing without nations.
>
>Theres beaches I will not go to because they are infested with noisy,
>rowdy kids when what I seek is peace and calm.
If there is a problem we should try to find a law that would make
things good. I can't think of a good law for that problem though.
>
>>This is example of the freedom liberals want They are like children
>>who only care about their individual selves and are oblivious to what
>>should be done to make the nation great.
>
>Or a great corporation?
A great corporation would not be just for profits for the people on
top. It would be for prosperity for everyone in it.
neptune3
wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 19:16:57 -0500, neptune3 <np...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>Like I said, One of the great cons of the Nazi ear was that Hitler
>made the people feel that all their nasty little predjudices were
>great and pure.
"The self-portrait Jewry offered the world was disgusting from the
beginning. All that is overshadowed by the powerful examples in this
new and most valuable film, The Eternal Jew. This film with its
persuasive power must be shown everywhere where anti-Semitism is still
questioned. No one will will fail to shudder at the sneaking servility
and dirty bartering of the Jews when they start out, at the perfidy,
insidiousness and vulgarity of their methods, at the brutality and
all-devouring hatred they exhibit when they reach their goal and
control finance.
The most revolting scenes show Jewish slaughtering methods. These
customs, which cast a particularly vivid spotlight on the so-called
Jewish religion, are so terrible that it is hard to watch the film as
the grinning Jewish butchers carry out their work. It is illuminating
to see how stubbornly Jewry holds to its method of slaughter and with
which casuistry it defends it against the horror of the civilized
world. Rarely will people feel more horror than which watching the
desperate and horrible death struggle of the slaughtered animals. Long
before the seizure of power, the NSDAP fought against Jewish
slaughter. National Socialist representatives in parliament repeatedly
introduced legislation to abolish this form of animal torture through
a ban on Jewish slaughter. Such proposals were always rejected, since
the entire Jewish and Jewish-influenced press ran long articles
against them and the so-called German parties refused to support
National Socialism in its battle against this evil.
Not only in this regard, but in other areas too we are reminded with a
shudder of what once was reality in Germany: the power of the Jews in
the economy, finance, culture, theater, film, publishing, press,
radio, education and politics. All these Jewish leaders of the Weimar
era had their home or their origin in the filthy ghettos of the East.
One has a deep sense of salvation after seeing this film. We have
broken their power over us. We are the initiators of the fight against
world Jewry, which now directs its hate, its brutal greed and
destructive will toward us. We must win this battle for ourselves, for
Europe, for the world. This film will be a valuable tool in that
struggle."
>
>But your not alone, modern day republicans and fundamentalist
>protestants seem to hate a lot of the things you guys do or did. Now
>they have their own Fuhrur to love.... George Bush.
>
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nowarforisrael.com
Thom
wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 00:20:07 GMT, thoma...@yahoo.com.au (Thom)
>wrote:
>
>
>>has and is changing all the time.
>
>>
>>Why do you lump in a physical trait (being bi or gay) with choices
>>like drugs etc etc???
>
> They are things we could either allow, or we could outlaw.
>>
>>Just as an experiment, I e-mail 5 of my so called liberal friends and
>>they have never heard of the "Bible of liberalism" or the "Rede of
>>Witchcraft". And I then e-mailed a white witch friend in Denver and
>>she'se never heard of "Rede of Witchcraft".
>
> The first one is common. The second one is strange. The philosophy
>of libertarians is the same as the philosophy of witchcraft, whether
>they know it or not. All you have to do is put "Witchcraft Rede" is
>your search engine.
>
>>
>>yes, like our liberal founding fathers intended. Freedom of speech
>>and religion, no gun control etc etc. Nations are unimportant, people
>>come first.
>
> People are nothing without nations.
and nations are nothing without people and in fact are the people. Of
course right wingers don't see it that way. Its something the Nazis
and republicans have in common.
THOM
Bud Keith
"Thom" <thoma...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ede8d4b...@news.melbpc.org.au...
Sounds like somthing the Russians attempted, it did not work. Some people
are paid for what they know and some are paid for what they do, those that
are paid for what they do would have nothing to do if it it were not for
those that are paid for what they know. So in a nutshell thats why some are
paid more then others.
The premium is on brains not brawn, where but in the good old USA do you
find brawn making the money they do.
Thom
wrote:
considering the high rate of bankruptcies, huge golden parachutes for
incompetant failed executives and criminal activity in companies such
as ENRON andArthur Anderson, I'd say theres big money in being
brainless and totally without scruples.
The fact of the matter is that the people with real talent don't have
the killer instinct that the knuckle draggers do which is why the sour
cream seems to raise to the top while decent people are stepped on.
Whats the old saying, "Nice guys finish last?"
THOM
Bud Keith
The problem that all you liberals can not or will not understand is, this is
not a perfect world, because there are Enrons and Andersoms you want to
paint every corporation with the same brush, because some are crooks all are
crooks. Your entitled to any opinion you may think is correct however, all
you seem to be able to do is accentuate the negative.For every bad
corporation there are hundreds of or thousands of respectable upstanding
members of of the corporate family. You know those that have given you all
the modern equipmemt and conveniences your so accustomed to. Those that
brought the country from the horse and buggy to high powered comfortable
automobiles, aircraft etc..
Its probably a fair assumption to believe that you are one of those who
consider yourselve to be decent and without the killer instinct.
Because you have had reversals in your life somehow thats the fault of
someone else, everybody has problems, but most people pick themselves up and
go on, while others complain and blaim there problems on others.
Is it a killer instinct that drives some while others wallow in defeat,I
very much doubt that, but you might say that this type person has the
ability to overcome problems and continue on. Are there mean spirited kick
anyone type people out there,hell yes are they the majority, hell no.
To sum it all up, if you think that all corporations are worthless and
crooks then one has to assume that your solution for this problem is more
regulation by government. But has it crossed your mind that some of the
government regulators could also have the killer instinct.
neptune3
wrote:
>To sum it all up, if you think that all corporations are worthless and
>crooks then one has to assume that your solution for this problem is more
>regulation by government. But has it crossed your mind that some of the
>government regulators could also have the killer instinct.
>
That is a low quality arguement, like saying we shouldn't have
cops. The arguement does not cut the mustard.
Capitalism and Communism are both evil. The problem with
capitalism is that it is materialistic and puts no special value on
people. Capitalism is based on supply and demand. A capitalist company
that made potato chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y
amount of salt, and Z number of human beings for labor. The human
beings have no more value than the potatoes or the salt. And they
consider it good to pay they humans as little as they possibly can to
increase their profits.
According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must
compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while paying
its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the
sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people. If
there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
need to die off. Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
We have many laws that make things better for people. There are
laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty hours. There
are laws that ensure people will have retirement. Capitalism is for
doing away with the laws so businesses can be free to be as greedy as
possible.
Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue? If
there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
everything while most people would not pay one thin dime. We have
welfare so people all pay their fair share. It is part of having
civilization.
We need to reject both Capitalism and Communism. They are both
materialistic and they are both evil.
Thom
wrote:
Well to start off I'm not a "liberal"
>this is
>not a perfect world, because there are Enrons and Andersoms you want to
>paint every corporation with the same brush, because some are crooks all are
>crooks. Your entitled to any opinion you may think is correct however, all
>you seem to be able to do is accentuate the negative.
Which is exactly what the right wing does all the time. Anyone who
doesn't agree with greed is auromatically a communist (which is funny
considering the USSR has been gone for over 12 years) and an enemy of
the State. Its like not liking Bush. I can't stand the little snipe
but that doesn't mean I'm for Gore, which I don't, I didn't vote for
either.
An honest and sensible person keeps a close eye on all politicians no
matter their party
>For every bad
>corporation there are hundreds of or thousands of respectable upstanding
>members of of the corporate family. You know those that have given you all
>the modern equipmemt and conveniences your so accustomed to. Those that
>brought the country from the horse and buggy to high powered comfortable
>automobiles, aircraft etc..
>Its probably a fair assumption to believe that you are one of those who
>consider yourselve to be decent and without the killer instinct.
I believe in cooperation not competition. Lets look back a decade or
two and you had two companies competing with cruise missile
development and both were spending millions duplicating effort. The
Pentagon made they share information and the end result was a system
on line years a head of what it would have been and millions saved.
>Because you have had reversals in your life somehow thats the fault of
>someone else, everybody has problems, but most people pick themselves up and
>go on, while others complain and blaim there problems on others.
your right that things are not great but unless you start to point out
problems they never get fixed. If someone is a bastard the public
needs to know about it so that person doesn't hurt them in the market
place and as yous ay, hurt the honest businesses. Just keeping quit
is akin to "Not tattling" in grammar school.
>Is it a killer instinct that drives some while others wallow in defeat,I
>very much doubt that, but you might say that this type person has the
>ability to overcome problems and continue on.
And ethics isn't appropriate anymore, just win or loose? Well we saw
an election in Florida where that attitude was common on both sides
didn't we.
>Are there mean spirited kick
>anyone type people out there,hell yes are they the majority, hell no.
>To sum it all up, if you think that all corporations are worthless and
>crooks then one has to assume that your solution for this problem is more
>regulation by government. But has it crossed your mind that some of the
>government regulators could also have the killer instinct.
I think the whole concept of a corporation is obsolete and in the 21st
century you will see totally new systems.
THOM